An opening remark from Dot Calm

Please pardon my recent absence from the blogosphere: my webmeister and I were both termporarily hors de combat with computer malfunctions.

Before addressing the crux of this post, I must share something with you, my readers, to see if it rankles you as much as it does me. The first few times I heard him use it, I thought it simply an aberration and didn’t make anything of it. But I heard it again today, and I could feel my blood boil. After some inane remark, the President said, “let’s roll.”

As you may recall, Todd Beamer and Jeremy Glick used let’s roll! as their coordinated signal to rush the two “terrorists” on board their flight that sunny day in September. They used it to take down Flt. 93, the fourth plane headed towards our nation’s capital. Beamer and Glick, two of our country’s bravest, made their make-shift plan in plain view of the box cutter-wielding terrorists aboard that fateful flight. It was the let’s roll! signal they chose to coordinate their rush to the front of the plane to overpower them and force the plane down in a deserted field in Pennsylvania.

The two words, let’s roll, are practically sacred in my mind. We shouldn’t belittle them in any way. They are not available to any yellow-bellied, spineless twit.

*************************************************

INFORMATION IS POWER!

*************************************************

The U.S. Constitution – The Bill of Rights*

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

*DRATS! I Memorized the 4^th Amendment for Nothing!

Do you mean to tell me I wasted my precious sixth-grade time memorizing the Fourth Amendment? Well, that sux! Do you appreciate how much stuff is on the mind of a sixth grade kid? Why on earth was it necessary to memorize any of the Amendments?

Our esteemed president has declared the U.S. Constitution nothing more than a piece of paper (his own words are quoted in, for example, http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml: "I don't give a goddamn...I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"). Let’s have another look and see if you agree with Mr. Bush's valuation of the 4^th Amendment:

Fourth Amendment–Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is this really a protection you'd rather live without?

*****

Freedom of Speech? Not so much.

Last Thursday, I tuned in to my favorite Air America Talk Show, Randi Rhodes, only to discover there was a substitute host. Where’s Randi? By Friday, the news buzzed all over the airwaves: Randi was suspended! Why, I thought; did she finally kill a Republican? No, nothing that insignificant. Apparently she did a gig at a San Francisco comedy club and called Hillary and her faithful sidekick, Geraldine, exactly what they are: f****** political whores.

Randi is a New Yorker. So am I. The “f” word is an accepted part of speech and is as commonplace as breathing; it’s the first word we New Yorkers learn. Flipping the bird is even an accepted sign language symbol. (Check the NY Driver’s Manual.) Hey, we’re New Yorkers: get over it!

Apparently, word got back to the “suits” at Air America, who never heard the “f” word before and so were outraged! After running around the office wringing their hands and acting shocked...shocked I tell you...they settled on a fair and balanced discipline for the policy infraction: suspension! How long? The suits are still reeling in shock and haven’t decided on duration yet. Stay tuned.

Editor's note: Randi has since moved to Nova M—and good for her! I and other free-speech-loving Americans are grateful to have her back on the air where she belongs.

*****

Winter Soldier

During March and April six to eight hours/day were devoted to saving our democracy. It is worth saving. As our esteemed President would say: It’s hard work. Following is copy of the letter sent to members of Congress:

After watching a series of sobering testimonies given by our soldiers who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, I feel that, as a fellow American, I am compelled to make you aware of “Winter Soldier.” The testimonies follow one after another, one more heart-wrenching than the last. I strongly urge you to take a moment to find this site, http://ivaw.org/, and listen first-hand to what these men and women are telling us.

A clear message rings through over and over: Congress needs to take a major role overseeing the VA. For instance, did you know that more than 600,000 claims are back-logged today?

There has been a drastic reduction in VA help for our veterans. The VA Hospital in Battle Creek, Michigan, was a premier hospital treating mental patients coming back from wars. It had 3,000 beds; now it has 600. As I am sure you are aware, the number of veterans hasn’t declined, but our help for them has! We now find these veterans homeless, in soup kitchens, and competing for space in shelters. They deserve better.

