The State of the Union Kind of Sucks*

January 29, 2008 in history and current events

Pitch-perfect Bush State of the Union, right? Weird hostility to camera, like cornered ferret on meth?** Check. Apparent disregard for circumstances of vast majority of Americans? Check. Treating English language like ferret chew-toy? Check. Disjuncture between facial expressions and content of speech? Check. Policy prescriptions seemingly delivered to him by Xenu-vasal Tom Cruise.*** Totally. In sum, hilarious disengagement from the basic realities of the nation he leads?**** Sigh.

So what to do after watching something so horrid and sad as that? Well, I went to a party with a bunch of historians. Because historians like to party. The only problem? Keeping the papparazzi away. Natch. Anyway, after walking the red carpet and dealing with adoring fans, I asked my colleagues: has the state of the union ever been worse?

And here’s what we decided. Yes, there have been darker moments for the nation. Three of them. First, 1814, at the low ebb of the War of 1812, around the time the British sacked Washington. Second, the spring and early summer of 1863, when the Union couldn’t find a general to deal with Robert E. Lee’s treasonous hijinks. And third, 1933, before FDR’s New Deal began to alleviate the worst effects of the Depression.

So, that’s three times in more than two centuries that things have looked worse for the United States than they do right now. Thanks, President Bush. You totally rock out.

* Obviously, I’ve deployed the ever-popular double-entendre gambit: the speech sucked and so does the actual state of the union. Clever! But really: that was one horrible speech. And also: things aren’t so great right now in the US of A.

** Sorry ferrets, I know I shouldn’t hate on you like this. But Rudy! made me do it.

*** I’m so going to Mars on a rocket fashioned from the skulls of Islamic extremists and fueled by twigs from Bush’s Crawford “ranch.” I can’t wait.

**** Actually, not very funny at all. Do not watch in search of belly laughs. Or even chuckles. Probably not the place to go for giggles or chortles. Hell, just don’t watch unless you want to become terribly, terribly sad. For a long time.

52 comments

January 29, 2008 at 4:13 am

Levi Stahl

I really, really need to brush up on my knowledge of US history between the Revolution and Jackson’s rise. Your post reminds me that that’s my greatest area of ignorance*: I knew about the sack of Washington, but I somehow still didn’t realize that the situation in the war of 1812 was ever all that dire.

*American-historical ignorance, that is.**

**See what you’ve started, Ari? Are you going to accept responsibility, or are you going to turn around and blame someone like David Foster Wallace?

January 29, 2008 at 4:15 am

Ben Alpers

You mean someone like American Parliamentary Debate Association alumnus David Foster Wallace?

January 29, 2008 at 6:43 am

Galvinji

He is part of the secret cabal, too? I feel so … unaccomplished.

Maybe 1919, too? At least we don’t have any uncontrollable epidemics. This is outside of my area of expertise, though, so I will defer to those who know more.

I’m impressed that Ari was able even to watch the State of the Union. I can’t watch or listen to the president without the urge to scream obscenities at the television or radio, which would bother my wife and wake up my children. Also, I’m happy to hear that, contrary to my experience, parties of historians do not inevitably involve someone making jokes in Latin.

January 29, 2008 at 7:21 am

John B.

You mean like: Semper ubi sub ubi?

January 29, 2008 at 8:07 am

Matt W

So, that’s three times in more than two centuries that things have looked worse for the United States than they do right now. Thanks, President Bush. You totally rock out.

This seems a little extreme to me. No, a lot extreme. What about the Cuban missile crisis, when (so I’m told) it seemed like everyone might DIE? Was there any time during WWII when it seemed like there was a tiny chance that the Nazis or Japanese might win? Because they were serious existential threats. Oh, I’m no historian, but on the scale of things it doesn’t seem like things are world-historically bad for us right now.

This is true: At the moment we’ve got a world-historically bad government. And things are very bad for us morally, what with the open torture and all. Though I find it hard to say that the US is morally worse now than it was when slavery was legal (note: low bar, but you set it). The thing being that we should have made lots of progress in more than two centuries, we don’t get a cookie for it, and we’ve backslid very badly in the last seven years (at least). That applies to our materialistic self-interest too, as witness the swing from surpluses to deficits. So: Bush has done more to wreck the place than almost any president in our history. But given where we started off, I find it hard to say that he’s managed to drive us down to the third-worst moment ever.

