Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200525plCC5 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 05/25/2020 Document dates: 5/6/2020 – 5/13/2020 Set 5 of 5 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 10 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 9:25 AM To:Jeanne Fleming Cc:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; health@paloaltopta.org; brucewphillips@gmail.com; NTB; jeffrey glenn Subject:Re: Public Letters to Council Disappear, Part II Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged   Dear Ms Fleming and Mayor Fine,    May I jump in to thank Ms Fleming.   And to add my agreement to her request for our letters to be included in the  relevant packets.   I prefer an open and honest form of government.    Thanks,  Ann Protter         On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:12 AM Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> wrote:  Dear Mayor Fine,     I see that you were copied on the email sent to me by City Clerk Beth Minor, an email in which she responds to my email to you reporting on City Staff’s failure to include in the packet sent to City Council prior to its May 11th meeting the emails residents had written to Council regarding an issue on the agenda for that meeting.    In her email, City Clerk Minor states “Our packets go out 11 days before the meeting, so emails that came to us from about 4/30-5/7 were put in the 5/18 packet” rather than in the packet that was released on May 7th for the May 11th City Council meeting. But this was a choice Ms. Minor made, not a requirement she was obligated to meet.     Because, regarding the process for providing residents emails to Council to which the City Clerk refers:     11 There is no law saying that the Public Letters Set associated with a City Council meeting may not be added to any later than eleven days before a meeting.     Council “packets” are updated all the time, and for many different reasons.    In fact, not until four days before the May 11th Council meeting was the City Managers’ report on the budget included in the packet the missing emails should have been in.     The intent of the law that requires letters to Council to be part of the public record—not to mention common sense—dictate that emails from residents be included in the packets for the Council meetings for which they are relevant. In this case, the emails City Staff withheld all object to the City Manager’s recommendation that Council cut costs by decreasing cell tower application requirements and by reducing code enforcement—an issue scheduled for consideration at Council’s May 11th meeting and the Budget Hearings later in the week. By May 18th—the date for which Ms. Minor said she included the emails in a Public Letters Set— the emails will no longer be relevant.     In short, City Staff did exactly what they I said they did: They chose to withhold from the public many of the emails residents sent objecting to two of the City Manager’s recommendations for cost cutting, withhold them at the very least until after those recommendations are to be considered by Council.     In conclusion, I hope you will ask yourself whether the residents’ missing emails would even be in the May 18th Public Letters Set if I hadn’t contacted you. I looked at that set right before I wrote to you, and I can tell you it was empty then.     I also hope, Mr. Mayor, that, as I wrote to you before, you will take steps to ensure that City Hall reverses course on how it handles emails to you and your colleagues on Council. Palo Alto deserves a government that operates in the sunlight of transparency and not in the shadows of back offices at 250 Hamilton Avenue.      Sincerely,    Jeanne Fleming    12    Jeanne Fleming, PhD  JFleming@Metricus.net  650-325-5151             From: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 4:24 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  Cc: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City  <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org; health@paloaltopta.org; ann.protter@gmail.com;  brucewphillips@gmail.com; NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com>; jsglenn@stanford.edu  Subject: Re: Public Letters to Council Disappear     Ms. Fleming, The letters you are looking for are in the May 18th doc letters around page 115. Our packets go out 11  days before the meeting so emails that came to us from about 4/30‐5/7 were put in the 5/18 packet. I personally saw  your email and many others pertaining to wireless and ARB.   Sent from my iPhone    On May 9, 2020, at 4:13 PM, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Fine,    I wish to call your attention to what appears to be either incompetence or misconduct on the part of City Staff. Specifically, in the Public Letters Set prepared for Monday May 11th’s City Council meeting, Staff failed to include many of the emails residents 13 sent to you and your colleagues—emails objecting to City Manager Shikada’s proposal that Palo Alto “cut costs” 1) by decreasing cell tower application requirements—costs that are in fact covered by the applicants, not the city—and 2) by reducing code enforcement. For the record, these letters also do not appear in any previous letter set.    I know this because I was copied on many of the emails on this issue that were sent to City Council. Appended below you will find four thoughtful emails on the subject, none of which were included in the Public Letters Set.     Please note that many of the emails sent to Council were also cc’ed to the Planning and Transportation Commission, yet not one of them has appeared in a Public Letter Set for the Commission.    This is by no means the first time residents’ emails to Council have disappeared without ever seeing the light of day. I am writing in the hope that you will see that it is the last. As you know, letters to City Council are both part of the public record and systematically made available to the public for review because the transparency in government that is a cornerstone of democracy demands it.     Thank you for your help.    Sincerely,    Jeanne Fleming        Jeanne Fleming, PhD  JFleming@Metricus.net  650-325-5151        14 Four of the Letters to Council Omitted from the Public Letters Set:    1. From Ann Protter     From: Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 10:57 PM  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: City Manager Shikada and Cell Tower Review Process     Dear City Council Members,     On Sunday council member Tanaka held an office hour regarding the City Manager's suggestion to cut  back on the cell tower application review process.  There were a number of us on the call, all of whom  expressed disappointment and dismay at this suggestion.     As I thought about it afterwards I realized how angry I was at the suggestion that we skimp on the cell  tower review process.     This is hardly a big budget item.       We ‐‐ as a community ‐‐ have spent long years coming up with a review process.  To sweep it aside is a  clear end run.  I would wager Mr. Shikada prefers to keep the process out of the public eye.  We  residents don't.     All of us reiterated our horror at the thought of cell towers being allowed a mere 20 feet from our  bedrooms.  Clearly this is a contentious issue, one that ought to get its due in the approved process.  To  remove that to make someone's job easier is a travesty.     Lastly, thank you council member Tanaka for allowing us residents an opportunity to speak with you  directly.  It was appreciated.     15 Ann Protter     2. From Bruce Phillips     From: BWP <brucewphillips@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 12:16 PM  To: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: JFLEMING@metricus.net  Subject: Architectural Review of cell tower     Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss,  Kou and Tanaka:    I lived next to a cell tower planned near the Waverley and Loma Verde  intersection.  While I am pleased that our neighborhood may finally receive better  cell connection, I am not pleased that this ugly addition will block views when a two‐ story is built here.  I don't like paying for communal benefit without compensation.      Via a neighborhood organizer, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has  recommended that, in the interests of cost‐cutting, the council amend Palo Alto’s  municipal code to “scale back” cell tower application processing, which would  include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.      As I understand it, this fails to save money for Palo Alto.  The companies pay for the  applications and pay for staff time spent on these applications. Moreover, reduced  cell tower application requirements would undermine the siting and design criteria  approved, as I am told, by the City Council unanimously four months ago, following  a three‐year effort.      I am also against reducing code enforcement employees with respect to the  installation of the cell towers, and I also wonder abut the wisdom of this in general.     Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,     Bruce W. Phillips   Redacted 16       3. From Nina Bell        From: NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 12:48 PM  To: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Proposal regarding cell tower application requirements and cutting Code Enforcement     Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    The proposal being put before you, to decrease the cell tower application requirements, makes absolutely no sense  when it's the telecom company applicants themselves who are the ones who cover these costs. Rather than draining   the City coffers, the application fees will be adding to them! Such a proposal seems totally counterproductive.   It makes one wonder what is the real motive behind such a proposal?     And, as for cutting the budget for Code Enforcement, that puts at risk the safety and well being of all Palo Alto's citizens.  Clearly under the current situation there needs to be budget cuts but they need to be done wisely and with the best interest  of the residents of Palo Alto. Cutting Code Enforcement is definitely not one of them.     Such a cut is made particularly egregious when one pauses to look at the enormous salaries and compensation packages some  on the senior executive team receive. They have the benefit of the City's largess while the citizens get the shaft? Something feels very,   17 very wrong. A voluntary salary cut of those executives' compensation packages would go a long way toward funding Code Enforcement   personnel to protect the citizens of the City they serve. We all have to step up. Are the City's senior executive staff willing to do their part,  following the example set by the senior Stanford administrators who are taking pay cuts from 5 to 20%?    Please do not approve the proposal to decrease the cell tower application requirements. And for the safety and well being of the citizens   of Palo Alto, the people you serve, funding for Code Enforcement can not be cut.     Sincerely,  Nina Bell  Los Palos Ave       4. From Jeffrey Glenn        From: Jeffrey S. Glenn <jsglenn@stanford.edu>   Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:08 PM  To: City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org  Cc: Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org; Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org;  ARB@cityofpaloalto.org; board@pausd.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Cell towers in residential neighborhoods     Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,     I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost‐cutting, you  amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale‐back  which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.       18 I am writing to urge you not to take this step.  Why?  Quite simply, because it fails to save money for  Palo Alto.  It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff  time spent on these applications.  In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back”  application processing requirements, only the applicants will.       Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy.  The reduced cell tower application  processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria  you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier  for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.       The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill‐informed, and, at worst, an end run around the  provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three‐ year‐long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.     I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations,  namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction  in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well‐being  of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of  hundreds of pounds of high‐voltage, radiation‐emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.      Sincerely,     Jeffrey S. Glenn, M.D., Ph.D.    Professor of Medicine and Microbiology & Immunology    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology    Director, Center for Hepatitis and Liver Tissue Engineering    Stanford University School of Medicine    CCSR Building, Rm. 3115A        Stanford, CA 94305‐5171    Redacted 19 U.S.A.    email:jeffrey.glenn@stanford.edu    tel (office): (650)725‐3373    tel (lab):     (650)498‐7419    fax:            (650)723‐3032    pager:        (650)723‐8222; ID# 23080     1 Baumb, Nelly From:edie gilbertson <ideasbyeg@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Powerful 5G Information from SF CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  PS    Video at SF City Hall, 2020     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmJ4mNr6FWI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m10s      On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:49 PM edie gilbertson <ideasbyeg@gmail.com> wrote:  To: The Palo Alto City Council     Below is powerful information on 5G issues that are   being dealt with by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  The comprehensive news letter includes videos   of recent meetings at San Francisco City Hall.    I'm sure you will find the information important.    Thank you in advance for protecting Palo Alto residents.    Sincerely yours,    Edie Gilbertson  Palo Alto      2 Baumb, Nelly From:edie gilbertson <ideasbyeg@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Powerful 5G Information from SF Attachments:2020-0511-San-Francisco-sWTF-v12.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To: The Palo Alto City Council     Below is powerful information on 5G issues that are   being dealt with by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  The comprehensive news letter includes videos   of recent meetings at San Francisco City Hall.    I'm sure you will find the information important.    Thank you in advance for protecting Palo Alto residents.    Sincerely yours,    Edie Gilbertson  Palo Alto      Densified 4G/5G “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) Problems & Solutions for San Francisco Created by Gary Widman and Paul McGavin | May 12, 2020 Backgrounds: Widman, McGavin & Hogan •Gary Widman, Esq.: (video) General Counsel, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President (Nixon, Ford); Dept. of Interior, Ofc.of Solicitor (Carter); Director of Office of Staff Attorneys, US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Professor of Environment Law at UC Hastings, UC Berkeley & UC Davis •Paul McGavin: (video)Brown University, BA in Biology & Medicine, Procter & Gamble Brand Mgr., founder of Inter·Sight (software); expert in measuring and mitigating RF-EMR exposures,lobbied against CA SB.649 (veto),for US HR.530 and S.2012, creator of scientists4wiredtech.com, mystreetmychoice.com & ourtownourchoice.org •We are friends of San Francisco resident, Cheryl Hogan (video), brain tumor survivor, daughter of C. Lester Hogan: PhD Harvard Physics, President of Fairchild, VP of Motorola, microwave pioneer RIGHT NOW: An Odd Spot in History •How to recognize truth when one is in a field of propaganda? FOX News and CNN are different worlds; “Official stories” crumble daily. •What problems, from the many, deserve your attention? Mayor’s shifting agenda, conflicting “objective” information,inertia . . . •Investigators have learned to follow the money . . . Who pays for access and how? Any pay-to-play schemes? Who benefits? San Francisco is Facing Real Problems •SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders will end . . . What will happen next? How many will die? SF now: 1940 cases, 34 deaths. •City revenue shortfalls, must be weathered, but how? Tax revenues remain down, service demands are up, mitigations are needed. •Who is allowed to work? What is an “essential industry”? This results in haves and have-nots . . . are new sWTF installs essential? Agenda for the the Meeting •A. Widman Mar 4 Request: “For the love of God, please provide humanitarian help. Please turn off the power to that wireless facility immediately so Ms. Cheryl Hogan can recover from her brain surgery in her own home.” •B. History of Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) guidelines in US for pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF- EMR) exposures. No scientific support. •C. Negative Health Consequences from RF-EMR exposure can be regulated as part of reserved state police powers per Apr 2019 California Supreme Court Ruling: T-Mobile v. San Francisco •D. Solution: No sWTFs during COVID-19 & regulation of Vertical · Horizontal · Power A. The Hogan Problem (which affects many in SF) Wireless Antennas with Insufficiently-Regulated Power 6 to 12 Feet from Homes This sWTF at 3535 Sacramento St. in San Francisco is just 12 feet from Cheryl Hogan’s bedroom window and can output 22,260 Watts ERP! “Small”? Dimensions, not Power. •FCC Order 18-30 definition of so-called “Small” Wireless Facility: Height ≤ 50 ft.; Antenna ≤3 cu. ft.; Ancillary eqpt. ≤ 28 cu. ft. (dims., not power) . . . was vacated from 47 CFR §1.1312(e), but put back??? in 47 CFR §1.6002(l) •Sept 12, 2019: Wireless Industry admits that sWTFs are Macro Towers in disguise . . . Lee Afflerbach: “The [antennas and] radios of [these small cells] are the exact same as on macro towers. It’s not a different technology . . . the same as on macro towers. I see them all the time.” •sWTF Max Power Output: Inappropriate power output for antennas (specs) installed as close as 6 to 12 feet from homes. How Much Power is Actually Needed for Telecommunications Service? •0.1 Watt ERP from the sWTF antenna is all that is needed for . . . “5 bars” on a cell phone (-85 dBM) at ½-mile radius for Telecom Service •22,260 Watts is 200,000+ times higher than 0.1 Watt. Why is this allowed in San Francisco? This ruins Quiet Enjoyment of Streets. •Cities that regulate all three --Vertical · Horizontal · Power (V·H·P) properly balance the needs of residents and Wireless Cos. •BIG DATA via fiber to the premises (FTTP), small data through the air Title I-Regulated: Title 47 U.S. Code §153 •(50) Telecommunications —The term “telecommunications” means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. •(53) Telecommunications service —The term “telecommunications service” means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used. [ i.e. only Wireless phone calls, per Oct 1, 2019 DC Circuit Ruling in Case 18-1051] •(24) Information service —The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, 2019 CA Supreme Court Ruling •Insufficiently-Regulated Effective Radiated Power (ERP) from sWTs threatens Quiet Enjoyment of Streets in San Francisco •Apr 4, 2019: CA Supreme Court: T-Mobile v San Francisco •"Obstructing the path of travel is one way that telephone lines could disturb or give inconvenience to public road use. But travel is not the sole use of public roads; other uses may be incommoded beyond the obstruction of travel. (T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356.) For example, lines or equipment might . . . •generate noise, cause negative health consequences, or create safety concerns. •All these impacts could disturb public road use, or disturb its quiet enjoyment." FCC “Small” Cell Foundation is Crumbling •Aug 9, 2019: DC Circuit Ruling in Case No. 18-1129 Keetowah et al. v FCC re: Attempted sWTF NEPA Exemption •“We rule that the Order’s deregulation of small cells is arbitrary and capricious because its public-interest analysis did not meet the standard of reasoned decision-making.” •Oct 1, 2019: DC Circuit Ruling in Case No. 18-1051 Mozilla et al. v FCC re: Rescinded Net Neutrality & State Preemption Cheryl Hogan Timeline (video and appeal 19-040) Dates Activity Apr 16, 2019 Initial protest of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTF) for construction at 3529 Sacramento Street (Application No. 18WR-0171). June 19, 2019 SF Board of Appeals hearing on sWTF (President Swig addresses SF-DPH about inadequacy of SF-DPW Article 25 to protect SF residents) –“we heard really good info from really smart people of why these cell towers are poisoning and endangering people 12 feet away . . . You are the Department of Health; you are here to protect me. In San Francisco, we have disrupted the world. When will the SF-DPH read this? . . . We just want to protect people, that’s all. We are asking SF-DPH to update its 2010 memo.” July 3, 2019 Formal letter from SF-BOA to SF-DPH requesting update to SF-DPH 2010 memo. Oct 22, 2019 One hour meeting with Dr. Tomas Aragon and SF-DPH staff re: solutions; SF-BOA invited us to speak to SF-DPH at the Sept 25, 2019 Appeal 17WR-0252 for Ron Rattner. Nov 20, 2019 NEPA deficiencies in SF-DPW processes at further Appeals; Hogan tower powered on. Mar 4, 2020 Cheryl Hogan asked us to speak re: her Mar 2 Brain Surgery at SF-BOA hearing. We did. May 12, 2020 11 MONTHS LATER . . . STILL NO RESPONSE FROM THE SF-DPH . . . hmmm . . . OSHA In 1996, the NCRP relied on a ten-year old review, based on science through 1982! OSHA In 1996, the NCRP relied on a ten-year old review, based on science through 1982! OSHA In 1996, the NCRP relied on a ten-year old review, based on science through 1982! B. History of Radiation: Premature Deaths Hertz: "It's of no use whatsoever . . . this is just an experiment that proves Maestro Maxwell was right—we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there." Asked about the applications of his discoveries, Hertz replied, "Nothing, I guess." Hertz's proof of the existence of airborne electromagnetic waves led to an explosion of experimentation with this new form of electromagnetic radiation, which was called "Hertzian waves" until around 1910 when the term "radio waves" became current. The SI unit hertz (Hz) was established in 1930 for frequency, an expression of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per second. Link to Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) Died at 36 from exposures to Microwave Radiation from studies in his lab from 1886 to 1894 (8 years) He died of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (microwave radiation sickness) believed to have been contracted from his long-term exposure to non-ionizing radiation. Link to Marie Curie (1867-1934) Died at 66 from exposures to Nuclear Radiation from studies in her lab from 1897 to 1934 (37 years). She died of aplastic anemia believed to have been contracted from her long-term exposure to ionizing radiation. RF-EMR Exposure Guideline History •1940’s: WWII radar injuries, NO Guideline for RF-EMR exposures •1953: Herman P. Schwann & three others “suggest” to both Navy/Airforce a guideline of 100,000,000 microWatts/sq. meter (µW/m²) •1965: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) divided Schwann’s “guesstimate” by ten for guideline of 10,000,000 µW/m² •1986: National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) rejects Specific Absorption (SA), but selects SA Rate or “SAR”. (Rpt-86) •1996-2020: FCC’s RF-EMR Exposure guideline combines . . . ANSI, NCRP and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for · Title 47 CFR §1.1310, with Amendment Effective June 1, 2020 · Title 47 CFR §2.1093 with Amendment Effective June 1, 2020 Office of Naval Research held first RF-EMR Guideline meeting in 1953 •Hermann P. Schwan, PhD former Nazi Engineer, biophysicist and biomedical engineer; Research Director at University of Pennsylvania, 1950-1983 --funded by Navy. •Kenneth S. Cole, PhD in Physics, Cornell who trained as a biophysicist; from 1949 to 1954 he was the technical director of the U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. He achieved advances that led to the "sodium theory" of nerve transmission that later won Nobel Prizes for Alan L. Hodgkin and Andrew F. Huxley. •David E. Goldman, PhD in Physics, a Navy Lieutenant and then a member of the U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute who was Cole’s student at Columbia (PhD in 1943 in Physics); famous for Goldman voltage equation, used in cell membrane physiology to determine the reversal potential across a cell’s membrane •James D. Hardy, MD, MA served in the U.S. Army Medical Corps in early 1944 during the Second World War. Hardy was awarded the Master of Medical Science in physiological chemistry by the University of Pennsylvania in 1951 Hermann P. Schwann, 1915-2005 He proposed the Schwan RF-EMR exposure “guesstimate” in 1953 Schwan was a Nazi engineer, who was recruited to work for the US Navy via Operation Paperclip in 1947; the Navy continued to fund his research at Penn through the 1980’s. Schwan retired from Penn in 1983, but published another 60 papers from 1983 to 2005. 1963: Schwan with model of human body used for RF-EMR dosimetric studies. The model is filled with tissue-equivalent liquids and exposed to RF energy in a microwave anechoic chamber that Schwan had constructed in his laboratory. Specific Absorption Rate (“SAR”) Andrew Marino, PhD, JD: “I was there when SAR was invented. Richard Phillips, Don Justesen, Saul Michaelson, Herman Schwann, these were men who created SAR . . . they were interested in developing microwave ovens and in understanding how to cook meat . . . SAR works for dead muscle. It has just no applicability in my opinion for live brain. SAR can produce a lot of data. The calculations of SAR can produce beautiful pictures but the pictures are arbitrary and the measurements are meaningless.” Barrie Trower “You really have no protection against the electric and magnetic vectors” •"Between 1949 and 1962, everything we needed to know about microwaves was known and published . . . the brain at that time had been studied for brainwaves and microwaves could be used to penetrate the brain and cause behavioral changes.” •“A statement was made in 1962 by the governments that birth defects, organs, whole organisms, cells, brain function, emotions, moods could be altered, changed and destroyed [by microwave exposures].” •“Microwaves then, as now, were used as stealth weapons, before they became cell phones [and Wi-Fi].” •“By 1965, the military used cell phones, I had one. In 1965, they adopted an old 1953 thermal-effects based level by an engineer by the name of Schwann.