Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Federal Hill's Warning: A Baltimorean's Reflection on Leadership

Opinion

Federal Hill's Warning: A Baltimorean's Reflection on Leadership

Cannon at Federal Hill Park, Baltimore, MD

In the column, "Is Donald Trump Right?", Fulcrum Executive Editor, Hugo Balta, wrote:

For millions of Americans, President Trump’s second term isn’t a threat to democracy—it’s the fulfillment of a promise they believe was long overdue.


Is Donald Trump right?

Should the presidency serve as a force for disruption or a safeguard of preservation?

Balta invited readers to share their thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.

Chris H. from Maryland was the first to respond.

Time will tell.

As someone who has voted for Trump in 3 elections and agreeing with a majority of the policies he ran on, I constantly find myself thinking this time he has gone too far. When Trump sent federal troops to DC, I was in strong opposition. As he continued to send even more troops to Chicago and Portland, I thought back on history and what has been done in the past.

As someone born and raised in Baltimore, I have read much about the city’s history. On the eve of the Civil War, the first bloodshed was actually shed in the streets of Baltimore, not Fort Sumter, when Lincoln sent federal troops to patrol the streets of Baltimore. They fired on Baltimoreans who rioted against them. Baltimore, being a Confederate sympathizer city and home to the largest junction of railroads in the country, needed to be secured by Lincoln because if Baltimore went into the arms of the Confederates, the nation’s capital, DC, would be lost. In retaliation of the riots, Lincoln turned federal cannons towards the city as a warning to stay with the Union or be no more. Those cannons are still there as a reminder in a park called “Federal Hill.”

As time goes by, we look at Lincoln as a unifier of the country and one of the greatest presidents in our country’s history. My thoughts of being a citizen in Baltimore in the 1860s probably would have been different of Lincoln today, seeing him more as a tyrant than unifier for sending troops into my city. In hindsight, Lincoln did what was right and was able to keep the country together and abolish slavery.

Will we remember Trump in the same way? I doubt it, but time will tell.

We invite you to read "Is Donald Trump Right?" and accept Hugo's invitation to share your thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.

The Fulcrum will select a range of submissions to share with readers as part of our ongoing civic dialogue.

We offer this platform for discussion and debate.



Read More

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

USA Election Collage With The State Map Of Utah.

Getty Images

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

On Wednesday, February 11, the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) asked a federal court to join a newly filed lawsuit to protect Utah’s new, fair congressional map and defend our system of checks and balances.

The NRF is a non‑profit foundation whose mission is to dismantle unfair electoral maps and create a redistricting system grounded in democratic values. By helping to create more just and representative electoral districts across the country, the organization aims to restore the public’s faith in a true representative democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Voter registration in Wisconsin

Michael Newman

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Imagine there was a way to discourage states from passing photo voter ID laws, restricting early voting, purging voter registration rolls, or otherwise suppressing voter turnout. What if any state that did so risked losing seats in the House of Representatives?

Surprisingly, this is not merely an idle fantasy of voting rights activists, but an actual plan envisioned in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 – but never enforced.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less