Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024 
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 5, 2014 14:05:00 GMT -5
NAME: New York Times FOUNDED: 1789 PRINTED IN: New York, New York MARKET STATES: National OWNED BY: terrus |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 5, 2014 16:18:10 GMT -5
Seminole Hordes Ransacking Georgia GA/FL BORDER -- The Seminole Indians ransacked through the Georgian countryside over the last month, defeating disorganized militia units in a vicious campaign of savagery, which continued today unstopped. The Seminoles raided a number of farms along the Floridian border over late last month, then unleashed a full-scale assault upon the state of Georgia this week. The Georgia militia failed to organize itself well enough to fight off the savages, and a number of small Georgian militia units were reportedly overrun by the Seminoles in the past several weeks. The Governor of Georgia was expected to declare a state of emergency in the near future as the Seminoles advanced to the center of the state, easily overwhelming all resistance before them. Georgian reported in letters to New Yorkers, and others across the nation, that the situation in the state was dire. "The Seminole Indians raiding Georgia have met little to no resistance from the honorable Georgia Militia," said one Georgian, "I am worried, now that the savages have reached the heart of Georgia that we will not be able to stop this savage attack. I fear for my family if no action is taken." Those remarks were echoed by many others in the peach state. Federalists in Washington called for the United States government to organize a response to the attack, but Republicans instead called for Georgia and surrounding states to organize a militia counter-offensive. President George Washington had not commented on the matter today, nor had many in the nation's capitol, and it remained to be seen how the nation would ultimately address this concern. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 6, 2014 7:29:02 GMT -5
The New York Daily TimesSpring, 1789 Edition 2NewsFight for Georgia!NEW YORK CITY, NY -- New York Militia Colonel Christopher Bretagne undertook to organize a volunteer force to travel to Georgia to assist the state in fighting off the Seminole savages that ransacked much of the South Georgian countryside over the last month.
Bretagne travelled the state this week seeking volunteers, and submitted an editorial to the New York Morning Post today calling upon able-bodied men to join him. "Disaster strikes in the State of Georgia," Bretagne wrote, "we must not permit this violence to stand ... e must help our fellow Americans." Bretagne, a former aid to General Lafayette and a distinguished officer in the Continental Army, urged all available men to take up arms, and join him. "Now is the time of act," he told the Times, "I will be going to Georgia -- I hope others will join me in New York City to travel there."
Colonel Bretagne invited volunteers to join him in New York City this weekend to travel to Georgia via ship. Congressman James Terrus (R-NY) pledged a vessel from his private company to transport the troops, telling the Times that "I can think of no better use for one of my ships." Terrus, it must be noted by the editor, is the sole owner of the Times. Bretagne said he hoped to set out some time next week, weather permitting, so as to allow his men to deploy to defend Georgia within the next two to three weeks.
It remained to be seen how many New Yorkers would stand up with honor to fight for virtue, freedom, and liberty. Vermont Petitions for Statehood NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Vermont Republic petitioned the United States Congress for statehood this week, just after settling its decades-old land disputes with the State of New York. Vermont President Thomas Chittenden formally petitioned Congress this week for statehood. Chittenden asked the national legislature to permit its accession in a brief but historic message, in which simply stated that "[t]he Vermont Repubic, having settled its disagreements with New York, annd pursuant to Chapter 5, Section 18 of Title I of the U.S. Code, does officially petition for statehood into the United States." But Chittendem's application for statehood reportedly elicited celebration throughout the Vermont Republic, whose citizens long desired to join the United States. Chittenden made Vermont's accession possible by finally agreeing to negotiate with New York to address longstanding disputes between New York and Vermont land owners. The Vermont government had for years refused to propose any real agreement on the matter, but finally made real efforts to settle the disputes this year. New York Governor George Clinton and Vermont President Chittenden quickly reached a deal, which pleased both sides, and paved the way for Vermont to finally join the union. Vermont had sought statehood since the Constitution was completed two years ago. The House of Representatives acted quickly in response to Vermont's petition yesterday, voting overwhelmingly to expedite consideration of the matter. Both parties reportedly supported statehood today, and most experts expected Congress to approve Vermont's statehood in the coming days. Key Issues Divide Congress NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The United States House of Representatives split this week regarding key issues before the nation, debating the role of the federal government, and the role of the states, in the new republic. Federalists and Republicans clashed over the nature of the nation during the debate on the Bill of Rights this week. Most representatives strongly endorsed adding specific constitutional protections for liberty, specifically backing the proposal authored by James Madison and Representative James Terrus (D-NY), the owner of this paper. But a heated dialogue quickly arose regarding the role the federal government ought to play, the role the states should play, and the way the central administration should interact with the several states. Republicans insisted that the states remained independent and sovereign nations, and expressed deep "misgivings about the continued trend of centralization of power within the federal government." "The people of the Commonwealth of Virginia ... wish for autonomy from the federal government," said Representative Cameron Corey (R-VA), "Virginia should be ruled by Virginians, now and for always. And it is the same for every other state in this confederation of ours. If you think I shall simply roll over and allow the doggerels who wish to see the Independence of Virginia stifled to even passingly hold one hour of victory, you are mistaken."Federalists insisted in turn that the United States was a single nation, and the states merely subdivisions of it. "This nation is not just a confederated combination of 13 states, with their own rights to leave and such," said Representative Jackson Clay (F-NJ), "this is a nation that is made up of one whole country, from top to bottom. Virginia has no independence. It is as important as Rhode Island. What it contributes helps, but that does not give it the right to state how much better it is than every other state." Clay later specified that the states possessed individual powers, per the Constitution, but "have no independence from this nation." The assembly quickly broke into a heated debate regarding the federal government and state independence, which finally ended when Federalists and Republicans alike called for focus to be returned to the issue at hand. "We find ourselves divided in a debate in this august chamber, not over this proposal, but over the nature of our very united states," said Representative Terrus, whose comments marked the end of the debate, "yet this is not the matter before us today, and in fact the matter before us today should seek to assuage the concerns of both sides. For here today, we are reinforcing that the federal government does exist, while also reinforcing the rights of the states." The Congress returned to discussion of the Bill of Rights itself at that point -- particularly considering amendments regarding conscription and limitations upon the states -- but the Congress' first debate focusing so much on the role of government left many expecting debates regarding federalism to dominate this Congress' agenda. Also in the NewsNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Congress considered legislation today providing for the operation of the decennial census. Federalists strongly endorsed the bill, authored by Representative Albert Hannover (F-MA). Republicans opposed the legislation, though, saying its unspecific provisions made it a blank check to the executive. Analysts were unsure how the bill would ultimately fail.
NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Congress was set to debate this week proposed amendments to the Bill of Rights prohibiting conscription, preventing the states from infringing upon the freedoms of speech, press, or religion, and placing limits on congressional pay raises. More to come next issue. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 7, 2014 7:17:58 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Spring, 1789 Edition 3NewsJay: Nation Needs New PartyNEW YORK CITY, NY -- Representative Samuel Jay (I-NH) called for the establishment of a new political party yesterday, declaring that neither the Republicans nor the Federalists possessed the necessary morals to lead the nation.
Representative Jay announced in an editorial his departure from the Republican Party, and his plans to found a new party committed to temperance, abolitionism, and moderation. Jay wrote that the "filthy business of slavery" created a "stench most foul" in the United States, and said that the triangle slave trade "must be eliminated no matter what it's cost." The New Hampshire Representative proceeded to claim that another stench plagued the nation, that of drunkenness, a stench he claimed present even in Congress. Jay's editorial caught significant attention in New Hampshire, but not in many other places in the country. Neither House of Congress appeared interested in debating Jay's Intoxication in Congress act, a bill designed to prohibit Congresspersons from attending work drunk. Neither House appeared any more interested in any kind of national abolitionist bill. Thomas Jefferson applauded Congress' declining to address the matter of bond, stating that "the Congress should be cautious in dealing with issues of slavery." Most in Congress echoed that sentiment. While abolitionism did not appear at all advanced for the moment by Representative Jay's public stand, the willingness of a United States Congressman to take such an abolitionist view indicated there might be a rising tide of anti-slavery sentiment in the nation. It remained to be seen whether other representatives would follow Jay in his principled stand. Bill of Rights to Apply to States NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives voted yesterday to apply certain portions of the proposed Bill of Rights to the states, requiring both states and the federal government to respect the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. The House voted 32-13, with 6 abstentions, to alter the Bill of Rights to require both the Congress and the states to respect the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. Representative John Key (F-MA) proposed the amendment to the Bill of Rights, changing to establish that: "[n]either the United States, nor any territory subject to its jurisdiction (excepting the various Indian tribes), shall make any 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." Republicans and Federalists alike supported the bill, though some Republicans opposed it. Key led the fight in favor of the amendments, stating that these rights, being "terribly important," needed to be secured for all citizens everywhere in the United States. But Representative James Terrus (R-NY) led several Republicans against the proposal, saying that Bill of Rights should focus on restricting a potentially tyrannical federal government, not state governments unlikely to oppress their citizens. Key ultimately won the debate, though, securing the support of most independents, and even most Republicans. The House and Senate still both needed to approve the Bill of Rights, of course, and the states needed to ratify the proposal -- but most analysts agreed that whatever version passed the House was likely to become law.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 8, 2014 15:36:53 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Summer, 1789 Edition 1NewsHouse Approves Vermont Statehood NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives voted unanimously to admit Vermont as a state yesterday, setting the stage for the expansion of the Union to include a fourteenth state. The House approved the Vermont Statehood Act unanimously yesterday, agreeing via voice vote to admit Vermont to the Union. The House assented to Vermont's accession just a day after Vermont President Thomas Chittenden formally petitioned Congress for statehood. Chittenden made Vermont's accession possible by finally agreeing to negotiate with New York to address longstanding disputes between New York and Vermont land owners. Once Chittenden and New York Governor George Clinton reached a deal, Vermont's acceptance into the union became a foregone conclusion. The House's unanimous vote in favor of the Vermont Statehood Act still stood as the top story in New York this week, however, as the nation finally prepared to admit its last lost brother into the union. Bill of Rights Goes to Vote NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives scheduled a vote on the Bill of Rights yesterday, setting the state for a historic vote on the matter today despite the presence of a clerical error in the proposal. The House completed debate on the Bill of Rights yesterday, though there was very little consideration of the Bill's actual provisions. Instead, a heated discussion regarding the very nature of the nation dominated the debate on the Bill of Rights, eclipsing any dialogue over he bill's text. Most Representatives seemingly just accepted the proposal written by Representative James Madison (I-VA) and Representative James Terrus (D-NY), and most analysts expected the Madison-Terrus bill to be overwhelmingly approved by the House. The Madison-Terrus Bill of Rights established a laundry list of protections for the people, and specifically noted that those powers not given to the federal government were retained the by states, and the people. The House of Representatives made one major change to the Madison-Terrus proposal, though, altering the Bill of Rights require both the Congress and the states to respect the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. Representative John Key (F-MA) proposed the amendment to the Bill of Rights, stating that all the states should agree through the Constitution not to infringe upon these rights. Terrus actually opposed the amendment, stating that the Constitution should limit only the federal government not the states, but he was overruled, and the amendment adopted. It should be noted here that Representative Terrus possessed a majority stake in the New York Daily Times at the time of printing. Terrus ultimately accepted the amendment, but objected at the last minute as realization hit the assembly that the Bill of Rights contained a major clerical error. Madison and Terrus accidentally placed the same provision in the Bill of Rights twice, inserting it into two different places in the Constitution. Terrus told the New York Daily Times yesterday that he hoped that the Senate would correct this error. Terrus' statement belied his confidence that the House would approve the Terrus-Madison proposal -- and indeed, this reporter's sources indicated that the House of Representatives would overwhelmingly approve the Bill of Rights today. Bank, Courts on the Docket NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives placed two key issues on the docket for this week: the establishment of a national bank, and the creation of a federal court system. Speaker of the House Frederick Muhlenberg (I-PA) announced the docket today, which House Majority Leader Jackson Clay (F-NY) largely wrote. Clay clearly sought to quickly address several of the key issues before Congress, the most noteworthy of which undoubtedly stood as the national bank. But the creation of a federal judiciary certainly stood high in importance on Congress' agenda. Clay also instructed Muhlenberg to put the National Symbols Act on the docket, a bill establishing a national motto, national anthem, and national flag. Most in New York expected relatively tame debates for the Judiciary and Justice Act, along with the National Symbols Act. Representative James Terrus (R-NY), the owner of this paper, authored the former bill, a compromise proposal. Terrus called for a more robust court system than that favored by many Republicans, who disliked Terrus' call for a full-time United States Attorney to represent the government in each state, but Terrus stopped far short of what Federalist desired, a national Department of Justice charged with overseeing law enforcement and legal efforts. Representative John Key (F-MA) wrote the second bill, an uncontroversial proposal for obvious reasons. But those in Congress braced for a heavy debate regarding the Banking Act, a bill establishing a national bank. Federalists like Representative Matthew Whitney (F-NJ) argued that the nation needed a bank to ensure that a proper amount of gold was kept on hand to back currency, and to issue bonds on behalf of the federal government to support government projects. But Republicans like Terrus claimed that a national bank represented a government takeover of the economy, and thus a threat to essential liberty. The Republicans and Federalists were expected to clash over the issue in the coming weeks, both in the House and the Senate. The President's opinion on the matter, and the view of most independent Congresspersons, was unknown as of today. But this author did know this much: this week will be amongst the most important for the 1st Congress, and may indeed influence whether there is a 2nd Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 9, 2014 7:28:30 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Summer, 1789 Edition 2NewsLouis Summons French Legislature PARIS, FRANCE -- French King Louis XVI convened the French Estates General last week, summoning the French legislature for the first time since 1614 in a bid to address the financial and political crisis that rocked France over the last two years.