Between 400,000 and 600,000 returning veterans are in need of psychological assistance for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Discretionary funding, on a monthly basis, is not a reasonable way to address the continuous need to treat the mental and physical illnesses of our veterans. This system forces funding to come in fits and starts. Our veterans deserve better. Congress must establish the focus. If this is going to take a movement by the American people, we will support our Congress.

A debate regarding these pressing matters must be brought to the attention of the American people. This is where our focus needs to be, not on Eliot Spitzer’s peccadilloes.

Please do what you can in support of our returning soldiers. Many of them need our help badly. Let’s not make the same mistake we did regarding our returning soldiers from Vietnam.

*****

9/11 Commission: Fox in the hen house?

Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board: a new book by a New York Times reporter shines a light on the disturbing behind-the-scenes workings of the 9/11 Commission's report. If bulletproof, the book prompts us to add one more thing to our to-do list for the next administration: pressure it to charge a panel of independent experts to write a real, nonpartisan report on the attacks. Philip Shenon's "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission" focuses on the relationship between the commission's executive director, Philip Zelikow, and the White House. To start with, Shenon writes that Zelikow sought to limit the Bush administration's responsibility in failing to assess threats leading up to the attacks. In 2003, with George W. Bush seeking re-election, a commission investigator found materials confirming that the White House (specifically, Condoleezza Rice, with whom Zelikow had written a book) had ignored warnings of an impending al-Qaida strike. Belittling the investigator, Zelikow dismissed the evidence. Zelikow had written a 2002 report for the administration, which seemed to provide justification for a pre-emptive war, and tried in 2004 to create a connection between Osama bin Laden and Iraq in the 9/11 Commission report. Despite saying he wouldn't do so, he also had several conversations with Rice and Karl Rove, which explains why he'd asked his assistant to stop keeping track of his calls to and from the White House. Someone with an apparent deference for the White House should not have been trusted with such a valued task.

*****

Tapes? Tapes? What Tapes? Don’t Know What You’re Talking About.

Associated Press

by Calvin Woodward

WASHINGTON--White House lawyers have advised President Bush's spokeswoman not to answer specific questions about why the CIA destroyed (2) tapes of terror suspects under interrogation, as Congress seeks answers about the matter.

The Justice Department and the CIA's internal watchdog are conducting a joint inquiry into the spy agency's destruction of videotaped interrogations of two suspected terrorists, to determine whether a full investigation is warranted. With that review ongoing, the White House counsel's office has instructed Bush's press secretary, Dana Perino, not to get into details with reporters.

"I think that that's appropriate, and I'll adhere to it," Perino said Monday. She said her previous statement remains accurate—that Bush has no recollection of hearing about the tapes' existence or their destruction before being briefed about it last Thursday.

The White House typically stops commenting—beyond broad talking points—once an inquiry into a controversial matter is under way. When a reporter asked about another White House "wall of silence," Perino told the media in her morning briefing: "I can see where that cynicism that usually drifts from this room could come up in this regard. What I can tell you is I try my best to get you as much information as I can."

White House employees have been directed by the counsel's office to preserve all documents and e-mails related to the matter, Perino said.

Attorneys for one detainee say the destruction of the tapes may have violated a court order and have asked a federal judge to hold a hearing. In a court filing, attorneys for Yemeni national Mahmoad Abdah point to a June 10, 2005 court order telling the government to "preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees."

A hearing on the tapes has not yet been set.

Congressional leaders are pressing to find out who knew what about the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotape and whether justice was obstructed in the process. Politicians in both parties and in the presidential campaign said inquiries must get to the bottom of the matter and questioned if anyone in the White House knew what was happening. But there appears to be little support for appointment of a special prosecutor.

Democrats and some Republicans expressed skepticism about CIA claims that tapes of the questioning of two terrorism suspects were destroyed only to protect the identity of the interrogators.

"The actions, I think, were absolutely wrong," Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a victim of torture while a war prisoner in Vietnam, said Sunday. "There will be skepticism and cynicism all over the world about how we treat prisoners and whether we practice torture or not."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday she has no memory of the CIA videotapes.