[I guess the question here is: Are we on the road to internal tyranny. Again, I think we’ve backslid badly on a bunch of rule of law issues, but I don’t think it takes us to the third worst moment in history.]

January 29, 2008 at 9:21 am

Galvinji

You mean like: Semper ubi sub ubi?

The medievalists were a bit more sophisticated than that. Not much, though.

January 29, 2008 at 9:59 am

ari

Thanks, Matt, for taking this seriously. And for calling me on my hyperbole. But actually, I think the claim stands up. At least for the most part. Here’s what I have in mind.

Military/Existential:

As you say, there are only a few moments in which we can talk about true existential threats to the nation. 1814 and 1863 qualify, the former more than the latter, I think. I’d argue that at no point during WWII was there such a threat, though I wonder what Silbey would say (Page him, Eric, using that thing in his molar. Okay?)

October 1962 probably belongs on the list as well, so that’s a useful corrective. That said, there’s an important difference between then and now. Not to wade hip-deep into Kennedy hagiography, but we had a government at the time that was able to defuse the crisis. I wouldn’t like our chances at all were a similar problem to arise today. Which suggests to me that the state of union is worse now than then.

I mean that, by the way. The ability to handle a major problem, like the missiles in Cuba, is a pretty useful test of the health and well being of the republic. 1962, taking the long view, went pretty well. September 11, 2001, didn’t. Using this measure, we’re worse off now than we were then.

Economic:

We’re also worse off now than we were then. If you follow my drift. Other than the Cuban Missile Crisis, things were pretty good for the nation in 1962. Well, if you ignore what was percolating in Southeast Asia. (Okay, I’ll grant that factoring out Cuba and Vietnam in assessing the state of union in 1962 has an other-than-that-Mrs.-Lincoln-how-was-the-play? quality. So maybe you’re righter about 1962 than I’m allowing. But stay tuned, there’s more.)

The economy was a mixed bag in 1962. But it was, compared to today, probably quite a bit better. And of the other major economic downturns — 1819, 1837, 1873, etc. — only 1933, because of the depths of the Depression, fostered by government inaction (again, as you note, having a good government matters), rendered the state of the union worse than it is today. In sum, if you look at the big picture (more below), I don’t think that 1962 really makes the grade. Though, when it comes to economy at least, I don’t have the tools to make the comparison very well. Maybe Eric does. And by the way, click this link for hott history action.

Rule of Law/Citizenship

Also, as opposed to now, freedom actually was on the march in 1962. The nation’s moral health, rather than decaying, was improving. The rights revolution was ongoing, making real strides, and that’s not nothing.

How do I compare such a thing to the potential impact of a white woman or a black man becoming president? I don’t know. But my sense is that we’re in a grimmer moral place today. The gutting of civil liberties and the effort to revive the Crusades stand out in my mind. I’m particularly troubled by our secret prisons. Because they aren’t secret. We have what amounts to open-secret prisons, suggesting that part of the electorate accepts their existence. Or, if the Republican presidential hopefuls are to be believed, not only supports their existence but actively seeks their growth.

There are a few other moments that seem as troubling morally or Constitutionally as today — at least in some ways. Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and his broader disregard for civil liberties, the Palmer Raids, and Japanese internment all merit some discusstion.

But, in order, the Union really did face an existential threat during the Civil War. So I give Lincoln some slack. The Palmer Raids can’t be justified. But they weren’t as world-historically horrible as the current toxic stew of domestic and foreign policy missteps. And Japanese internment was awful, just as morally bankrupt as much of what’s happening today. Again, though, World War II, though not the “good war” that Tom Brokaw would have us believe, was certainly a better war than the War on Terror. And not just because it was actually a war.

Returning to the question of moral rot, we have Indian removal, particularly horrible because it represented the public’s wishes. And then there’s slavery. And that’s the point of yours that I really find myself tripping over. I think there’s a very good argument to be made that the state of union has always been healthier following ratification of the 13th Amendment than it was at any time before that. But now we’ve reached a level of abstraction that’s pretty hard for me to sustain.

Actually, I can’t sustain any of this. I have to get to work.

January 29, 2008 at 10:07 am

Megan

What do I gotta do to get invited to cool historian parties in Davis?

January 29, 2008 at 10:10 am

ari

Party is a bit of a misnomer, Megan. And not just because there were historians there. It was actually a fundraiser. But if you want to open your wallet, just send me an e-mail at my work address. I’ll put you on the list for the next shindig. Also: when we do have a party, I promise to let you know.