King Louis XVI summoned the French Estates General in a bid to end the financial and political crisis of the last two years. The King hoped to use the nominal legislature, which last possessed real power in 1358 but still held the formal authority today to approve taxes, to finally enact his controversial tax reform proposal. The nobility and the clergy blocked the King from doing so repeatedly over the last few years, generally through illegal means, because the monarch's new tax plan called for the nobility and clergy to pay taxes, not just common Frenchmen as at present. The King's efforts to force the noble-dominated parlements (law courts, not to be confused with parliaments) failed, however, and evoked outrage from French commoners that took to the streets across the nation to protest the monarch's absolute powers. The King sought to stem this outrage as well by convening the Estates General, and particularly attempted to reduce public dissent by granting the common population double representation in the chamber.
The clergy and nobility effectively nullified the King's doubling of the number of deputies allocated to represent the people, though, when the clergy and nobility decided to separate the Estates General into a tricameral legislature. The Estates General historically contained three estates, one for the clergy, one for the nobility, and one for the people, but those estates always met together, and generally voted as one. But the 303 Catholic priests and 282 French aristocrats in the estates-general voted to partition the Estates General into three independently operating Estates, each of which needed to give its assent to any legislative proposal. The 578 deputies elected to represent the people of France objected, but narrowly lost the vote, a major defeat as the peoples' deputies could no longer hope to push through political reform proposals by getting the support of the few liberal-minded aristocrats. Instead, the French aristocracy and the French clergy would each need to approve of any bill, making real change in France highly unlikely.
Those on the ground in France reported significant outrage at the vote of the Estates General, noting that many in the Third Estate (that of the people) felt the move unconscionable. "This crisis originated as a fight between the clergy and nobility on the one hand, who want to keep their tax-free status, and the King on the other, who wants to fund his aggressive foreign policy," said the New York Daily Times' correspondent, "but the people of France had hoped that they could use this meeting of the Estates General to establish a constitution, and to generally create more democracy in their country." The NYDT's correspondent noted that "the Estates General was seeking to establish just such a Constitution in 1614, which was why the King stopped convening it -- and now, the King is joined by clergymen and nobility who disagree with the King's policies, but ultimately want to ensure they can keep their power, their influence, and their money." Our correspondent noted that there are 303 deputies representing 100,000 French clergymen, 282 deputies representing 400,000 nobility, and 578 deputies representing the other twenty-five million French -- a situation he said "is indicative of the highly oppressed nature of the people here."
Indeed, though France intervened in the War for Independence to support the United States, it did so only because of its rivalry with the United Kingdom, a fact made clear by King Louis XVI's horrid treatment of his people. Nonetheless, the United States remained an ally of France today, as a result of the permanent nature of the Franco-American alliance signed during the War for Independence. Many policymakers in New York today questioned how the deteriorating situation in Paris might impact the United States. Terrus Proposes Compromise Defense Plan NEW YORK CITY, NY -- Representative James Terrus (R-NY) proposed a compromise plan for national defense yesterday, calling for a small army to augment and coordinate carefully regulated states militias, and for a small navy to defend the coastline against pirates.
Representative Terrus, the owner of this paper, authored three bills yesterday designed to provide for the national defense: the Militia Act, Army Act, and Navy Act. The New York Republican sought to establish a middle-ground war policy through these bills, creating an Army and Navy as demanded by the Federalists, but significantly limiting the size of these institutions. Terrus called for the militias to do the bulk of the work defending the nation, calling for the Army only to defend the capital, construct coastal fortresses to protect the nation's cities, maintain an artillery grand battery for use in wartime, and draw up plans for combined militia operations in time of invasion or insurrection. Terrus suggested that the Navy should be comprised mostly of heavy frigates capable of defeating pirates or small enemy forces, but capable of outrunning a ship of the line, given the United States' likely inability to create a navy on par with that of the United Kingdom or France.
Both Federalists and Republicans in Congress appeared to approve to some extent of Terrus' proposals, though somewhat reticently. The Federalist majority already scheduled the Militia Act of 1789 for debate, reportedly, and both Federalists and Republicans cosponsored Terrus' Army Act. But there was no real response to Terrus' Navy act, and both Federalists and Republicans reportedly planned to amend Terrus' Army Act. Republicans no doubt hoped to remove the "Legion of the United States," the sole combat unit that Terrus sought created. Federalists no doubt hoped to establish multiple units, instead of just the Legion, which was essentially an infantry regiment. It remained to be seen how well Terrus, and perhaps the independents standing with him, could defend the legislation against these amendments.
Of course, the question of how Terrus would defend his bill appeared less important yesterday than the question of how Congress would defend the nation, as Seminole Indians continued to ransack Georgia without any federal response.
In the News SAVANNAH, GA -- Representative Robert G. Hill (R-GA) won election to the House of Representatives in Georgia's special election yesterday, slightly improving the Republicans' position in Congress after the resignation of Representative Abraham Baldwin (I-GA). Baldwin left Congress last month in order to serve as President of the new University of Georgia. New York City, NY -- The House of Representatives debated the design of the federal judicial system yesterday with competing proposals put forward for the operation of an intermediate level of courts. On the one hand, Representative Elias Westlake (F-CT) called for the Supreme Court justices to travel the nation, serving jointly with trial court judges to hear appeals. On the other hand, Representative James Terrus (F-NY) called for a separate intermediate court level, whose judges would travel the nation to hear appeals. Terrus is the owner of this paper, it must be noted. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 9, 2014 18:02:58 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Summer, 1789 Edition 3NewsFederalists Face Division NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Federalist Party appeared on the precipice of collapse yesterday as major party leaders clashed over control of the party, and the party's general direction.
Deputy Speaker of the House Gordon Battle Hughes (F-NH) clashed publicly and privately with House Majority Leader Jackson Clay (F-NY) yesterday, ostensibly over the rules of the House of Representatives, but truly over the direction of the Federalist Party. The more centrist Hughes sought to establish a smaller government, hand-in-hand with Republicans, one incapable of imposing tyranny upon the people. He called yesterday for the Speaker of the House (effectively himself given the periodic illness of Speaker Frederick Muhlenberg (I-MD)) to possess absolute power of the House, so as to push this viewpoint. The more Federalist Clay sought to establish a larger government, one more capable of defending the nation against enemies such as the Seminole Indians that recently invaded Georgia. Clay argued that the House Majority Leader should control the House docket, so as to keep power from centralizing in the Speaker.
Representative Hughes told the New York Daily Times that Clay's actions represented "an obvious power grab," indicative of Clay's big government mentality. Hughes stated that Clay sought "to expand his powers at the expense of the Speaker," even though Clay's position was "not in the Constitution," while the Speaker held a "constitutionally created office." Clay "has maintained a feud of sorts with me since the first day of Congress," Hughes went onto say, "this dispute, at it's core, is about power and control. Just as Congressman Clay has no respect for the rights of the states and wants them controlled by the federal government at their expense...he has no respect for the constitutional office of Speaker."
Representative Clay defended himself in an interview with the New York Daily Times, stating that "to say I am making a power grab is hilarious, as I am just trying to define some terms and powers given within the House rules." "[Hughes and I] operate under the same part of the Constitution, giving [us] our authority," Clay argued, "his powers are not listed [in the Constitution], and I am just trying to provide a definition everyone is looking for." "I do respect the rights of the states, do not get me wrong," Clay went onto say, "I just do not expect to let the states roam free on their own, and still maintain their membership in this country. It frightens me to see them have enough confidence to leave. It's important that we stay unified."
The Clay-Hughes dispute threatened to divide, not unify, the Federalist Party, however. Federalist insiders told the New York Daily Times yesterday that the dispute between the two Congresspersons might tear the party apart, a view echoed by NYDT Editor Matthew Swaim. "You're seeing the two major Congressional leaders of the Federalist Party at each other's throats," Swaim said, "and while other Federalist leaders might try to keep things together, given this kind of infighting, it's hard to see how this party will stand." Swaim noted that "Hughes and Clay truly seem to hold completely different views on federal authority -- as do their followers."