"First of all, I think my take is that, well, this is an internal matter for the CIA," Rice said. "I was secretary of state in 2005, indeed, and I can tell you that I myself don't recollect any knowledge of the tapes." She refused further comment, citing a Department of Justice investigation. GOP presidential rival Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, questioned whether the CIA destroyed the tape for security purposes as claimed "or to cover somebody's rear end."

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, a Democratic presidential candidate and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for a special counsel. "I just think it's clearer and crisper and everyone will know what the truth is," he said.

That view was not shared by fellow Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, or a number of other prominent Democrats.

"I don't think there's a need for a special counsel, and I don't think there's a need for a special commission," Rockefeller said. "It is the job of the intelligence committees to do that."

The spy agency destroyed the tapes in November 2005, at a time when human rights groups and lawyers for detainees were clamoring for information about the agency's secret detention and interrogation program, and Congress and U.S. courts were debating whether "enhanced interrogation" crossed the line into torture.

Rockefeller, citing the confidentiality of certain intelligence briefings, said he could not comment on the existence of any other interrogation tapes. He said CIA Director Michael Hayden would appear before his committee Tuesday.

Biden cited Attorney General Michael Mukasey's refusal during confirmation hearings to describe waterboarding as torture as a reason to appoint an independent counsel.

"He's the same guy who couldn't decide whether or not waterboarding was torture and he's going to be doing this investigation," said Biden.

Hayden told CIA employees Thursday that the recordings were destroyed out of fear the tapes would leak and reveal the identities of interrogators.

*****

Shadow Government

Edited on Wed May-23-07 03:46 PM by IDemo

The concept first arose with President Eisenhower during the "duck and cover" era of the Cold War. Every president since, including Carter and Clinton, has issued one or more "Continuity of Government Operations" statements in one form or another. The first time that actions were actually taken under its umbrella, however, was immediately following the events of September 11, 2001. Bush admitted the action six months later. Key congressional leaders had not been informed until then.

Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 67, which replaced the Bush (41) Administration's NSD 69 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 02 June 1992, which in turn succeeded NSD 37 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 18 April 1990 and NSDD 55 "Enduring National Leadership" of 14 September 1982. The latest "COG" (Continuity of Government) exercise, from Bush junior, states: "Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked."

Why would the latest continuity statement in a series of such statements stretching across half a century be cause for alarm if none of the others have caused a constitutional crisis so far? Excepting the fact that the source of the Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20 is one who can hardly open his mouth (perhaps even to brush his teeth) without wreaking havoc on people and principles, what exactly causes us to fear for the worst this time around? Could it mean that something big is up and the BFEE is feeling the need to shield itself with absolute power in the face of a looming catastrophe?

Bush shrugged off his responsibility as Commander in Chief by announcing the creation of a new 'War Czar', but within a week he issued a national security directive that would, in the event of a catastrophic attack on the federal government, assign the responsibility of running a shadow government to the White House, not the Department of Homeland Security. Why would he shirk responsibility for conducting the war "over there" one week, and completely empower himself for the one over here the next?

*****

A letter from Dot Calm to her Congressman

May 29, 2007

Congressman Walter B. Jones

422 Cannon House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman:

I contacted your office early last week with a specific concern. I am merely following through with this correspondence. As you know, the concept of Continuity of Government Operations first arose during the Eisenhower presidency and continues until today in one form or another.

It has been my understanding the Executive Branch carries out laws passed by Congress. Our forefathers were indeed wise as they developed our Constitution so future presidents did not have or grab absolute power. Past presidents well understood this concept.

After more than 50 years of some form of Continuity of Government Operations, today it is dramatically changed. This president has usurped the role of Congress and completely empowered himself should a catastrophic emergency arise.

I find this new interpretation of Continuity of Government Operations disturbing. Congress has always had an essential role in the governance of the United States. The reason, I believe, is the effort and opinions of so many Americans working for the good of our country. I am, therefore, extremely uncomfortable witnessing an erosion in the precepts of Continuity of Government Operations in what appears to be the power grab our forefathers so diligently planned against.

Please investigate this latest interpretation of Continuity of Government Operations and explain why I should not be concerned.

