The Watergate Scandal

The Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C.

     For years the citizens of the United States looked to their government as a trustworthy and reliable source of assistance as was especially characterized by the vast number of government programs made to help victims of the Great Depression. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt behaved in a way to where he was able to personally connect to the American People with his "Fireside Talk" and his direct addresses to the public. The majority of U.S. liked their government body had had no reason not to; up until Richard Nixon.
     Richard Nixon was first elected to President in 1969 against Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey. His success in his campaign was widely due to his "comeback" from his presidential campaign loss against John F. Kennedy. Nixon had an extremely successful first term ending the war in Vietnam and gaining recognition by having the first U.S. moon landing during the early years of his presidency. As a result of his success, Nixon was re-elected to President in 1972 against Democrat George McGovern by one of the widest margins in voting history. However Nixon's re-election would not go over smoothly and he would become part of a scandal that would tarnish the image of the Presidency that F.D.R. had created as a trustworthy role in U.S. leadership.

 Richard M. Nixon    

      Richard Nixon's Watergate Scandal had always been an intriguing topic to me and I always wondered just how much of an impact the scandal had actually caused on both the Presidency and the American people. I began my research with the facts of what actually happened that stirred all the initial excitement. After some preliminary research I came to enough of an understanding to characterize the occurrences at Watergate Hotel in my own phrase, "The break-in of the Democratic Party's National committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C." Obviously this phrase is quite vague and begs many questions; such as, "Who broke into the Watergate hotel?" "Why did they do it?" "Who was responsible and what were the results?" These kinds of questions became the outline of my research of which I was determined to answer.

Watergate Security as written by Frank Wills

     My next step was to uncover the events at Watergate themselves. On June 17, 1972 security guard Frank Wills was on his graveyard shift at the hotel going about his normal duties turning off lights and patrolling as shown in his security log. Although his June-evening was not so ordinary when he witnessed five men wandering the building where after he immediately called the police. The five robbers had been caught attempting to wire-tap the offices in the Democratic National Committee Headquarters obviously attempting to illicit inside strategic information on the upcoming election. They were specifically targeting Larry O' Brien's office, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The five men each had previous or current experience with the CIA as well as histories pertaining to Cuba. The five men's names were Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, James W. McCord, Eugenio R. Martinez, and Frank A. Sturgis. According to my research these men would have been convicted and sent to prison plain and simple until a very interesting discovery was made, two of the burglars address books had contained connections to the White House.
   

Bob Haldeman Nixon's Chief of Staff

     All of a sudden the focus of the robberies shifted entirely. All eyes turned towards Nixon and his administration to gather what their response would be to the newly discovered connection to the Watergate robberies. The robbers had been specifically connected back to the organization CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President) and even the phone number of E. Howard Hunt (White House employee and member of "Plumbers" team organized to prevent government leaks after the Pentagon Papers incident), leading many reporters and American citizens to believe the robbers had been directed by the Nixon administration. Obviously Nixon denied all allegations that he was in any was connected to the robberies, but there was some unusual behavior occurring in the White House. In Nixon's first Watergate response speech he announced the resignations of Bob Haldeman (Nixon's Chief of Staff), John Ehrlichman (Nixon's Domestic Affairs advisor), Richard Kleindienst (Nixon's Attorney General) and White House Counsel John Dean. More and more Americans were wanting more information and evidence from the White as suspicions grew towards Nixon's involvement.
 

John Ehrlichman Nixon's Domestic Affairs Advisor

     Finally as ordered the White House released recordings from the tape recorders set up in the White House to document verbal interactions in the White House. Listeners of the tapes found incriminating evidence in multiple conversations involving Nixon and his members of staff. One particular conversation I found in my research involved Nixon discussing what appeared to be a matter of gathering "hush money" with his counsel John Dean. In one dramatic interaction between the two Nixon says, "Well, the erosion in inevitably going to come here, apart from anything, you know, people saying that, uh, well, the Watergate isn't a major concern. It isn't. But it would, but it will be. It's bound to be." To which Dean replied, "We cannot let your image be tarnished by that situation [...]." Obviously this tape reveals a dramatic conversation between the two who had been deeply discussing the effects the Watergate Scandal would have on Nixon's image. Eventually despite all the avoidance and turmoil of the Watergate Scandal, with impeachment by the House and Senate imminent, Nixon was forced to become the first President to resign from office.
     Nixon's resignation and entire involvement throughout the Watergate scandal became characterized with a huge lack of apology for the events at Watergate. Even in Nixon's own resignation speech it was blatantly obvious that he wished for his image to be anything but related to Watergate. In his speech he said, "I shall leave this office not with regret at not completing my term, but with gratitude for the privilege of serving as your President for the past 5 and a half years." The particular instance where Nixon said "not with regret" especially gained my attention. The idea of him looking through the camera directly addressing the American People and saying "not with regret" after his obvious involvement in the Watergate Scandal was ridiculous. Of course Nixon wanted his Presidency to be one of success of remembrance, but by taking responsibility for his actions and giving the American People the apology they deserved, perhaps he would've been remembered as a President of character and not of scandal.