Hughes certainly appeared to possess more followers today, though, as both Federalists and Republicans supported his proposal to amend the House rules over Clay's proposal to amend the house rules. "Either more people in Congress genuinely agree with Hughes," said Swaim, "or Huges has done a good job outmaneuvering Clay politically."
Uprising Rocks FranceVERSAILLES, FRANCE -- French King Louis XVI faced the greatest threat to the French monarchy in centuries last week as riots plagued the nation while rogue Estates General Deputies declared the formation of a "National Assembly," committed to drawing up a French Constitution.
The majority of members of the Estates General, France's powerless legislature, agreed last week to form a body to truly represent the people, establishing a new National Assembly. Approximately six hundred Estates General Deputies supported the move including every representative of the Third Estate (the people), a number of representatives of the First Estate (the clergy), and a few representatives of the Second Estate (the nobility). Several forward-thinking aristocrats actually led the effort. The new National Assembly pledged to conduct the affairs of state freely, viewing itself as the ultimate authority since it represented the French people.
King Louis XVI acted quickly to disperse the National Assembly, but failed to do anything except spark riots across France. Outraged by the challenge to his authority, the King shuttered the hall set aside for use by the National Assembly, denying it a meeting place given the bad weather in France. The Assemblymen responded by meeting at the indoor Royal Tennis Court, where the over six hundred deputies (who now included a rising number of representatives of the clergy) pledged to continue meeting until they had resolved the current political crisis in the nation. Commoners across France took to the street to violently protest the King's attempt to quash toe National Assembly, indicating the strong support for France's new legislature.
The riots, declaration of a National Assembly, and King's outrage potentially set the stage for a bloody outcome in Versailles, leaving the New York Daily Times' correspondent in France worried for the future of that country.
A New Flag?![]() ![]()  NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives considered adopting a new flag yesterday, and though most analysts expected this effort to fail, it nonetheless garnered significant nationwide attention.
Representative Ellery Wooten (F-RI) proposed the new flag, pictured above. Wooten's designed called for a simple, three-color pattern, alternating blue, white, and red, from top to bottom. The Representative provided no lengthy argument in favor of his idea, merely stating that the new design provided more consistency given the likely expansion of the union very soon to include Vermont. Representative James Terrus (R-NY), the owner of this paper and the Chairman of the Republican Party, backed Wooten's design, suggesting it represented a freshness proper for a new nation.
Many in the House were reportedly still very loyal to the flag flown by the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, however, and it remained to be seen which flag would ultimately be adopted.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 10, 2014 16:38:08 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Summer, 1789 Edition 4NewsRevolution in France PARIS, FRANCE -- The French people revolted against King Louis XVI last week after the French monarch dismissed his popular Finance Minister, leading several thousand Parisians to violently seize the Bastille, Paris' military arsenal, and behead its garrison.
Commoners rioted across France last week, and violently seized Paris' military arsenal, after King Louis XVI dismissed his popular Finance Minister. The King fired Finance Minister Jacques Necker after Necker published an false report on France's debt, though Necker's dismissal pleased royalists that long wished to rid the cabinet of the republican Necker. Most Frenchmen viewed Necker's banishment from Versailles as an obvious attempt by the King to retake control of the government, and responded by taking to the streets to violently protest. Several thousand Parisians assaulted the Bastille, Paris' arsenal and prison, successfully seizing the military installation after hours of fighting, and then beheading numerous members of its surrendered garrison.
The National Constituent Assembly pledged to continue meeting indefinitely amidst the chaos, promising to work quickly to develop a Constitution for France. The King recognized the new legislative assembly two weeks ago, but this move did not quell rising tensions between conservative noblemen that favored maintaining an absolute monarchy, and liberal clergymen and commoners that desired a constitutional monarchy. While these statesmen met to discuss the issues facing France, violence swept across the nation. Revolutionaries reportedly burned, pillaged, and killed government officials from Paris to Lyon, while military forces scrambled to prepare for a potential confrontation. Many soldiers reportedly deserted to join the rebellion, however, leaving it unclear if the King possessed the power to restore order, especially as the revolutionaries increasingly armed themselves.
Most in the United States appeared to support the rise of republican values in France, but the New York Daily Times' correspondent noted that the situation remained very fluid in Paris. The revolutionaries had not clearly won against the King of the correspondent's last report, and indeed might not at all. The rising violence in nation threatened to destroy any semblance of law and order, as well, something certain to undermine any efforts to create a more legitimate government.
But this much was clear today: a revolution is occurring in France.
Sales Rock Newspaper WorldHARTFORD, CT -- The owners of the Connecticut Courant put the newspaper up for auction yesterday, evidently viewing the periodical as unprofitable, while New York Daily Times owner James Terrus sold a significant portion of his stake in the Times.Connecticut Courant owner Thomas Green put the paper up for sale yesterday, leading to a bidding war amongst other newsgroups tempted by the opportunity of purchasing Connecticut's largest periodical. A number of leading statesmen sought to purchase the paper including Terrus, who admitted that he planned to merge it with the New York Daily Times. Terrus simultaneously sold over 45% of the New York Daily Times to Jackson Clay, and Terrus reportedly intended to sell far more of his stake in the coming years. The NYDT's stock price tripled during the course of the day.
Green's decision to sell the Courant, and Terrus' decision to divest himself from the Times, illustrated the rapidly shifting nature of the news industry. Each state possessed a single major paper during and after the War for Independence, and these papers rarely competed. But a new breed of national papers emerged over the last few months, led by the New York Daily Times, taking the industry in a completely different direction. NYDT Editor James Swaim stated that "America's media will look completely different in ten years than it does today."
Bidding continued yesterday on the Courant, while Terrus continued to seek out new buyers for the Times. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 11, 2014 18:40:42 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Fall, 1789 Edition 1NewsIndian Raids Intensify in Georgia SAVANNAH, GA -- The Seminole Indians intensified the campaign against Georgia this week, ratcheting up the violence with the help other other Indian tribes desiring to take advantage of the state's evident weakness.
Tribes across the SouthWest undertook new campaigns against Georgians and even North Carolinians, striking savagely at peaceful citizens throughout the region. Native warriors scalped men, raped women, and took children hostage across the region, prompting panic amongst those living there. Georgia called up its militia to address the crisis, and volunteers from many states poured in to support the Peach State. Colonel Christopher Bretagne departed several weeks ago with a large detachment of New York militiamen, committed to restoring security throughout the new nation.
The House of Representatives approved legislation this week authorizing the President to call up other state militias to support in address the crisis, but the Senate had yet to consider the bill today. Many Federalists suggested that this act did not go far enough, saying that the United States needed a proper army to defend against these kinds of attacks. But Republicans countered that the militias, when united, were more than capable of defending the nation. Some Federalists, Republicans, and independents continued to support Representative James Terrus' (R-NY) compromise proposal for a small army designed mostly to coordinate state militias.
Discussions about a future army meant little in Georgia today, though, as violence swept across the land.
House Approves Bill of RightsNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives unanimously approved the Madison-Terrus Bill of Rights yesterday, setting the stage for the quick enactment of the set of protections for the rights of the people.
The House of Representatives voted 48-0 to approve the Bill of Rights authored by Representative James Madison (R-VA) and Representative James Terrus (R-NY). The constitutional amendment established a detailed judicial regime designed to protect citizens from the federal government, ranging from a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments to a right to speedy and public trials. The Terrus-Madison proposal also reserved for the states all powers not given to Congress, and established a general protection for the natural rights of the people.
Representative John Key (F-NY) significantly amended the Bill of Rights in the House, though, fundamentally changing it by applying certain rights to both the states and the federal government. Terrus and Madison had already written a provision prohibiting Congress from infringing freedom of speech, press, religion, or assembly. But Key rewrote this section, applying these protections to the states as well as the federal government, in a move expected to generate significant controversy in several states possessing state religions.
No one in the House of Representatives voted against the proposal despite Key's controversial amendment, however, and despite Terrus' last-mine recognition of a major typo in the bill. Indeed, no one appeared opposed to the Bill of Rights, despite some concerns that its provisions might undermine the limiting nature of the enumerated powers. But those concerns came from outside Congress, not inside it.
Of course, the Senate and the states still needed to approve this bill of rights for it to take effect, leaving the Terrus-Madison proposal a long way from being added to the Constitution.
Clay-Hughes Feud ContinuesNEW YORK CITY, NY -- Deputy Speaker of the House Battle Hughes (F-NH) and House Majority Leader Jackson Clay (F-NY) continued to feud over leadership of the Federalist Party yesterday, trading insults and allegations on the House floor while calling for each other's censure.
The Deputy Speaker and the Majority Leader traded barbs during a tense session of the House yesterday, during which Clay sought to see Hughes removed as Deputy Speaker. Representative Clay charged that "tyranny takes over the house of representatives," accused Hughes of "lying" and "hypocrisy," and called Hughes "a disgrace to this body, and a disgrace to humanity." Congressman Hughes shot back that Clay unleashed these "false accusations," in an "intentional disruption of the business of this body," and called for Clay's censure. Clay shot back by calling for Hughes' censure. The two men finally quieted after some time of arguing, and withdrew their respective motions, but their actions deepened the widening division within the Federalist Party.
Clay ostensibly attacked Hughes for presiding over the House without technical authority, but in reality the Clay-Hughes dispute centered around control of the Federalist Party. Both Congressmen fought for control of the Federalist Party this term, but Clay fought for a much more powerful federal government, contrary to Hughes who desired a large but restrained central administration. Clay won the first battle between the two within the Republican Party war room, successfully winning House Majority Leader. But Hughes won the second battle between the two, convincing Federalists and Republicans to amend the House rules to make the House Majority Leader position powerless, and to invest all authority in the Speaker. Hughes effectively held the position of Speaker for most of this term, thanks to the illness of Speaker Frederick Muhlenberg (I-MD).
