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