Author Archives: lee

On July 11, 1804, Aaron Burr, a sitting vice president, shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, referred to as “an affair of honor,” back in those days.

Is it important? Perhaps so. If nothing else, campaigns of yesteryear were more turbulent than those of today. While the nastiest campaign was between Andrew Jackson and John Quincey Adams, the 1800 election ranks toward the top. A reader of history will find the dirtiest, nastiest campaigns were those in the 1800s. Anyway, for the duel, reasonably common then, you first need to go back to the election in 1796. The first actual election, in a sense, we had in this country.

Burr ran for the vice presidency that year with Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican ticket (the forerunner of the Democratic Party). Hamilton and Burr had a long history of animosity, and Hamilton launched a series of public attacks against Burr, stating, “I feel it is a religious duty to oppose his career.” John Adams won the presidency, and in 1797 Burr left the Senate and returned to the New York Assembly. A word about the Electoral College in the next paragraph because it was a little different then. It’s incorrect to say Burr ran for the vice presidency.

In 1800, Jefferson, at the head of the ticket, chose Burr as a running mate, sort of. Keeping in mind this was before the Internet, Burr helped the Democratic-Republican party by publishing a confidential document that Hamilton had written critical Federalist candidate and President John Adams. Hamilton was a Federalist. The confidential memorandum caused a division among the Federalists and helped Jefferson and Burr win the election with 73 electoral votes each. Bear in mind both men had the same number of electoral votes.

Back then, candidates ran separately, not together. The person with the most votes would be president, and the person coming in second would be vice president. That’s how John Adams served as president and Jefferson as vice president after the election of 1796, a practice no longer in effect. The election was thrown into the House of Representatives to choose a winner. Interestingly enough, there were 35 tie votes in the House.

A group of Federalists, led in good part by Hamilton, supported Jefferson. Hamilton did it as the lesser of two evils. Jefferson won, and Burr became vice president. Burr already didn’t like Hamilton, and this added fuel to the fire. But there’s more.

In 1804, Jefferson distanced himself from Burr. The Federalists, sensing an opportunity, tried to pull Burr into their party. Although he was still vice president, a group of Federalists tried to run Burr for governor of New York. One big problem, though. Hamilton campaigned against Burr, and he lost the Federalist nomination. Well, Burr didn’t give up and ran as an independent for governor. In the campaign, Burr’s character was ruthlessly attacked by Hamilton and actually by others. Still, it was Hamilton that Burr hated, and to preserve or restore his reputation, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel.

Duels rarely ended with anyone shot, and some believe Hamilton fired first and intentionally missed. No one knows that for sure except for a letter he wrote the night before. The letter somewhat implies he was going to do this, figuring Burr would then intentionally miss, and differences could be resolved. Now Burr was a bit of a wild man if you read his history, but the thing is, he didn’t miss. He shot Hamilton in the stomach, and he died the next day. The picture is misleading because it looks like a shot to the head.

Burr got into some other things, which included being charged with treason three years later but was acquitted on a legal technicality and spent the rest of his life publicly disgraced. Hamilton ended up with his face on the sawbuck.

So, the 2016 election, as many believed, was on the tame side compared to it, except in 1804, when the fight was between those running, not between voters. The Electoral College, the law of the land in the Constitution, changed, so in 2016, it was Trump/Pence against Clinton/Kaine. In the aftermath, the fight continued. But the Constitution worked and continues to work.

What snack food did the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) legally bar using “chips” as a description for its product?

The picture I selected gives it away, but it’s somewhat interesting. The container tubes for Pringles currently label the product as “potato crisps.” While Pringles are often thought of like potato chips, technically, their parent company may just refer to them as “crisps.”

Pringles were initially known as “Pringles Newfangled Potato Chips”; however, other snack producers objected to the brand’s use of the term potato chip to describe Pringles. The FDA ruled in 1975 that Pringles could only use the word “chip” in their product name in the following phrase: “potato chips are made from dried potatoes.”

Sounds yummy. Rather than do this, the company began referring to Pringles as potato “crisps” rather than potato chips.

Personally, I call them chips.

It’s essential to read the founding documents of this country every year. The Declaration of Independence is important. It’s in three parts, and it’s easy enough to find online. I’m told when what I write is long, it won’t get read. As I start, this will be long. The Declaration of Independence is a fascinating document and is worth reading occasionally. So do it now, especially toward the end. If not, read toward the bottom of this. Or get it off the meme I made in part. Still, though, the real question is raised at the end. I refer to the 56 signing it as the Founders of this country, still a British Colony at the time.

Today, for some, it seems to be a trigger. Some will argue and celebrate Independence Day on what is known as Juneteenth. It is an important date in our history, and I celebrate America’s founding on July 4, 1776. However, it took a revolutionary war and 11 more years to have our present Constitution with Amendments to it, to have the true beginning of the United States of America.