The continuation of the Clay-Hughes feud reinforced rumors that the Federalist Party might soon split in two, divided based on ideology and politics, but it remained to be seen if that would actually occur. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 13, 2014 8:33:06 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Fall, 1789 Edition 2NewsVermont Admitted to UnionCHARLESTON, SC -- President George Washington signed the Vermont Statehood Act into law yesterday, formally admitting Vermont to the Union as the Fourteenth State, and setting the state for four new congressional elections certain to be hotly contested by both parties.Washington signed the Vermont Statehood Act into law in New York, just hours after Congress unanimously approved the measure. Vermonters reportedly celebrated the enactment of the statehood bill, which brought Vermont back into the fold of the states with which it fought for independence. Vermont did not join the union previously due to land disputes with New York, but New York Governor George Clinton and Vermont President Thomas Chittenden finally resolved those complaints this year, clearing the way for Vermont to become the fourteenth state. The Federalist and Republican Parties both approved of Vermont's admission, and moved quickly yesterday to nominate candidates for Vermont's two seats in the House of Representatives, and to influence the State Legislature on who to appoint to Vermont's two seats in the Senate. Republicans possessed a clear advantage in the state, whose inhabitants felt lukewarm at best towards the new Constitution, and whose leaders long preferred a less powerful national government. But Federalists kicked off the push to admit Vermont to the union, leaving the Federalist Party with some sympathy the state.Neither the Republicans nor the Federalists appeared likely to gain a significant political advantage in Vermont, but the election retained importance because it represented the first real electoral battle between the two parties. Neither party existed during the elections for the present Congress, and the Republican Party's two victories in special elections related more to popular candidates than to popular feelings. Ultimately, Vermont stood out as the place for the first partisan battle of the nation, a battle both parties sought to win to ensure continued loyalty from elected officials.While American politicians prepared to do electoral battle, the Vermont Republic formally ceased to exist with little fanfare, only a small ceremony being hosted by President Chittenden marking the occasion.South, North Clash Over tariffs NEW YORK CITY, NY -- Southerners and Northerners in the House of Representatives clashed yesterday over the proposed Revenue Act of 1789 with Southerners demanding the bill be amended to exempt slaves from any tariff, and to eliminate protectionist taxes for Northern manufacturers.
Southerners and Northerners argued sometimes viciously throughout the day regarding the Revenue Act, which sought to establish tariffs to fund the federal governments. Representative James Terrus (R-NY) and Representative Orison Pratt (F-MA) rewrote the bill this week to create a general 7.5% importation tax, but to impose a 15% tax on the importation of manufactured goods, and a 40% tax on the importation of most clothing, clothing supplies, and certain other goods. Terrus and Pratt also included a tax of $10 per slave imported, amounting to a tariff of approximately 2.5% on slave importation.
Southern Representatives immediately attacked the new Revenue Act, stating that its protectionist measures blatantly served Northern interests at the expense of Southern interests. Representative Robert Hill (R-GA) decried the 40% importation tax as "an undue and unjust tariff on the price of living in the South, for the benefit of the North," stating that "a forty percent tax on clothes, salt and other essentials, which Northern industry provides an insufficient quantity of, would make access to these essentials unaffordable for some, and inaccessible to many here in the South." Northerners provided no defense against Hill's statements.
Southerners also lambasted the tariff on slavery, which Representative Alfred Schmidt (R-SC) called "a tariff raised specifically against the Southern states." "Levying such a hefty fee on the importation of slaves is an outrage ... [which] will cripple the Southern economy and leave plantations in destitution," Schmidt argued on the House floor, "imposing any such importation fee on imported labor is a gross injustice on the backs of hardworking southerners." When Terrus noted that slaves were taxed at a lesser rate than any other goods, Schmidt said that any tax upon slavery was unacceptable, representing an attack upon Southern heritage.
Terrus shot back regarding slavery, though, stating that "the injustice here would be waiving the tariff on a good simply because certain states desire it." "We are establishing tariffs on all goods, regardless of who imports those goods, regardless of who profits from those goods," Terrus said on the House floor, "that is how national tariffs work." "The South is already getting a 65% tariff cut on slaves because of it's institutional importance," he went onto say, "their demand that they get to operate without tariffs, while the North pays tariffs on all of its goods, are simply absurd." Terrus did not even respond to Schmidt's allegations that the tax was tyrannical.
Those favoring the Terrus-Pratt amendment appeared set to succeed yesterday, though Terrus said he planned to offer further amendments to address some Southerners' concerns. The New York Republican made it clear, though, that he did not plan to make the importation of slaves tax-free.
Fisher Buys CourantHARTFORD, CT -- Representative Steven Fisher (R-VA) purchased the Connecticut Courant at auction this week, installing close friend Henry Williams as editor, and investing significant funds in a bid to breathe new life into the previously sinking newspaper.
Fisher purchased the Courant at auction for a hefty fee, outbidding the New York Daily Times as well as the New Hampshire Gazette, both of which sought to acquire the paper. The Virginia Republican immediately installed his aid and long-time friend, Henry Williams, as editor, despite Williams lack of previous news experience. Williams proved his worth quickly, though, putting out new issues within days. The Courant appeared set to quickly rise to become one of the more significant newspapers in New England.
The Connecticut Courant was not alone in undergoing significant change this week as the New York Daily Times also saw nearly half its shares sold by its founder, Representative James Terrus (R-NY). Terrus still possessed a controlling interest yesterday, but House Majority Leader Jackson Clay (F-NY) owned approximately 45% of the paper's shares. The NYDT corporation planned to hold its first stockholders meeting early next year, and to vote on amendments to its charter at that time. In the NewsCHARLESTON, SC -- Republican Alfred Schmidt won election to the House of Representatives this week as the Congressman from South Carolina's 3rd District. Schmidt replaced Daniel Huger, an independent, who resigned for health reasons. Schmidt's election altered the partisan composition of the House, giving the Republicans 17 seats to the Federalists' 19, though a plurality of Representatives (29) remained independent.
Frankfort, VA -- Congressman Elijah Surratt (R-VA) won election to the House of Representatives this week as the Congressman from Virginia's Kentucky County. Surratt replaced Representative John Brown (R-VA), who resigned to form a militia to fight the Seminole invasion.
Exeter, NH -- The outspoken abolitionist Congressman Samuel Jay (I-NH) resigned from Congress this week, so as to focus on the operating of his newspaper, the New Hampshire Gazette. Nicholas Gilman, Jr., an independent, won election to replace Jay.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 14, 2014 19:17:27 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Winter, 1789 Edition 1NewsJay Conspired to Assassinate WashingtonEXETER, NH -- Former Representative Samuel Jay (I-NH) conspired with Benedict Arnold and a rogue member of the British Parliament this year to assassinate President George Washington, according to information acquired this week by the New York Daily Times.
Former Congressman Samuel Jay sought to murder President Washington before the end of the year, and conspired with Sir John Dunkirk and Benedict Arnold to do so, the New York Daily Times confirmed yesterday. Jay reached out to Dunkirk early this year to gain assistance in forming a "Dagger Club," committed to killing the President. Dunkirk, a backbench member of the British Parliament often considered a rogue even by his fellow Tories, provided Jay with significant funds to accomplish this mission. Dunkirk also put Jay in touch with Arnold, the infamous former Major General in the Continental Army who turned traitor in New York, accepting a commission as a Brigadier General in the British Army. Now retired, Arnold sought to connect with old contacts with the United States to support Jay, though it remained unclear if this work progressed at all.
The New York Daily Times did confirm yesterday that Dunkirk and Arnold acted without the authorization, or support, of the British government. Dunkirk and Arnold acted entirely alone in the venture, taking a rogue attempt to influence British foreign policy. The British Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency George Hammond, harshly condemned Jay's efforts to the NYDT when asked about the matter. "The Crown does not dirty itself with such activities unbecoming of a gentleman," Hammond said, "if His Majesty and his government had any knowledge of such an awesome conspiracy, his Majesty would have put a stop to it. We will not play the part of cohorts to a turncoat and an extremist."
All eyes turned today not to the British government, but to the United States government, to see what legal action might be taken against Jay. The federal government possessed no claim against Jay today, given the lack of a national justice system when Jay contacted Dunkirk and Arnold. But the State of New York potentially possessed the ability to arrest Jay for conspiracy to commit murder, given that Jay sought to kill Washington, who lived in New York City. Neither New Hampshire (where Jay used to live) nor Vermont (where Jay moved several months ago) held any jurisdiction to try Jay, though, given that he never did anything to further his conspiracy in either of these states. Indeed, even New York had only a questionable jurisdictional claim today, given that Jay actually committed the conspiracy while in the United Kingdom, not in New York.
It remained to be seen what defense, if any, Jay might provide for his crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 15, 2014 19:21:05 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Winter, 1789 Edition 2NewsJay Escapes, Defends ActionsEXETER, NH -- Former Congressman Samuel Jay (I-NH) fled to Canada this week to avoid prosecution after the New York Daily Times revealed that Jay conspired to kill President George Washington, but Jay subsequently defended his actions in an interview with the Times.
Jay fled to Canada this week after the New York Daily Times revealed that Jay conspired with foreign officials to kill President Washington, the culmination of a weeks-long investigation by the Times. The former New Hampshire Congressman worked with Sir John Dunkirk, a British Member of Parliament, and Benedict Arnold, the former Continental Army Major General who infamously turned traitor during the War for Independence, to achieve this mission. Dunkirk, a radical considered extreme even by his fellow Tories, provided Jay with significant funds towards this end. Jay stated that he took no affirmative steps to kill Washington, though, saying that he only helped form a "Dagger Club" committed theoretically to this purpose. The British government denied any knowledge of Jay's Dagger Club, and Jay stated that the United Kingdom did not support his actions.
Jay defended his actions in an interview with the New York Daily Times at an undisclosed location in Canada, stating that Washington deserved to die. "The greater injustice was President Washington's inept actions as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army," Jay told the Times, "his ego [led] many great men to their slaughter." "Washington would promote any foreign person with little military experience to high ranks, and expected our men to follow their lead," Jay went onto say, "[the President's] failure to promote great men like [Benedict] Arnold to higher ranks showed his failure. "If it wasn't for the French Navy," Jay surmised, "we would all either be loyal to the British Crown or dead by the end of an English rope." The former Congressman stated that Arnold was right to join the British, given Washington's blatant incompetence, and strong foreign favoritism.
The former Congressman admitted to violating his oath as a Congressman, but said that Washington's actions made such a necessity. "I took my oath with every intention to folow it to the letter," Jay said, "but circumstances change ... I did what I believe is right to protect our young Republic." "Many consider me a traitor, but in my view, I am still a patriot looking out for the United States best interests, even if it includes assssinating one inept man so a nation can prosper" Jay went onto say, "I justify it because President Washington could lead this nation to total ruin if he is allowed to continue. What is more important a man or a nation?"
Sir Dunkirk provided an alternative justification, saying that he sought to kill Washington because Washington betrayed the United Kingdom. "The so-called 'Dagger Club' is merely carrying out justice for Britain," Dunkirk wrote in a statement, "Washington is a traitor to the empire and deserves death." Dunkirk stated that "associations with ruffians is necessary," to ensure that "the American colonies are [brought] back under British control." A strong conservative, Dunkirk opposed the peace agreement between the United Kingdom and the colonies, feeling that the British government should not give up control over the territories that formed into the United States. Dunkirk stood as one of only a few members of Parliament to hold that absurd position, and was condemned resoundingly by his peers this week.
Jay pledged during his interview to allow his own peers to judge him as well, stating that "when the day comes Washington leaves office in one way or another I will turn myself in."British Condemn Jay, Refuse Extradition NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The United Kingdom condemned Samuel Jay in the harshest terms for seeking to assassinate President George Washington, but refused to consider any extradition of Jay, prompting outrage from Americans that demanded the conspirator be brought to justice.