January 29, 2008 at 10:23 am

bitchphd

Hm. Matt, the Cuban Missile Crisis, while a Big Deal, was pretty short-lived. The current state of the Union has been some time in the making now, and is gonna take (in the very best case scenario) quite some time and a great deal of focused dedication to climb back from. WWII? Sorta the same deal–yes, huge, but also predicated by an external crisis: if we won, then, well, we’d win.

Slavery, yes, but again–and call me on this if I’m being an asshole–while destructive to the moral fiber of the nation, etc., not an actual real threat to the economy (on the contrary), or the Constitution (as it was understood at the time, which was of course wrong in retrospect, but ykwim), or the country’s ability to sustain itself (again, on the contrary, sadly, at least until the runup to the civil war).

In short, thanks for a really depressing post, Ari.

January 29, 2008 at 10:43 am

ari

Yeah, my pleasure. Here’s my only quibble with your (clearly racist) views on slavery: it was an existential threat to the Union, as the issue of slavery led to the Civil War. In other words, the moral rot, economic stratification, and political consequences of slavery so divided the country that something like the 1860 election transpired. And then the war. But like I said above, we’re now in a realm of causal abstractions that makes my head hurt.

January 29, 2008 at 10:57 am

bitchphd

That’s a good response. Okay, yes; slavery was worse than the Bush administration.

January 29, 2008 at 11:08 am

ari

slavery was worse than the Bush administration

If he runs for a third time, I feel certain that this will be his campaign slogan. Eat your heart out, Karl Rove, you human-white grub hybrid. Seriously, the man has always looked like a grub to me.

January 29, 2008 at 11:37 am

Ben Alpers

Probably doesn’t quite rank with other things already mentioned, but the whole 1876 electoral fiasco leading to the Compromise of 1877 was a pretty rotten moment in the history of the republic, too. (Of course Dubya sort of has that covered with Bush v. Gore.)

January 29, 2008 at 11:48 am

ari

I thought about 1877. But then, as you say, thought about Bush v. Gore. And presto: now is worse.

January 29, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Matt W

I guess one thing is that I place a whole lot of weight on the possibility of us all dying. Which wasn’t entirely restricted to the Cuban missile crisis.

And the worse violations of civil rights that took place during the Civil War and WW2 are more understandable because we were facing existential threats. (I think WW2 was an existential threat. What would’ve happened if the Axis had won? It would’ve been bad.) But the very existence of those threats was worse for the Union than things are now. We are underachieving a lot worse now than we were then, because in the absence of threats there’s nothing resembling an excuse for doing such awful things. But that’s a measure of how much we’re underachieving, not of how bad things are.

So: Bush, absolutely awful, for making things much worse than they should be. But the country, maybe in shape to recover a little from him? I hope?

[I can’t really speak to the economy, but is it really unprecedentedly awful? Or is the point just that it wasn’t that bad at any of the other crisis points?]

(I’ll also mention the cold war Red Scares — the power of the government used to drive political dissenters out of their jobs and enforce ideological unity in, for instance, the labor movement — have I got that right? That really seems bad. My grandfather, who was a down-the-line Stalinist, resigned from his job in the NYC public schools when they told him that if he didn’t quit, they’d fire him and my grandmother, from whom he was estranged. That doesn’t really happen now, does it?)

January 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm

ari

Sorry, I totally meant to talk about the Cold War Red Scares. Which were, as you say, very, very bad.

And my only rejoinder to your Chicken Littleish worries about everyone dying during the Cold War is: pffft. Actually, that’s a good point. But I might counter with: global warming. And the lack of attention it has received for the past eight years.

I think, in the end, my case is that the sum total of bad today is worse than the sum total of bad at any other point than the ones I put in the original post. Except for: slavery. Which complicates everything in my mind. Slavery poisoned all.

January 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm

urbino

We have what amounts to open-secret prisons, suggesting that part of the electorate accepts their existence. Or, if the Republican presidential hopefuls are to be believed, not only supports their existence but actively seeks their growth.

Yes. That.