Sources:
Watergate Info - General Watergate Background
History Channel - Brief Summary
Frank Wills Info - Security Guard Account
Bob Haldeman - Bio
Nixon's Resignation Speech - Primary Source on Nixon's Attitude
Watergate Burglars - Background on Burglars
Haldeman's Opinion on Watergate - Haldeman's Post Watergate View
Richard Nixon Info - Bio

Schenck vs. The United States

     Charles Schenck vs. The United States was a defining moment in the United States' history because of the questions it brought about concerning "Freedom of Speech," powers of the U.S. government, and the effects it would have on future, similar cases.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the judge in Schenck's case was a very well respected judge due to his years of experience.

     Charles Schenck was a prominent member of the Socialist Party in the United States. He strongly opposed World War I and especially the draft. As a measure to demonstrate his opinion, he produced a series of pamphlets/flyers in opposition to the War. The flyer declared the draft as unconstitutional by asserting it as "involuntary servitude" which was proscribed by the 13th amendment (outlawing slavery). The flyer also labeled the war as being motivated by capitalist greed and urged draftees to petition for the repeal of the draft. Charles Schenck distributed his flyer all among the military and naval forces throughout the U.S. Inevitably the government became aware of Charles Schenck and his flyer, and they had just the tools to prosecute him for his actions. 

Schenck's case had much to do with the precise meanings of the 1st Amendment and the Espionage Act.

     The U.S. government charged Charles Schenck with violating the Espionage Act of 1917. The Espionage act barred all acts of insubordination and interference with military recruitment which was precisely what Charles Schenck had been attempting. Schenck was alleged by the government with conspiring "to cause insubordination...in the military and naval forces of the United States." Schenck primarily countered their argument by claiming that the Espionage Act itself violated the First Amendment's clause that forbids Congress from making any law abridging Freedom of Speech. Schenck certainly had a valid point in my opinion. According to the actual language of the First Amendment, Schenck had every right to express his opinion openly and freely! But Schenck's flyer was harming the military's recruitment and impeding the country's strength in the war effort. Quickly the question arose; Can the government legally bar freedom of speech in circumstances similar to Schenck's? 

The Supreme Court's decision in Schenck's case created new language for future cases concerning Freedom of Speech. 

     The presiding Judge during Schenck's trial was the old and well-respected Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Judge Holmes had many years of experience in law and he was the perfect judge for a case as difficult as this one. Justice Holmes wrote for the majority in the unanimous 9-0 vote against Schenck, and his opinion was brief and direct at only two paragraphs in length! The following text from Justice Holmes' dialogue would become a huge influence in court for many years to come:

"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent."

Above is a political cartoon from the same time period when the Espionage Act was passed. 

     The case was decided on March 3rd, 1919. The written decision uses Justice Holmes' language in saying, "The First Amendment is not absolute, and freedom of speech may be restricted when the expression poses a "clear and present danger" to values that Congress is entitled to protect." And so the question had been answered. The government did have a right to limit freedom of speech in wartime as long as it posed a "clear and present danger." I personally agree wholeheartedly with Justice Holmes' opinion. He acknowledged that what Schenck had said was within his constitutional rights, but at the same time he addressed how Schenck's actions posed a threat to the country. Schenck's actions were of his own personal beliefs and I applaud his initiative in standing up for what he believes. But I have a greater belief in maintaining unity in our military and preventing any division from within. If Schenck had been allowed to continue the distribution of his flyer, the cause could have built up enough support to repeal the draft leaving the military significantly weaker. I believe the country needs to maintain its military strength and Schenck was endangering our country's ability to defend itself.