The British government condemned Jay's actions in the strongest terms. The Right Honorable William Pitt, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said that radicals like Dunkirk, Arnold, and jay "are an affront to His Majesty and to God himself." The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Francis Godolphin Osborne, 5th Duke of Leeds, declared that "the British government does not condone any covert actions, including against the leaders of the former American colonies." And the British Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency George Hammond, told the Times this week that "the Crown does not dirty itself with such activities unbecoming of a gentleman," stating that "if His Majesty and his government had any knowledge of such an awesome conspiracy, his Majesty would have put a stop to it. We will not play the part of cohorts to a turncoat and an extremist."
Yet the British government expressed an unwillingness this week to extradite Jay, who successfully escaped to Canada just before the New York Daily Times confirmed his activities. The Governor General of the Canadas, Guy Carleton, 1st Baron of Dorchester, told the Times that "as the judicial system in the United States is not operational, it would not be appropriate to seize Mr. Jay and return him to New Hampshire." Carleton did not comment on whether the United Kingdom itself might try Jay for conspiracy to commit murder, but few experts expected the British government go after Jay since doing so would necessitate arresting a former British flag officer and a British Member of Parliament. "This is a very difficult situation for the British government," explained NYDT Editor Matthew Swaim, "they're unhappy with Dunkirk, Jay, and Arnold -- but arresting those individuals would be a political nightmare."
Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives Gordon Hughes (F-NH) decried the British refusal to extradite Jay, though, and called for immediate federal action to defend against this "grave threat." "We must band together, around our shared republican values, around our new government and around the personage of President Washington," Hughes declared on the House floor, "it is now clear that the federal government is not the biggest threat to our liberty, that Washington is not some tyrant in waiting that must be feared; no, it is now clear that the biggest threat is those that would use the language of liberty and freedom in order to suppress our human right to select our own government and those that would conspire with foreign villains in order to bring about political change at home." Hughes called for the immediate establishment of an Army to ensure national security, and for an investigation into the Dagger Club.
But Representative James Terrus (F-NY) told the Times in an interview several days ago that the United States should not overreact to Jay's conspiracy. "We're talking about a few extremist fools trying to kill on the President," Terrus said, "that's not reason for panic, it's not reason for policy changes, and it's certainly not reason to establish a force that might be used for tyranny." "I can think of no worse time to establish an Army than when one is thought needed to police our own citizens, as some Federalists have suggested," Terrus said, "the small Army we are discussing now -- the only Army we should establish -- should be an Army that solely serves to coordinate militias to defend against external threats." "Lawyers, marshals, constables, and sheriffs should handle domestic law enforcement," Terrus concluded, "we should not be creating an Army to respond to a simple criminal conspiracy."
Hughes' words resounded in Congress and across the nation, though, and it was unclear yesterday if Terrus' warnings would be heeded amidst the shock at jay's alleged treason.
French Request Aid Against Revolutionaries NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The French Ambassador to the United States formally asked the federal government to assist the King in suppressing the increasingly violent French revolution yesterday, amidst continued instability in Paris. The French Ambassador to the United States, Elénor-François-Elie, Comte de Moustier, dispatched an open message to the United States yesterday requesting aid. "To the Government of the United States, France humbly requests your help in this uprising," the Ambassador wrote, "we hope you have not forgotten who came to your aid, we ask that you return the favor." The Comte de Moustier did not provide any further details in his message, and indeed, the New York Daily Times could not confirm yesterday that Elie had even acted with the knowledge of the King of France. But the Ambassador's call put the French Revolution squarely in the middle of American foreign policy.
Most Americans yesterday supported the French revolution, given the revolutionaries' democratic ideals, but many in Congress felt the United States ought to retain neutrality given the rebels' proclivity for violence. A number of common Frenchmen massacred a group of surrendered French soldiers following the Battle of the Bastille in Paris, France, several months ago, then mutilated the bodies of those poor souls. Throughout the countryside this year, foreign correspondents reported a wave of terror, as armed anti-government troops killed anyone with any ties to the regime, however precious. Indeed, the King's few efforts to remain in power were largely symbolic in nature, involving none of the violence of the uprising.
Many in Congress called yesterday for continued neutrality despite the Ambassador's request, though it remained to be seen how most Representatives and Senators would respond to Elie. In the News MONTPELIER, VT -- The Republican Party appeared set to win both of Vermont's Senate seats and Vermont's Second Congressional seat in the upcoming Vermont special elections, but both parties prepared for a tight race for Vermont's First Congressional Seat this winter. Polls put Federalist David Lee and Republican Roger B. Turpin in a dead heat with independent Israel Smith following in a distant third. If the Republicans win both of Vermont's seats, then the Republicans and Federalists will possess an equal number of seats in the House of Representatives, though independents will remain the plurality.
New York City, NY -- The House of Representatives this week debated legislation seeking to establish a commission to oversee national education. Federalists promoted the commission as a way to improve education across the country, while Republicans decried it as a massive overreach by the central government. Most analysts expected a straight party line vote with independents ultimately deciding the act's fate. |
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 17, 2014 1:10:33 GMT -5
The New York Daily Times is now being read in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 17, 2014 9:45:03 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Spring, 1790 Edition 1NewsBank Proposal DefeatedNEW YORK CITY, NY -- Congressional Republicans scored a significant victory against Congressional Federalists yesterday, successfully voting down Alexander Hamilton's proposal to found a national bank.
The House voted 22-21 against the Banking Act of 1789, narrowly rejecting Hamilton's key economic proposal. Every Republican voted against the bill while every Federalist voted for the bill with independents dividing half each way. But the Federalist Party narrowly lost despite possessing a numerical advantage because several key Federalists did note vote. In fact, none of the House's most prominent Federalists bothered to show up to vote, indicating either a whipping failure or a lack of support for the legislation.
The Republican Party gained a significant victory through the defeat of the Banking Act, which Republicans had attacked as an unnecessary overstep by the federal government. "Farmers across the country are already being served by the network of local banks across the country, and the bill proposed would simply put them out of business," argued Representative Robert G. Hill (R-GA), "can access to credit be better? Absolutely, but it must not be through the will of the central government, but rather, the states and the communities across this vast Union then only would it serve the people best."
The Federalist Party suffered an stinging defeat in the loss of the bill, which stood at the center of Hamilton's proposed economic plan. "The establishment of such a bank would stabilize our national credit, it would strengthen our industry and it will better the financial dealings of this nation," said Representative Thomas Crowe (R-PA), "the incorporation of such an institution is part of the very definition of government itself." It "is crucial for the stabilization of our finances and our economic prosperity," Crowe went onto say.
Crowe himself did not ultimately show up to vote in favor of the bill, though, nor did many of his fellow outspoken Federalists, leaving this economic proposal dead for the duration of the 1st Congress.
King Pledges to Support Assembly
PARIS, FRANCE -- King Louis XVI pledged last week to uphold all laws enacted by the National Constituent Assembly, despite his past opposition to the very existence of the elected body. The King told his court in January that he fully recognized the powers of the National Constituent Assembly, and that he planned to enforce every statute it enacted. King Louis XVI effectively surrendered his authority by doing so, recognizing that he no longer held legislative powers, and that sovereignty rested with the people not him. The King's announcement surprised few given that Parisian revolutionaries overcame his guards and forced him to return to Paris from Versailles several months ago after he expressed an intent to resist the assembly's acts. The National Constituent Assembly took the King's announcement in stride as it continued to institute significant reforms. In August, the Assembly declared that all Frenchmen were equal, and that sovereignty resided with the commoner. In September, the Assembly formally declared that it held full legislative authority, and that the King held no power to veto its decisions. In November, the Assembly seized all lands belonging to the Church, marking a serious blow to the King, whom the Church strongly supported. By the end of the year, the Assembly was planning to enact a democratic constitution, regardless of the King's feelings. King Louis XVI made no statement regarding a potential Constitution, but his ability to resist appeared minimal. A number of European monarchs did restate pledges in support of the King, but no nation appeared willing to interfere directly in French internal affairs, and Louis remained highly vulnerable as a result. Thus, a man that ruled over France with an iron fist just two years ago appeared set to become nothing more than a figurehead today. Sentiments on the French Revolution varied in the United States. On the one hand, some Americans expressed happiness about the rise of democratic power in Europe. On the other hand, many Americans wondered whether an unstable France posed a threat to American national security, given that the United States signed an alliance with the French during the War for Independence. Still others said that the United States signed an alliance with the King, not France, and that upon his losing absolute authority, that agreement ceased to hold any weight. A request by the French Ambassador to the United States for assistance last year went unnoticed. The situation did not appear to directly effect the United States at the time of this printing, however, and for the time being, the President's policy of neutrality seemed set to continue unchallenged. Vermont Elections a Draw
MONTPELIER, VT -- The Republican Party picked up a seat in each House of Congress during the Vermont special elections last month, but failed to sweep all four Congressional seats, losing a Senate to an independent and a House seat to a Federalist.
The Republicans won one of two seats in the House of Representatives during Vermont's special election last month. The Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives, Nathaniel Niles (R-VT), won election to the United States House of Representatives by a landslide, defeating independent Thomas Howard 75%-25%. But Colonel David Lee (F-VT), a decorated veteran of the War for Independence, won Vermont's other seat in the United States House of Representatives, narrowly defeating Republican Roger B. Turpin 51%-44%. The independent Israel Smith won just 5% of the vote in the Lee-Turpin race.
The Republicans also won one of two seats in the Senate. The Vermont State Legislature voted former Governor Moses Robinson, a Republican, into Vermont's first Senate seat by a wide margin, unsurprising given Robinson's extensive political connections. The State Legislature selected independent Stephen Bradley into Vermont's second Senate seat, somewhat surprisingly given his much less extensive political connections. Interestingly, both Robinson and Bradly previously served on the Vermont Supreme Court together. The Republican Party thus made a slight gain in the Senate during the election, but failed to significantly improve its position in either House of Congress. The Republicans could have tied the Federalists for the majority in the House if Turpin had won, but Turpin's defeat destroyed that opportunity. Some analysts criticized Republican Chairman James Terrus for failing to mobilize any national effort to support Turpin, but other analysts noted that the Federalist Party also made no effort. Lee himself performed the only real campaigning, writing an editorial explaining his qualifications, which apparently won him the election. Niles, Lee, Robinson, and Bradley were all sworn into office yesterday, representing the nation's fourteenth state. NYDT Tops NY Market
NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The New York Daily Times achieved the highest readership in New York, and the third highest in the nation, over the course of the past year.
The Times gained the highest readership in New York, and tied for the third highest readership nationally. Despite being founded just last year, the NYDT surpassed the decades-old New York Morning Post to become New York's most read paper, although only narrowly. The Times picked up readers not only in New York, though, but also in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Nationally, the NYDT's circulation expanded to the point where it tied the State Gazette of North Carolina for third in readership, losing only to the Boston Gazette and Pennsylvania Gazette.