January 29, 2008 at 5:18 pm

PorJ

My vote for darkest moment ever: 1798 Alien & Sedition Acts. President (and Congress) pass clearly unconstitutional laws designed to corrupt the public sphere by censoring any criticism of the government and changing established naturalization practices. Never reviewed by the Supreme Court. Journalists arrested, fined, and jailed. Nothing done since – and I include Lincoln’s behavior, re: habeas corpus – comes near the blatant illegality/unconstitutionality of that moment (done out of fear of the French, by the way). Add in the relative youth of the Republic, and I think it trumps 1863 and 1933 by a long shot. Adams exploited fear of a phantom enemy (and hysteria over immigration) to circumvent (newly-)established Constitutional principles… Sound vaguely familiar?

January 29, 2008 at 5:23 pm

ari

PorJ for the win. As you say, the republic was so young, and so uncertain, and that kind of blatant disregard for the Constitution could have left lasting scars. And maybe did (someone must have studied this — the legacy of the A&S Acts). But instead you saw the end of the Federalists with the Revolution of 1800.

January 29, 2008 at 6:35 pm

David Silbey

Ouch! My tooth started vibrating. Where the hell did that come from?

By the way, this is the first time in my life I’ve every seen the heading “Military/Existential” The two just somehow don’t seem to fit together.

I do think 1942 qualifies. Remember that the disaster of December was more than Pearl Harbor: it was the fall of the Philippines and a seemingly inexorable Japanese march across southeast Asia. There were invasion scares on the West Coast. Couple that with the fact that the Germans were just outside of Moscow, and I’d say things were actually *grimmer* in 1942 than years other than 1863 (1814 was bad, but there was no way the British could hold Washington permanently. The logistics just weren’t there).

On the existential level, how about 1902? We were involved in a war in the Philippines which involved torture and other acts of nastiness. Said war had lead to an outbreak of cholera that is killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. The President of the United States had recently been shot to death, which led to a crackdown on anarchists in the United States including Emma Goldman (who got the third degree in custody).

There isn’t anybody around this blog who might know about about that year, is there?

January 29, 2008 at 6:47 pm

ari

You know what I really like? Expertise. I find it bracing. I know this is just one among many reasons that I’m totally out of step with the nation in which I live. But whatever. Thanks, David.

January 29, 2008 at 7:10 pm

urbino

1942 was bad enough they even made a John Belushi movie about it.

January 29, 2008 at 7:26 pm

eric

On the existential level, how about 1902?

Not serious. Roosevelt provided exceptional and instant competence. Yes, the war he’d helped start didn’t go so well, but I read somewhere it was better than many people think.

Now, you can never complain again about your treatment on and by this blog, Silbey.

January 29, 2008 at 7:37 pm

bitchphd

Re. the economy, Matt, I think that the issue isn’t just the shape it’s in now (recession, massive debt, blah blah) but also how far the country as a whole has moved since the Reagan years on how it understands taxes. By and large, we really don’t see taxes as anything like a citizen’s duty, or a contribution to the public sphere; we see them as theft. Even those of us who argue that taxes are good because they allow us to do good things have to start by explaining why it’s okay for the government to take “your” money. The entire concept of the public exchequer is gone, replaced by GNP and growth, growth, growth.

January 29, 2008 at 8:37 pm

David Silbey

“1942 was bad enough they even made a John Belushi movie about it.”

Oh Lord, I had blocked that out of my mind. That movie was an existential crisis all its own.

Now, you can never complain again about your treatment on and by this blog, Silbey

This blog has been wonderful to me.

January 29, 2008 at 8:37 pm

David Silbey

Thanks, David

You’re welcome.

January 29, 2008 at 8:57 pm

washerdreyer

I don’t have a cite for it right now, and if I ever do find the cite where I read it, it’ll be a law professor doing history, but my understanding is that there weren’t many prosecutions under the Alien & Sedition acts.

January 29, 2008 at 9:36 pm

ari

WD, I’m pretty sure that’s true. Or at least that’s what the textbooks say. But, the threat, I think, as Porj outlines it, was that the very idea of civil liberties would be crushed before they had a chance to take root. Or at least that was how I read the comment. But I’m just a historian doing the law.

January 29, 2008 at 9:51 pm

urbino

Oh Lord, I had blocked that out of my mind. That movie was an existential crisis all its own.

Heh. So you’re saying it perfectly captured its subject, right?

January 30, 2008 at 3:26 am

Ben Alpers

Let me put in a bid for 1932 over 1933. The seriousness of the Depression was clear, as was Hoover’s inability to respond effectively to it. The Bonus Marchers came to DC and were forcibly evicted by US troops. The first couple months of 1933 (i.e. before FDR was inaugurated in March) were certainly no picnic, but a case can be made that FDR’s very election provided a modicum of hope to many Americans that was missing in the summer of 1932.