Respectfully,

Dot Calm

*****

FEDERALIST No. 12

The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. They consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. The essays were signed PUBLIUS. The authors of some papers are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote fifty two, James Madison wrote twenty eight, and John Jay contributed the remaining five. The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution. The following one is attributed to Alexander Hamilton and was written for the Independent Journal. It is titled “The Utility of the Union in Respect to Revenue.”

THE effects of Union upon the commercial prosperity of the States have been sufficiently delineated. Its tendency to promote the interests of revenue will be the subject of our present inquiry.

The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares. By multipying the means of gratification, by promoting the introduction and circulation of the precious metals, those darling objects of human avarice and enterprise, it serves to vivify and invigorate the channels of industry, and to make them flow with greater activity and copiousness. The assiduous merchant, the laborious husbandman, the active mechanic, and the industrious manufacturer,--all orders of men, look forward with eager expectation and growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toils. The often-agitated question between agriculture and commerce has, from indubitable experience, received a decision which has silenced the rivalship that once subsisted between them, and has proved, to the satisfaction of their friends, that their interests are intimately blended and interwoven. It has been found in various countries that, in proportion as commerce has flourished, land has risen in value. And how could it have happened otherwise? Could that which procures a freer vent for the products of the earth, which furnishes new incitements to the cultivation of land, which is the most powerful instrument in increasing the quantity of money in a state--could that, in fine, which is the faithful handmaid of labor and industry, in every shape, fail to augment that article, which is the prolific parent of far the greatest part of the objects upon which they are exerted? It is astonishing that so simple a truth should ever have had an adversary; and it is one, among a multitude of proofs, how apt a spirit of ill-informed jealousy, or of too great abstraction and refinement, is to lead men astray from the plainest truths of reason and conviction.

The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury. The hereditary dominions of the Emperor of Germany contain a great extent of fertile, cultivated, and populous territory, a large proportion of which is situated in mild and luxuriant climates. In some parts of this territory are to be found the best gold and silver mines in Europe. And yet, from the want of the fostering influence of commerce, that monarch can boast but slender revenues. He has several times been compelled to owe obligations to the pecuniary succors of other nations for the preservation of his essential interests, and is unable, upon the strength of his own resources, to sustain a long or continued war.

But it is not in this aspect of the subject alone that Union will be seen to conduce to the purpose of revenue. There are other points of view, in which its influence will appear more immediate and decisive. It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty. The popular system of administration inherent in the nature of popular government, coinciding with the real scarcity of money incident to a languid and mutilated state of trade, has hitherto defeated every experiment for extensive collections, and has at length taught the different legislatures the folly of attempting them.

No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance. In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises. Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.

In America, it is evident that we must a long time depend for the means of revenue chiefly on such duties. In most parts of it, excises must be confined within a narrow compass. The genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws. The pockets of the farmers, on the other hand, will reluctantly yield but scanty supplies, in the unwelcome shape of impositions on their houses and lands; and personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the imperceptible agency of taxes on consumption.

If these remarks have any foundation, that state of things which will best enable us to improve and extend so valuable a resource must be best adapted to our political welfare. And it cannot admit of a serious doubt, that this state of things must rest on the basis of a general Union. As far as this would be conducive to the interests of commerce, so far it must tend to the extension of the revenue to be drawn from that source. As far as it would contribute to rendering regulations for the collection of the duties more simple and efficacious, so far it must serve to answer the purposes of making the same rate of duties more productive, and of putting it into the power of the government to increase the rate without prejudice to trade.

The relative situation of these States; the number of rivers with which they are intersected, and of bays that wash there shores; the facility of communication in every direction; the affinity of language and manners; the familiar habits of intercourse; --all these are circumstances that would conspire to render an illicit trade between them a matter of little difficulty, and would insure frequent evasions of the commercial regulations of each other. The separate States or confederacies would be necessitated by mutual jealousy to avoid the temptations to that kind of trade by the lowness of their duties. The temper of our governments, for a long time to come, would not permit those rigorous precautions by which the European nations guard the avenues into their respective countries, as well by land as by water; and which, even there, are found insufficient obstacles to the adventurous stratagems of avarice.