Editor James Swaim issued a memo to NYDT stockholders today, expressing his thanks for the opportunity to help create a new standard in journalism. "I spent my career as a reporter detesting a newspaper system that promoted propaganda and lies, that sought to mislead the people," he wrote, "but now, the New York Daily Times is helping to establish a new kind of journalism, one that focuses on informing the public in an objective fashion." Swaim was expected to be re-elected as the paper's editor and chief executive officer.
The New York Daily Times certainly had an exciting year. During the winter, the Times revealed that former Congressman Samuel Jay (I-NH) was conspiring to kill President George Washington, the culmination of a months-long investigation. Subsequently, the Times convinced Jay to accept an interview, becoming the only paper to speak to him to date. Prior to that, the Times broke major stories regarding political infighting in the Federalist Party, coverage unmatched by any other paper.
Swaim said today that he boldly hoped to surpass the State Gazette of North Carolina by the end of the year, and to run the most well-read newspaper in the nation by 1795. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 19, 2014 20:33:38 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Summer, 1790 Edition 1NewsMilitias Push Back Against IndiansSAVANNAH, GEORGIA -- A New Hampshire led militia division scored a key victory against Indian forces in Georgia yesterday, while other militias from across the nation prepared for a full-scale campaign against the Seminole invaders, though not in time to save some Georgians.
A massive New England militia force led by Colonel William Charles Bathurst swept into Indian territory yesterday, scoring a key victory against an unprepared opponent. The militiamen took the fight to the Seminoles that raided Georgia for much of last year, sacking a major Indian town, and then taking hundreds of captives. Bathurst led 6,000 men from New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont into battle, and lost just two of those soldiers, while killing some 300 Seminole tribesmen. President George Washington named Bathurst to lead the multi-state militia force after calling up the state militias last month to combat the Seminole threat, and Bathurst quickly repaid his appointment with a solid success. Three other multi-state militia divisions deployed to Georgia this month to thwart the Seminole invasion, and all three expected to undertake offensive campaigning in the near future. Colonel Christopher Bretagne led the Northern Division to Savannah last week, replacing the measly 500 volunteers he had previously raised (who spent much of the year on garrison duty) with 6,000 men from New York, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and also bringing along the only artillery in the campaign. Colonel Thomas Jackson, who spent much of the year helping defend against the Seminole raids, raised some 5,000 militiamen from Georgia and South Carolina for the war, and another 300 cavalrymen. And Colonel Thomas Garrett raised another 6,000 infantry and 300 cavalry from Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina. The President's dispatching of organized militia forces to Georgia appeared likely to turnaround the nation's fortunes in Georgia, but sadly not in time for some Georgians. A massive Creek warrior force descended on a major plantation near Cedar Shoals, Georgia, last month, ransacking the place. The tribesmen scalped the family, murdered its servants, stole or slaughtered all the livestock, and set every struck on fire. President Washington ordered each state to dispatch militia units to Georgia thereafter, prompting the present campaign. The President made that call based on authority granted by Congress, which only recently passed the Militia Act and Army Act, providing for the nation's ground defenses. Bathurst's victory in Georgia invigorated supporters of the Militia Act and Army Act, but opponents of those bills continued to call for a larger standing force. The supporters of the statutes, led by Representative James Terrus (R-NY), stated that the acts provided for a strong defense while safeguarding against tyranny by establishing an army designed to quickly mobilize state militias into a national force. "We get the best of both worlds this way," said Terrus, "no standing army to oppress us, but the benefits of one thanks to professional men committed to training, equipping, and organizing militia forces." But those preferring a full-time military, including Colonel Bretagne, said the militias were not enough. "It took us months to respond to the Seminole invasion, months," Bretagne said, "we just can't wait that long next time -- we need a force we can deploy immediately." Debates over the future of the Army meant little in George today, though, as the current militias prepared for battle. President Proposes National Budget President Washington asked Congress to appropriate $8.17 to support the federal government over the next two years, providing for a $1.22 million deficit when accounting for the nation's expected $7.14 million in revenues (mostly from the Revenue Act). The President hoped to spend $2.7 million on the Army and the Navy, $1 million on Foreign Affairs, and $1.65 million on other services over the next two years. Washington also asked for a $2 million discretionary fund to pay for new activities authorized by Congress including the Judiciary.
Washington's request for $1 million in discretionary funds prompted significant debate in Congress. Representative James Terrus (R-NY) demanded that amount be significantly cut, stating the nation should seek to eliminate its deficit, so as to begin paying off its $21.2 million in debt. Representative David Lee (F-VT) strongly opposed such a significant reduction in discretionary spending, though, instead calling for a much smaller scale-back. Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC) suggested appropriating the money, but providing that unused funds be returned, getting the best of both worlds.
Congressman Bubba Redneck (R-SC) predictably took the debate in an unexpected direction, laughably suggesting that the people should control the budget through referendum. Redneck, who publicly endorsed "democracy," stated that the people should directly control the government's spending. Congressman Beaumont dismissed Redneck's arguments, noting that the purpose of a republic was to allow educated representatives to make decisions on behalf of the people. It seemed unlikely this would placate the Redneck, who many in New York took to calling "the Democrat" yesterday.
While there was significant debate on the budget yesterday, most in Congress expected it to pass with only minor changes.
Redneck Calls for Legalized Piracy NEW YORK CITY, NY -- Representative Bubba Redneck (R-SC) called for the legalization of piracy yesterday, attracting significant criticism by seeking to justify murder, robbery, and violence on the high seas.
Congressman Redneck proposed pro-piracy legislation earlier this week, then sought to amend the Penal Act yesterday to eliminate the punishment for piracy. "Piracy ain't a damn crime and comparing it to murder is probably one of the most silly things I've heard," Redneck stated, "any ship that doesnt protect itself is fair game on the seas, any standard less than that is stupidity at its finest." Redneck surprisingly found support in Representative William Brandt (R-GA), who asked "if a ship owner does not secure their ship and property then, what right does he have to continue possession of that ship when another by the same ration and reason can take such a possession and benefit from it better?"
Deputy Speaker of the House Gordon Battle Hughes (F-NH) unprecedentedly surrendered the gavel to respond, stating that Redneck's arguments were "so ludicrous, so counter-productive to the well being of our nation, that I must temporarily suspend my ownership of the gavel to say a few words." "Our nation is one that must be built on laws, and furthermore, must be built with a healthy respect for commerce and trade," he said, "this opposed amendment violates all of these things, and is little more than a move that would legalize economic warfare against those states - such as my own - that rely on external trade for their own economic well being. Those men that have supported this amendment are nothing more than brigands and thieves, and their actions today have made that abundantly clear."
Hughes did not speak alone. Representative James Terrus (R-NY) called it "preposterous" to suggest that "the burden is upon the victim to prevent crime, not upon the individual not to commit it." Representative Albert Hannover (F-MA) declared that "we can not allow crimes to be legal, just because a ship can not protect itself." And Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC) stated that if passed, the amendment "will turn these united States into a haven for some of the most despicable criminals on the ocean today." "Piracy can certainly result in murder," Beaumont said in reply to Redneck, "is that murder acceptable because a merchant vessel is trying to haul cargo instead of more armaments?"
Most Americans certainly did not think so, prompting more distaste towards the new "Democratic" side of the Republican Party.
Terrus Stepping Back NEW YORK CITY, NY -- Representative James Terrus (R-NY) announced his resignation as Chair of the Republican Party yesterday, and also withdrew his candidacy for re-election as a United States Congressman. Terrus' decision to step back surprised many in Washington, given that he accrued significant influence this year. The New York Republican wrote many of the most significant legislation to be considered by Congress including the Bill of Rights, the Judiciary Act, and the defense bills. The Congressman rose quickly to become Chairman of the Republican Party, reportedly writing the charter for such organization, and playing a key role in helping it pickup new congressional seats over the last year. Most expected Terrus to coast to re-election. But the Congressman made it clear yesterday that he planned to step back, both within the party and Congress. He told the New York Daily Times that "the time has come for someone else to take the reigns of the party," and expressed hopes that "some of the newly prominent Republicans will step up to fill my shoes." Representative William Brandt (R-GA) and Representative Bubba Redneck (R-SC) were reportedly the leading candidates to replace Terrus, an ironic fact given that the two supported legalizing piracy, while Terrus spent much of his life building up a peaceful merchant enterprise. The irony was not lost on the New York Republican, who quipped to the NYDT that "I don't want to find out what their views are regarding murdering party chairs in the party headquarters." In the News NEW YORK CITY, NY -- President George Washington named Thomas Jefferson as the Ambassador-at-Large of the United States, putting forward the leading national Republican to be his first cabinet member. Jefferson, a career diplomat and public servant, was expected to be easily confirmed by the Senate. Few in New York saw Washington's choice of Jefferson as partisan, though, as the President was expected to select the nation's leading Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, to be Secretary of the Treasury. NEW YORK CITY, NY -- Congress considered legislation limiting the use of debtors prisons yesterday, and most experts expected the bill to pass in the near future. The "Debtor Liberation Act" prohibited injured veterans from being placed in debtors' prisoned, and also prohibited placing any gainfully employed individual in debtors' prison. This marked Congress' first exercise of its right to regulate bankruptcy.
EXETER, NH -- The Jay family encountered another publicity setback today when Vice President John Adams' apprentice, Samuel Jay Jr., decided to travel to France to fight to preserve the French monarchy. Jay's father, Samuel Jay, famously conspired last year to kill President George Washington, failing only when the New York Daily Times revealed his plot. Jay successfully escaped to Canada, where he continued to reside of last note to this paper.
SAVANNAH, GA -- The Republican Party made gains in Georgia last week, winning both special elections there. The Republican Isaiah Scott, a self-described "radical Democratic-Republican, won election to Georgia's 1st Congressional district, replacing Republican James Jackson, who left office to fight in the Seminole War. The Republican William Brandt won election to Georgia's 3rd Congressional district, replacing Federalist George Matthews, who left Congress to capitalize on land speculation.
RICHMOND, VA -- The Federalist Party and Republican Party divided the two seats up for election in Virginia's special election last week. The Federalist Theodore Hamilton won election to represent Virginia's 8th Congressional District, replacing Federalist Josiah Parker, who resigned to serve in the Virginia State Legislature. The Republican Samuel Griffin won election to represent Virginia's 10th Congressional District, replacing Republican Thomas Cole, who resigned to be Mayor of Williamsburg.
CHARLESTON, SC -- The Federalist Party retained control of South Carolina's 1st Congressional District this week when Andrew Beaumont successfully won re-election to replace William Loughton Smith. A successful 29-year old merchant, Beaumont was expected to quickly establish himself as one of few well-known Southern Federalists.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 20, 2014 11:34:39 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Summer, 1790 Edition 2NewsJay, Arnold ArrestedNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The United States captured Samuel Jay and Benedict Arnold in New England yesterday after Jay notified federal authorities that the two planned to cross the border, reportedly in a bid for clemency.