Given the times we live in, some declare the beginning of the United States as 1619. There was no United States then, of course. It was a year to remember, but so is 1492, although Columbus never touched land here, 1513, 1565, 1587, 1607, 1619, 1754, and others before 1787.

The Declaration speaks to our ideals and aspirations as a nation of united people. We’ve fallen short at times, but we get back up. It’s an indictment against the British king, explaining why we must be a free nation and then detailing it. It acknowledges the shared sacrifice necessary to achieve independence.

The known sacrifice, a mutual pledge to be shared, is little known and buried toward the bottom, but so real, even today. Most everyone is aware of specific phrases like, “When in the Course of human events…” or “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Tucked away and seldom taught in schools are found at the heart of this document these words, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

The Founders pledged their lives and property(fortunes) to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. We have a continuing duty to do the same.

But I have a question, and the answer may depend on your political perspective, but it shouldn’t. If the Founders had the foresight to know where we could be now, 248 years later, would they have pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for it?

I’m proud to be an American and of the United States of America. Like all countries and people, we have blemishes and scars, but we’ve overcome many of the ills we’ve faced through liberty and freedom, and we’ve done it faster than other countries.

Some countries remain mired today in the worst of times, but we overcame quickly concerning time and civilization. The struggle to stay free and keep our liberty is a generational struggle. We have people here believing that a “new” socialism leads to a utopian world, new only in the sense that every time it’s been tried, it has proved dystopian.

Even as I write this, a progressive candidate for the U.S. Senate decries America’s very founding. He’s wrong, of course. Unfortunately, he is not alone. In the countries some find better, they would be silenced, but not in the United States.

So, would the Founders make the pledge knowing this? I think they would. They may be disappointed that we’ve let the government grow so large. The man credited with penning the Declaration said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

All he meant was the price of liberty is a willingness to die for freedom or lose it to the first tyrant willing to take it away. Or, as said by many, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” So far, we’ve been able to maintain it, though it does get chipped.

Enjoy the day, but by all means, understand it! May God continue to bless the United States of America,

I am 100% proud to be an American. I realize that I am here by chance of birth. I’m thankful to have been so blessed. It doesn’t mean I’m not dismayed by happenings.

Every July 4th, I read the Declaration of Independence. While most people are familiar with the opening, the most powerful part is the ending: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Indeed, the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and honor to each other. In so doing, they did it for those coming after them, including me. It gives me pause if the people of today can do it.

Because of the words spoken by Ronald Reagan, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Reagan made clear the importance of safeguarding freedom and included the word liberty, both being a priceless bequeath to us, requiring an active effort to preserve.

I view the landscape of America today and see deep division. It’s like we have more than one history, that once we could define American values and had a common culture. Some tear at the fabric of the freedoms we once celebrated as a whole. Instead, some feel diversity makes us stronger as a nation.

It doesn’t. Most should remember a fable by Aesop. The lesson is that there is strength in unity. For those not knowing it, to summarize, an old man gathers his sons around him to give them some parting advice. He orders them to bring in a bundle of sticks and says to his eldest son, “Break it.” The sticks are passed among the sons to break each true, and each fail.

“Untie the bundle,” said the father, “and each of you take a stick.” When they had done so, he told them: “Now, break,” and each son easily broke each stick.

Sometimes, I feel we are there—three hundred forty million individual states (sticks) with little allegiance to the other.

I don’t want to be the one charged with the task of one day telling my children and children’s children what it was once like in the United States, where people were once free citizens.

Helen Hulick, 28, a burglary witness, caused a stir in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom on November 9, 1938, by wearing slacks.

A few days later, Hulick returned to testify. After she was sworn in as a witness, Judge Arthur Guerin stopped the proceedings and declared:

“The last time you were in this court dressed as you are now and reclining on your neck on the back of your chair, you drew more attention from spectators, prisoners and court attaches than the legal business at hand. You were requested to return in garb acceptable to courtroom procedure.

“Today you come back dressed in pants and openly defying the court and its duties to conduct judicial proceedings in an orderly manner. It’s time a decision was reached on this matter and on the power the court has to maintain what it considers orderly conduct.

“The court hereby orders and directs you to return tomorrow in accepted dress. If you insist on wearing slacks again you will be prevented from testifying because that would hinder the administration of justice. But be prepared to be punished according to law for contempt of court.”

Hulick reportedly said that she owned one formal dress and would wear it. The following day, she appeared again in slacks, was found guilty of contempt, and sentenced to five days in jail. Her attorney was released after booking with a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court of appeals overturned the decision.

Hulick was free to wear slacks to court. She still had to appear on January 17, 1939, and this time Hulick overdressed for the hearing, and in the vernacular of the day, looking like a sweet patootie. No word on the outcome of the burglary trial.