—a non-scientific "deemed safe" rule . . .” •“They totally ignored the electromagnetic vectors of the microwaves and the harms that the electromagnetic vectors which interfere with the electrical conductivity of the cells, the neurons, the brain. They interfere with everything. This non-scientific RF-EMR exposure guideline is in force today for 40% of the planet.” Basis for SAR & RF-EMR Exposure Guidelines Public Health Service Act 90-602 By 1968, RF Emissions were established as a hazard The U.S. Govt. Agencies Knew All Along . . . Environmental Protection Agency Knew There Were RF Radiation Hazards •Quote from Norbert Hankin, PhD, Environmental Scientist, EPA, 1994: "This . . . should not be overlooked . . . impact by wireless communications technology on a child's educational process, i.e. by affecting learning ability. [It] stems from recent studies involving short-term exposures that demonstrated subtle effects on brain functions, produced by low-intensity, pulse-modulated radiofrequency radiation . . . even a slight degree of impairment of learning ability over years of exposure . . . may negatively affect the quality of life that could be achieved by these individuals when adults.” •Quote from FCC Docket ET 93-62, November 9, 1993: "The FCC’s exposure standards are seriously flawed. FCC rules do not address the issues of long-term, chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiation." NCPR Report No. 86, Chap 17 FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guidelines (Based on Average, NOT Peak RF-EMR exposures, which are 100x to 1,000 x higher) FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guidelines (Based on Average, NOT Peak RF-EMR exposures, which are 100x to 1,000 x higher) 30 MHz, wavelengths are 10 m. (33 ft.) … 30 V/m = 238,725 µW/m² 300 MHz, wavelengths are 1.0 m. (3.3 ft.) … 30 V/m = 238,725 µW/m² 600 MHz, wavelengths are 0.5 m. (1.6 ft.) …40 V/m = 4,244,030 µW/m² Wavelengths Approaching Body-Part Size Electromagnetic Resonance: Small periodic forces near a resonant frequency that produce large amplitude oscillations in the system due to the storage of vibrational energy. RF-EMR Resonance As a wavelengths approaches body-part size, the absorption in that body part increases exponentially. A wavelength approximating body- part size, especially at ½ x to 2x of organ-size, produces maximum absorption, approaching resonance. At this point, the body part functions as an antenna. This an exponential phenomenon, meaning that even minimal intensities will produce disproportionate bioeffects. Living tissues' water content makes biological organisms function as sponges for 2-12 in. wavelengths, which can be easily demonstrated with a Wireless RF-EMR source, an RF-meter and a human body. C. Negative Health Consequences Negative Health Consequences From RF-EMR Exposures DNA Strand Breaks Established RF-EMR, The Basics •c = f λ, equation that defines all electromagnetic fields •c = 300,000,000 meters/sec = 671,000,000 miles/hr. •f = Frequency: repetitions per second (Hz) •λ = Wavelength: distance between peaks of a wave •Modulation: pulses of data (10-20,000 Hz) on carrier wave RF-EMR, The Basics Natural EMF •Over millions of years, all life adapted to regular, smooth waves •Gamma & Radio Waves from space: filtered out by atmosphere •Earth's Schumann Waves: constant magnetic waves @ 7.83 Hz •Sun's Natural Light: IR/Visible/UV at 300 GHz to 30,000,000 GHz Unnatural EMF & RF-EMR •Over the last 125 years, man has introduced unnatural, irregular, choppy, pulsed waves at ever-increasing levels •Early Radio/Television: analog signals through the air •Early Telecom: digital, pulsed signals through wires •Modern Telecom: digital, pulsed signals through the air Unnatural EMF & RF-EMR •Our cells understand smooth, analog waves in naturally-occurring frequencies: the earth's magnetic field and the sun's IR/Visible/UV light •Our cells don't understand digital,choppy, pulsed, data-carrying waves in unnaturally-occurring frequencies: i.e. always-on 3G/4G/5G & Wi-Fi •Duration of exposure, not intensity, is the more important factor •FCC RF-EMR exposure guideline DOES NOT CONSIDER duration of exposure •Continuous exposure maximizes adverse biological effects •Total Exposure Over Time Is What Really Matters (Rate x Time): Suntan vs Sunburn; Pay PG&E Electric Bill; RF-EMR Exposures Negative Health Consequences From RF-EMR Exposures •Direct Neurological, Cardiovascular, Reproductive and Blood Harms •Leading Scientists: pushing IARC to re-classify RF-EMR exposures from Group 2b (possible) to Group 1 (definite) Human Carcinogen •RF-EMR exposures Suppresses melatonin and immune systems •From involuntary 24/7/365 RF-EMR exposures What We are Facing Today •COVID-19 community spread will be with us for a while •Established Science (12,000+ studies) prove that RF Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures causes Melatonin suppression and Immuno-suppression •https://youtu.be/9mK93gHFWXs?t=4045 •https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#science D. A Solution: FTTP for Information Service and “just enough” Wireless for Telecommunications Service sWTF Applications Are Incomplete From the Public’s Perspective •No substantial written evidence of NEPA review in applications •Specs of which frequencies are used for which purposes are missing •Insufficient regulation of Vertical, Horizontal, and Power Rational Public Health Response •For COVID-19 preparation, POWER DOWN all WTFs that have hazardous V·H·P Recipes •Vertical: # of feet from ground, where antenna is installed •Horizontal: # of feet from home where antenna is installed •Power: Effective Radiated Power: 0.1 Watt gives “5 bars” on a cell phone, in 2,500 feet radius for Telecommunications Service Beauty of 0.1 Watt ERP Limit •Much smaller antenna & power supply (think size of Wi-Fi Router)https://scientists4wiredtech.com/vhp •Signal goes —down the street ½ a mile •Provides 5 Bars on a cell phone •Everyone (over 3,000 people at same time) can make a call •. . . and is compliant with FCC RF-EMR Exposure guidelines Workable V·H·P Recipe •1996 TCA-Conference Report: “the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district.” (link) •Vertical: antenna is 200 feet from ground •Horizontal: antenna is 1,500 feet from homes/schools •Power: locally unregulated maximum Effective Radiated Power Disastrous V·H·P Recipe for sWTFs •Vertical: antenna is 25-50 feet from ground •Horizontal: antenna is 6-12 feet from homes/schools •Power: Thousands of Watts of Effective Radiated Power •Why is this Disastous ? . . . Signal goes 2-5 miles before it degrades to -105 dBM, but through brains and bodies on the way What is Really Going On . . . •Densified 4G/5G sWTFs are for 24/7, crowd control and unjust/unreasonable taking from public --see NY Times Best-Sellter Surveillance Capitalism •The FCC and FDA are dominated by the industries they presumably regulate. See Captured Agency •Wireless Industry spends $2.4 Billion annually on Ads/Lobbying •60% of U.S. Population has one or more Chronic Illnesses FIN FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guidelines Emperor has no Clothes 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Steven Atneosen <atneosen@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2020 4:18 PM To:Sustainability Team; Council, City Subject:2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto community stakeholder:    I believe that it’s safe to assume that climate change and its effects have become a regularly disruptive occurence in our sleepy little town, known best for delaying decisions related to sustainable living: housing, transportation and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With COVID19, we are now forced to make decisions as a community to mitigate the negative effects of climate change and not to further contribute to it. This is a tall order for our provincial city, but one that is now more obvious in importance. Alas, it will take state, county and city leadership, and that has historically been the achilles heel to doing the right thing. Unfortunately, the right thing is the hard thing as it challenges decades of past behavior. But the ignorance of the few cannot take priority over the benefit of the many, especially when the negative effects of inaction are catastrophic to the whole community’s health. I encourage you to properly represent the majority of your constituents. This type of leadership has proven to be effective in other more educated and courageous communities around the world.    That said, given that we are significantly behind as a community in most every initiative of a healthy, sustainable city, anything we do to address the emergency before us will be a step in the right direction. In addition, it has been done before in many other cities, so all we need to do is replicate the good work they have done for our community.    Attain Palo Alto’s Goals on Sustainability.    Palo Alto should put people first; not traffic movement nor parking or other generalized objectives that assure misaligned goals and unsuccessful outcomes. In the end, our government exists to improve our health and well being. It is likely that these outdated and legacy categories long since adopted by Palo Alto have brought us here. But measurable sustainability goals will lead us to behavior that will fashion a high quality of life for everyone and cease the practice of letting a few bad actors punish the many. Clean air and water goals will result in better transportation and housing opportunities for people.     There are a few simple, immediate opportunities to achieve our stated objectives that Palo Alto has in the past been dilatory. We now have a chance to recoup the largesse caused by past inaction.     Gas Powered Leaf Blowers. Specifically, reduction of GHG gases through enforcement of the prohibition of gas powered leaf blowers. This will be your biggest measurable gain towards our goal. It’s easy, measurable, cost effective and can be achieved as a revenue driver. If you don’t have the courage to enforce a law enacted in 2005, then we are all wasting time by identifying any other sustainability objective; proof that we clearly don’t have the right people implementing the decisions of our community. The allowance of gas powered leaf blowers places the bulk of the cost of pollution on gardeners who are forced to use them by property owners through noncompliance. Gardeners bear the brunt of the ill effects of the emissions produced by them and are sentenced to a life of respiratory health issues. At best Palo Alto is at a 50% compliance, and for every hour of gas powered leaf blower use are emissions equivalent to a Toyota Camry driven 1,100 miles. With some basic assumptions, 100 gas powered leaf blowers used daily adds the equivalent of 880,000 miles of car emissions, or based upon an average commute of 14 miles, the addition of 62,857 cars to Palo Alto’s emission footprint 4 each day. There is no better single opportunity to reduce the city’s GHG footprint than to make good on a 2005 law.    People who walk and bike prioritized over vehicles. Palo Alto has had a reluctant approach to encouraging people to walk and bike, while still prioritizing the car in budget spend for driving and parking. This is another easy opportunity to encourage people to do what’s best for themselves and their community. Again, the blueprint for success can be found in hundreds of communities around the world, so success is not one of first impression. Sweden started Vision Zero over three decades ago: https://visionzeronetwork.org/. It is a combination of infrastructure, policies and enforcement.    For the way forward, please provide greater transparency on Palo Alto’s success and tap into the community for leadership to provide advice and counsel on various topics, spearhead research and resource availability.     Follow other simple policies of more forward thinking communities. Generally, you will find that the Nordics provide a good model of what is possible in creating a healthy, happy community.    Begin with the UN’s guidance on sustainability here:    United Nations Environment Program for Sustainable Cities  https://www.unenvironment.org/regions/asia-and-pacific/regional-initiatives/supporting-resource- efficiency/sustainable-cities    Other resources with specific recommendations here:    Rand Resources for Sustainability Efforts, Local Governments  https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR855/mr855.ch4.html    National League of Cities Sustainability Resources  https://www.nlc.org/sustainability-resources    Greener Cities Sustainable Cities Network  http://greenercities.org/sustainable-city-resources/    NRDC Sustainable Cities  https://www.nrdc.org/issues/sustainable-cities    Forgive me if your staff is aware of these resources, but I think it is fair to say that based upon a clear lack of accomplishment, leadership and communication in this area, one could reasonably support the position that Palo Alto government is unaware of the urgency of such initiatives and the tools in which to execute them.    Make sustainability part of the communications and curriculum in city government and to your broader constituency in schools through science. Although social media may be a component of communication to constituents, please be aware that it's not a credible representation of any community’s preferences.    Good culture comes from the top, so the city council and management possesses the power to communicate and execute upon these important initiatives.    As we move through COVID19 and better understand its relationship to global climate change over the next year or two, I trust many people will expect more demonstrated competence in this area as it directly affects our quality of life. Please do the right thing. We as a community can continue to kick the can down the road on issues that more responsible communities have long since accepted as good for themselves and best for humanity.     5 Regards,    Steven Atneosen  Caroline Dahllof  Magnus Atneosen  Palo Alto, CA 94306    6 Baumb, Nelly From:Zack Fenning <zack.fenning@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello City Council & Mayor,    I’m a PA native, and wondering when/if our city is going to allow cannabis dispensaries in PA? Right now I have to go  way north or way south to get my medicine. I figure since it’s legalized, shouldn’t we have some in our city?    Zack  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Ethan Young <ethan7young@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 10:31 PM To:Council, City; council@losaltosca.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov Subject:green energy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Palo Alto's Green Energy is not so Green.  The city moved the gas burning from the homes to power plants, that's all.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI‐7czE  https://padailypost.com/2019/11/21/los‐altos‐joins‐the‐parade‐of‐cities‐banning‐natural‐gas/          8 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 6:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Proposal for Open Space Preserves and Education     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Elliott Wright <elliott@evols.org>   Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 6:47 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Proposal for Open Space Preserves and Education    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council - Thank you for your leadership in these challenging times. I'm writing with two items for the Council to consider: (1) Power of Volunteerism: Please consider the role that small nonprofit organizations like Environmental Volunteers can provide the City excellent management of volunteer resources. For example, we currently have 453 friendly volunteers who are ready, capable, trained, and eager to help Palo Alto maintain access to safe and meaningful services provided by our Parks and Open 9 Space areas. We could easily turn our teams toward the task of managing Open Space resources. (2) Access to Nature and Education: Please consider that people need nature now more than ever. With the thoughtful planning that the EV is known to provide, we can increase the pace and scale of our citizens gaining access to safe, fun, and meaningful opportunities for our community. Now is the time to engage EV to help pacify and spark at-home nature learning. We are here for you. Please let us know if you have any thoughts about ways that we can step forward to help. Sincerely and respectfully, Elliott Elliott Wright  Executive Director   Environmental Volunteers (EV)    Palo Alto, CA 94303  650-493-8000 x333 (Office)  650-704-3823 (Cell)    Redacted 10 Baumb, Nelly From:Aspasia Normantas <aspo3@icloud.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 8:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello City council members,     I have been working to collect information regarding the conflict we have in Palo Alto over our leash laws, and making  the Northwest corner of Greer park a dog run.    .   First, I should tell you that I have owed my home in Palo Alto for 35 years. I started a poll in Nextdoor because it was  frustrating to watch people fighting over their rights regarding how to treat dogs properly and both sides have  compelling stories. Here are the results of my poll.     Now on the matter of the Northwest corner of Greer park, on the Armerillo street side, being used as a dog park, this is  a perfect location for this use. There are no sports played there, it is off the main paths, and it can be enclosed easily,  herding dogs and dogs that love to run have adequate space to enjoy this piece of property.  With a couple benches and  a bbq it could be a place for so many Palo Altan’s to socialize with their dogs. People living in small spaces with their pets  need this.     Thank you,  Aspo Normantas    11 12    See you on the courts, 🎾    Aspo Normantas      13 Baumb, Nelly From:Dan Garber <dan@fg-arch.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 7:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Encina Ave - RV Overnighting Since the begining of March CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council Members,   Thanks to your hardworking staff the RV that had been overnighting on Encina is no longer ‐ thank you!    ‐dan   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Dan Garber <dan@fg‐arch.com>  Date: Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:39 AM  Subject: Re: Encina Ave ‐ RV Overnighting Since the begining of March  To: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Philip Dah <pdah@ivsn.org>, Judy Kleinberg <judykleinberg@gmail.com>, Binder, Andrew  <andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org>    Adrian, Ed and Officer Binder ‐    Wow ‐ that was fast, I stopped by the office on Saturday and the truck was gone! Thank you so much!     ‐dan     On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 7:55 PM Dan Garber <dan@fg‐arch.com> wrote:  Adrian & Ed‐  I hope you both you and your families are well.     Three years ago the City was helpful getting several trucks off Encina (see below).     There is now another RV that has been camped out across from our office since the beginning of March. It arrived right  before we closed our office for all our staff to shelter in place in their homes. It appears that the owner of the RV is  taking advantage of the fewer eyes being on the street during the shelter in place order and ignoring the requirement  to not park overnight on the street.     The RV has remained and we need your help again to get it off the street.     If there is something I can do to help the City with this task, please let me know.     thanks,    ‐dan     Daniel Garber, FAIA  Fergus Garber Architects  www.fg-arch.com  14   Palo Alto CA 94301  o 650.459.3700        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Daniel Garber <dan@fgy‐arch.com>  Date: Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:28 PM  Subject: Derelict Trucks on Encina ‐ Please Enforce the Parking Rules  To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Philip Dah <pdah@ivsn.org>, Judy Kleinberg <judykleinberg@gmail.com>    Dear City Council Members:    There are two derelict trucks on the street of my business that have been allowed to stay overnight on the street. This  is contrary to what is allowed by the street signs.     I understand that the larger of these trucks (panel van, red & white, license 5RUP238) has received repeated warnings  that it will be towed but that the warnings have been ignored. This truck has been on the street for nearly a year. At  one point in the last several months the fire department visited the truck because it had caught on fire.     Redacted 15 We have been told that the police have not towed the truck because, once towed it will not be claimed and will cost  the City too much money to store. In other words it's not worth it to deal with the problem.     The second truck (pickup truck, blueish, license 88738L1) is a newcomer to the street in that it has only been around for  the last six weeks, give or take. In the last several days it has been parked in directly in front of my business and  presents a particular threat to us. Not only is the truck a deterrent to my daily business clients, the owner is living in the  truck.     I've learned from our friend Philip Dah, Program Director, Peninsula Singles & Family Services of the InnVision  Opportunity Center down the street from us, that the owner of this truck accosted one of his employees and was put  into jail for a few days and is now banned from the Opportunity Center.     More than half my employees and two of my partners are women. My business has multiple visits by clients daily.  Many of us work well into the evening hours and many of us arrive to work between 6 and 7 in the morning. In other  words, times that there are not many people around. While we have experienced no incidents, the history of this  truck's inhabitant is frightening to us.     Please direct our City's police to 1) tow the large truck, 2) enforce the requirement that there is no overnight parking  allowed on the street and 3) if the pickup truck does not vacate the street overnight, to start the process of getting it  towed.     thank you,    ‐dan    Daniel Garber, FAIA  Fergus Garber Young Architects  fgy‐arch.com      o 650.473.0400    Redacted 16 17   18 19     20 Baumb, Nelly From:Shannon Rose <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 6:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shannon McEntee Subject:Sharing my communications with Marc Berman and Jerry Hill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members: I am writing to share with you the message I just sent to Marc Berman and Jerry Hill c/o their websites. I want to share this with you as I know you contemplate issues like this and it is important that you understand how your Palo Alto residents feel. Do let me know if anything here needs more explanation. I hope my feelings are clear. Thank you for the good work you do for our City! Sincerely, Shannon McEntee Palo Alto 94306 *************************** Dear Assembly Member Berman and Senator Hill: I’ve written directly to the three politicians below. They have proposed four new Assembly Bills that would change Palo Alto’s zoning laws in order to build high density housing. While these bills vary, in general all of them would endanger the livability of Palo Alto and upend the laws that over many years have served Palo Alto well — our Community Plans and General Plans. I’m writing to you today to ask you to oppose these bills. Assembly Bill 725 (AB 725) Buffy Wicks (Berkeley/Richmond) In addition to the high density issue, this bill ignores the need for infrastructure to accommodate increased density and the depletion of natural resources it would cause. It requires no BMR housing! Senate Bill 902 (SB 902) Scott Weiner (San Francisco) This bill, similar to SB 50, would rob Palo Alto of making our own decisions regarding zoning and growth. Ironically, it contains no mention for the need to provide Below Market Rate dwelling units! Assembly Bill 1279 (AB 1279) Richard Bloom (Santa Monica) This bill would allow ultra-dense housing and allow developers to pay a modest “in lieu of fee” to avoid building any below market rate housing units! This bill is punitive and would worsen our cost of living and the affordability crisis. Assembly Bill 3173 (AB 3173) Richard Bloom (Santa Monica) Redacted 21 This bill would allow developers to boost square footage 50% beyond what a city allows, upending Community Plans and General Plans. This bill does not require BMR housing units and it ignores the need for parking, on- site open space, and environmental considerations. Thank you for all the hard work you perform to protect and enhance our lives. I’m counting on you to continue to protect Palo Alto from grave threats to our community. Sincerely yours, Shannon Rose McEntee Palo Alto, CA 94306         Redacted 22 Baumb, Nelly From:Mike Vernal <vernal@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 6:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Solar & Building Permitting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Recently, I've been trying to add solar to a home in Palo Alto. I contacted a prior vendor I have used and they informed  that they have stopped servicing Palo Alto because of hostility from the building department. I contacted  approximately 7 more providers who all informed me that they, too, have stopped servicing Palo Alto because of  inspection hostility. I've found two providers willing to engage ‐‐ Tesla and one out‐of‐state SMB.     This seems pretty crazy and misaligned with what I imagine most Palo Alto residents want.    What's the best way to dig‐in here? I'm happy to help or be supportive however I can.    ‐mike  23 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Korn <makompk@aol.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 9:30 AM To:darren@everydayjoes.org; chris@everydayjoes.org; dfred@timberlinechurch.org Cc:Council, City; cityleaders@fcgov.com Subject:America: the exceptional(ly stupid) country... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/us‐denmark‐ economy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage  Starting pay for the humblest burger‐flipper at McDonald’s in Denmark is about $22 an hour once various pay  supplements are included. The McDonald’s workers in Denmark get six weeks of paid vacation a year, life insurance, a  year’s paid maternity leave and a pension plan. And like all Danes, they enjoy universal medical insurance and paid sick  leave.  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 9:14 AM To:Parks Cc:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Dead Grass CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Parks and Rec/open space is allowing the grass at Peers Park to die because why?             25       26 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 9:11 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:40 Feet Tall CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The house that’s being constructed adjacent to me  .) is going to be more than forty feet tall! It towers  over all the other two story houses. When I was looking into remodelling my house, i was told, because I have a 5,000  square foot lot, that I couldn’t build anything over 1,600 square feet (second story included). 2105 is a 5,000 square foot  lot. The house, not including the basement, is going to be 2,500, square foot.    How the heck did this happen?!    Deborah Goldeen, ., 94306, 321‐7375 Redacted Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:nancy larson <nancyco2@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opening of Restaurants on University Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  My idea is to close University Ave and open it up to street restaurants, You can string lites across the street (like an  Italien Street Fair), set up booths of local merchants and easly distance all diners,  Think about all the European cities  that have walking streets  We can do it too.   Nancy Larson    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    2 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Klein <robertklein@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 2:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Closing University and California Ave. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi,     I'm a long time resident and homeowner in Palo Alto (over 20 years now). I was just reading a thread on Next‐door  about how great it would be to permanently close University and California Ave. business districts to make them  pedestrian malls. I'm strongly in favor of this and would encourage the city council to consider this.    Thanks,  Robert    3 Baumb, Nelly From:SLU-Gita Dev <sierraclublp.slu@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 3:14 PM To:sierraclublp.slu@gmail.com Subject:Transforming Your Streets for Walkability in a post-COVID World Attachments:Sierra Club Loma Prieta Open Streets 5-1-20.