In France, there is an army of patrols (as they are called) constantly employed to secure their fiscal regulations against the inroads of the dealers in contraband trade. Mr. Neckar computes the number of these patrols at upwards of twenty thousand. This shows the immense difficulty in preventing that species of traffic, where there is an inland communication, and places in a strong light the disadvantages with which the collection of duties in this country would be encumbered, if by disunion the States should be placed in a situation, with respect to each other, resembling that of France with respect to her neighbors. The arbitrary and vexatious powers with which the patrols are necessarily armed, would be intolerable in a free country.

If, on the contrary, there be but one government pervading all the States, there will be, as to the principal part of our commerce, but ONE SIDE to guard--the ATLANTIC COAST. Vessels arriving directly from foreign countries, laden with valuable cargoes, would rarely choose to hazard themselves to the complicated and critical perils which would attend attempts to unlade prior to their coming into port. They would have to dread both the dangers of the coast, and of detection, as well after as before their arrival at the places of their final destination. An ordinary degree of vigilance would be competent to the prevention of any material infractions upon the rights of the revenue. A few armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports, might at a small expense be made useful sentinels of the laws. And the government having the same interest to provide against violations everywhere, the co-operation of its measures in each State would have a powerful tendency to render them effectual. Here also we should preserve by Union, an advantage which nature holds out to us, and which would be relinquished by separation. The United States lie at a great distance from Europe, and at a considerable distance from all other places with which they would have extensive connections of foreign trade. The passage from them to us, in a few hours, or in a single night, as between the coasts of France and Britain, and of other neighboring nations, would be impracticable. This is a prodigious security against a direct contraband with foreign countries; but a circuitous contraband to one State, through the medium of another, would be both easy and safe. The difference between a direct importation from abroad, and an indirect importation through the channel of a neighboring State, in small parcels, according to time and opportunity, with the additional facilities of inland communication, must be palpable to every man of discernment.

It is therefore evident, that one national government would be able, at much less expense, to extend the duties on imports, beyond comparison, further than would be practicable to the States separately, or to any partial confederacies. Hitherto, I believe, it may safely be asserted, that these duties have not upon an average exceeded in any State three per cent. In France they are estimated to be about fifteen per cent., and in Britain they exceed this proportion.1 There seems to be nothing to hinder their being increased in this country to at least treble their present amount. The single article of ardent spirits, under federal regulation, might be made to furnish a considerable revenue. Upon a ratio to the importation into this State, the whole quantity imported into the United States may be estimated at four millions of gallons; which, at a shilling per gallon, would produce two hundred thousand pounds. That article would well bear this rate of duty; and if it should tend to diminish the consumption of it, such an effect would be equally favorable to the agriculture, to the economy, to the morals, and to the health of the society. There is, perhaps, nothing so much a subject of national extravagance as these spirits.

What will be the consequence, if we are not able to avail ourselves of the resource in question in its full extent? A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land. It has been already intimated that excises, in their true signification, are too little in unison with the feelings of the people, to admit of great use being made of that mode of taxation; nor, indeed, in the States where almost the sole employment is agriculture, are the objects proper for excise sufficiently numerous to permit very ample collections in that way. Personal estate (as has been before remarked), from the difficulty in tracing it, cannot be subjected to large contributions, by any other means than by taxes on consumption. In populous cities, it may be enough the subject of conjecture, to occasion the oppression of individuals, without much aggregate benefit to the State; but beyond these circles, it must, in a great measure, escape the eye and the hand of the tax-gatherer. As the necessities of the State, nevertheless, must be satisfied in some mode or other, the defect of other resources must throw the principal weight of public burdens on the possessors of land. And as, on the other hand, the wants of the government can never obtain an adequate supply, unless all the sources of revenue are open to its demands, the finances of the community, under such embarrassments, cannot be put into a situation consistent with its respectability or its security. Thus we shall not even have the consolations of a full treasury, to atone for the oppression of that valuable class of the citizens who are employed in the cultivation of the soil. But public and private distress will keep pace with each other in gloomy concert; and unite in deploring the infatuation of those counsels which led to disunion.

PUBLIUS