Which actually raises an issue that hasn’t been brought up yet in this thread: crisis consists of both actual and perceived threat. That is, regardless of how close we came to blowing up the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Americans at the time felt that we were perilously close to blowing up the world, and that feeling was itself part of the crisis.

My sense (admittedly from afar since last August) is that Americans underestimate how bad things are now, that however much objectively we’re in crisis, the sense of crisis is not as palpable as in most of the other cases discussed in this thread (including cases that we’ve dismissed as less serious, e.g. 1876). A

Today, a large majority of Americans think Bush is a bad president, but we’ve had plenty of bad presidents and most presidents are pretty unpopular by the end of their second terms. My guess is that if you conducted a poll asking people today whether or not they’d favor impeaching Bush, though a surprisingly large percentage of the public would favor it, fewer would favor it than favored Clinton’s impeachment in 1998. This last difference is almost entirely because the GOP sold impeachment hard in 1998 and the Democrats utterly refuse to take impeachment seriously today.

And this refusal is part of a larger political fact. Our leaders from both parties have largely refused to call our current crisis a crisis. And that effects the way we do (and don’t) experience it as a nation.

On balance I think that refusal is a bad thing. One should of course be careful about what one calls a crisis. For example, the Florida election mess in 2000 was widely called a “constitutional crisis”, but, at least prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore, I really don’t think it was. Certainly the election was a mess, but it was mess with which the Constitutional was well-designed to deal. And the sense that it was a Constitutional crisis added to the pressure to bring the vote counting to as swift a conclusion as possible, which in turn helped drive events to a less-than-optimal conclusion.

Today, on the other hand, we’d be better off if more people acknowledged that we are, in fact, in a crisis. The reason is pretty simple: without such a sense of crisis, it will be far too easy for our next president to quietly accept the radical changes that the Bush administration has made, for example, in the areas of executive power and the rule of law.

January 30, 2008 at 6:24 am

PorJ

The number of prosecutions under the A&S acts were small, but the core threat they represented as normative political practices is what made them so dangerous. The Adams era was a time of tremendous uncertainty – not only because of such political disputes, but the economy was running into problems as well (don’t forget all the rebellions of the 1790s as well – including Shay’s and the Whiskey Rebellion). And the prosecutions were selective – designed to intimidate – people like the most popular newspaper editor in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin Bache, and one of the few Democrat Republican printers in CT, Matthew Lyon (who would be elected to Congress in 1798 from his jail cell). It was a chilling effect that no President (even Nixon) would accomplish (although this has been disputed – I think I saw somewhere that the actual number of newspapers that can be described as supporting Jefferson actually doubled between 1796 and 1801).

1932 would (probably) win my vote as the next grimmest period. Don’t forget that Roosevelt actually attacked Hoover for reckless spending and acting so clueless/incompetent in that election. His most important/resonant campaign promise was to balance the budget and bring competence to the White House. But that’s not why it was so grim. It was grim because the American people were demanding a dictatorship. Look at movies of the period, things like “Gabriel Over the White House” which offered hope to the mass audience if it supported a more authoritarian presidency. Look at the journalism of the period; look at the demands and popularity of Father Coughlin. I don’t think there’s ever been a *popular* demand for a “savior of the Republic” (regardless of party) like that before (and I include Lincoln, because the Democrats remained a far more viable party in the North in the elections of 1862 and 1864 than the Republicans in 1934 and 1936).

January 30, 2008 at 6:30 am

eric

His most important/resonant campaign promise was to balance the budget and bring competence to the White House

You know, people say this about Roosevelt, but it’s not true enough to say unqualified. Look at the acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination — the one in which he pledged a “new deal” — it includes cases for public works, agricultural price supports, liberalized mortgage markets, working-hours legislation, securities regulation, freer world trade, reforestation, and repeal of Prohibition. Among other things.

January 30, 2008 at 6:38 am

David Silbey

“Heh. So you’re saying it perfectly captured its subject, right?”

Stop it! You’re making me remember it in more detail. (Runs to shelf for DVD of “Casablanca”).

January 30, 2008 at 7:10 am

Matt Weiner

I completely agree with this.

BTW, the movie was called 1941.