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To: City Council Members, City Managers, Planning Commissioners, Complete Street Commissioners, Sustainability Commissioners, City Planners, City Transportation Managers, City Sustainability Staff From: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Gita Dev Subject: Transforming Your Streets for Walkability in a post-COVID World In response to COVID-19, cities all around the world are experimenting with ways to make streets more usable for walking and bicycling, to increase access to active recreation while physical distancing. These local cities have already implemented such plans:  San Francisco  Oakland  Palo Alto  Redwood City  San Mateo (in planning stage) We, the local Sierra Club chapter, applaud these actions and invite other cities considering such a move to contact our Sustainable Land Use Committee for help taking similar action. Street right-of-ways make up 30-40% of our public realm, the largest single part of our public realm. We are currently working with city officials in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and are ready to help you with resources and assistance for your city. Our Process In consultation with your city’s Transportation Manager, Complete Street Commissioners or Public Works, we can assist in developing a plan that includes:  A tentative map of streets your Council can consider for temporary closure  Affordable, temporary street alterations to increase walkability  Longer-term infrastructure options to make the changes permanent Along with its many challenges, COVID-19 provides cities with an excellent opportunity to make temporary alterations to street networks and test their long-term viability. Some changes may eventually lead to permanent changes, if done right. 4 Attached is a short presentation outlining our approach to developing Green Streets, which makes any street more inviting. We have used the City of San Mateo in the attached example. This template can be embedded into long-term policy that can meet multiple, critical, long-term climate action plan goals. Benefits of Green Streets include:  Improved health from clean air and active lifestyle  GHG reduction with a future, connected network of walking and biking arterials  Clean and reduced storm water to the creeks and Bay using green storm infrastructure  Cleaner air and carbon sequestration by growing the urban canopy along these arterials  Reduced energy use in nearby buildings from shading and cooling  Healthy ecology for pollinators, birds, bees and other ecologically beneficial life Please contact me to get started. Regards, Gita Dev, Co-Chair, Sustainable Land Use, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Guidelines for MASTER PLAN for a GREEN STREET NETWORK Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Sustainable Land Use Committee MAY !, 2020 How to plan a network Example: City of San Mateo Green Streets Network “Streets are a huge public asset that should be more imaginatively managed for greater benefit…” 1. Identify Open Space: existing parks & creeks 2. Add a 10-minute walk- shed around existing parks This shows areas that lack pedestrian access to parks 3. Plan new parks in these areas shown as green dots 4. Add existing school sites 5.Overlay a connected network of pedestrian walks and bikeways connect the parks, schools, creeks and the bay and areas providing services and amenities check existing bicycle plan and adjust it as needed 6.Plant large resilient trees along this network to provide shade . Comfort and beauty . Promote active lifestyle . Improve air quality . Hold & slow storm water . Provide wildlife habitat . Reduce heat island effect . Sequester carbon A connected network for walking & bicycling Ecology corridors for wildlife Connect the schools, parks, civic amenities, creeks, and the Bay 7. Green storm-water infrastructure is a high priority for a green street network . Clean storm water of pollutants going into creeks and bay . Rainwater used to grow the trees and plants . Recharge groundwater 8. Create healthy Ecology /Habitat Corridors Use native and high habitat- value planting in storm water bioswales . Trees . Shrubs . Groundcovers Improve the environment for birds, insects & pollinators 9. Slow down auto traffic on green streets: . Max. speed 15-20 mph . Block thru traffic . 2-lane traffic max . Narrow lane widths to 10’ Create a SAFE, slow speed, connected network for walking and bicycling thru the city . . Start with temporary green streets, using inexpensive and simple means . Invite community comments . Allow users sufficient time to get used to the changes . Review feedback to make adjustments . Involve multiple city departments for integrated design solutions Active transportation reduces VMT & GHG .Vision Zero, Safety is top priority Plan ahead - for significant growth in “active transportation” Safe Routes to School should be part of green network Safety is top priority Both walking and biking are encouraged Reducing school drop-offs can remove as much as 10% of morning traffic on city streets 10. Underground utility lines along green corridors: Aerial utility lines . pose a fire hazard . conflict with tree canopy requiring frequent destruction of mature trees Provide incentives for property owners along the corridor to replant with native landscaping for habitat 16 Create a policy so that city departments work together rather than in silos to Invest in integrated solutionsInvest in integrated solutions for our largest public asset - streets Plan a connected Green Street Network in your cityPlan a connected Green Street Network in your city ““Sustainable Green StreetsSustainable Green Streets”” create create Resilient CommunitiesResilient Communities 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Millin <barbaramillin@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 10, 2020 5:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Love the idea of closing University to autos CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please keep me informed of discussions on this subject. 6 Baumb, Nelly From:john@kovalfamily.com Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 5:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pedestrian Street Closures and Small Business Survival CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council,    Please consider a program to jumpstart small businesses in Palo Alto return to solvency in Palo Alto. Our city is made up  of unique contributors to our city character and need help ASAP!    In order to build our economy up quickly, I am asking the city council to temporarily close the downtown core of  University Avenue from Middlefield to Alma and the side streets (i.e. Cowper, Bryant, etc.) from Hamilton to Lytton to  vehicle traffic. A similar closure should be put in place on California Avenue in the area where the farmers market is  held. We have plenty of unused parking garages for the patrons.    The area would become a pedestrian and outdoor eating area for 6 months to promote social distancing, while allowing  these small business to get back in action with more customers (us!!). This would help everyone with improving  revenues and give Palo Alto a unique advantage over other cities in the bay area!    Sincerely,  John Koval    Palo Alto      Redacted 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Stef Grothe <stefani.grothe@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2020 6:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opening / Supporting restaurants during Covid times CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I wanted to make a suggestion regarding the opening of restaurants in Palo Alto. Since according to epidemiologists the  virus spread is far less severe in an outdoor environment I think now would be the perfect time to close University  Avenue with it's myriad of restaurants to traffic ‐ either entirely or partially ‐ and let restaurants re‐start serving their  customers, once it is safe again to do so, in an outdoor setting on the sidewalk. This could be done as a trial at least  during the summer months to see how things go. I believe many citizens would feel more comfortable eating outdoors  and we could still support (some) of our restaurants in a more traditional setup.    Thanks for listening.    Stefani Grothe (20+ year resident of this wonderful city)  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 6:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Oral Communications     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: steve frankel <leknarfs@yahoo.com>   Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 6:40 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Oral Communications    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Looks like I mis‐read the schedule.  I see Oral Communications was earlier.  Please take my comments here for  consideration.    I would like the City to study some form of converting University Ave. into a walking promenade.  >  > As I have seen the amazing closing of businesses in the downtown during the Shelter‐in‐place, and the lack of clear  direction moving forward towards re‐opening businesses in a manner that assures safety for both employees and  patrons, my neighbors and I have been in a lively discussion on what would be possible to revive University Ave.  businesses.  >  > The popular idea is converting University Ave into a walking promenade, redirecting traffic onto Lytton and Hamilton  and free up the pavement of University for dining, shopping and most important, social distancing.  >  > An April 20 NYT article makes clear the heightened risk of spreading coronavirus in enclosed spaces such as  restaurants.  Masks are good, but you can’t eat with a mask on.  >  > Allowing dining and shopping outside onto the extended pavement of a car‐free University Ave. would greatly enhance  patrons sense of safety. Without cars, the walking, shopping and dining experience will be greatly enhanced.  >  2 > Some cross streets such as Bryant “Bike” Blvd, High and Webster would remain open for both bike and car traffic to  travel from Lytton inbound traffic towards Alma to Hamilton outbound traffic towards Middlefield.  >  > A City 2106 parking assessment indicates the 171 University Ave parking spaces could be absorbed within the 4389  spaces in the 4 color zones of the Downtown business district with some modifications.  >  > This arrangement of a walkable promenade works well for the Summer Art and Wine festival and the Father’s day  world music festival. Let’s take the idea to the next level.  >  > Thank you.    Steve Frankel    Resident since 1987  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Iannucci <susan@rail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 7, 2020 7:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Oppose high density in California CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council ,     Please oppose the neighborhood‐destroying SB 902 by Sen. Scott Wiener. This luxury housing bill upzones all single‐ family streets to 8‐plexes in cities of 50,000 or more — not 4‐plexes, as misreported by L.A. Times. This is due to new  state "granny flat" laws that would instantly double Sen. Wiener’s figures — a key fact not divulged in SB 902l.  Moreover, in cities smaller than 50K, and in unincorporated areas, SB 902 up‐zones all single‐family streets to luxury 6‐ plexes or 4‐plexes, not duplexes as this non‐transparent bill suggests.     Doubling down on its concept of building luxury housing by pushing out existing communities, SB 902 allows cities to  approve 15‐unit luxury buildings on single‐family streets anywhere near a regular bus route, or where residents are  found by the state to have good educations or good jobs. This unprecedented statewide experiment will harm  homeownership and destroy working‐ and middle‐class communities. This bill requires no affordable housing. Please  oppose SB 902.    ‐‐   Susan Iannucci – Voiceovers (650) 391-7041   susan@voicetoremember.com  http://www.voicetoremember.com                    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, May 7, 2020 10:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Opposition to SB902 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Senator,     Please oppose the neighborhood‐destroying SB 902 by Sen. Scott Wiener. This luxury housing bill upzones all single‐ family streets to 8‐plexes in cities of 50,000 or more — not 4‐plexes, as misreported by L.A. Times. This is due to new  state "granny flat" laws that would instantly double Sen. Wiener’s figures — a key fact not divulged in SB 902l.  Moreover, in cities smaller than 50K, and in unincorporated areas, SB 902 up‐zones all single‐family streets to luxury 6‐ plexes or 4‐plexes, not duplexes as this non‐transparent bill suggests.     Doubling down on its concept of building luxury housing by pushing out existing communities, SB 902 allows cities to  approve 15‐unit luxury buildings on single‐family streets anywhere near a regular bus route, or where residents are  found by the state to have good educations or good jobs. This unprecedented statewide experiment will harm  homeownership and destroy working‐ and middle‐class communities. This bill requires no affordable housing. Please  oppose SB 902.  Patricia Jones . Palo Alto, CA 94301 www.pkjones.com pkjones1000@icloud.com       Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Cmptrgru34 <cmptrgru34@aol.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thou Shalt Not Remove the Ten Commandments. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello This is Steve Johnson  Gallup  What We Do     o o o o o o o o o o     o o o o o 2 o     o o o o o o o     o o o o o o o             o o o o  Who We Are 3  Locations  Careers  Store  Search  Business  Politics  World  Education  Social & Policy Issues  Wellbeing  Economy  More More navigation items  SIGN IN  SUBSCRIBE  Share on Facebook  Share on Twitter  Share on LinkedIn  Share via Email  Print APRIL 12, 2005 Americans: Thou Shalt Not Remove the Ten Commandments Seventy-six percent favor allowing monument at Texas Capitol BY ALBERT L. WINSEMAN 4 Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a monument to the Ten Commandments should be displayed on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol building. While the court hasn't made a decision about this case yet, the public certainly has. When asked in a Feb. 25-27 Gallup Poll* if the Supreme Court should or should not allow the display in Texas, 76% of Americans say the display should be allowed, compared with 21% who say it should not. The poll also asked respondents how they'd personally feel about a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of their own state Capitols. Only 20% currently say they believe it would be inappropriate, while a majority (56%) feel it would be appropriate and 24% say it wouldn't matter to them either way**. Since 1999, Gallup has frequently measured sentiment on public displays of the Ten Commandments. Americans are consistently in favor of allowing displays and against removing existing displays. In 1999, Gallup asked people whether they favored or opposed allowing displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools. Seventy-four percent favored such displays; only 24% opposed them. 5 Other questions have produced similar results in the past six years. In September 2003, Gallup asked a similar question about displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools or government buildings. Seventy percent approved, 29% disapproved. That year, the issue was whether to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from an Alabama courthouse. Americans were solidly against a court decision ordering the removal of the monument at that time -- just 19% approved of the ruling, while 77% disapproved. Ten Commandments as a Symbol Americans tend to be conscious of the need to separate church and state -- but we're also highly attuned to the power of cultural symbols. The Constitution is a compelling symbol of patriotism for most Americans even though many don't know that the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Similarly, the Ten Commandments are typically placed in public places as a symbol of morality, largely abstracted from the specific trappings of any particular religious tradition. For many, the value of such symbolism may outweigh more esoteric arguments about religious freedom -- particularly because the vast majority of Americans identify as Christians anyway. 6 Whatever the case, the Ten Commandments debate -- like government support of faith- based charities and the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- is proving to be an ongoing litmus test for the role of religion in American public life. *Results are based on telephone interviews with 526 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 25-27, 2005. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points. **Results are based on telephone interviews with 482 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 25-27, 2005. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points. 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Cmptrgru34 <cmptrgru34@aol.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Battle Hymn of the Republic CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello This is Steve Johnson Battle Hymn of the Republic From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search "Battle Hymn of the Republic"    Cover of the 1863 sheet music for the "Battle Hymn of the Republic"  Lyrics Julia Ward Howe, 1861  Music William Steffe, 1856; arranged by James E. Greenleaf, C. S.  Hall, and C. B. Marsh, 1861   v   t  8  e  The "Battle Hymn of the Republic", also known as "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory" outside of the United States, is a lyric by the abolitionist writer Julia Ward Howe using the music from the song "John Brown's Body". Howe's more famous lyrics were written in November 1861 and first published in The Atlantic Monthly in February 1862. The song links the judgment of the wicked at the end of the age (through allusions to biblical passages such as Isaiah 63 and Revelation 19) with the American Civil War. It is an extremely popular and well-known American patriotic song. [ ] Contents  1History o 1.1Oh! Brothers o 1.2As the "John Brown's Body" song o 1.3Creation of the "Battle Hymn"  2Score  3Lyrics o 3.1First published version o 3.2Other versions  4Recordings and public performances  5Influence o 5.1Popularity and widespread use o 5.2In association football o 5.3Cultural influences o 5.4Other songs set to this tune o 5.5Other settings of the text  6Media  7See also  8References  9Further reading  10External links o 10.1Sheet music o 10.2Audio History[edit] Oh! Brothers[edit] The "Glory, Hallelujah" tune was a folk hymn developed in the oral hymn tradition of camp meetings in the southern United States and first documented in the early 1800s. In the first known version, "Canaan's Happy Shore," the text includes the verse "Oh! Brothers will you meet me (3×)/On Canaan's happy shore?"[1] and chorus "There we'll shout and give him glory (3×)/For glory is his own."[2] This developed into the familiar "Glory, glory, hallelujah" chorus by the 1850s. The tune and variants of these words spread across both the southern and northern United States.[3] As the "John Brown's Body" song[edit] 9 At a flag-raising ceremony at Fort Warren, near Boston, Massachusetts, on Sunday, May 12, 1861, the John Brown song, using the well known "Oh! Brothers" tune and the "Glory, Hallelujah" chorus, was publicly played "perhaps for the first time." The American Civil War had begun the previous month. In 1890, George Kimball wrote his account of how the 2nd Infantry Battalion of the Massachusetts militia, known as the "Tiger" Battalion, collectively worked out the lyrics to "John Brown's Body." Kimball wrote: We had a jovial Scotchman in the battalion, named John Brown. ... [A]nd as he happened to bear the identical name of the old hero of Harper's Ferry, he became at once the butt of his comrades. If he made his appearance a few minutes late among the working squad, or was a little tardy in falling into the company line, he was sure to be greeted with such expressions as "Come, old fellow, you ought to be at it if you are going to help us free the slaves," or, "This can't be John Brown—why, John Brown is dead." And then some wag would add, in a solemn, drawling tone, as if it were his purpose to give particular emphasis to the fact that John Brown was really, actually dead: "Yes, yes, poor old John Brown is dead; his body lies mouldering in the grave."[4] According to Kimball, these sayings became by-words among the soldiers and, in a communal effort — similar in many ways to the spontaneous composition of camp meeting songs described above — were gradually put to the tune of "Say, Brothers": As originally published 1862 in The Atlantic Monthly Finally ditties composed of the most nonsensical, doggerel rhymes, setting for the fact that John Brown was dead and that his body was undergoing the process of decomposition, began to be sung to the music of the hymn above 10 given. These ditties underwent various ramifications, until eventually the lines were reached,— "John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, His soul's marching on." And,— "He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord, His soul's marching on." These lines seemed to give general satisfaction, the idea that Brown's soul was "marching on" receiving recognition at once as having a germ of inspiration in it. They were sung over and over again with a great deal of gusto, the "Glory, hallelujah" chorus being always added.[4] Some leaders of the battalion, feeling the words were coarse and irreverent, tried to urge the adoption of more fitting lyrics, but to no avail. The lyrics were soon prepared for publication by members of the battalion, together with publisher C. S. Hall. They selected and polished verses they felt appropriate, and may even have enlisted the services of a local poet to help polish and create verses.[5] The official histories of the old First Artillery and of the 55th Artillery (1918) also record the Tiger Battalion's role in creating the John Brown Song, confirming the general thrust of Kimball's version with a few additional details.[6][7] Creation of the "Battle Hymn"[edit] Julia Ward Howe, 1897 Kimball's battalion was dispatched to Murray, Kentucky, early in the Civil War, and Julia Ward Howe heard this song during a public review of the troops outside Washington, D.C., on Upton Hill, Virginia. Rufus R. Dawes, then in command of Company "K" of the 6th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, stated in his memoirs that the man who started the singing was Sergeant 11 John Ticknor of his company. Howe's companion at the review, The Reverend James Freeman Clarke,[8] suggested to Howe that she write new words for the fighting men's song. Staying at the Willard Hotel in Washington on the night of November 18, 1861, Howe wrote the verses to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic."[9] Of the writing of the lyrics, Howe remembered: I went to bed that night as usual, and slept, according to my wont, quite soundly. I awoke in the gray of the morning twilight; and as I lay waiting for the dawn, the long lines of the desired poem began to twine themselves in my mind. Having thought out all the stanzas, I said to myself, "I must get up and write these verses down, lest I fall asleep again and forget them." So, with a sudden effort, I sprang out of bed, and found in the dimness an old stump of a pencil which I remembered to have used the day before. I scrawled the verses almost without looking at the paper.[10] Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic" was first published on the front page of The Atlantic Monthly of February 1862. The sixth verse written by Howe, which is less commonly sung, was not published at that time. The song was also published as a broadside in 1863 by the Supervisory Committee for Recruiting Colored Regiments in Philadelphia. Both "John Brown" and "Battle Hymn of the Republic" were published in Father Kemp's Old Folks Concert Tunes in 1874 and reprinted in 1889. Both songs had the same Chorus with an additional "Glory" in the second line: "Glory! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!"[11] Julia Ward Howe was married to Samuel Gridley Howe, the famed scholar in education of the blind. Samuel and Julia were also active leaders in anti- slavery politics and strong supporters of the Union. Samuel Howe was a member of the Secret Six, the group who funded John Brown's work.[citation needed] Score[edit] "Canaan's Happy Shore" has a verse and chorus of equal metrical length and both verse and chorus share an identical melody and rhythm. "John Brown's Body" has more syllables in its verse and uses a more rhythmically active variation of the "Canaan" melody to accommodate the additional words in the verse. In Howe's lyrics, the words of the verse are packed into a yet longer line, with even more syllables than "John Brown's Body." The verse still uses the same underlying melody as the refrain, but the addition of many dotted rhythms to the underlying melody allows for the more complex verse to fit the same melody as the comparatively short refrain. One version of the melody, in C major, begins as below. This is an example of the mediant-octave modal frame. 12 0:00 Lyrics[edit] Howe submitted the lyrics she wrote to The Atlantic Monthly, and it was first published in the February 1862 issue of the magazine.[12][13] First published version[edit] Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on. (Chorus) Glory, Glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! His truth is marching on. I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps, They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps; I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps: His day is marching on. (Chorus) Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! His truth is marching on. I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel: "As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal"; Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel, Since God is marching on. (Chorus) Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! His truth is marching on. He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat; Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant, my feet! Our God is marching on. (Chorus) Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! 13 Glory, glory, hallelujah! Our God is marching on. In the beauty of the lilies[14] Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me. As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,[15] While God is marching on. (Chorus) Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! Our God is marching on. * Many modern recordings of the Battle Hymn of the Republic use the lyric "As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free" as opposed to the lyric originally written by Julia Ward Howe: "let us die to make men free."[citation needed] Other versions[edit] Howe's original manuscript differed slightly from the published version. Most significantly, it included a final verse: He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave, He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave, So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave, Our God is marching on. (Chorus) Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! Our God is marching on! In the 1862 sheet music, the chorus always begins: Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!"[16] Recordings and public performances[edit]  In 1960 the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square won the Grammy Award for Best Performance by a Vocal Group or Chorus. The 45 rpm single record, which was arranged and edited by Columbia Records and Cleveland disk jockey Bill Randle, was a commercial success and reached #13 on Billboard's Hot 100 the previous autumn. It is the choir's only Top 40 hit in the Hot 100.[17]  Judy Garland performed this song on her weekly television show in December 1963. She originally wanted to do a dedication show for President John F. Kennedy upon his assassination, but CBS would 14 not let her, so she performed the song without being able to mention his name.