Federal authorities apprehended the two infamous traitors in Vermont near the Canadian border yesterday. Jay and Arnold crossed from Canada to the United States this week in secret for unknown purposes, but Jay soon sent notice to the President as to the two's location. Jay, who fled the country after conspiring to kill President George Washington, reportedly hoped to gain clemency by turning in Arnold, who infamously betrayed the United States during the War for independence. President Washington dispatched a group of former Continental Army officers to arrest the two, who were then imprisoned in New York City.
Representative James Terrus (R-NY) resigned from Congress late yesterday to take charge of the prosecution of Jay and Arnold at the bequest of the President. Terrus turned Arnold over to New York state authorities, so as to permit Arnold to be charged with a number of crimes relating to his betrayal while serving as a Continental Army officer in New York. New York was expected to ask that Arnold be hung. Terrus kept custody of Jay, reportedly to permit the federal government to ultimately file conspiracy to commit murder charges against Jay upon the establishment of a federal judiciary. The United States was not expected to charge Jay with treason, given the high level of evidence required for a conviction.
Most Americans celebrated the capture of Arnold and Jay, two wildly unpopular individuals widely considered to be traitors. While serving as a Major General of the Continental Army, Arnold provided significant intelligence to British forces on American defenses in New York, and offered to ensure a British victory at West Point in return for £20,000. The Continental Army discovered Arnold's plans when a messenger between him and the British was captured, but Arnold escaped arrest, and ultimately commanded British forces against the United States for the next several years. While serving in Congress, Jay conspired with a number of other individuals including Arnold to kill President Washington, a plot revealed by the New York Daily Times. Jay narrowly escaped prosecution, though, by fleeing to Canada.
There was no word yesterday on what defense Jay or Arnold might employ to avoid execution. Congress Approves Bill of Rights NEW YORK CITY, NY -- Congress unanimously approved the Bill of Rights yesterday, sending the proposal to safeguard individual liberties to the states for consideration.
The Senate voted unanimously yesterday to approve the Bill of Rights, following the suit of the House, which endorsed the proposed constitutional amendment without dissent. The constitutional amendment established a detailed judicial regime designed to protect citizens from the federal government, ranging from a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments to a right to speedy and public trials. The legislation also reserved for the states all powers not given to Congress, and established a general protection for the natural rights of the people. Representative James Madison (R-VA) and former Representative James Terrus (R-NY) authored the bill.
Representative John Key (F-NY) significantly amended the Bill of Rights in the House, though, fundamentally changing it by applying certain rights to both the states and the federal government. Terrus and Madison had already written a provision prohibiting Congress from infringing freedom of speech, press, religion, or assembly. But Key rewrote this section, applying these protections to the states as well as the federal government, in a move expected to generate significant controversy in several states possessing state religions. No one in the House of Representatives voted against the proposal despite Key's controversial amendment, however, nor did anyone in the Senate.
President George Washington signed the Bill of Rights just after the vote yesterday, sending the proposal to the states for ratification or denial.
In the News NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Senate voted unanimously to confirm Thomas Jefferson as Ambassador-at-Large of the United States yesterday, making Jefferson the first cabinet member to take office. The Senate also confirmed Edward Pearce, a career spy, as Analyst. NEW YORK CITY, NY -- President George Washington signed legislation yesterday establishing a formal Code of Laws in the United States. The Code, Compensation, and Oath Act provided for a carefully organized national set of statutes, established oaths for federal officials, and specified the amount of compensation to be paid to federal employees and officers. CORRECTION -- The New York Daily Times seeks to provide readers with reliable, objection information, but mistakes are made from time to time. The NYDT reported in its Summer, 1790 Edition 1 that "[t]he Republican Samuel Griffin won election to represent Virginia's 10th Congressional District, replacing Republican Thomas Cole, who resigned to be Mayor of Williamsburg." In fact, Cole won election to the 10th Congressional District, replacing Griffin, who resigned to become Mayor of Williamsburg. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 21, 2014 13:54:48 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Autumn, 1790 Edition 1NewsFederalist Party DividesNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Federalist Party divided in two yesterday, a group of leading Federalists departing Alexander Hamilton's political coalition to establish the National Democracy Party, which appeared to support a strong, democratic federal government.
Speaker of the House Pro Tempore Gordon Battle Hughes (F-NH) led the movement to establish the new party, followed by a number of Federalists both moderate and extreme in nature. Hughes convinced a number of leading Federalists in Congress to follow him including Albert Hannover (MA), David Lee (VT), Orison Pratt (MA), and Fisher Ames (MA) in the House, and Paine Wingate (NH) in the Senate. Timothy Pickering, a well-known Federalist not in Congress, also followed. A few independents and even one Republican, Representative Elbridge Gerry (MA), also joined the New Democracy Party. The New Democracy Party saw its members include every member of the Boston Society (a New England consortium of now former Federalists) and the Essex Junto (a group of now former Federalists favoring a significantly expanded federal government).
Hughes published a lengthy editorial in the New England Blue Star announcing the formation of the National Democracy Party, which he said planned to support President George Washington while promoting democracy. Hughes specifically called for universal white male suffrage, expressing disdain for the land ownership limitations imposed by every state in the union. The Speaker Pro Tempore's argument centered less on justifying himself, though, and more on defending his views. "Democracy, it is important to state, is not the same thing as mob rule," Hughes wrote, "in fact, democratic Athens had far more political stability and order than Republican Rome, and never entered into a state of tyranny through domestic machinations in the way that Rome did." "Likewise, democracy is not antithetical to the idea of republicanism," he went onto pen, "in fact, it could be argued that democracy is the true virtue of republicanism and the idea that will allow our republic to reach its full potential."
Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC) led Federalists in condemning the National Democrats, though, who Beaumont described as likely to "claim a friend in Benedict Arnold." "This action isn't about representation, it's not about new ideas and new liberties," Beaumont told the NYDT, "it's about personality politics, plain and simple." "If these representatives were so concerned about how to strengthen the ideas that our Party brings to the table, they could have worked to bring in new leadership," he went onto say, "they could have participated in the legislative process." "I for one still believe strongly in our party, in the leadership of heros like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams," he concluded, "and I will be happy to welcome back these poor men when they suffer the defeat they deserve so we can work on building a better and stronger Republic."
Republicans condemned the new party just as harshly as Federalists, though National Democrats denied the Journal's claims. The Southern Journal Constitution, known for its Republican sympathies, called the National Democrats "copy-cat Federalists," differentiated only by the view that "if you are a successful individual ... you somehow are the same as the unsuccessful." "This [will] be the rallying cry of the NDP," the paper implied, "you there, merchant, you didn't build that!" Representative Pratt dismissed these arguments, though, stating that the National Democrats split off simply because "the Federalist Party is no longer an effective or representative vehicle for advancing the interests and liberties of the American nation, [and] "this new organisation will provide a democratic, efficient choice of representation for the American people."
The National Democrats next needed to prove that they possessed the ability to represent the American people, namely through victory in the 1790 elections, which most analysts agreed yesterday were likely to be extremely contentious.
French Cancel Elections, Limit Liberty PARIS, FR-- The National Constituent Assembly cancelled regularly scheduled elections, restricted religious freedom, and banned certain political organizations in recent months, continuing an anti-republican trend that worried many observers. The National Constituent Assembly resolved last month not to hold elections this year, even though its members were elected for one-year terms nearly a year ago. The Assembly took ownership of every church in the country, as well, and ordered every minister to accept complete government control of his parish. Additionally, the Assembly banned workers' groups, unions, and guilds, significantly restricting the ability of common Frenchmen to organize. The National Party led the effort to enact these reforms as part of its greater mission to depose King Louis XVI, whose support for the United States during the War for Independence led to the victory at Yorktown. The Royal Democrats opposed most of these measures, preferring to maintain a regular schedule of free and fair elections, and to protect the freedoms of religion and political organization. But the Royal Democrats were outvoted, and King Louis XVI stood in no position to defy the assembly. The Royal Democrats scored a few victories in the past few months, however, notably establishing the right to a trial by jury. These republicans also provided for the creation of an independent judiciary, and abolished all hereditary titles except for that of King. The National Party maintained a plurality in the National Constituent Assembly, however, and analysts doubted the ability of the Royal Democrats to successfully advocate for a more republican system. The National Constituent Assembly did not make significant progress on the Constitution it was created to design over the last few months, focusing instead on the projects proposed by the National Party. House Considers State Debt Assumption NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives held a contentious debate this week on whether the federal government should assume state debts incurred during the War for Independence.
The House spent the week debating the Assumption Act, legislation authored by Representative James Terrus (R-NY) providing for the federal government to assume state debts accrued during the war for independence. Nearly every state took on a significant amount of debt during the war to pay for combat operations, and every state continued to be plagued by those debts today. Some states have made significant strides in paying off those debts, such as Virginia, but others have made little to no progress at all, such as New York.
Terrus argued that the federal government had a responsibility to assume the debts, joined by Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC). "The states presently bear a severe financial burden as a result of the War for Independence, as a result of fighting to establish ultimately this very government," he said on the House floor, "it is only right that this government should assume that burden -- as it is that burden that permits this government's existence. It is only correct that this government should assume that burden -- since the national defense is amongst this government's responsibilities. And it is only ideal that this government should assume that burden, as such will ensure the federal government possesses too much debt to undertake any imposition of tyranny."
But Representative William Brandt (R-SC), joined by several Southern Republicans, stated that the measure amounted to a massive federal over-reach. "Allow the states to manage their own finances," he argued, "placing the burden in the hands of the national government injures all while doing very little to mitigate the elimination of debt." " The government exists ... at the discretion and will of the people not upon the organization of states," he went onto say, "state autonomy should be prioritized as important and [each state should maintain the autonomy] to care for [its] own defence, [its] own debt and [its] own care with the national government providing a mere framework for confederation as exists presently."
Most analysts expected the bill to fail despite Brandt's opposition, given wide support amongst Northerners, Federalists, and National Democrats.
Russians Defeat Swedes at Reval REVAL, RUSSIA -- Russia scored a major victory against Sweden at Reval last month, defending the port despite inferior numbers.
A fourteen ship Russian fleet successfully held off an attack by a thirty-ship Swedish fleet in May, embarrassing the Swedes, who had expected an easy victory. The Russian ships took advantage of defensive posturing, bad weather, and intricate knowledge of the area to fight off the Swedes without losing a single ship. The Swedish lost two ships of the line during the battle, including one that was scuttled after grounding.
The Russian victory at Reval marked the latest in a series of successes by the Russian military. Despite superior Swedish training and firepower, the Russians repeatedly held off Swedish attacks in 1788 and 1789, dealing several embarrassing defeats to the Swedes in the Finland area. Most analysts blamed strategically inept Swedish commanders for the numerous losses suffered by the nation's armed forces, which instigated the war and originally advanced unopposed.