January 30, 2008 at 12:58 pm

urbino

Killjoy.

I completely agree with that quote, too. It’s why I’ve rattled on about this like a mental defective at various sites. In particular, I’ve argued it’s not only important, but necessary that the voters demand that all the candidates explicitly and fully reject the Bush/Cheney Addington/Yoo nonsense. It’s why I’ve argued, contra Yglesias and others, that a Romney win is not the least bad possible outcome in the presidential race. Romney is running on Bush/Cheney plus rhetoric. If he wins while doing so, it legitimates that nonsense for at least a generation. It will become a part of the GOP platform, and voters will be forced to approve or reject it as part of a package with everything else in the platform, in every election. Every win by a GOP candidate will become a win for the imperial executive.

That can’t happen. It would be bad, mmmkay?

January 30, 2008 at 9:01 pm

charlieford

1968: The sick feeling of watching LBJ, between the war which he wouldn’t end, the war on poverty he wouldn’t fight, Tet, the hopelssness of the ghettoes in flames and knowing this was just fanning an already vicious white backlash, the war, the assassination of King, hippie-dream over and yippie-dream?, the war, RFK killed, the war, Chicago, the election–all of it. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few things. But I recall that year, I was young, should have been oblivious and worried about my Schwinn, but you really felt it: despair, rage, anger, loathing, anxiety, all in one horrific doom-laden bundle. So, I’ll tell you, it was really, really hard to say anything other than “Yes!” whenever anyone asked if you wanted to get high.

January 30, 2008 at 9:32 pm

urbino

Also, Ari was born.

January 30, 2008 at 9:34 pm

ari

Urbino, did you see this?

January 30, 2008 at 9:39 pm

urbino

Didn’t. Thanks.

Clinton had a twenty-seven point lead among Hispanic voters

Holy crap. Is there any doubt where the Obama campaign should send Teddy Kennedy?

January 30, 2008 at 9:47 pm

ari

I think the debate tomorrow night is going to be pretty important. I just wish that Obama’s debate skillz matched his set-piece oratory.

January 30, 2008 at 9:53 pm

urbino

Sure looks that way. And yeah, Obama’s either too reflective or just not light enough on his feet for debate formats. Although, with Edwards out, maybe the 2 remaining candidates will be given more time. Also, maybe the moon will come down and kiss me on the forehead tonight.

An Edwards endorsement and aggressive campaigning by same in CA would come in handy, too.

January 30, 2008 at 9:57 pm

ari

Who’s moderating? Do you know? It won’t be Russert, because it’s a CNN-sponsored debate. Blitzer? Argh. Or Anderson Cooper?. He did tonight’s Republican tilt, so maybe he’ll just stay in the room for 24 hours. Again: argh.

January 30, 2008 at 10:07 pm

urbino

I don’t know. And neither does CNN’s website or Google. It must be jotted on the back of a matchbook kept in Dick Cheney’s underpants.

I think we can count on the person being bad, regardless. I see no reason to expect this debate to be different from all its predecessors. I keep expecting one of these moderators to say, “But enough about you. Let’s talk about me.”

January 30, 2008 at 10:16 pm

ari

Maybe they’ll get Tom Cruise. Or Xenu himself.

January 30, 2008 at 10:29 pm

urbino

They might as well. Seriously.

January 30, 2008 at 10:41 pm

ari

I think a debate between HRC and BHO moderated by Tom Cruise would be the top-rated reality show of all time.

February 2, 2008 at 7:39 pm

andrew

For a sense of looming – some might say “impending”, although maybe not for a few more years – crisis, I wonder about the state of the union from roughly 1832-37. (Yes, I’m fudging the “single year” requirement: time, uh, moved more slowly back then.) Indian removal, nullification, Virginia’s last real consideration of anti-slavery legislation before the end of the Civil War ending in favor of slavery, congressional gag rule on anti-slavery petitions, Bank War, a President going against the supreme court, economic panic.

February 2, 2008 at 7:44 pm

ari

time, uh, moved more slowly back then

You rock, Andrew. Because it really did. Like molasses.

February 2, 2008 at 7:56 pm

andrew

I did not intend the “fudging” to lead to molasses, but I’m glad it did. Because I’m craving something sweet to eat.

February 2, 2008 at 8:09 pm

ari

I’ve got cookies. And they’re delicious.

February 7, 2008 at 12:28 pm

The Rule of Law « The Edge of the American West