[18]  Andy Williams experienced commercial success in 1968 with an a cappella version recorded at Senator Robert Kennedy's funeral. Backed by the St. Charles Borromeo choir, his version reached #11 on the adult contemporary chart and #33 on the Billboard Hot 100.[19]  Anita Bryant performed it January 17, 1971, at the halftime show of Super Bowl V.  The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square performed this song at the inaugural parade of President Ronald Reagan on January 20, 1981.  Track One on the album The Real Ale and Thunder Band "At Vespers", recorded at St. Laurence's Parish Church, Downton by BBC Radio Solent, 18 November 1984.  It was performed in St. Paul's Cathedral on September 14, 2001, as part of a memorial service for those lost in the September 11, 2001 attacks.[20]  The Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir also sang this song at President Barack Obama's Second Presidential Inauguration Ceremony on January 21, 2013.  The Mother Bethel AME Church Choir from Philadelphia performed this song during the opening day of the Democratic National Convention on July 25, 2016.[21]  A U.S. military choir and band performed this song at the pre- inauguration ceremony of President-Elect Donald Trump on January 19, 2017, at the Lincoln Memorial.  The Naval Academy Glee Club performed this song on September 1, 2018 at the funeral of Sen. John McCain at the Washington National Cathedral. Influence[edit] This section may contain indiscriminate, excessive,  or irrelevant examples. Please improve the article by adding more and removing less pertinent examples. See Wikipedia's guide to w articles for further suggestions. (December 2019)  Popularity and widespread use[edit] In the years since the Civil War, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" has been used frequently as an American patriotic song.[22] In association football[edit] Main article: Glory Glory (football chant) The refrain "Glory, glory, hallelujah!" has been adopted by fans of a number of sporting teams, most notably in the English and Scottish Premier Leagues. The popular use of the tune by Tottenham Hotspur can be traced to September 1961 during the 1961–62 European Cup. Their first opponents in the competition were the Polish side Górnik Zabrze, and the Polish press described the Spurs team as "no angels" due to their rough tackling. In the return leg at White Hart Lane, some fans then wore angel costumes at the match holding placards with 15 slogans such as "Glory be to shining White Hart Lane", and the crowded started singing the refrain "Glory, glory, hallelujah" as Spurs beat the Poles 8–1, starting the tradition at Tottenham.[23] It was released as the B- side to "Ozzie's Dream" for the 1981 Cup Final. The theme was then picked up by Hibernian, with Hector Nicol's release of the track "Glory, glory to the Hibees" in 1963.[24][25] "Glory, Glory Leeds United" was a popular chant during Leeds' 1970 FA Cup run. Manchester United fans picked it up as "Glory, Glory Man United" during the 1983 FA Cup Final. As a result of its popularity with these and other British teams, it has spread internationally and to other sporting codes. An example of its reach is its popularity with fans of the Australian Rugby League team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs (Glory, Glory to South Sydney) and to A- League team Perth Glory. Cultural influences[edit] Words from the first verse gave John Steinbeck's wife Carol Steinbeck the title of his 1939 masterpiece The Grapes of Wrath.[26] The title of John Updike's In the Beauty of the Lilies also came from this song, as did Terrible Swift Sword and Never Call Retreat, two volumes in Bruce Catton's Centennial History of the Civil War. Terrible Swift Sword is also the name of a board wargame simulating the Battle of Gettysburg.[27] The lyrics of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" appear in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s sermons and speeches, most notably in his speech "How Long, Not Long" from the steps of the Alabama State Capitol building on March 25, 1965, after the 3rd Selma March, and in his final sermon "I've Been to the Mountaintop", delivered in Memphis, Tennessee on the evening of April 3, 1968, the night before his assassination. In fact, the latter sermon, King's last public words, ends with the first lyrics of the "Battle Hymn": "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord." Bishop Michael B. Curry of North Carolina, after his election as the first African American Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, delivered a sermon to the Church's General Convention on July 3, 2015, in which the lyrics of The Battle Hymn framed the message of God's love. After proclaiming "Glory, glory, hallelujah, His truth is marching on", a letter from President Barack Obama was read, congratulating Bishop Curry on his historic election.[28] Curry is known for quoting The Battle Hymn during his sermons. The tune has played a role in many movies where patriotic music has been required, including the 1970 World War II war comedy Kelly's Heroes, and the 1999 sci-fi western Wild Wild West. The inscription, "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord", is written at the feet of the sculpture of the fallen soldier at the American Cemetery in Normandy, France. 16 Baumb, Nelly From:Cmptrgru34 <cmptrgru34@aol.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:Gettysburg Address CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello This is Steve Johnson Gettysburg Address From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search One of the two confirmed photos of Lincoln[1][2][3] (center, facing camera) at Gettysburg, taken about noon, just after he arrived and some three hours before his speech. To his right is his bodyguard, Ward Hill Lamon. 17 This article is part of  a series about  Abraham Lincoln   Views on slavery   Views on religion   Electoral history     Early life and career   Political career, 1849–1861   Family   Health     Lincoln–Douglas debates   Cooper Union speech   Farewell Address    President of the United States   Presidency    First term   1st inauguration    o Address   American Civil War    o The Union  o Emancipation Proclamation  o Ten percent plan  o Gettysburg Address  o 13th Amendment    Second term   2nd inauguration    o Address   Reconstruction    Presidential elections   1860    o Convention   1864    18 o Convention    Assassination and legacy   Assassination   Funeral   Historical reputation   Memorials   Depictions   Topical guide   Bibliography       v   t   e  The Gettysburg Address is a speech that U.S. President Abraham Lincoln delivered during the American Civil War at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863, four and a half months after the Union armies defeated those of the Confederacy at the Battle of Gettysburg. It is one of the best-known speeches in American history.[4][5] Not even the day's primary speech, Lincoln's carefully crafted address came to be seen as one of the greatest and most influential statements of American national purpose. In just 271 words, beginning with the now iconic phrase "Four score and seven years ago," referring to the signing of the Declaration of Independence[6] 87 years earlier, Lincoln described the US as a nation "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," and represented the Civil War as a test that would determine whether such a nation, the Union sundered by the secession crisis,[7] could endure. He extolled the sacrifices of those who died at Gettysburg in defense of those principles, and exhorted his listeners to resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom[8]—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.[6][9] Despite the prominent place of the speech in the history and popular culture of the United States, its exact wording is disputed. The five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's hand differ in 19 a number of details, and also differ from contemporary newspaper reprints of the speech. Neither is it clear where stood the platform from which Lincoln delivered the address. Modern scholarship locates the speakers' platform 40 yards (or more) away from the traditional site in Soldiers' National Cemetery at the Soldiers' National Monument, such that it stood entirely within the private, adjacent Evergreen Cemetery. David Wills invited Lincoln to speak. [ ] Contents  1Background  2Program and Everett's "Gettysburg Oration"  3Text of the Gettysburg Address  4Lincoln's sources  5Five manuscripts o 5.1Nicolay copy o 5.2Hay copy o 5.3Everett copy o 5.4Bancroft copy o 5.5Bliss copy o 5.6Others  6Contemporary sources and reaction o 6.1Audio recollections o 6.2Photographs o 6.3Usage of "under God"  7Platform location o 7.1Pre-modern o 7.2Photo analysis  7.2.12-D and optical stereoscopy o 7.3Resolution 20  8Legacy o 8.1Envelope and other myths  9See also  10Notes  11References  12Bibliography o 12.1Primary sources  13External links Background Union soldiers dead at Gettysburg, photographed by Timothy H. O'Sullivan, July 5–6, 1863 Following the Battle of Gettysburg on July 1–3, 1863, the removal of the fallen Union soldiers from the Gettysburg Battlefield graves and their reburial in graves at the National Cemetery at Gettysburg began on October 17. In inviting President Lincoln to the ceremonies, David Wills, of the committee for the November 19 Consecration of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, wrote, "It is the desire that, after the Oration, you, as Chief Executive of the nation, formally set apart these grounds to their sacred use by a few appropriate remarks."[10] On the train trip from Washington, D.C., to Gettysburg on November 18, Lincoln was accompanied by three members of his Cabinet, William Seward, John Usher and Montgomery Blair, several foreign officials, his secretary John Nicolay, and his assistant secretary, John Hay. During the trip Lincoln remarked to Hay that he felt weak; on the morning of November 19, Lincoln mentioned to Nicolay that he was dizzy. Hay noted that during the speech Lincoln's face had "a ghastly color" and that he was "sad, mournful, almost haggard." After the speech, when Lincoln boarded the 6:30 pm train for Washington, D.C., he was feverish and weak, with a severe headache. A protracted illness followed, which included a vesicular rash; it was diagnosed as a mild case of smallpox. It thus seems highly likely that Lincoln was in the prodromal period of smallpox when he delivered the Gettysburg address.[11] Program and Everett's "Gettysburg Oration" 21 Edward Everett delivered a two-hour oration before Lincoln's short remarks. The program organized for that day by Wills and his committee included: Music, by Birgfeld's Band[12] ("Homage d'uns Heros" by Adolph Birgfeld) Prayer, by Reverend T. H. Stockton, D.D. Music, by the Marine Band ("Old Hundred"), directed by Francis Scala Oration, by Hon. Edward Everett ("The Battles of Gettysburg") Music, Hymn ("Consecration Chant") by B. B. French, Esq., music by Wilson G Horner, sung by Baltimore Glee Club Dedicatory Remarks, by the President of the United States Dirge ("Oh! It is Great for Our Country to Die", words by James G. Percival, music by Alfred Delaney), sung by Choir selected for the occasion Benediction, by Reverend H. L. Baugher, D.D.[10] While it is Lincoln's short speech that has gone down in history as one of the finest examples of English public oratory, it was Everett's two-hour oration that was slated to be the "Gettysburg address" that day. His now seldom-read 13,607-word oration began: Standing beneath this serene sky, overlooking these broad fields now reposing from the labors of the waning year, the mighty Alleghenies dimly towering before us, the graves of our brethren beneath our feet, it is with hesitation that I raise my poor voice to break the eloquent silence of God and Nature. But the duty to which you have called me must be performed;—grant me, I pray you, your indulgence and your sympathy.[13] And ended two hours later with: But they, I am sure, will join us in saying, as we bid farewell to the dust of these martyr-heroes, that wheresoever throughout the civilized world the accounts of this great warfare are read, and down to the latest period of 22 recorded time, in the glorious annals of our common country, there will be no brighter page than that which relates the Battles of Gettysburg.[14] Lengthy dedication addresses like Everett's were common at cemeteries in this era. The tradition began in 1831 when Justice Joseph Story delivered the dedication address at Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Those addresses often linked cemeteries to the mission of Union.[15] Lincoln's address followed the oration by Edward Everett, who subsequently included a copy of the Gettysburg Address in his 1864 book about the event (Address of the Hon. Edward Everett At the Consecration of the National Cemetery At Gettysburg, 19th November 1863, with the Dedicatory Speech of President Lincoln, and the Other Exercises of the Occasion; Accompanied by An Account of the Origin of the Undertaking and of the Arrangement of the Cemetery Grounds, and by a Map of the Battle-field and a Plan of the Cemetery). Text of the Gettysburg Address   Gettysburg Address  Read by Britton Rea  2006      MENU 0:00 Audio 00:01:50    Problems playing this file? See media  help.  Shortly after Everett's well-received remarks, Lincoln spoke for only a few minutes.[16] With a "few appropriate remarks", he was able to summarize his view of the war in just ten sentences. Despite the historical significance of Lincoln's speech, modern scholars disagree as to its exact wording, and contemporary transcriptions published in newspaper accounts of the event and even handwritten copies by Lincoln himself differ in their wording, punctuation, and structure.[17][18] Of these versions, the Bliss version, written well after the speech as a favor for a friend, is viewed by many as the standard text.[19] Its text differs, however, from the written versions prepared by Lincoln before and after his speech. It is the only version to which Lincoln affixed his signature, and the last he is known to have written.[19] 23 The five extant versions of Lincoln's remarks, presented as a single annotated text[a][b][c][d][e] Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate— we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. —Abraham Lincoln Lincoln's sources In Lincoln at Gettysburg, Garry Wills notes the parallels between Lincoln's speech and Pericles's Funeral Oration during the Peloponnesian War as described by Thucydides. (James McPherson notes this connection in his review of Wills's book.[20] Gore Vidal also draws attention to this link in a BBC documentary about oration.[21]) Pericles' speech, like Lincoln's: 24  Begins with an acknowledgment of revered predecessors: "I shall begin with our ancestors: it is both just and proper that they should have the honor of the first mention on an occasion like the present"  Praises the uniqueness of the State's commitment to democracy: "If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences"  Honors the sacrifice of the slain, "Thus choosing to die resisting, rather than to live submitting, they fled only from dishonor, but met danger face to face"  Exhorts the living to continue the struggle: "You, their survivors, must determine to have as unfaltering a resolution in the field, though you may pray that it may have a happier issue."[20][22] In contrast, writer Adam Gopnik, in The New Yorker, notes that while Everett's Oration was explicitly neoclassical, referring directly to Marathon and Pericles, "Lincoln's rhetoric is, instead, deliberately Biblical. (It is difficult to find a single obviously classical reference in any of his speeches.) Lincoln had mastered the sound of the King James Bible so completely that he could recast abstract issues of constitutional law in Biblical terms, making the proposition that Texas and New Hampshire should be forever bound by a single post office sound like something right out of Genesis."[17] Detail of Elihu Vedder's mural Government (1896), in the Library of Congress. The title figure bears a tablet inscribed with Lincoln's famous phrase. Several theories have been advanced by Lincoln scholars to explain the provenance of Lincoln's famous phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people". Despite many claims, there is no evidence a similar phrase appears in the Prologue to John Wycliffe's 1384 English translation of the Bible.[23] In a discussion "A more probable origin of a famous Lincoln phrase",[24] in The American Monthly Review of Reviews, Albert Shaw credits a correspondent with pointing out the writings of William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, who wrote in the 1888 work Abraham Lincoln: The True Story of A Great Life that he had brought to Lincoln some of the sermons of abolitionist minister Theodore Parker, of Massachusetts, and that Lincoln was moved by Parker's use of this idea: 25 I brought with me additional sermons and lectures of Theodore Parker, who was warm in his commendation of Lincoln. One of these was a lecture on 'The Effect of Slavery on the American People' ... which I gave to Lincoln, who read and returned it. He liked especially the following expression, which he marked with a pencil, and which he in substance afterwards used in his Gettysburg Address: 'Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, for all the people, by all the people.'[25] Craig R. Smith, in "Criticism of Political Rhetoric and Disciplinary Integrity", suggested Lincoln's view of the government as expressed in the Gettysburg Address was influenced by the noted speech of Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, the "Second Reply to Hayne", in which Webster famously thundered "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[26] Specifically, in this speech on January 26, 1830, before the United States Senate, Webster described the federal government as: "made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people", foreshadowing Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people".[27] Webster also noted, "This government, Sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties."[27] A source predating these others with which Lincoln was certainly familiar was Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), a case upholding federal authority to create a national bank and to be free from the State's powers to tax. In asserting the superiority of federal power over the states, Chief Justice Marshall stated: "The government of the Union, then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit." Lincoln, a lawyer and President engaged in the greatest struggle of federalism, was (more eloquently) echoing the preeminent case that had solidified federal power over the States. Wills observed Lincoln's usage of the imagery of birth, life, and death in reference to a nation "brought forth", "conceived", and that shall not "perish".[28] Others, including Allen C. Guelzo, the director of Civil War Era studies at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania,[29] suggested that Lincoln's formulation "four score and seven" was an allusion to the King James Version of the Bible's Psalms 90:10, in which man's lifespan is given as "threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years".[30][31] Lincoln was probably influenced by Lajos Kossuth—the formerly governor of Hungary—who gave a speech before the Ohio State Legislature in February 1852: "The spirit of our age is Democracy. All for the people, and all by the people. Nothing about the people without the people—That is Democracy! […]"[32] 26 Five manuscripts Each of the five known manuscript copies of the Gettysburg Address is named for the person who received it from Lincoln. Lincoln gave copies to his private secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay.[33] Both of these drafts were written around the time of his November 19 address, while the other three copies of the address, the Everett, Bancroft, and Bliss copies, were written by Lincoln for charitable purposes well after November 19.[34][35] In part because Lincoln provided a title and signed and dated the Bliss copy, it has become the standard text of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.[36] External video   Discussion with Garry Wills on the Nicolay and Hay manuscript  copies held by the Library of Congress, December 12, 1994, C‐SPAN  Nicolay and Hay were appointed custodians of Lincoln's papers by Lincoln's son Robert Todd Lincoln in 1874.[33] After appearing in facsimile in an article written by John Nicolay in 1894, the Nicolay copy was presumably among the papers passed to Hay by Nicolay's daughter Helen upon Nicolay's death in 1901. Robert Lincoln began a search for the original copy in 1908, which resulted in the discovery of a handwritten copy of the Gettysburg Address among the bound papers of John Hay—a copy now known as the "Hay copy" or "Hay draft".[33] The Hay draft differed from the version of the Gettysburg Address published by John Nicolay in 1894 in a number of significant ways: it was written on a different type of paper, had a different number of words per line and number of lines, and contained editorial revisions in Lincoln's hand.[33] Both the Hay and Nicolay copies of the Address are within the Library of Congress, encased in specially designed, temperature-controlled, sealed containers with argon gas in order to protect the documents from oxidation and continued deterioration.[37] Nicolay copy The Nicolay copy[a] is often called the "first draft" because it is believed to be the earliest copy that exists.[38][39] Scholars disagree over whether the Nicolay copy was actually the reading copy Lincoln held at Gettysburg on November 19. In an 1894 article that included a facsimile of this copy, Nicolay, who had become the custodian of Lincoln's papers, wrote that Lincoln had brought to Gettysburg the first part of the speech written in ink on Executive Mansion stationery, and that he had written the second page in pencil on lined paper before the dedication on November 19.[38] Matching folds are still evident on the two pages, suggesting it could be the copy that eyewitnesses say Lincoln took from his coat pocket and read at the ceremony.[39][40] Others believe that the delivery text 27 has been lost, because some of the words and phrases of the Nicolay copy do not match contemporary transcriptions of Lincoln's original speech.[41] The words "under God", for example, are missing in this copy from the phrase "that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom ..." In order for the Nicolay draft to have been the reading copy, either the contemporary transcriptions were inaccurate, or Lincoln would have had to depart from his written text in several instances. This copy of the Gettysburg Address apparently remained in John Nicolay's possession until his death in 1901, when it passed to his friend and colleague John Hay.[33] It used to be on display as part of the American Treasures exhibition of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.[42] Hay copy The Hay copy, with Lincoln's handwritten corrections The existence of the Hay copy[b] was first announced to the public in 1906, after the search for the "original manuscript" of the Address among the papers of John Hay brought it to light.[33] Significantly, it differs somewhat from the manuscript of the Address described by John Nicolay in his article, and contains numerous omissions and inserts in Lincoln's own hand, including omissions critical to the basic meaning of the sentence, not simply words that would be added by Lincoln to strengthen or clarify their meaning. In this copy, as in the Nicolay copy, the words "under God" are not present. This version has been described as "the most inexplicable" of the drafts and is sometimes referred to as the "second draft".[39][43] The "Hay copy" was made either on the morning of the delivery of the Address, or shortly after Lincoln's return to Washington. Those who believe that it was completed on the morning of his address point to the fact that it contains certain phrases that are not in the first draft but are in the reports of the 28 address as delivered and in subsequent copies made by Lincoln. It is probable, they conclude, that, as stated in the explanatory note accompanying the original copies of the first and second drafts in the Library of Congress, Lincoln held this second draft when he delivered the address.[44] Lincoln eventually gave this copy to Hay, whose descendants donated both it and the Nicolay copy to the Library of Congress in 1916.[45] Everett copy The Everett copy,[c] also known as the "Everett-Keyes copy", was sent by President Lincoln to Edward Everett in early 1864, at Everett's request. Everett was collecting the speeches at the Gettysburg dedication into one bound volume to sell for the benefit of stricken soldiers at New York's Sanitary Commission Fair. The draft Lincoln sent became the third autograph copy, and is now in the possession of the Illinois State Historical Library in Springfield, Illinois,[44] where it is displayed in the Treasures Gallery of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum. Bancroft copy The Bancroft copy[d] of the Gettysburg Address was written out by President Lincoln in February 1864 at the request of George Bancroft, the famed historian and former Secretary of the Navy, whose comprehensive ten-volume History of the United States later led him to be known as the "father of American History".[46][47] Bancroft planned to include this copy in Autograph Leaves of Our Country's Authors, which he planned to sell at a Soldiers' and Sailors' Sanitary Fair in Baltimore. As this fourth copy was written on both sides of the paper, it proved unusable for this purpose, and Bancroft was allowed to keep it. This manuscript is the only one accompanied both by a letter from Lincoln transmitting the manuscript and by the original envelope addressed and franked by Lincoln.[48] This copy remained in the Bancroft family for many years, was sold to various dealers and purchased by Nicholas and Marguerite Lilly Noyes,[49] who donated the manuscript to Cornell University in 1949. It is now held by the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections in the Carl A. Kroch Library at Cornell.[44] It is the only one of the five copies to be privately owned.[50] Bliss copy The Bliss copy, on display in the Lincoln Room of the White House 29 Discovering that his fourth written copy could not be used, Lincoln then wrote a fifth draft, which was accepted for the purpose requested. The Bliss copy,[e] named for Colonel Alexander Bliss, Bancroft's stepson and publisher of Autograph Leaves, is the only draft to which Lincoln affixed his signature. Lincoln is not known to have made any further copies of the Gettysburg Address. Because of the apparent care in its preparation, and in part, because Lincoln provided a title and signed and dated this copy, it has become the standard version of the address and the source for most facsimile reproductions of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It is the version that is inscribed on the South wall of the Lincoln Memorial.[36] This draft is now displayed in the Lincoln Room of the White House, a gift of Oscar B. Cintas, former Cuban Ambassador to the United States.[44] Cintas, a wealthy collector of art and manuscripts, purchased the Bliss copy at a public auction in 1949 for $54,000 ($580,000 as of 2020), at that time the highest price ever paid for a document at public auction.[51] Cintas' properties were claimed by the Castro government after the Cuban Revolution in 1959, but Cintas, who died in 1957, willed the Gettysburg Address to the American people, provided it would be kept at the White House, where it was transferred in 1959.[52] Garry Wills concluded the Bliss copy "is stylistically preferable to others in one significant way: Lincoln removed 'here' from 'that cause for which they (here) gave ... ' The seventh 'here' is in all other versions of the speech." Wills noted the fact that Lincoln "was still making such improvements", suggesting Lincoln was more concerned with a perfected text than with an 'original' one.