Sources:
PBS - Basic History
Princeton Clear and Present Danger - Information on "Clear and Present Danger" term
EBSCO - AVL Source
Digital History: Espionage Act - Basic History on Espionage Act
OYEZ Case Summary - Case Summary of Schenck Trial
"You Are the Supreme Court Justice" - Book Source with dates
"Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court" - Photo sources for blog

Great White Fleet Postcard Sources

Research Sources 
AVL
Osterhaus Newspaper (Primary Source)
Arlington Cemetery
Osterhaus Family Tree
Great White Fleet Private Digital Source
Library of Congress
History of Great White Fleet

History Postcard Work Paragraph

     My approach towards the research I have done for this project reflects a sort of timeline for the journey of the Great White Fleet and its participants. I began by researching the tour itself and where the fleet made port on what dates. Second, I gathered the names of certain ships in the fleet along with their respective captains and ranks. It was during this particular point of my research I decided that I would impersonate the Rear Admiral Hugo Osterhaus, Captain of the USS Connecticut, for my postcard project itself. All that remains in my research is to develop a specific order of when and where Osterhaus may have written the postcards and to whom he may have written to. 

I look happy to be working don't I?

History of the NYPD

     New York City is one of the populated areas in the United States of America. If this city did not have the NYPD (New York City Police Department) to protect and serve its citizens, New York would not be a very safe place to live. The creation of the NYPD allowed the city to grow and prosper into the metropolis it is today by creating a safe environment during the Gilded Era.

Law enforcement first began in New York City while it was still known as Fort Amsterdam.

     Law enforcement in New York City existed long before the NYPD with a lawman known as the schout-fiscal (or literally "sheriff-attorney"). This type of lawman first existed in 1625 when New York City was still a Dutch fort known as Fort Amsterdam. The schout-fiscal would patrol the grounds of the fort settling minor disputes, keeping the general peace, and warning colonists if fires broke out at night. All throughout the rest of the 17th and 18th centuries, this sort of enforcement kept the peace in the city until it simply became too big for a few to patrol. Then the city felt the need for a true police force.
     The law enforcement in New York City was beginning to gain poor reputation as their responsibilities grew with the rate of the city's increase. The murder of Mary Roger's in 1841 was so poorly handled by the law enforcement at the time that it gave the press good reason to depict the existing law enforcement with an image of unreliability and disorganization. Although four years later, law enforcement in New York City would be reshaped entirely. When High Constable Jacob Hayes retired in 1845, the governor of New York granted Mayor William Havemeyer permission for the creation of a professional police force. Eight-hundred men became the first police force in New York City under the leadership of the first Chief of Police, George W. Matsell on May 13, 1845 with the city divided into three districts. The brand new NYPD began patrolling the streets of the city in July of 1845.
     The NYPD gave all sorts of security to the citizens of New York City. Along with their traditional law enforcement duties the NYPD was crucial during times of conflict in the 19th century. The NYPD showed great strength when it suppressed Civil War draft riots in the 1860s and especially during the Orange Riot in 1871. In fact the NYPD's first official motto came as a direct result of thanks from the citizens when the department received a Flag of Honor in 1872. Written on the Flag of Honor was written "Faithful Unto Death" which is still an official motto of the NYPD today.

 

19th Century Police poster with NYPD motto "Faithful Unto Death."

     The NYPD wasn't always so great though. Even the police had their fair share in corruption. Tammany Hall in New York City began its political corruption in the 1870s and even had a large impact on corruption in the police department. Tammany Hall contributed to this corruption by bribing police officials to overlook illegal liquor sales, fraud, and even ballot-box stuffing at police-manned polls. The police department also was growing lazy on its patrolling duties. All of this corruption and laziness would quickly be brought to a close with the arrival of "Teddy" himself, Theodore Roosevelt.
     Theodore Roosevelt became the President of the New York City Police Commission in 1895. As police commissioner Roosevelt set goals to end corruption in the city as a whole, but he only made a true difference in the department's corruption. Roosevelt quickly gained the public's favor when he himself would go on nighttime patrol's on the city to make sure police officers were doing their jobs. Roosevelt found many policemen acting lazy and ignoring their duties on these patrols and gradually renewed the professional reputation of the department. Roosevelt also gained the public's favor by enforcing laws that had been widely ignored beforehand such as closing beer halls on Sundays. Roosevelt was a fantastic leader within the NYPD which was revealed in William Andrew's research into the NYPD's history division where he found a record describing Theodore Roosevelt as "an iron-willed leader of unimpeachable honesty, (who) brought a reforming zeal to the New York City Police Commission in 1895." After Theodore Roosevelt left the NYPD, the force would continue its professional patterns to this present day and make multiple advancements in criminology that would contribute to the safety of the city as a whole.

Teddy Roosevelt was a strict leader of the Board of NYC Police Commissioners.