[53] From November 21, 2008, to January 1, 2009, the Albert H. Small Documents Gallery at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History hosted a limited public viewing of the Bliss copy, with the support of then-First Lady Laura Bush. The Museum also launched an online exhibition and interactive gallery to enable visitors to look more closely at the document.[54] Others Another contemporary source of the text is the Associated Press dispatch, transcribed from the shorthand notes taken by reporter Joseph L. Gilbert. It also differs from the drafted text in a number of minor ways.[55][56] Contemporary sources and reaction 30 The New York Times article from November 20, 1863, indicates Lincoln's speech was interrupted five times by applause and was followed by "long continued applause."[57] Eyewitness reports vary as to their view of Lincoln's performance. In 1931, the printed recollections of 87-year-old Mrs. Sarah A. Cooke Myers, who was 19 when she attended the ceremony, suggest a dignified silence followed Lincoln's speech: "I was close to the President and heard all of the Address, but it seemed short. Then there was an impressive silence like our Menallen Friends Meeting. There was no applause when he stopped speaking."[58] According to historian Shelby Foote, after Lincoln's presentation, the applause was delayed, scattered, and "barely polite".[59] In contrast, Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Gregg Curtin maintained, "He pronounced that speech in a voice that all the multitude heard. The crowd was hushed into silence because the President stood before them ... It was so Impressive! It was the common remark of everybody. Such a speech, as they said it was!"[60] Reinterment of soldiers' remains from field graves into the cemetery, which had begun within months of the battle, was less than half complete on the day of the ceremony.[61] 31 In an oft-repeated legend, Lincoln is said to have turned to his bodyguard Ward Hill Lamon and remarked that his speech, like a bad plow, "won't scour". According to Garry Wills, this statement has no basis in fact and largely originates from the unreliable recollections of Lamon.[10] In Garry Wills's view, "[Lincoln] had done what he wanted to do [at Gettysburg]". In a letter to Lincoln written the following day, Everett praised the President for his eloquent and concise speech, saying, "I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."[62] Lincoln replied that he was glad to know the speech was not a "total failure".[62] Other public reaction to the speech was divided along partisan lines.[6] The Democratic-leaning Chicago Times observed, "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."[63] In contrast, the Republican-leaning The New York Times was complimentary and printed the speech.[57] In Massachusetts, the Springfield Republican also printed the entire speech, calling it "a perfect gem" that was "deep in feeling, compact in thought and expression, and tasteful and elegant in every word and comma". The Republican predicted that Lincoln's brief remarks would "repay further study as the model speech".[64] On the sesquicentennial of the address, The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, formerly the Patriot & Union, retracted its original reaction ("silly remarks" deserving "the veil of oblivion") stating: "Seven score and ten years ago, the forefathers of this media institution brought forth to its audience a judgment so flawed, so tainted by hubris, so lacking in the perspective history would bring, that it cannot remain unaddressed in our archives. ... the Patriot & Union failed to recognize [the speech's] momentous importance, timeless eloquence, and lasting significance. The Patriot-News regrets the error."[65][66] Foreign newspapers also criticized Lincoln's remarks. The Times of London commented: "The ceremony [at Gettysburg] was rendered ludicrous by some of the luckless sallies of that poor President Lincoln."[67] Congressman Joseph A. Goulden, then an eighteen-year-old school teacher, was present and heard the speech. He served in the United States Marine Corps during the war, and later had a successful career in insurance in Pennsylvania and New York City before entering Congress as a Democrat. In his later life, Goulden was often asked about the speech, since the passage of time made him one of a dwindling number of individuals who had been present for it. He commented on the event and Lincoln's speech in favorable terms, naming Lincoln's address as one of the inspirations for him to enter military service. Goulden's recollections included remarks to the House of Representatives in 1914.[68][69] Audio recollections 32 William R. Rathvon is the only known eyewitness of both Lincoln's arrival at Gettysburg and the address itself to have left an audio recording of his recollections which can be found here [1] .[70] One year before his death in 1939, Rathvon's reminiscences were recorded on February 12, 1938, at the Boston studios of radio station WRUL, including his reading the address, itself, and a 78 RPM record was pressed. The title of the 78 record was "I Heard Lincoln That Day – William R. Rathvon, TR Productions". A copy wound up at National Public Radio (NPR) during a "Quest for Sound" project in 1999.[71] This link depicts the story but it can no longer play it. Like most people who came to Gettysburg, the Rathvon family was aware that Lincoln was going to make some remarks. The family went to the town square where the procession was to form to go out to the cemetery that had not been completed yet. At the head of the procession rode Lincoln on a gray horse preceded by a military band that was the first the young boy had ever seen. Rathvon describes Lincoln as so tall and with such long legs that they went almost to the ground; he also mentions the long eloquent speech given by Edward Everett of Massachusetts whom Rathvon accurately described as the "most finished orator of the day". Rathvon then goes on to describe how Lincoln stepped forward and "with a manner serious almost to sadness, gave his brief address". During the delivery, along with some other boys, young Rathvon wiggled his way forward through the crowd until he stood within 15 feet of Mr. Lincoln and looked up into what he described as Lincoln's "serious face". Rathvon recalls candidly that, although he listened "intently to every word the president uttered and heard it clearly", he explains, "boylike, I could not recall any of it afterwards". But he explains that if anyone said anything disparaging about "honest Abe", there would have been a "junior battle of Gettysburg". In the recording Rathvon speaks of Lincoln's speech allegorically "echoing through the hills". Photographs The only known and confirmed photograph of Lincoln at Gettysburg,[72] taken by photographer David Bachrach[73] was identified in the Mathew Brady collection of photographic plates in the National Archives and Records Administration in 1952. While Lincoln's speech was short and may have precluded multiple pictures of him while speaking, he and the other dignitaries sat for hours during the rest of the program. Given the length of Everett's speech and the length of time it took for 19th-century photographers to get "set up" before taking a picture, it is quite plausible that the photographers were ill-prepared for the brevity of Lincoln's remarks. 33 Cropped view of the Bachrach photo, with a red arrow indicating Lincoln Usage of "under God" The words "under God" do not appear in the Nicolay and Hay drafts but are included in the three later copies (Everett, Bancroft, and Bliss). Accordingly, some skeptics maintain that Lincoln did not utter the words "under God" at Gettysburg.[74][75] However, at least three reporters telegraphed the text of Lincoln's speech on the day the Address was given with the words "under God" included. Historian William E. Barton argues that:[76] Every stenographic report, good, bad and indifferent, says 'that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.' There was no common source from which all the reporters could have obtained those words but from Lincoln's own lips at the time of delivery. It will not do to say that [Secretary of War] Stanton suggested those words after Lincoln's return to Washington, for the words were telegraphed by at least three reporters on the afternoon of the delivery. The reporters present included Joseph Gilbert, from the Associated Press; Charles Hale, from the Boston Advertiser;[77] John R. Young (who later became the Librarian of Congress), from the Philadelphia Press; and reporters from the Cincinnati Commercial,[78] New York Tribune,[79] and The New York Times.[79] Charles Hale "had notebook and pencil in hand, [and] took down the slow-spoken words of the President".[80] "He took down what he declared was the exact language of Lincoln's address, and his declaration was as good as the oath of a court 34 stenographer. His associates confirmed his testimony, which was received, as it deserved to be, at its face value."[81] One explanation is that Lincoln deviated from his prepared text and inserted the phrase when he spoke. Ronald C. White, visiting professor of history at the University of California, Los Angeles and professor of American religious history emeritus at the San Francisco Theological Seminary, wrote in this context of Lincoln's insertion and usage of "under God": It was an uncharacteristically spontaneous revision for a speaker who did not trust extemporaneous speech. Lincoln had added impromptu words in several earlier speeches, but always offered a subsequent apology for the change. In this instance, he did not. And Lincoln included "under God" in all three copies of the address he prepared at later dates. "Under God" pointed backward and forward: back to "this nation", which drew its breath from both political and religious sources, but also forward to a "new birth". Lincoln had come to see the Civil War as a ritual of purification. The old Union had to die. The old man had to die. Death became a transition to a new Union and a new humanity.[8] The phrase "under God" was used frequently in works published before 1860, usually with the meaning "with God's help".[82] Platform location Designations  Pennsylvania Historical Marker  Official  name  Gettysburg Address  Type Roadside  Designated December 12, 1947[83]  Location PA 134 (Taneytown Rd.) at entrance to National  Cemetery  Baltimore St. (old US 140) & PA 134 at entrance to  National Cemetery  35 The Lincoln Address Memorial, designed by Louis Henrick, with bust of Lincoln by Henry Kirke Bush-Brown, erected at the Gettysburg National Cemetery in 1912.[84] Outside the Cemetery and within sight of the crosswalk, a historical marker reads: Nearby, Nov. 19, 1863, in dedicating the National Cemetery, Abraham Lincoln gave the address which he had written in Washington and revised after his arrival at Gettysburg the evening of November 18.[85] Directly inside the Taneytown Road entrance are located the Rostrum and the Lincoln Address Memorial. Neither of these is located within 300 yards of any of the five (or more) claimed locations for the dedicatory platform.[86] Pre-modern Analysis of this photograph, taken by Alexander Gardner looking northeast on November 19, 1863, rules out the Traditional Site at Soldiers' National Monument as a possible location for the speaker's platform. Colonel W. Yates Selleck was a marshal in the parade on Consecration Day and was seated on the platform when Lincoln made the address.[87] Selleck marked a map with the position of the platform and described it as "350 feet almost due north of Soldiers' National Monument, 40 feet from a point in the outer circle of lots where [the] Michigan and New York [burial sections] are separated by a path".[88] A location which approximates this description is 39°49.243′N, 77°13.869′W. As pointed out in 1973 by retired park historian Frederick Tilberg, the Selleck Site is 25 feet lower than the crest of Cemetery Hill, and only 36 the crest presents a panoramic view of the battlefield. A spectacular view from the location of the speech was noted by many eyewitnesses, is consistent with the Traditional Site at the Soldiers' National Monument (and other sites on the crest) but is inconsistent with the Selleck Site.[89][90] The Kentucky Memorial, erected in 1975, is directly adjacent to the Soldiers' National Monument, and states, "Kentucky honors her son, Abraham Lincoln, who delivered his immortal address at the site now marked by the soldiers' monument."[91] With its position at the center of the concentric rings of soldiers' graves and the continuing endorsement of Lincoln's native state the Soldiers' National Monument persists as a credible location for the speech. Writing a physical description of the layout for the Gettysburg National Cemetery under construction in November 1863, the correspondent from the Cincinnati Daily Commercial described the dividing lines between the state grave plots as "the radii of a common center, where a flag pole is now raised, but where it is proposed to erect a national monument".[92] With the inclusion of this quotation Tilberg inadvertently verifies a central principle of future photographic analyses—a flagpole, rather than the speakers' platform, occupied the central point of the soldiers' graves. In fact, the precision of the photo-analyses relies upon the coincidence of position between this temporary flag pole and the future monument. Confusing to today's tourist, the Kentucky Memorial is contradicted by a newer marker which was erected nearby by the Gettysburg National Military Park and locates the speakers' platform inside Evergreen Cemetery.[93] Similarly, outdated National Park Service documents which pinpoint the location at the Soldiers' National Monument have not been systematically revised since the placement of the newer marker.[94][95] Miscellaneous web pages perpetuate the Traditional Site.[96][97][98] Photo analysis 2-D and optical stereoscopy Based upon photographic analysis, the Gettysburg National Military Park (G.N.M.P.) placed a marker (near 39°49.199′N 77°13.840′W) which states, "The speakers' platform was located in Evergreen Cemetery to your left."[99][100] The observer of this marker stands facing the fence which separates the two cemeteries (one public and one private). 37 In 1982, Senior Park Historian Kathleen Georg Harrison first analyzed photographs and proposed a location in Evergreen Cemetery but has not published her analysis. Speaking for Harrison without revealing details, two sources characterize her proposed location as "on or near [the] Brown family vault" in Evergreen Cemetery.[101][102] William A. Frassanito, a former military intelligence analyst, documented a comprehensive photographic analysis in 1995, and it associates the location of the platform with the position of specific modern headstones in Evergreen Cemetery. According to Frassanito, the extant graves of Israel Yount (died 1892)(39°49.180′N 77°13.845′W), John Koch (died 1913)(39°49.184′N 77°13.847′W), and George E. Kitzmiller (died 1874)(39°49.182′N 77°13.841′W) are among those which occupy the location of the 1863 speaker's stand.[103] Resolution Frassanito's analysis places the dedicatory platform at the graves of George Kitzmiller, Israel Yount and John Koch. Popular (and erroneous) locations are indicated in the distant background. The GNMP marker, Wills' interpretation of Harrison's analysis, and the Frassanito analysis concur that the platform was located in private Evergreen Cemetery, rather than public Soldiers' National Cemetery. The National Park Service's National Cemetery Walking Tour brochure is one NPS document which agrees: The Soldiers' National Monument, long misidentified as the spot from which Lincoln spoke, honors the fallen soldiers. [The location of the speech] was actually on the crown of this hill, a short distance on the other side of the iron fence and inside the Evergreen Cemetery, where President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address to a crowd of some 15,000 people.[104] 38 While the GNMP marker is unspecific, providing only "to your left", the locations determined by the Harrison/Wills analysis and the Frassanito analysis differ by 40 yards. Frassanito has documented 1) his own conclusion, 2) his own methods and 3) a refutation of the Harrison site,[105] but neither the GNMP nor Harrison has provided any documentation. Each of the three points to a location in Evergreen Cemetery, as do modern NPS publications. Although Lincoln dedicated the Gettysburg National Cemetery, the monument at the Cemetery's center actually has nothing to do with Lincoln or his famous speech. Intended to symbolize Columbia paying tribute to her fallen sons, its appreciation has been commandeered by the thirst for a tidy home for the speech.[106] Freeing the Cemetery and Monument to serve their original purpose, honoring of Union departed, is as unlikely as a resolution to the location controversy and the erection of a public monument to the speech in the exclusively private Evergreen Cemetery.[107] Legacy The words of the Gettysburg Address inside the Lincoln Memorial. The importance of the Gettysburg Address in the history of the United States is underscored by its enduring presence in American culture. In addition to its prominent place carved into a stone cella on the south wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., the Gettysburg Address is frequently referred to in works of popular culture, with the implicit expectation that contemporary audiences will be familiar with Lincoln's words. In the many generations that have passed since the Address, it has remained among the most famous speeches in American history,[108] and is often taught in classes about history or civics.[109] Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is itself referenced in another of those famed orations,Martin 39 Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.[110] Standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in August 1963, King began with a reference, by the style of his opening phrase, to President Lincoln and his enduring words: "Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice." Phrases from the Address are often used or referenced in other works. The current Constitution of France states that the principle of the French Republic is "gouvernement du peuple, par le peuple et pour le peuple" ("government of the people, by the people, and for the people"), a literal translation of Lincoln's words.[111] Sun Yat-Sen's "Three Principles of the People" as well as the preamble for the 1947 Constitution of Japan were also inspired from that phrase.[112][113] The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has as its ship's motto the phrase "shall not perish".[114][115] U.S. Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts wrote of the address and its enduring presence in American culture after Lincoln's assassination in April 1865: "That speech, uttered at the field of Gettysburg ... and now sanctified by the martyrdom of its author, is a monumental act. In the modesty of his nature he said 'the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; but it can never forget what they did here.' He was mistaken. The world at once noted what he said, and will never cease to remember it."[6] U.S. President John F. Kennedy stated in July 1963 about the battle and Lincoln's speech: "Five score years ago the ground on which we here stand shuddered under the clash of arms and was consecrated for all time by the blood of American manhood. Abraham Lincoln, in dedicating this great battlefield, has expressed, in words too eloquent for paraphrase or summary, why this sacrifice was necessary."[116] Kennedy was himself assassinated three days after the Gettysburg Address centennial. In 2015, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation compiled Gettysburg Replies: The World Responds to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The work challenges leaders to craft 272 word responses to celebrate Lincoln, the Gettysburg Address, or a related topic.[117] One of the replies was by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson in which he made the point that one of Lincoln's greatest legacies was establishing, in the same year of the Gettysburg Address, the National Academy of Sciences, which had the longterm effect of "setting our Nation on a course of scientifically enlightened governance, without which we all may perish from this Earth".[118] Envelope and other myths A common American myth about the Gettysburg Address is that Lincoln quickly wrote the speech on the back of an envelope.[119] This widely held misunderstanding may have originated with a popular book, The Perfect Tribute, by Mary Raymond Shipman Andrews (1906), which was assigned reading for generations of schoolchildren, sold 600,000 copies 40 when published as a standalone volume,[120] and was twice adapted for film. Other lesser-known claims include Harriet Beecher Stowe's assertion that Lincoln had composed the address "in only a few moments," and that of industrialist Andrew Carnegie, who claimed to have personally supplied Lincoln with a pen.[121] See also 41 Baumb, Nelly From:Cmptrgru34 <cmptrgru34@aol.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Emancipation Proclamation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello This is Steve Johnson Emancipation Proclamation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search This article is about American history. For emancipation proclamations in other countries, see Abolition of slavery timeline. Emancipation Proclamation    42   Henry Lewis Stephens, untitled watercolor ( c.  1863) of a black man reading a  newspaper with headline "Presidential Proclamation/Slavery".    The five‐page original document, held in the National Archives Building. Until  1936 it had been bound with other proclamations in a large volume held by  the Department of State.[1]  Type Presidential proclamation  43 Executive Order number unnumbered  Signed by Abraham Lincoln on 22 September 1862  Summary   During the American Civil War, enslaved people in the Confederate States  of America declared "free"  Part of a series on  Slavery    Contemporary[show]  Historical[show]  By country or region[show]  Religion[show]  Opposition and resistance[show]  Related[show]   v   t   e  This article is part of  a series about  Abraham Lincoln   Views on slavery   Views on religion  44  Electoral history     Early life and career   Political career, 1849–1861   Family   Health     Lincoln–Douglas debates   Cooper Union speech   Farewell Address    President of the United States   Presidency    First term   1st inauguration    o Address   American Civil War    o The Union  o Emancipation Proclamation  o Ten percent plan  o Gettysburg Address  o 13th Amendment    Second term   2nd inauguration    o Address   Reconstruction    Presidential elections   1860    o Convention   1864    o Convention    Assassination and legacy   Assassination   Funeral   Historical reputation   Memorials  45  Depictions   Topical guide   Bibliography       v   t   e  See also: Abraham Lincoln and slavery The Emancipation Proclamation, or Proclamation 95, was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1862, and effective as of January 1, 1863. It changed the legal status under federal law of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the Confederate states from slave to free. As soon as a slave escaped the control of the Confederate government, either by running away across Union lines or through the advance of federal troops, the slave was permanently free. Ultimately, the Union victory brought the proclamation into effect in all of the former Confederacy. The remaining slaves, those in the areas not in revolt, were freed by state action, or by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in December 1865. With Congress' approval Lincoln in 1862, with partial compensation, ended slavery in the District of Columbia; this long-standing issue was now addressable since the Senators of the states in rebellion, who had blocked such a measure so as not to set a precedent, left Congress in 1861. As for the states, Lincoln believed that he had no authority as President to end slavery, which was a state matter. However, Lincoln was not only President, he was Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such, he could take military measures. His order carefully limited the Proclamation to those areas in insurrection, where civil government was not respected and his military authority, therefore, applied.[2] As a war measure, it hurt the South economically by removing its labor force, helped the Union militarily by making Union soldiers out of freed slaves, and took an implicit statement toward black citizenship by accepting blacks as soldiers and trusting them with arms. (Up until this point, there had been no blacks in combat positions in the Army.) The Proclamation also ended any chances of the Confederate government gaining recognition from England or France, which were anti- slavery and whose support for the Union it increased. It marked a major shift in the stated goals of the war, admitting what the South had claimed all along: the Union was fighting the war to end slavery. Psychologically, it was the turning point of the war. 46 The proclamation was directed to all of the areas in rebellion and all segments of the executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States.[3] It proclaimed the freedom of all slaves in the ten states in rebellion.[4] Even though it excluded areas not in rebellion, including the border slave states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, it still applied to more than 3.5 million of the 4 million slaves in the country. The Proclamation followed a series of warnings in the summer of 1862 under the Second Confiscation Act, allowing Confederate supporters 60 days to surrender, or face confiscation of land and slaves. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not outlaw slavery, and did not grant citizenship to the ex-slaves (called freedmen). But in addition to the goal of preserving the Union,[5] for the first time it made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal. The symbolic importance of the federal government outlawing slavery, even on a limited basis, was enormous. For the first time, the Union (the country) was publicly committed to ending slavery everywhere. It meant escaped slaves would no longer be returned South, that the hated Fugitive Slave Laws were dead. It also said that former slaves could fight in the military against their former owners, using weapons the Northern army would supply. This would soon supply fresh troops for the Union army, but its psychological impact was also enormous. This was the South's nightmare: a slave revolt supported by the North. Around 25,000 to 75,000 slaves were immediately emancipated in those regions of the Confederacy where the US Army was already in control. It could not be enforced in the areas still in rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the liberation of more than three and a half million slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions (as in West Virginia) or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.[6] On September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued a preliminary warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863.[7][8] None of the Confederate states did so, and Lincoln's order was signed and took effect on January 1, 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation outraged white Southerners and their sympathizers, who saw it as the beginning of a race war, like in Haiti. It 47 angered some Northern Democrats, energized abolitionists, and undermined those Europeans that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.[9] The Proclamation lifted the spirits of African Americans both free and slave. It led many slaves to escape from their masters and get to Union lines to obtain their freedom, and to join the Union Army. The Emancipation Proclamation broadened the goals of the Civil War. While slavery had been a major issue that led to the war, Lincoln's only stated goal at the start of the war was to maintain the Union. The Proclamation made freeing the slaves an explicit goal of the Union war effort. Establishing the abolition of slavery as one of the two primary war goals served to deter intervention by Britain and France.[10] The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court. To ensure the abolition of slavery in all of the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, and insisted that Reconstruction plans for Southern states require abolition in new state constitutions. Congress passed the 13th Amendment by the necessary two- thirds vote on January 31, 1865, and it was ratified by the states on December 6, 1865, ending legal slavery in the United States.[11] [ ] Contents  1Authority  2Coverage  3Background o 3.1Military action prior to emancipation o 3.2Governmental action towards emancipation o 3.3Public opinion of emancipation  4Drafting and issuance of the proclamation  5Implementation o 5.1Immediate impact o 5.2Political impact  5.2.1Confederate response o 5.3International impact  6Gettysburg Address  7Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction (1863)  8Postbellum  9Critiques  10Legacy in the civil rights era o 10.1Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  10.1.1The "Second Emancipation Proclamation" o 10.2President John F. Kennedy o 10.3President Lyndon B. Johnson  11In popular culture  12See also  13Notes o 13.1Primary sources  14Further reading  15External links Authority 48 Baumb, Nelly From:Cmptrgru34 <cmptrgru34@aol.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Star Spangled Banner CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello This is Steve Johnson The Star-Spangled Banner From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search "Star-Spangled Banner" and "National anthem of the USA" redirect here. For the flag that flew over Fort McHenry, see Star-Spangled Banner (flag). For the present flag, see Flag of the United States. For the national anthem of the Union of South Africa, see Die Stem van Suid-Afrika. "The Star‐Spangled Banner"    The earliest surviving sheet music of "The Star‐Spangled Banner",  from 1814.    National anthem of the United States     Lyrics Francis Scott Key, 1814  Music John Stafford Smith, c. 1773  Adopted March 3, 1931[1]  49 Audio sample    MENU 0:00 "The Star‐Spangled Banner" (instrumental, one stanza)   file  help   v   t   e  "The Star-Spangled Banner" is the national anthem of the United States. The lyrics come from the Defence of Fort M'Henry,[2] a poem written on September 14, 1814, by the then 35-year-old lawyer and amateur poet Francis Scott Key after witnessing the bombardment of Fort McHenry by British ships of the Royal Navy in Baltimore Harbor during the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812. Key was inspired by the large U.S. flag, with 15 stars and 15 stripes, known as the Star-Spangled Banner, flying triumphantly above the fort during the U.S. victory. The poem was set to the tune of a popular British song written by John Stafford Smith for the Anacreontic Society, a men's social club in London. "To Anacreon in Heaven" (or "The Anacreontic Song"), with various lyrics, was already popular in the United States. This setting, renamed "The Star- Spangled Banner", soon became a well-known U.S. patriotic song. With a range of 19 semitones, it is known for being very difficult to sing. Although the poem has four stanzas, only the first is commonly sung today. "The Star-Spangled Banner" was recognized for official use by the United States Navy in 1889, and by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in 1916, and was made the national anthem by a congressional resolution on March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1508, codified at 36 U.S.C. § 301), which was signed by President Herbert Hoover. Before 1931, other songs served as the hymns of U.S. officialdom. "Hail, Columbia" served this purpose at official functions for most of the 19th century. "My Country, 'Tis of Thee", whose melody is identical to "God Save the Queen", the United Kingdom's national anthem,[3] also served as a de facto national anthem.[4] Following the War of 1812 and subsequent U.S. wars, other songs emerged to compete for popularity at public events, among them "America the Beautiful", which itself was being considered before 1931, as a candidate to become the national anthem of the United States.[5] [ ] Contents 50  1Early history o 1.1Francis Scott Key's lyrics o 1.2John Stafford Smith's music o 1.3National anthem  2Modern history o 2.1Performances o 2.2200th anniversary celebrations o 2.3Adaptations  3Lyrics o 3.1Additional Civil War period lyrics  3.1.1Alternative lyrics  4References in film, television, literature  5Customs and federal law  6Protests o 6.11968 Olympics Black Power salute o 6.22016 protests o 6.3NAACP call to remove the national anthem  7Translations  8Media  9See also  10References  11Further reading  12External links o 12.1Historical audio Early history Francis Scott Key's lyrics Francis Scott Key's original manuscript copy of his "Defence of Fort M'Henry" poem. It is now on display at the Maryland Historical Society. On September 3, 1814, following the Burning of Washington and the Raid on Alexandria, Francis Scott Key and John Stuart Skinner set sail from Baltimore aboard the ship HMS Minden, flying a flag of truce on a mission approved by President James Madison. Their objective was to secure an exchange of prisoners, one of whom was William Beanes, the elderly and popular town physician of Upper Marlboro and a friend of Key's who had been captured in his home. Beanes was accused of aiding the 51 arrest of British soldiers. Key and Skinner boarded the British flagship HMS Tonnant on September 7 and spoke with Major General Robert Ross and Vice Admiral Alexander Cochrane over dinner while the two officers discussed war plans. At first, Ross and Cochrane refused to release Beanes but relented after Key and Skinner showed them letters written by wounded British prisoners praising Beanes and other Americans for their kind treatment. Because Key and Skinner had heard details of the plans for the attack on Baltimore, they were held captive until after the battle, first aboard HMS Surprise and later back on HMS Minden. After the bombardment, certain British gunboats attempted to slip past the fort and effect a landing in a cove to the west of it, but they were turned away by fire from nearby Fort Covington, the city's last line of defense. An artist's rendering of the battle at Fort McHenry During the rainy night, Key had witnessed the bombardment and observed that the fort's smaller "storm flag" continued to fly, but once the shell and Congreve rocket[6] barrage had stopped, he would not know how the battle had turned out until dawn. On the morning of September 14, the storm flag had been lowered and the larger flag had been raised. During the bombardment, HMS Terror and HMS Meteor provided some of the "bombs bursting in air". The 15-star, 15-stripe "Star-Spangled Banner" that inspired the poem Key was inspired by the U.S. victory and the sight of the large U.S. flag flying triumphantly above the fort. This flag, with fifteen stars and fifteen stripes, had been made by Mary Young Pickersgill together with other workers in her 52 home on Baltimore's Pratt Street. The flag later came to be known as the Star-Spangled Banner and is today on display in the National Museum of American History, a treasure of the Smithsonian Institution. It was restored in 1914 by Amelia Fowler, and again in 1998 as part of an ongoing conservation program. Aboard the ship the next day, Key wrote a poem on the back of a letter he had kept in his pocket. At twilight on September 16, he and Skinner were released in Baltimore. He completed the poem at the Indian Queen Hotel, where he was staying, and titled it "Defence of Fort M'Henry". It was first published nationally in The Analectic Magazine.[7][8] Much of the idea of the poem, including the flag imagery and some of the wording, is derived from an earlier song by Key, also set to the tune of "The Anacreontic Song". The song, known as "When the Warrior Returns",[9] was written in honor of Stephen Decatur and Charles Stewart on their return from the First Barbary War. Absent elaboration by Francis Scott Key prior to his death in 1843, some have speculated more recently about the meaning of phrases or verses, particularly the phrase "the hireling and slave" from the third stanza. According to British historian Robin Blackburn, the phrase allude to the thousands of ex-slaves in the British ranks organized as the Corps of Colonial Marines, who had been liberated by the British and demanded to be placed in the battle line "where they might expect to meet their former masters."[10] Mark Clague, a professor of musicology at the University of Michigan, argues that the "middle two verses of Key's lyric vilify the British enemy in the War of 1812" and "in no way glorifies or celebrates slavery."[11] Clague writes that "For Key ... the British mercenaries were scoundrels and the Colonial Marines were traitors who threatened to spark a national insurrection."[11] This harshly anti-British nature of Verse 3 led to its omission in sheet music in World War I, when the British and the U.S. were allies.[11] Responding to the assertion of writer Jon Schwarz of The Intercept that the song is a "celebration of slavery,"[12] Clague said that: "The reference to slaves is about the use and in some sense the manipulation, of black Americans to fight for the British, with the promise of freedom. The American forces included African-Americans as well as whites. The term 'freemen,' whose heroism is celebrated in the fourth stanza, would have encompassed both."[13] Others suggest that "Key may have intended the phrase as a reference to the British Navy's practice of impressment (kidnapping sailors and forcing them to fight in defense of the crown), or as a semi-metaphorical slap at the British invading force as a whole (which also included a large number of mercenaries)."[14] John Stafford Smith's music 53 Sheet music version Play (helpꞏinfo) A memorial to John Stafford Smith in Gloucester Cathedral, Gloucester, England Key gave the poem to his brother-in-law Joseph H. Nicholson who saw that the words fit the popular melody "The Anacreontic Song", by English composer John Stafford Smith. This was the official song of the Anacreontic Society, an 18th-century gentlemen's club of amateur musicians in London. Nicholson took the poem to a printer in Baltimore, who anonymously made the first known broadside printing on September 17; of these, two known copies survive. On September 20, both the Baltimore Patriot and The American printed the song, with the note "Tune: Anacreon in Heaven". The song quickly became popular, with seventeen newspapers from Georgia to New Hampshire printing it. Soon after, Thomas Carr of the Carr Music Store in Baltimore published the words and music together under the title "The Star Spangled Banner", although it was originally called "Defence of Fort M'Henry". Thomas Carr's arrangement introduced the raised fourth which became the standard deviation from "The Anacreontic Song".[15] The song's popularity increased and its first public performance took place in October when Baltimore actor Ferdinand Durang sang it at Captain McCauley's tavern. Washington Irving, then editor of the Analectic Magazine in Philadelphia, reprinted the song in November 1814. By the early 20th century, there were various versions of the song in popular use. Seeking a singular, standard version, President Woodrow Wilson tasked the U.S. Bureau of Education with providing that official version. In response, the Bureau enlisted the help of five musicians to agree upon an arrangement. Those musicians were Walter Damrosch, Will 54 Earhart, Arnold J. Gantvoort, Oscar Sonneck and John Philip Sousa. The standardized version that was voted upon by these five musicians premiered at Carnegie Hall on December 5, 1917, in a program that included Edward Elgar's Carillon and Gabriel Pierné's The Children's Crusade. The concert was put on by the Oratorio Society of New York and conducted by Walter Damrosch.[16] An official handwritten version of the final votes of these five men has been found and shows all five men's votes tallied, measure by measure.[17] National anthem Commemorative plaque in Washington, D.C. marking the site at 601 Pennsylvania Avenue where "The Star-Spangled Banner" was first publicly sung One of two surviving copies of the 1814 broadside printing of the "Defence of Fort M'Henry", a poem that later became the lyrics of "The Star-Spangled Banner", the national anthem of the United States. The song gained popularity throughout the 19th century and bands played it during public events, such as Independence Day celebrations. 55 A plaque displayed at Fort Meade, South Dakota, claims that the idea of making "The Star Spangled Banner" the national anthem began on their parade ground in 1892. Colonel Caleb Carlton, post commander, established the tradition that the song be played "at retreat and at the close of parades and concerts." Carlton explained the custom to Governor Sheldon of South Dakota who "promised me that he would try to have the custom established among the state militia." Carlton wrote that after a similar discussion, Secretary of War Daniel S. Lamont issued an order that it "be played at every Army post every evening at retreat."[18] In 1899, the U.S. Navy officially adopted "The Star-Spangled Banner".[19] In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson ordered that "The Star-Spangled Banner" be played at military[19] and other appropriate occasions. The playing of the song two years later during the seventh-inning stretch of Game One of the 1918 World Series, and thereafter during each game of the series is often cited as the first instance that the anthem was played at a baseball game,[20] though evidence shows that the "Star-Spangled Banner" was performed as early as 1897 at opening day ceremonies in Philadelphia and then more regularly at the Polo Grounds in New York City beginning in 1898. In any case, the tradition of performing the national anthem before every baseball game began in World War II.[21] On April 10, 1918, John Charles Linthicum, U.S. congressman from Maryland, introduced a bill to officially recognize "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem.[22] The bill did not pass.[22] On April 15, 1929, Linthicum introduced the bill again, his sixth time doing so.[22] On November 3, 1929, Robert Ripley drew a panel in his syndicated cartoon, Ripley's Believe it or Not!, saying "Believe It or Not, America has no national anthem".[23] In 1930, Veterans of Foreign Wars started a petition for the United States to officially recognize "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem.[24] Five million people signed the petition.[24] The petition was presented to the United States House Committee on the Judiciary on January 31, 1930.[25] On the same day, Elsie Jorss-Reilley and Grace Evelyn Boudlin sang the song to the Committee to refute the perception that it was too high pitched for a typical person to sing.[26] The Committee voted in favor of sending the bill to the House floor for a vote.[27] The House of Representatives passed the bill later that year.[28] The Senate passed the bill on March 3, 1931.[28] President Herbert Hoover signed the bill on March 4, 1931, officially adopting "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem of the United States of America.[1] As currently codified, the United States Code states that "[t]he composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem."[29] Although the National Anthem officially comprises all four stanzas of the poem, only the first stanza is generally sung, and the other three are much lesser-known. Modern history Main article: Performances and adaptations of The Star-Spangled Banner Performances 56 Crowd performing the U.S. national anthem before a baseball game at Coors Field The song is notoriously difficult for nonprofessionals to sing because of its wide range – a 12th. Humorist Richard Armour referred to the song's difficulty in his book It All Started With Columbus: In an attempt to take Baltimore, the British attacked Fort McHenry, which protected the harbor. Bombs were soon bursting in air, rockets were glaring, and all in all it was a moment of great historical interest. During the bombardment, a young lawyer named Francis Off Key [sic] wrote "The Star- Spangled Banner", and when, by the dawn's early light, the British heard it sung, they fled in terror.[30] Professional and amateur singers have been known to forget the words, which is one reason the song is sometimes pre-recorded and lip-synced.[citation needed] Other times the issue is avoided by having the performer(s) play the anthem instrumentally instead of singing it. The pre-recording of the anthem has become standard practice at some ballparks, such as Boston's Fenway Park, according to the SABR publication The Fenway Project.[31] "The Star-Spangled Banner" has been performed regularly at the beginning of NFL games since the end of WWII by order of NFL commissioner Elmer Layden.[32] The song has also been intermittently performed at baseball games since after WWI. The National Hockey League and Major League Soccer both require venues in both the U.S. and Canada to perform both the Canadian and U.S. national anthems at games that involve teams from both countries (with the "away" anthem being performed first).[33][better source needed] It is also usual for both U.S. and Canadian anthems (done in the same way as the NHL and MLS) to be played at Major League Baseball and National Basketball Association games involving the Toronto Blue Jays and the Toronto Raptors (respectively), the only Canadian teams in those two major U.S. sports leagues, and in All Star Games on the MLB, NBA, and NHL. The Buffalo Sabres of the National Hockey League, which play in a city on the Canada–US border and have a substantial Canadian fan base, play both anthems before all home games regardless of where the visiting team is based.[34] 57 Two especially unusual performances of the song took place in the immediate aftermath of the United States September 11 attacks. On September 12, 2001, Elizabeth II, the Queen of the United Kingdom, broke with tradition and allowed the Band of the Coldstream Guards to perform the anthem at Buckingham Palace, London, at the ceremonial Changing of the Guard, as a gesture of support for Britain's ally.[35] The following day at a St. Paul's Cathedral memorial service, the Queen joined in the singing of the anthem, an unprecedented occurrence.[36] 200th anniversary celebrations The 200th anniversary of the "Star-Spangled Banner" occurred in 2014 with various special events occurring throughout the United States. A particularly significant celebration occurred during the week of September 10–16 in and around Baltimore, Maryland. Highlights included playing of a new arrangement of the anthem arranged by John Williams and participation of President Barack Obama on Defender's Day, September 12, 2014, at Fort McHenry.[37] In addition, the anthem bicentennial included a youth music celebration[38] including the presentation of the National Anthem Bicentennial Youth Challenge winning composition written by Noah Altshuler. Adaptations See also: The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston recording) O'er the ramparts we watch in a 1945 United States Army Air Forces poster The first popular music performance of the anthem heard by the mainstream U.S. was by Puerto Rican singer and guitarist José Feliciano. He created a nationwide uproar when he strummed a slow, blues-style rendition of the song[39] at Tiger Stadium in Detroit before game five of the 1968 World Series, between Detroit and St. Louis.[40] This rendition started contemporary "Star-Spangled Banner" controversies. The response from many in the Vietnam War-era U.S. was generally negative. Despite the controversy, Feliciano's performance opened the door for the countless interpretations of the "Star-Spangled Banner" heard in the years since.[41] One week after Feliciano's performance, the anthem was in the news again when U.S. athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos lifted controversial raised fists at the 1968 Olympics while the "Star-Spangled Banner" played at a medal ceremony. Another famous instrumental interpretation is Jimi Hendrix's version, which was a set-list staple from autumn 1968 until his death in 58 September 1970, including a famous rendition at the Woodstock music festival in 1969. Incorporating sonic effects to emphasize the "rockets' red glare", and "bombs bursting in air", it became a late-1960s emblem. Marvin Gaye gave a soul-influenced performance at the 1983 NBA All-Star Game and Whitney Houston gave a soulful rendition before Super Bowl XXV in 1991, which was released as a single that charted at number 20 in 1991 and number 6 in 2001 (along with José Feliciano, the only times the national anthem has been on the Billboard Hot 100). In 1993, Kiss did an instrumental rock version as the closing track on their album, Alive III. Roseanne Barr gave a controversial performance of the anthem at a San Diego Padres baseball game at Jack Murphy Stadium on July 25, 1990. The comedian belted out a screechy rendition of the song, and afterward, she mocked ballplayers by spitting and grabbing her crotch as if adjusting a protective cup. The performance offended some, including the sitting U.S. President, George H. W. Bush.[42] Sufjan Stevens has frequently performed the "Star-Spangled Banner" in live sets, replacing the optimism in the end of the first verse with a new coda that alludes to the divisive state of the nation today. David Lee Roth both referenced parts of the anthem and played part of a hard rock rendition of the anthem on his song, "Yankee Rose" on his 1986 solo album, Eat 'Em and Smile. Steven Tyler also caused some controversy in 2001 (at the Indianapolis 500, to which he later issued a public apology) and again in 2012 (at the AFC Championship Game) with a cappella renditions of the song with changed lyrics.[43] In 2016, Aretha Franklin performed a rendition before the nationally-televised Minnesota Vikings-Detroit Lions Thanksgiving Day game lasting more than four minutes and featuring a host of improvizations. It would be one of Franklin's last public appearances before her 2018 death.[44] Black Eyed Peas- singer Fergie gave a controversial performance of the anthem in 2018. Critics likened her rendition to a jazzy "sexed-up" version of the anthem, which was considered highly inappropriate, with her performance compared to that of Marilyn Monroe's iconic performance of Happy Birthday, Mr. President. Fergie later apologized for her performance of the song, citing that ''I'm a risk taker artistically, but clearly this rendition didn't strike the intended tone".[45] A version of Aerosmith's Joe Perry and Brad Whitford playing part of the song can be heard at the end of their version of "Train Kept A-Rollin'" on the Rockin' the Joint album. The band Boston gave an instrumental rock rendition of the anthem on their Greatest Hits album. The band Crush 40 made a version of the song as opening track from the album Thrill of the Feel (2000). In March 2005, a government-sponsored program, the National Anthem Project, was launched after a Harris Interactive poll showed many adults knew neither the lyrics nor the history of the anthem.[46] Lyrics O say can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming, Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight, 59 O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there; O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep, Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes, What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep, As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, In full glory reflected now shines in the stream: 'Tis the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A home and a country, should leave us no more? Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved homes and the war's desolation. Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.' And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave![47] 60 Cover of sheet music for "The Star-Spangled Banner", transcribed for piano by Ch. Voss, Philadelphia: G. Andre & Co., 1862 Additional Civil War period lyrics Eighteen years after Key's death, and in indignation over the start of the American Civil War, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.[48] added a fifth stanza to the song in 1861, which appeared in songbooks of the era.[49] When our land is illumined with Liberty's smile, If a foe from within strike a blow at her glory, Down, down with the traitor that dares to defile The flag of her stars and the page of her story! By the millions unchained, who our birthright have gained, We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained! And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave While the land of the free is the home of the brave. Alternative lyrics In a version hand-written by Francis Scott Key in 1840, the third line reads "Whose bright stars and broad stripes, through the clouds of the fight".[50] In honor of the 1986 rededication of the Statue of Liberty, Sandi Patty wrote her version of an additional verse to the anthem.[51] References in film, television, literature Several films have their titles taken from the song's lyrics. These include two films titled Dawn's Early Light (2000[52] and 2005);[53] two made-for- TV features titled By Dawn's Early Light (1990[54] and 2000);[55] two films titled So Proudly We Hail (1943[56] and 1990);[57] a feature film (1977)[58] and a short (2005)[59] titled Twilight's Last Gleaming; and four films titled Home of the Brave (1949,[60] 1986,[61] 2004,[62] and 2006).[63] A 1936 short titled The Song of a Nation from Warner Bros. Pictures shows a version of the origin of the song.[64] Customs and federal law 61 Plaque detailing how the custom of standing during the U.S. national anthem came about in Tacoma, Washington, on October 18, 1893, in the Bostwick building When the U.S. national anthem was first recognized by law in 1931, there was no prescription as to behavior during its playing. On June 22, 1942, the law was revised indicating that those in uniform should salute during its playing, while others should simply stand at attention, men removing their hats. The same code also required that women should place their hands over their hearts when the flag is displayed during the playing of the national anthem, but not if the flag was not present. On December 23, 1942, the law was again revised instructing men and women to stand at attention and face in the direction of the music when it was played. That revision also directed men and women to place their hands over their hearts only if the flag was displayed. Those in uniform were required to salute. On July 7, 1976, the law was simplified. Men and women were instructed to stand with their hands over their hearts, men removing their hats, irrespective of whether or not the flag was displayed and those in uniform saluting. On August 12, 1998, the law was rewritten keeping the same instructions, but differentiating between "those in uniform" and "members of the Armed Forces and veterans" who were both instructed to salute during the playing whether or not the flag was displayed. Because of the changes in law over the years and confusion between instructions for the Pledge of Allegiance versus the National Anthem, throughout most of the 20th century many people simply stood at attention or with their hands folded in front of them during the playing of the Anthem, and when reciting the Pledge they would hold their hand (or hat) over their heart. After 9/11, the custom of placing the hand over the heart during the playing of the national anthem became nearly universal.