    Police officers first began carrying guns shortly before Roosevelt's arrival in 1887. Shortly after he became President of the commission however, a school of Police Pistol Practice opened in 1895 and practices officially started on December 30, 1895. On June 3, 1896 the Police Board agreed that a .32 caliber, double-action, 4 in. barrel Colt revolver would become the first standard side-arm among the NYPD. The introduction of a standard side-arm in the force greatly increased the level of responsibility among the officers in keeping the city safe and many new standards in safety had to be introduced over the next few years. In 1901 the board changed the side-arm rule to "each, member of the patrol force shall be armed on duty with a revolving pistol of .38 caliber with the officer's shield number stamped onto the pistol." In 1906 finger-printing became a tool of the force when Commissioner McAdoo sent Det. Sgt. Joseph Faurot to London in order to gain information on the process of finger-printing. The first case to be solved using finger-printing technology was in 1908. Accurate crime statistics did not exist within the city before the 1960s but the trend as these of advancements in criminology were introduced has shown a dramatic decrease in crime rates. Even in the beginning of the 21st century when New York is one of the most populated cities, the NYPD continues to enforce the city "Faithful Unto Death" and keeps the citizens safe so they can go about their daily lives with a sense of security.


Sources: 
Wikipedia
Shmoop
NYPD Recruit
U-S History.com
NYC.gov
BJ Whalen article

Faces of America and a "Nation of Immigrants"

While watching "Faces of America," it became apparent to me how there is no one in North America whose ancestry does not compose of at least one immigrant. I've heard people talk about their "Native American" ancestry and how they might be 1/32nd Cherokee or something along those lines, but in this present time there must be an extremely small number of pure Native Americans left (if any at all). While watching the various celebrities throughout the show gasp and say "Wow!" as they saw characteristics of their family tree, I questioned what might surprise me in my family tree. Perhaps their are family members in my background who did great things, or maybe I'm a long-forgotten descendant of one of the founding fathers. Maybe someday I'll try and figure out just where my true roots are.

What do you think it means to be a "nation of immigrants"? Think about the characteristics of people who decided to leave a homeland to successfully make a life somewhere else and take on a whole new cultural identity! Ask yourself how those traits may have shaped America, and what we see as American culture. Do you feel very aware of your connection to ancestors like the 19th century immigrants you've read about, and watched in the film? (Why or why not?)

A: I think being a "nation of immigrants" means that the United States is a nation that defines itself by its diversity of people from all around the Earth who earned the feeling of accomplishment by finally arriving in the United States. The majority of immigrants who came to the United States spent an exorbitant amount of their lives preparing and saving money to leave their homelands to find a fresh start. Once they had made the journey across the Atlantic Ocean and laid their eyes on Ellis Island, one can only imagine how proud they must have been to have successfully fulfilled their goals of arriving in the land of opportunity. These emotions of pride and accomplishment created the tone in American culture all throughout the country's history. One of the most common slogans around the country is "Proud to be an American." Slogans like this one came to be because of the pride felt by immigrants to have made a new life. Therefore citizens of the United States have a consistent feeling of national pride all across the nation. 
     Personally I probably don't feel as connected to my ancestors as I should. I know very little about who exactly my ancestors were or even where exactly they came from. Honestly I never thought to spend the time trying to try and develop knowledge of my family tree. After watching "Faces of America" and seeing Stephen Colbert and Meryl Streep completely humbled by their origins though, I am now very curious to know more about my lineage. 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/glimpses3/images/glimpses5.jpg

The Success Story of John D. Rockefeller

  The early 19th century was the time to live for a big-businessman. If you were wise enough to take advantage of the lack of legal restrictions, buy out your competitors, and control your product from start to finish you could become a very wealthy individual; John D. Rockefeller was one such individual. John D. Rockefeller was the founder of the late-19th century Standard Oil Company. Through this company John D. Rockefeller became known as the "wealthiest man who ever lived," as well as a cutthroat magnate who dominated oil from the ground to the barrel.

     John D. Rockefeller was unique in his approach to business because he was one of the first business leaders to take advantage of both "horizontal" and "vertical" integration simultaneously. "Horizontal" integration is the idea of beating your competition in business by integrating their enterprise into your own. "Vertical" integration differs in that instead of buying out your competitors, you buyout the enterprises that process your product during the various stages of development. By integrating both "horizontal" and "vertical" integration Rockefeller was purchasing refineries, oil taps, and barreling warehouses all while monopolizing his competition who used those same companies he was purchasing. Nowadays the U.S. federal government has made laws to prevent Rockefeller's imperious approach to business. However Rockefeller was not bound by today's laws and dominated the oil industry from beginning to end.

      Standard Oil Company's success only lasted throughout Rockefeller's life though. The company quickly begin to suffer only a few years after Rockefeller's death. Without the guidance of their genius founder, the company rapidly declined until it's failure in 1917. 

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4c6d47bc7f8b9ae57d700d00/john-d-rockefeller-1885.jpg