[65][66][67] Since 1998, federal law (viz., the United States Code 36 U.S.C. § 301) states that during a rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present including those in uniform should stand at attention; Non-military service individuals should face the flag with the right hand over the heart; Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present and not in uniform may render the military salute; military service persons not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note. The law further provides that when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed. Military law requires all vehicles on the installation to stop when the song is played and all individuals outside to stand at attention and face the direction of the music and either salute, in uniform, or place the right hand over the heart, if out of uniform. The law was amended in 2008, and since allows military veterans to salute out of uniform, as well.[68][69] The text of 36 U.S.C. § 301 is suggestive and not regulatory in nature. Failure to follow the suggestions is not a violation of the law. This behavioral requirement for the national anthem is subject to the same First Amendment controversies that surround the Pledge of Allegiance.[70] For 62 example, Jehovah's Witnesses do not sing the national anthem, though they are taught that standing is an "ethical decision" that individual believers must make based on their "conscience."[71][72][73] Protests Main article: U.S. national anthem protests 1968 Olympics Black Power salute Main article: 1968 Olympics Black Power salute The 1968 Olympics Black Power salute was a political demonstration conducted by African-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos during their medal ceremony at the 1968 Summer Olympics in the Olympic Stadium in Mexico City. After having won gold and bronze medals respectively in the 200-meter running event, they turned on the podium to face their flags, and to hear the American national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner". Each athlete raised a black-gloved fist, and kept them raised until the anthem had finished. In addition, Smith, Carlos, and Australian silver medalist Peter Norman all wore human rights badges on their jackets. In his autobiography, Silent Gesture, Smith stated that the gesture was not a "Black Power" salute, but a "human rights salute". The event is regarded as one of the most overtly political statements in the history of the modern Olympic Games.[74] 2016 protests Main article: U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present) Politically motivated protests of the national anthem began in the National Football League after San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick knelt during the anthem, as opposed to the tradition of standing, in response to police brutality in the United States, before his team's third preseason game of 2016. Kaepernick sat during the first two preseason games, but he went unnoticed.[75] NAACP call to remove the national anthem In November 2017, the California Chapter of the NAACP called on Congress to remove "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem. Alice Huffman, California NAACP president said: "it's racist; it doesn't represent our community, it's anti-black."[76] The third stanza of the anthem, which is rarely sung and few know, contains the words, "No refuge could save the hireling and slave, From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:", which some interpret as racist. The organization was still seeking a representative to sponsor the legislation in Congress at the time of their announcement. Translations As a result of immigration to the United States and the incorporation of non- English speaking people into the country, the lyrics of the song have been translated into other languages. In 1861, it was translated into German.[77] The Library of Congress also has record of a Spanish- language version from 1919.[78] It has since been translated 63 into Hebrew[79] and Yiddish by Jewish immigrants,[80] Latin American Spanish (with one version popularized during immigration reform protests in 2006),[81] French by Acadians of Louisiana,[82] Samoan,[83] and Irish.[84] The third verse of the anthem has also been translated into Latin.[85] With regard to the indigenous languages of North America, there are versions in Navajo[86][87][88] and Cherokee.[89] Media The Star‐Spangled Banner  (1915)    MENU 0:00 A 1915 recording of the  Star‐Spangled Banner as  sung by Margaret Woodrow  Wilson, daughter  of Woodrow Wilson    The Star‐Spangled Banner  (1942)    MENU 0:00 Fred Waring and His  Pennsylvanians sing The  Star‐Spangled Banner in  1942    The Star‐Spangled Banner  (1953)    MENU 0:00 A 1953 instrumental  recording by the United  States Marine Corps band    The Star Spangled Banner  (circa 2000)    MENU 0:00 An instrumental recording  by the United States Navy  Band.  64   Problems playing these files? See media  help.    (1940)    (1944)  See also  Music portal  United States portal  In God We Trust  O Say Can You See (disambiguation)  By the Dawn's Early Light (disambiguation)  What So Proudly We Hailed (disambiguation)  Twilight's Last Gleaming (disambiguation)  Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars (disambiguation)  Through the Perilous Fight (disambiguation)  Rockets' Red Glare (disambiguation)  Bombs Bursting in Air (disambiguation)  Gave Proof Through the Night (disambiguation)  Land of the Free (disambiguation)  Home of the Brave (disambiguation) References 1. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Star-Spangled Banner" Is Now Official Anthem". The Washington Post. March 5, 1931. p. 3. 2. ^ "Defence of Fort M'Henry | Library of Congress". Loc.gov. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 3. ^ "My country 'tis of thee [Song Collection]". The Library of Congress. Retrieved January 20, 2009. 4. ^ Snyder, Lois Leo (1990). Encyclopedia of Nationalism. Paragon House. p. 13. ISBN 1-55778-167-2 . 5. ^ Estrella, Espie (September 2, 2018). "Who Wrote "America the Beautiful"? The History of America's Unofficial National Anthem". thoughtco.com. ThoughtCo. Retrieved November 14, 2018. Many consider "America the Beautiful" to be the unofficial national anthem of the United States. In fact, it was one of the songs being considered as a U.S. national anthem before "Star Spangled Banner" was officially chosen. 65 6. ^ British Rockets at the US National Park Service, Fort McHenry National Monument, and Historic Shrine. Retrieved February 2008. Archived April 3, 2014, at the Wayback Machine 7. ^ "John Wiley & Sons: 200 Years of Publishing – Birth of the New American Literature: 1807–1826". Retrieved April 27, 2018. 8. ^ "Defence of Fort M'Henry". The Analectic Magazine. 4: 433–434. November 1814. hdl:2027/umn.31951000925404p. 9. ^ "When the Warrior Returns – Key". Potw.org. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 10. ^ Blackburn, Robin (1988). The Overthrdow of Colonial Slavery, 1776–1848. pp. 288– 290. 11. ^ Jump up to:a b c Mark Clague (August 31, 2016). "'Star-Spangled Banner' critics miss the point". CNN.com. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 12. ^ "Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery". Theintercept.com. August 28, 2016. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 13. ^ "Is the National Anthem Racist? Beyond the Debate Over Colin Kaepernick". The New York Times. September 3, 2016. Archived from the original on November 2, 2016. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 14. ^ "'The Star-Spangled Banner' and Slavery". Snopes.com. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 15. ^ Clague, Mark, and Jamie Vander Broek. "Banner moments: the national anthem in American life". University of Michigan, 2014. 4. 16. ^ "Oratorio Society of New York – Star Spangled Banner". Oratoriosocietyofny.org. Archived from the original on August 21, 2016. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 17. ^ "Standardization Manuscript for "The Star Spangled Banner" | Antiques Roadshow". PBS. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 18. ^ Plaque, Fort Meade, erected 1976 by the Fort Meade V.A. Hospital and the South Dakota State Historical Society 19. ^ Jump up to:a b Cavanaugh, Ray (July 4, 2016). "The Star-Spangled Banner: an American anthem with a very British beginning". The Guardian. Retrieved September 27, 2017. 20. ^ "Cubs vs Red Sox 1918 World Series: A Tradition is Born". Baseballisms.com. May 21, 2011. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 21. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved February 3, 2016. 22. ^ Jump up to:a b c "National Anthem Hearing Is Set For January 31". The Baltimore Sun. January 23, 1930. p. 4. 23. ^ "Company News – Ripley Entertainment Inc". Ripleysnewsroom.com. Retrieved April 18, 2017. 24. ^ Jump up to:a b "5,000,000 Sign for Anthem: Fifty-Mile Petition Supports "The Star- Spangled Banner" Bill". The New York Times. January 19, 1930. p. 31. 25. ^ "5,000,000 Plea For U.S. Anthem: Giant Petition to Be Given Judiciary Committee of Senate Today". The Washington Post. January 31, 1930. p. 2. 26. ^ "Committee Hears Star-Spangled Banner Sung: Studies Bill to Make It the National Anthem". The New York Times. February 1, 1930. p. 1. 27. ^ "'Star-Spangled Banner' Favored As Anthem in Report to House". The New York Times. February 5, 1930. p. 3. 28. ^ Jump up to:a b "'Star Spangled Banner' Is Voted National Anthem by Congress". The New York Times. March 4, 1931. p. 1. 29. ^ 36 U.S.C. § 301. 30. ^ Theroux, Alexander (February 16, 2013). The Grammar of Rock: Art and Artlessness in 20th Century Pop Lyrics. Fantagraphics Books. p. 22. ISBN 9781606996164 . 31. ^ "The Fenway Project – Part One". Red Sox Connection. May 2004. Archived from the original on January 1, 2016. 32. ^ "History.com article para 6". History.com. September 25, 2017. Archived from the original on September 16, 2018. 33. ^ Allen, Kevin (March 23, 2003). "NHL Seeks to Stop Booing For a Song". USA Today. Retrieved October 29, 2008. 34. ^ "Fanzone, A–Z Guide: National Anthems". Buffalo Sabres. Retrieved November 20,2014. If you are interested in singing the National Anthems at a sporting event at First Niagara Center, you must submit a DVD or CD of your performance of both the Canadian & American National Anthems... 66 35. ^ Graves, David (September 14, 2001) "Palace breaks with tradition in musical tribute". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved August 24, 2011 36. ^ Steyn, Mark (September 17, 2001). "The Queen's Tears/And global resolve against terrorism". National Review. Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved April 10, 2013. 37. ^ Michael E. Ruane (September 11, 2014). "Francis Scott Key's anthem keeps asking: Have we survived as a nation?". Washington Post. 38. ^ [1] Archived November 29, 2014, at the Wayback Machine 39. ^ Gilliland, John (1969). "Show 52 – The Soul Reformation: Phase three, soul music at the summit. [Part 8]" (audio). Pop Chronicles. University of North Texas Libraries. Track 5. 40. ^ Paul White, USA Today Sports (October 14, 2012). "Jose Feliciano's once- controversial anthem kicks off NLCS". Usatoday.com. Retrieved November 9, 2013. 41. ^ Jose Feliciano Personal account about the anthem performance Archived October 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine 42. ^ Letofsky, Irv (July 28, 1990). "Roseanne Is Sorry – but Not That Sorry". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 14, 2012. 43. ^ "AOL Radio – Listen to Free Online Radio – Free Internet Radio Stations and Music Playlists". Spinner.com. Retrieved November 9, 2013. 44. ^ "That time Aretha Franklin dazzled America on Thanksgiving with national anthem". WJBK. August 13, 2018. Retrieved August 13, 2018. 45. ^ "Fergie apologises for national anthem". BBC News. February 20, 2018. Retrieved October 1, 2018. 46. ^ "Harris Interactive poll on "The Star-Spangled Banner"". Tnap.org. Archived from the original on January 12, 2011. Retrieved June 14, 2010. 47. ^ Francis Scott Key, The Star Spangled Banner (lyrics), 1814, MENC: The National Association for Music Education National Anthem Project (archived from the originalArchived January 26, 2013, at the Wayback Machine on 2013-01-26). 48. ^ Butterworth, Hezekiah; Brown, Theron (1906). "The Story of the Hymns and Tunes". George H. Doran Co.: 335. 49. ^ The soldier's companion: dedicated ... 1865. Retrieved June 14, 2010 – via Google Books. 50. ^ "Library of Congress image". Retrieved June 14, 2010. 51. ^ Bream, Jon (September 25, 1986). "Televised Anthem Brings Sandi Patty Liberty."Chicago Tribune (ChicagoTribune.com). Retrieved June 27, 2019. 52. ^ Dawn's Early Light (2000) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 53. ^ Dawn's Early Light (2005) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 54. ^ Dawn's Early Light TV (1990) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 55. ^ Dawn's Early Light TV (2000) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 56. ^ So Proudly We Hail (1943) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 57. ^ So Proudly We Hail (1990) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 58. ^ Twilight's Last Gleaming (1977) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 59. ^ Twilight's Last Gleaming (2005) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 60. ^ Home of the Brave (1949) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved December 5, 2007. 61. ^ Home of the Brave (1986) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved December 5, 2007. 62. ^ Home of the Brave (2004) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved December 5, 2007. 63. ^ Home of the Brave (2006) on the Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 64. ^ [2], 65. ^ "Public Laws, June 22, 1942". June 22, 1942. 67 66. ^ "77th Congress, 2nd session". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved October 21, 2017. 67. ^ "Public law, July 7, 1976". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved October 21, 2017. 68. ^ Duane Streufert. "A website dedicated to the Flag of the United States of America – United States Code". USFlag.org. Retrieved June 14, 2010. 69. ^ "U.S. Code". Uscode.house.gov. Archived from the original on May 29, 2012. Retrieved June 14, 2010. 70. ^ The Circle School v. Phillips, 270 F. Supp. 2d 616, 622 (E.D. Pa. 2003). 71. ^ "Highlights of the Beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses". Towerwatch.com. Archived from the original on September 18, 2009. Retrieved June 14, 2010. 72. ^ Botting, Gary Norman Arthur (1993). Fundamental freedoms and Jehovah's Witnesses. University of Calgary Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-895176-06-3. Retrieved December 13, 2009. 73. ^ Chryssides, George D. (2008). Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses. Scarecrow Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-8108-6074-2. Retrieved January 24, 2014. 74. ^ Lewis, Richard (October 8, 2006). "Caught in Time: Black Power salute, Mexico, 1968". The Sunday Times. London. Retrieved November 9, 2008. 75. ^ Sandritter, Mark (September 11, 2016). "A timeline of Colin Kaepernick's national anthem protest and the NFL players who joined him". SB Nation. Retrieved September 20, 2016. 76. ^ "National anthem lyrics prompt California NAACP to call for replacing song". Retrieved November 8, 2017. 77. ^ Das Star-Spangled Banner, US Library of Congress. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 78. ^ La Bandera de las Estrellas, US Library of Congress. Retrieved May 31, 2005. 79. ^ Hebrew Version 80. ^ Abraham Asen, The Star Spangled Banner in pool, 1745, Joe Fishstein Collection of Yiddish Poetry, McGill University Digital Collections Programme. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 81. ^ Day to Day. "A Spanish Version of 'The Star-Spangled Banner'". NPR. Retrieved June 14, 2010. 82. ^ David Émile Marcantel, La Bannière Étoilée Archived May 17, 2013, at the Wayback Machine on Musique Acadienne. Retrieved September 14, 2007. 83. ^ Zimmer, Benjamin (April 29, 2006). "The Samoa News reporting of a Samoan version". Itre.cis.upenn.edu. Retrieved June 14, 2010. 84. ^ "An Bhratach Gheal-Réaltach – Irish version". Daltai.com. Retrieved June 14, 2010. 85. ^ Christopher M. Brunelle, Third Verse in Latin, 1999 86. ^ "Gallup Independent, 25 March 2005". Gallupindependent.com. March 25, 2005. Archived from the original on February 3, 2010. Retrieved June 14, 2010. 87. ^ [3][dead link] 88. ^ "Schedule for the Presidential Inauguration 2007, Navajo Nation Government". Navajo.org. January 9, 2007. Archived from the original on December 2, 2008. Retrieved June 14, 2010. 89. ^ "Cherokee Phoenix, Accessed 2009-08-15". Cherokeephoenix.org. Archived from the original on September 8, 2009. Retrieved June 14, 2010. Further reading  Christgau, Robert (August 13, 2019). "Jimi Hendrix's 'Star-Spangled Banner' is the anthem we need in the age of Trump". Los Angeles Times.  Ferris, Marc. Star-Spangled Banner: The Unlikely Story of America's National Anthem. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. ISBN 9781421415185 OCLC 879370575  Leepson, Marc. What So Proudly We Hailed: Francis Scott Key, a Life. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. ISBN 9781137278289 OCLC 860395373 External links 68   Wikimedia Commons has  media related to The Star‐ Spangled Banner.    Wikisource has original  text related to this article:   The Star‐Spangled  Banner    Look  up haughty or rampart in  Wiktionary, the free  dictionary.   "New book reveals the dark history behind the Star Spangled Banner", CBS This Morning, September 13, 2014 (via YouTube).  "Star-Spangled History: 5 Facts About the Making of the National Anthem", Biography.com.  "'Star-Spangled Banner' writer had a complex record on race", Mary Carole McCauley, The Baltimore Sun, July 26, 2014.  "The Man Behind the National Anthem Paid Little Attention to It". NPR's Here and Now, July 4, 2017.  Star-Spangled Banner (Memory)—American Treasures of the Library of Congress exhibition  "How the National Anthem Has Unfurled; 'The Star-Spangled Banner' Has Changed a Lot in 200 Years" by William Robin. June 27, 2014, The New York Times, p. AR10.  TV tour of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History Star- Spangled Banner exhibit—C-SPAN, American History, May 15, 2014 Historical audio  "The Star Spangled Banner", The Diamond Four, 1898  "The Star Spangled Banner", Margaret Woodrow Wilson, 1915 show   v  t  e  National anthems of North America  show   v  t  e  69 National anthems of Oceania and the Pacific Islands  show   v  t  e  War of 1812  show   v  t  e  National symbols of the United States  Authority  control   GND: 4756592‐5  LCCN: n50081577  MusicBrainz work: 92825287‐3cc3‐3dd4‐8635‐35fa457a45b8  NARA: 10676426  VIAF: 186293289  WorldCat Identities (via LCCN): n50‐081577  Categories:  The Star-Spangled Banner  1814 compositions  1814 in the United States  1814 poems  American patriotic songs  History of Baltimore  Jimi Hendrix songs  José Feliciano songs  Marvin Gaye songs  Maryland in the War of 1812  National anthems  National symbols of the United States  North American anthems  Oceanian anthems  Songs based on American history  Songs based on poems Navigation menu 70  Not logged in  Talk  Contributions  Create account  Log in  Article  Talk  Read  View source  View history Search [ ][Search][Go]  Main page  Contents  Featured content  Current events  Random article  Donate to Wikipedia  Wikipedia store Interaction  Help  About Wikipedia  Community portal  Recent changes  Contact page Tools  What links here  Related changes  Upload file  Special pages  Permanent link  Page information  Wikidata item  Cite this page In other projects  Wikimedia Commons  Wikisource Print/export  Download as PDF  Printable version Languages  Deutsch  Español 71  Français  한국어  Italiano  Русский  Tagalog  Tiếng Việt  中文 72 more Edit links  This page was last edited on 19 March 2020, at 19:07 (UTC).  Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. 72 Baumb, Nelly From:Cmptrgru34 <cmptrgru34@aol.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Lincoln's House Divided Speech CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello This is Steve Johnson Lincoln's House Divided Speech From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search "House divided" redirects here. For the episode of the TV series House, see House Divided. Abraham Lincoln in May 1858 The House Divided Speech was an address given by Abraham Lincoln, later President of the United States, on June 16, 1858, at what was then the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, after he had accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination as that state's US senator. The nomination of Lincoln was the final item of business at the convention, which then broke for dinner, meeting again at 8 PM. "The evening session was mainly devoted to speeches",[1] but the only speaker was Lincoln, whose address closed the convention, save for resolutions of thanks to the city of Springfield and others. His address was immediately published in full by newspapers,[2][3][4] as a pamphlet,[5] and in the published Proceedings of the convention.[6] It was 73 the launching point of his unsuccessful campaign for the Senatorial seat held by Stephen A. Douglas; the campaign would climax with the Lincoln– Douglas debates. When Lincoln collected and published his debates with Douglas as part of his 1860 Presidential campaign, he prefixed them with relevant prior speeches. The "House Divided" speech opens the volume.[7] Lincoln's remarks in Springfield depict the danger of slavery-based disunion, and it rallied Republicans across the North. Along with the Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address, the speech became one of the best-known of his career. It begins with the following words, which became the best-known passage of the speech:[8] "A house divided against itself, cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.[6]:9 Lincoln's goals were to differentiate himself from Douglas — the incumbent — and to voice a prophecy publicly. Douglas had long advocated popular sovereignty, under which the settlers in each new territory would decide their own status as a slave or free state; he had repeatedly asserted that the proper application of popular sovereignty would prevent slavery-induced conflict and would allow Northern and Southern states to resume their peaceful coexistence. Lincoln, however, responded that the Dred Scott decision had closed the door on Douglas's preferred option, leaving the Union with only two remaining outcomes: the country would inevitably become either all slave or all free. Now that the North and the South had come to hold distinct opinions in the question of slavery, and now the issue had come to permeate every other political question, the Union would soon no longer be able to function. [ ] Contents  1Quotes  2Prior mentions of "a house divided"  3See also  4References  5Further reading  6External links Quotes[edit] 74 Reverse of 2009 Lincoln Penny, depicting him at what is now known as the Old State Capitol. Former Illinois House of Representatives chamber, the site of the speech.  "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new—North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination— piece of machinery so to speak—compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act opened all the national territory to slavery .... This ... had been provided for ... in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object.  While the Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a law case, involving the question of a negro's freedom ... was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska Bill and 75 lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The Negro's name was "Dred Scott" ....  [The points decided by the "Dred Scott" decision include] that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free state, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately ... [that] the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free state Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state.  While the opinion of ... Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case ... expressly declare[s] that the Constitution of the United States neither permits congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States territory, ... [Taney] omit[s] to declare whether or not the same constitution permits a state, or the people of a state, to exclude it. Possibly, this was a mere omission; but who can be quite sure .... The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a state over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska Act. On one occasion his exact language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the U.S. Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the Nebraska Act. Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.  Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave state. Prior mentions of "a house divided"[edit] Early Christians:  The expression "a house divided against itself" appears twice in the Bible. In the Gospel of Mark 3:25, Jesus states, "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." That is in response to the scribes' claim that "by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils."[9] In 76 the Gospel of Matthew 12:25, "Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (King James version).  Saint Augustine, in his Confessions (Book 8, Chapter 8) describes his conversion experience as being "a house divided against itself." It also appears in widely-read English writers:  Thomas Hobbes, in his 1651 Leviathan (Chapter 18), states that "a kingdom divided in itself cannot stand."  In Thomas Paine's 1776 Common Sense, he describes the composition of the English constitution "hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself. ... " In the United States:  During the War of 1812 a line appeared in a letter from Abigail Adams to Mercy Otis Warren: "... A house divided upon itself - and upon that foundation do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us."[10]  The "house divided" phrase had been used by Lincoln himself in another context in 1843.[11]  Famously, eight years before Lincoln's speech, during the Senate debate on the Compromise of 1850, Sam Houston had proclaimed: "A nation divided against itself cannot stand." However and most relevantly, the expression was used repeatedly earlier in 1858 in discussions of the situation in Kansas, where slavery was the central issue.  It was used editorially in the Brooklyn Evening Star of January 8,[12] the New York Daily Herald on January 12,[13] and the Alton Weekly Telegraph of January 28.[14]  It appeared, in quotation marks, in a letter to the editor published in The Liberator on April 23.[15] (Lincoln certainly received The Liberator, as it was sent free to all prominent politicians outside the South (subsidized by benefactors), but it is not known if or how much he read it.) See also[edit]  Abraham Lincoln on slavery  Origins of the American Civil War References[edit] 1. ^ "Republican Convention". The Pantagraph (Bloomington, Illinois). June 18, 1858. p. 2 – via newspapers.com. 2. ^ "Conclusion of the Republican State Convention. Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln". Chicago Tribune. June 19, 1858. p. 2. 3. ^ "Republican principles. Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, at the Republican state Convention, June 16, 1858". New-York Tribune. June 24, 1858. p. 3 – via newspapers.com. 77 4. ^ "Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln". Alton Weekly Telegraph (Alton, Illinois). June 24, 1858. p. 2 – via newspapers.com. 5. ^ Lincoln, Abraham (1858). Speech of Hon. Abram [sic] Lincoln before the Republican state convention, June 16, 1858. OCLC 2454620. 6. ^ Jump up to:a b Proceedings of the Republican state convention, held at Spingfield [sic], Illinois, June 16th, 1858. Springfield, Illinois. 1858. 7. ^ Lincoln, Abraham; Douglas, Stephen A. (1860). Political Debates between Hon. Abraham Lincoln and Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, In the Celebrated Campaign of 1858, in Illinois; including the preceding speeches of each, at Chicago, Springfield, etc.; also, the two great speeches of Mr. Lincoln in Ohio, in 1859, as carefully prepared by the reporters of each party, and published at the times of their delivery. Columbus, Ohio: Follett, Foster and Company. pp. 1–5. 8. ^ Foner, Eric (2010). The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. pp. 99– 100. ISBN 978-0-393-06618-0 . 9. ^ "Mark 3:25". Bible Gateway. 10. ^ David Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, Thomas Bailey: The American Pageant: Volume I: To 1877, p. 253. 11. ^ Address to the people of Illinois, in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, I, p. 315 12. ^ "Organization of the American General Committee". Brooklyn Evening Star (Brooklyn, New York). January 8, 1858. p. 2 – via newspapers.com. 13. ^ "Kansas in Congress—The Decisive Issue upon the Slavery Question". New York Daily Herald. January 12, 1858. p. 4 – via newspapers.com. 14. ^ "Democratic Disunion". Alton Weekly Telegraph (Alton, Illinois). January 28, 1858. p. 1 – via newspapers.com. 15. ^ W. (April 23, 1858). "The Foul Anchor". The Liberator – via newspapers.com. Further reading[edit]  Fehrenbacher, Don E. (1960). "The Origins and Purpose of Lincoln's 'House-Divided' Speech". Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 46 (4): 615–643. doi:10.2307/1886280. External links[edit]  Works related to A house divided at Wikisource  Link to "House Divided" speech in Lincoln's Collected Works, held by the Univ. of Michigan.[1]  Complete Text of 'Lincoln's House Divided Speech' hide   v  t  e  Abraham Lincoln  16th President of the United States (1861–1865)  U.S. Representative from Illinois (1847–1849)  Presidency  First inauguration    Perpetual Union  Lincoln Bible  78 Second inauguration  Civil War    Confiscation Acts  President Lincoln's 75,000 volunteers  War based income tax  Seaports blockade  RMS Trent Affair  Habeas Corpus suspended  Emancipation Proclamation  West Virginia statehood  Overland Campaign strategy  Hampton Roads Conference  Tour of Richmond  Ten percent plan  Reconstruction  13th Amendment abolishing slavery  Dakota War of 1862    Department of the Northwest  Homestead Act of 1862  National Banking Acts  Thanksgiving Day  Birchard Letter  Bixby letter  National Academy of Sciences  Department of Agriculture  Pardons  State of the Union Address, 1863  1864  Cabinet  Judicial appointments  Speeches  Lyceum address (1838)  Peoria speech (1854)  "Lost Speech" (1856)  House Divided speech (1858)  Lincoln‐Douglas debates (1858)  Cooper Union Address (1860)  Farewell Address (1861)  First inaugural address (1861)  79 Gettysburg Address (1863)  (event)  Second inaugural address (1865)  Life  and views  Early life and career  Black Hawk War  Matson Trial  Spot Resolutions  Boat lifting patent  Hurd v. Rock Island Bridge Co.  Baltimore Plot  Lincoln's beard  Medical and mental health  Poetry  Political career, 1849–1861  Religious views  Sexuality  Slavery  Fanny McCullough letter  Homes  and places  Lincoln Birthplace    Knob Creek Farm  Lincoln Boyhood Memorial    Lincoln State Park  Lincoln Trail Homestead State Memorial  Lincoln's New Salem  Lincoln Home  Lincoln Pioneer Village  Little Pigeon Creek Community  Cottage at the Soldier's Home  Lincoln Bedroom  Lincoln Sitting Room  Elections  Republican National Convention, 1856  1860  1864    National Union Party  1860 United States presidential election  1864  1860 campaign song  80 Assassination  Ford's Theater  Our American Cousin  John Wilkes Booth  Petersen House  Funeral and burial    Lincoln Catafalque  Lincoln Tomb  "O Captain! My Captain!"  "When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd"  Legacy  Memorials  Lincoln Memorial    statue  reflecting pool  Mount Rushmore  Presidential Library and Museum  Papers    Lincoln/Net  Artifacts and relics  Bibliography  Birthday  Photographs of Lincoln  Cultural depictions    films  Art  statues  Currency    Illinois Centennial half dollar  Lincoln penny  Five‐dollar bill  Postage stamps  Abraham Lincoln Association  Abraham Lincoln Institute  USS Abraham Lincoln  Lincoln Highway  Lincoln, Nebraska  Lincoln Park  Lincoln Prize  Lincoln Trail State Memorial  81 Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences  Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln  White House ghost  Family  Family tree  Mary Todd Lincoln (wife)  Robert Todd Lincoln (son)  Edward Baker Lincoln (son)  William Wallace Lincoln (son)  Thomas "Tad" Lincoln (son)  Mary Todd "Mamie" Lincoln (granddaughter)  Jessie Harlan Lincoln (granddaughter)  Thomas Lincoln (father)  Nancy Hanks Lincoln (mother)  Sarah Bush Lincoln (stepmother)  Sarah Lincoln Grigsby (sister)  Abraham Lincoln (grandfather)  Mordecai Lincoln (uncle)  Mary Lincoln Crume (aunt)  John Hanks (maternal cousin)  Joseph Hanks (great‐grandfather)  Samuel Lincoln (17th‐century ancestor)  Mary Lincoln Beckwith (great‐granddaughter)  Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith (great‐grandson)  Old Bob (horse)  ← James Buchanan  Andrew Johnson →  Book  Category  Outline  1. ^ "Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 2". quod.lib.umich.edu. Categories:  American political catchphrases  Abraham Lincoln in Springfield, Illinois  Speeches by Abraham Lincoln  1858 in Illinois  Political history of Illinois  1858 in American politics 82  Political history of the United States  June 1858 events 83 Baumb, Nelly From:Cmptrgru34 <cmptrgru34@aol.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:The Economy and Abortion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello This is Steve Johnson The Economy and Abortion Abortion is a moral and spiritual issue. It is an intense political and social issue. It is also a constitutional and legal issue that has divided the nation, splintered political parties and emotionally devastated millions of people, both men and women. Abortion is also an economic issue. The relationship between the economy and abortion has been studied. The economic crisis we now face is caused by numerous factors that all relate to flawed governmental policies. However, 84 the current economic crisis and, indeed, our economic future as a nation are impacted by the very uncomfortable fact that since 1973 (when the Supreme Court gave us constitutionally mandated abortion-on-demand), more than 52 million unborn children have been killed by abortion. What impact has this massive destruction of human life had on our current economic situation? A very interesting study called The Cost of Abortion (www.thecostofabortion.com) gives some insight to this question. The conclusions of this study are staggering and should be taken into consideration by all political leaders who see the state of the economy as the primary issue motivating voters in the upcoming election. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Studies have suggested significant economic harm stemming from abortion on demand. This study begins with the figures for the total number of surgical abortions carried out in the United States from 1973 to 2007. An assumption is made that one-half of these aborted children would be female and, based upon figures from the Centers for Disease Control, each female — at age 25 — would have an average of a single child. The study then combines these calculations to generate a number of “missing persons” from the USA from 1973 to 2007. The Gross Domestic Product per capita for each year is then multiplied by the number of “missing persons”. Accordingly, the sum of lost GDP from 1973 to 2007 due to surgical abortion is nearly $37 trillion. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that a loss of $37 trillion to our economy since 1973 has taken a big toll. Because of abortion, we have 52 million fewer taxpayers who would have provided a strong economic foundation for the nation. Because of abortion, we have lost millions of successful entrepreneurs, inventors, business owners, physicians, lawyers, teachers, venture capitalists, investors, artists and, of course, mothers and fathers who would have birthed children whose descendants would have become productive citizens contributing to a robust economy. Abortion is an economic issue. America’s most valuable natural resources are human beings who through the creative genius of the human spirit create innovative ways to overcome problems. Abortion has destroyed a large portion of this natural resource. Today, the state of the economy is a major issue of concern. As our national debt skyrockets and increased taxation and regulations are placed upon small businesses, our unemployment rate rises. These economic concerns have fueled the Tea-Party movement, which has galvanized grass-roots political protest against our current political leaders who want to impose bigger government, higher taxation and restricted freedom. The political polls 85 indicate that this protest movement is gaining strength and is expected to have a major impact in this next election upon the political direction of the country. There is a raging debate among Tea-Party leaders regarding the role social issues, such as abortion, should play in their agenda. Many argue that these issues are divisive and should be downplayed in order to attract the broadest coalition possible to bring about economic change. While most participants in the Tea-Party movement express prolife sentiments, they do not apparently make the connection between abortion and our economic plight — but they should. The next two election cycles will determine the ultimate fate of our nation. Our elected representatives will make decisions on the critical issues of taxation, individual liberty and the role of government. In making these decisions they must understand that abortion is an issue that cannot be ignored. If we truly want to restore economic health to the nation then this wanton destruction of innocent human life must end. 86 Baumb, Nelly From:Cmptrgru34 <cmptrgru34@aol.com> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Does Abortion Harm a Woman's Physical and Mental Health? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello This is Steve Johnson Does Abortion Harm a Woman's Physical and Mental Health? BY RANDY ALCORN JANUARY 6, 2010 Please Note: In order to conserve space, footnotes are not included in this article but are marked with an asterisk and may be found in Why ProLife? by Randy Alcorn, Chapter 11. “Abortion has completely failed as a social policy designed to aid women,” writes Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life. “It is a reflection that we have failed women.”* Joan Appleton was an abortion advocate with N.O.W. and head nurse at a Virginia abortion facility. She asked herself why abortion was “such a psychological trauma for a woman, and such a difficult decision for a woman to make, if it was a natural thing to do. If it was so right, why was it so difficult?” Appleton said to herself, “I counseled these women so well; they were so sure of their decision. Why are they coming back now—months and years later—psychological wrecks?”* Countless women who have been damaged by abortions have said, “I had no idea this could happen; no one warned me about the risks.” Common Complications 87 In her testimony before a Senate subcommittee in 2004, Dr. Elizabeth Shadigan testified that “abortion increases rates of breast cancer, placenta previa, pre-term births, and maternal suicide.... Statistically, all types of deaths are higher with women who have had induced abortions.”* At least forty-nine studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births or low birth weight risk in women with prior induced abortions. “Low birth weight and premature birth are the most important risk factors for infant mortality or later disabilities as well as for lower cognitive abilities and greater behavioral problems.”* Malformations of later children are increased by abortion.* The frequency of early death for infants born after their mothers have had abortions is between two and four times the normal rate.* Induced abortion appears to be responsible for thousands of cases of cerebral palsy in North America.* Ectopic pregnancies occur when gestation takes place outside the uterus, commonly in a fallopian tube. Such pregnancies are responsible for 12 percent of all pregnancy-related maternal deaths.* The US Department of Health and Human Services conducted a twenty-year study on ectopic pregnancy rates, which indicated an increase in ectopic pregnancies of more than 500 percent since abortion was legalized.* Studies show that the risk of an ectopic pregnancy is twice as high for women who have had one abortion, and up to four times as high for women with two or more previous abortions.* Of those who have an ectopic pregnancy, 40 percent become infertile, and the odds of having another ectopic pregnancy are one in three. Remarkably, “only 33% of women with ectopic pregnancy will have a subsequent live birth.”* The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports, “pregnancy related complications, such as ectopic pregnancy…still affect 2,000 women each day.”* Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) is an infection that leads to fever and infertility. Researchers state, “Pelvic infection is a common and serious complication of induced abortion and has been reported in up to 30% of all cases.”* A study of women having first-trimester abortions demonstrated that “women with postabortal pelvic inflammatory disease had significantly higher rates of…spontaneous abortion, secondary infertility, dyspareunia, and chronic pelvic pain.”* Placenta previa, a misplacement of the placenta, is caused by “prior uterine insult or injury,”* including abortion. It’s seven to fifteen times more common among women who’ve had abortions than among those who haven’t.* “The reported immediate complication rate, alone, of abortion is no less than 10 percent. In addition, studies of long-range complications show rates no less than 17 percent and frequently report complication rates in the range of 25 to 40 percent.”* 88 Women with one abortion double their risk of cervical cancer, compared to non-aborted women, while women with two or more abortions multiply their risk nearly five times. Similar elevated risks of ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions.* After extensive research, Dr. Joel Brind, Professor of Endocrinology at City University of New York, concluded, “the single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer is induced abortion.”* A woman who has an abortion increases her risk of breast cancer by a minimum of 50 percent and as much as 300 percent.* Some women are unable to conceive after having abortions. Abortion increases the risk of malformations of later children.* Common Psychological Complications Dozens of studies tie abortion to a rise in sexual dysfunction, aversion to sex, loss of intimacy, unexpected guilt, extramarital affairs, traumatic stress syndrome, personality fragmentation, grief responses, child abuse and neglect, and increase in alcohol and drug abuse.* An Elliot Institute study indicates that women who abort are five times more likely to abuse drugs.* Post-abortion specialist David Reardon writes, “In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.”* This is particularly significant since some women show no apparent effects from their abortions until years later. Women Exploited by Abortion (WEBA) has had over thirty thousand members in more than two hundred chapters across the United States, with chapters in Canada, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa.* Other post-abortion support and recovery groups include Victims of Choice, Post Abortion Counseling and Education (PACE), Helping and Educating in Abortion Related Trauma (HEART), Healing Visions Network, Counseling for Abortion-Related Experiences (CARE), Women of Ramah, Project Rachel, Open Arms, Abortion Trauma Services, American Victims of Abortion, and Former Women of Choice. The existence of such groups testifies to the mental and emotional trauma of countless women who have had abortions. I read a newspaper editorial arguing that abortion is just another surgery, no different than a root canal or appendectomy. But why don’t people remember the anniversary of their appendectomy twenty years later? Why don’t they find themselves weeping uncontrollably, grieving the loss of their appendix? And where are all the support groups and counseling for those who’ve had root canals? (Many men have also suffered trauma due to their involvement in abortion decisions, and the loss of their children.* Support groups exist for them as well.*) 89 Death from Legal Abortions A study of pregnancy-associated deaths published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology demonstrates that the mortality rate associated with abortion is 2.95 times higher than that of pregnancies carried to term.* The Centers for Disease Control reported ten abortion-related deaths in 1998,* but according to the same report, such statistics are of limited value because not all states require reporting. Indeed, abortion clinics have nothing to gain and much to lose by providing information.* What makes abortion-related deaths harder to trace is that the majority of the deaths do not occur during the surgery but afterward. Hence, many secondary reasons are routinely identified as the cause of death: Consider the mother who hemorrhaged, was transfused, got hepatitis, and died months later. Official cause of death? Hepatitis. Actual cause? Abortion. A perforated uterus leads to pelvic abscess, sepsis (blood poisoning), and death. The official report of the cause of death may list pelvic abscess and septicemia. Abortion will not be listed. Abortion causes tubal pathology. She has an ectopic pregnancy years later and dies. The cause listed will be ectopic pregnancy. The actual cause? Abortion.* A study published in the Southern Medical Journal indicated that “women who have abortions are at significantly higher risk of death than women who give birth.”* This included a 154 percent higher risk of death from suicide, as well as higher rates of death from accidents and homicides. Women’s Health after Abortion is an encyclopedic work citing over 500 medical journal articles, demonstrating the adverse affects of abortion on women.* Anyone still doubting that abortion causes serious long-term harm to women should examine this compelling evidence. What Women Say In surveys of women who experienced post-abortion complications: Over 90% said they weren’t given enough information to make an informed choice. Over 80% said it was very unlikely they would have aborted if they had not been so strongly encouraged to abort by others, including their abortion counselors. 83% said they would have carried to term if they had received support from boyfriends, families or other important people in their lives.* Every woman deserves better than abortion. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:asharpe@andrewsharpe.com Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 3:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wouldn't now be a good time to consider University Ave as a pedestrian-only mall? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    There seems to be some traction here. Can we have a City Council opinion? This is to *save* the businesses, and they  were the ones that were apparently pushing *back* from such a proposal years ago. Perhaps now, they will realize that  it will save them.    Thank you for your consideration,    Andrew Sharpe      https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=147187789    Andrew Sharpe  Downtown North • 22 hr ago    Wouldn't now be a good time to consider University Ave as a pedestrian‐only mall? Since restaurants will need more  space to put tables farther apart, more of the street could be used. Having no cars would mean you wouldn't have to  breathe in car fumes as you enjoy lunch or dinner. We've been talking about doing this for a long time, and now is  perhaps the time to do it, to help our downtown businesses.    Posted in General to 22 neighborhoods  Thank  23 Comments        38    fred glick • Downtown North    Great idea.  We can have a best mask contest.  22 hr agoThank  Reply    Stacey Olgado • Community Center    I agree! As we slowly move into phase two, wouldn’t it be great if we closed University and California Avenue and  appropriate side streets to vehicular traffic?  Let the restaurants set a few tables in front their storefronts with  appropriate social distancing,  let them “borrow” the sidewalks in front of their restaurants. Let pedestrians walk down  2 the streets rather then the sidewalks. Every restaurant could take reservations, for one‐hour slots, so they could turn  several more tables every lunch and dinner. This would hopefully help them to get their footing back.    We have an obligation to do what we can to sustain our restaurants. We cannot let them fail. We’ve all read predictions  that up to fifty percent of all restaurants simply won’t recover.  If they don’t survive, these streets will likely have many  vacant storefronts, sad reminders of better days.    21 hr agoThank  Reply      5    James Landay • Stanford Campus    Great idea!  21 hr agoThank  Reply    1    Maggie Maese • Downtown North    California Ave would be more ideal.  21 hr agoThank  Reply    1    Andrew Sharpe • Downtown North    California Ave as well, then. Why not?  18 hr agoThank  Reply    1    Fernando Pereira • Downtown North    I like the idea in general, but relaxed COVID‐19 restrictions also mean somewhat increased traffic, where would it go?  Especially given that social distancing and public transportation don't (at least yet) mix well.  21 hr agoThank  Reply    2    Barby Wilson • Downtown North    I was also thinking of emergency vehicles getting through.  One street sure but both main streets plus side streets seems  excessive and frankly dangerous.  19 hr agoThank  Reply  3   1    Julie O'Grady • Community Center    Just block off the street to foot traffic only ‐ great idea!  20 hr agoThank  Reply    1    Robert Valenti • University South    Absolutely!  The primary street in Palo Alto is packed with cars, trucks including those enormous food and beer/Pepsi  night trucks.  20 hr agoThank  Reply    1    Patt DiCicco • Crescent Park    Like the idea a lot and there r lots of parking garages off University  20 hr agoThank  Reply    1    Kimberley Wong • Old Palo Alto    I love that idea. Every time they close it for the music festival, it feels so spacious and great fun to walk the entire length  unencumbered with cars!  19 hr agoThank  Reply    2    Steve Frankel • Downtown North    I have wanted this for many years.  Santa Monica 3rd street is just that; A thoroughfare turned into a walking market  street.  For Palo Alto, we can keep the cross streets open but no cars on University. How about also making Lytton and  Hamilton one‐way thoroughfares to better manage traffic.  19 hr agoThank  Reply    3    Diane Mavica • The Willows    It’s a great idea!!! Like in Europe where’s the large outside space to  dine, kids and dogs to run around, grandparents to  catchup with friends.  This may be the only way for true authentic Restauranteurs to pay exorbitant downtime rent,  4 build sales to bale themselves out of this crisis, and bring incredible local beautifully prepared food and cocktails to  market!   Hope to see it University and Santa Cruz Avenue.  18 hr agoThank  Reply    5    Patt DiCicco • Crescent Park    I like that idea as well but then the folks living another block out  might not appreciate and omg more round abouts  but  Fire and Emr would have better access on one ways on Hamilton and Lytton perhaps you  18 hr agoThank  Reply    Martine PIERRES • Central Menlo    Blocking Santa Cruz ave ton pedestrians would make more sense for me.  8 hr agoThank  Reply    Amy Keohane • Downtown North    I think maybe more the side streets as University is main entrance.  I also wonder how many restaurants will come back.   I already know of 3 that aren't.  So it is a wait and see game. But we could do what Menlo Park did and take the parking  away in front of the restaurants and create more outdoor space  6 hr agoThank  Reply    Jake Millan • Downtown North    Andrew Sharpe  I have thought about this a ton and think it would be tremendously successful! 100% onboard!  5 hr agoThank  Reply      2    Nancy Larocca Hedley • Allied Arts    I love this idea.  Sounds like RWC is considering this as well.  After reading their story,  I wrote to the Menlo Park city  council to consider something similar here.  It's kind of astounding that we didn't have more outside seating before  given how fabulous the weather is here.  https://climaterwc.com/2020/05/02/local‐streets‐could‐soon‐turn‐into‐ outdoor‐cafes‐to‐support‐businesses/  2 hr agoThank  Reply    1    Jake Millan • Downtown North    Take back our air, take back our water, take back our streets!  2 hr agoThank  5 Reply    Steve Frankel • Downtown North    how do we get the PA City Council to take us this topic for review?  1 hr agoThank  Reply    Andrew Sharpe • Downtown North    Email them, I suppose. They have not been too responsive in the past, though. city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  1 hr agoThank  Reply    Steve Frankel • Downtown North    Yes, but you know how this works.  We need 12, 15, 20 people to contact the City Council.  They don't listen to 1 person.  Who else will write them about this idea?  23 min agoThank  Reply    Add a reply...    Amy Keohane • Downtown North    Again I think you will have a better chance with the side streets than University or taking away parking spots that are in  front of restaurants that are still in business after all this  1 Baumb, Nelly From:jon riley <jriley9555@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 6:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pedestrian only University Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council,     I have lived here my whole life (50+ years) and I’ve prayed for the option of a pedestrian only University ave to materialize.    Pedestrian only areas are convivial and actually very good for business, as well as community strengthening.     The announcement of this would invigorate, give confidence and show resilience to business owners, both future and present, of the viability of the downtown Palo Alto area.    Some iteration of: make Hamilton and Lytton one way streets, going in opposite directions, side streets would stay open or maybe every other one would be pedestrian only.    Making a genuine effort towards this would show tremendous leadership as we emerge from this difficult time.     Jon Riley  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Stacey Olgado <staceyolgado@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 7:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting local businesses, please consider.... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members,    I am writing because, like many, I am concerned about the challenges our local restaurants are facing. I have lived in Palo  Alto for 26 years and seen how our downtowns, both California and University Avenue, have become overwhelmingly  restaurant‐centric.    In Palo Alto, and easy to adopt everywhere, when we do finally move to the second phase of reopening, wouldn’t it be  great if we closed University and California Avenue and appropriate side streets to vehicular traffic?  Let the restaurants  set a few tables in front their storefronts with appropriate social distancing,  let them “borrow” the sidewalks in front of  their restaurants. Let pedestrians walk down the streets rather then the sidewalks. Every restaurant could take  reservations, for one‐hour slots, so they could turn several more tables every lunch and dinner. This would hopefully  help them to get their footing back.    We have an obligation to do what we can to sustain our restaurants. We cannot let them fail. We’ve all read predictions  that up to fifty percent of all restaurants simply won’t recover.  If they don’t survive, these streets will likely have many  vacant storefronts, sad reminders of better days.    I hope our council will consider rerouting traffic, even if just for a few months, to support our local restaurants. The cost  seems low and the potential benefits not only to restaurants, but to our morale, could be significant.    I realize you are under substantial pressure managing many challenges this day.  Hope you will consider this. You will  have lots of community support.    With Regards,      Stacey Olgado    Palo Alto  Redacted