Swedish King Gustav III made no public statement about the battle, but analysts said that the defeat undermined his already precarious political position. Gustav III seized power in Sweden from a democratic parliament in 1772, and Swedish-Russian relations fell from that day onwards. Many experts suspected that Gustav III declared war on Russia in a bid to shore up public support, but that effort seemingly failed completely as Swedish forces suffered defeat after defeat.
Russian Czar Catherine II appeared bolstered by the conflict, however, which demonstrated once again her capacity to ensure the proper defense of Russia. The Czar oversaw a string of victories against numerous powers over the last few years including the Ottoman Empire, which reportedly concluded an alliance with Sweden in the late 1780s. Catherine now seemed poised to score another victory on behalf of the Empire.
The United States remained neutral in the war as of today.
In the News NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The United States Postal Service undertook operations formally yesterday, ushering in a new age of communication in the United States.
RICHMOND, VA -- Michael Davenport, a Republican, won election yesterday to the United States of House of Representatives, replacing Representative Timothy Bloodworth (R-NC3), who resigned to serve in the North Carolina State Legislature.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 22, 2014 13:36:13 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Autumn, 1790 Edition 2NewsHouse Considers New Bank BillNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives considered a new proposal for a national bank yesterday, setting the state for another partisan battle despite the bill's author's attempts to reach a middle ground.
The House convened debate on the National Bank System Act of 1790 today, leaving little time to consider the bill before end of session. Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC) authored the legislation, which establishes four regional banks more apt to be controlled in each region, and then a national bank to coordinate those regional banks. The four regional banks encompassed New England (RI, MA, CT, NH, VT), the Mid-North (NY, PA, NJ), the Mid (MD, DE, VA), and the South (NC, SC, GA).
Representative Beaumont delivered an impassioned argument in favor of the legislation on the House floor, calling the bill constitutional because a national government needed a bank to perform its most basic functions. Beaumont also argued the nation needed a bank for economic reasons, noting that the United States faced a dearth of credit. Finally, Beaumont pointed towards the regional system as a way to address concerns about a national bank possessing too much power. Representative Thaddeus Steward (F-MD) joined in supporting the bank.
No Republican commented on the legislation today, except Representative Jack Terrus (R-NY), who simply called for a vote. But most analysts expected the vast majority of Republicans to strongly oppose the bill. "Representative Beaumont developed the present bank proposal with me with the regional system designed to address my party's concerns," said former Representative James Terrus (R-NY), "but every member of my party made it clear that there could be no compromise on this issue, so I would not expect there to be any compromise."
The House previously rejected a national bank proposal, but only by one vote.
In the News NEW YORK CITY, NY -- Jack Terrus won election to the United States House of Representatives yesterday, representing the New York 2nd. Terrus replaced his own father, James Terrus, the Chairman of the Republican Party, who resigned to represent the United States in the trials of Samuel Jay and Benedict Arnold. NEWBERN, NC -- Representative Elijah Surratt (R-VA) purchased the State Gazette of North Carolina this week, renaming the nation's third largest newspaper (tied with the NYDT) as the Southern Journal-Constitution, and appointing his younger brother, Jean, to edit the paper. Many expected the SJC to quickly dominate the Southern market, given Jean's past performance. ANNAPOLIS, MD -- Representative Albert Hannover (ND-MA) purchased the Maryland Gazette yesterday, taking control of a paper with a readership encompassing 20% of Maryland's market. Hannover's plans for the paper were unclear today. Opinion Mob Rule and American Assassins by Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC) It was Thomas Jefferson who, in his hard work to found our great Republic, once said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." The honorable Mr. Jefferson, like the other founders of these united States, knew more than anyone the importance on building a nation- perhaps the first of its kind- that was build on laws and not on the rule of the mob or the rule of popularity.
Yet, as the tyrant King George claimed the idea of "divine right" and "will of the people" for his actions as the King of England and for the actions that directly lead to the birth of our Republic, so too is the idea of rule of the mob and rule of popularity showing up on our shores in the form of the so-called "National Democracy Party." Their primary reason of existence, so they claimed in letters to other members of the government, is to "give voice" to the people by expanding the right to vote in these united States. It is any male, they say, that should be given an equal say in government affairs. And it is their name- National Democracy- that shows they clearly want to give the common man ALL say. Recently in Congress I was witness to a debate wherein one Representative suggested that a national budget- along with every other law- should be put to the people and to the mob for a decision. Imagine what that means for Massachusetts when the "people" of the Carolinas have a say on tariffs and you have, reader, a picture of the chaos brought to you by the National Democrats and their brain-brothers throughout the country.
But wait, says our dear reader who, by virtue of reading this paper, is educated in the ways of governance. The National Democrats were formerly Federalists. Believers in the Federalist ideals, not in mob rule. Supporters of this Administration of President Washington and Vice-President Adams. This is, if the National Democrats are to be believed, true. Their dissatisfaction comes from, so it is claimed, the failure of the National Bank.
No member of the new National Democrats voted for the legislation when the House of Representatives considered it. While there may be a failure here, it is not limited to one party. Every member of this new party, the Party of Mob Rule, had a responsibility that they abandoned, like Benedict Arnold was prepared to abandon the responsibility of defending an independent Republic. Like Samuel Jay, associate of Arnold that conspired to assassinate the President, they sought to take advantage of their own failures to seem as though they are in the right. It would not surprise this author nor educated readers that the National Democrats are certainly welcoming Arnold and Jay into their bosoms. And like Samuel Jay and Benedict Arnold, this Party of Mob Rule and of Assassins of the Republic seek to build their own nation, ignoring what the great founders established and the Republic that we were given.
The Party of Mob Rule and of Assassins of the Republic wants to claim that they are the the true leaders of this Republic. They are build around a cult of personality, not around law. They are build around the rule of the masses that can oppress minority populations- the land-owners, the slave-owners, and the educated in north and south that have made this country successful.
In the words of Vice-President John Adams, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." It is clear with their dangerous ideas, with their dangerous friends, and with their dangerous existence, that all citizens of these united States would be better served with a suicide of the National Democrats that came sooner, rather than later.
A Response by Representative Gordon Battle Hughes (ND-NH) Before I begin, I would like to state that there were a number of inaccuracies in the article published by this paper. First and most importantly, while I am perhaps one of the more prominent national leaders of the National Democracy Party, it was in no way a movement that I led; equal credit as a leader in this movement must go to David Lee and Albert Hannover, committed lovers of this country who recognized proactive leadership was necessary. The second error is that not every member of the Essex Junto, in fact, joined the National Democracy Party; we maintain solid relations with most members and count them allies, but a number of them felt called to remain in the Federalist Party.
The mere fact that I have been asked to write an article defending the National Democracy Party from this Federalist attack highlights one of the great problems of the Federalist Party as it currently exists: it is grasping for legitimacy and is seeking to undermine the credibility of people who happen to have dissenting opinions from its core ideology. We have been accused of exacerbating personal feuds, of being nothing more than separatists and all sorts of other things.
So far, the Federalist criticisms have come from one person; the silence of men like Jackson Clay and John Key in regards to our separation just further verifies the fact that these men are not committed, active leaders who are dragging down the Federalist movement. This one critic is Andrew Beaumont, who has decided to compare me to Benedict Arnold (Arnold’s primary ally in the US was, of course, a member of the Republican faction) and accuse me of engaging in personal politics. This second criticism I would like to explore in depth.
It is true that there was one member of the Federalist leadership that I did not get along with, that being Representative Jackson Clay, the House Majority Leader. Representative Clay, of course, attempted to bring down the House of Representatives in order to pursue this feud, trying to invalidate the legitimate appointments of the Speaker to pursue this feud. However, this feud had been resolved well before the split, so it seems interesting that the National Democracy Movement would be blamed on ‘personal issues.’ Furthermore, I fail to see how my personal issues with Jackson Clay would motivate Albert Hannover, David Lee, Elbridge Gerry or Fisher Ames to want to start a new movement; surely, someone of the personal and political quality of Senator Paine Wingate would be above the petty personal differences of two members of the House.
My concern is that the person saying that the origin of this party, Andrew Beaumont, is a new face to Congress – he joined as the National Democracy Party was founded, and certainly never interacted with me long enough to discover if I was pursuing personal vendetta or if I was pursuing the ideas I laid out when I wrote ‘The Limits and Possibilities of Federalism’ and later, ‘A New Agreement of the People.’ My ideological shift, and the shift of those that have joined me, away from the people leading the Congressional wing of the party, has been documented in a number of editorials and legislation.
This mention of legislation brings me back to the second argument of Representative Beaumont, implying that we were not participating in the legislative process and this somehow fueled our issue with the party. As those who are aware of national issues know, I have been hip deep in the legislative process since the Speaker appointed me to preside over the legislative process with the advent of his ill health. Not only that, I have several passed pieces of legislation to my name, as do other members of the National Democracy Party. At the time that I am writing this editorial, I have just left the House Floor where a piece of legislation written primarily by myself, sponsored by David Lee and amended by Representative Terrus, passed the House by unanimous consent. This legislation would open up the debtor prisons around the United States and allow hard working men to return to work; it is evident, from this, that we are far from inactive in the legislative process. Mr. Beaumont, while new to the House of Representatives, has had a thoroughly unimpressive career that has seen no action save a resubmission of the Banking Act, with some modifications, which the Federalists failed to pass in 1789.
As I explained in the letters I wrote to men like Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry, the purpose of the National Democracy Party is to take the ideology of Federalism as laid out by Alexander Hamilton and blend it with the values of democracy that were shared by men like Albert Hannover and Orison Pratt. We do share a number of ideologies in common with the Federalists, but that does not mean that we belong with the Federalists. I would like to dive into the records of the House and remind the readers of this paper that it was not that long ago that Jackson Clay argued that the states had no autonomy, no rights and no real state of independence, and that this man has become the House Majority Leader; that ideology is not the ideology of Hamilton, and I would argue that the National Democracy Party is the true heir of the idea that this new nation is a partnership between a federal government and a state government.
Next, I would like to state that we are under absolutely no obligation to work within the confines of the Federalist Party, and it’s ridiculous that we would be criticized for leaving this organization. President Washington has never felt it important to be a member of the Federalist Party, and neither has the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Federalist Party is a year old, built haphazardly, and the idea that they are the only true champions of the philosophy of this man or that man is simply ludicrous; we owe nothing to the Federalist Party, and the idea that we need to be members of the Federalist Party just further verifies the increasingly paternalistic bent that they have taken over the last few months.
Now, I would like to take a moment to respond to the Southern Journal Constitution. If we were merely ‘copy-cat Federalists’ we would not have won the support of Elbrdige Gerry, a Republican, and we would not have seen all those independents affiliate with us. Their attacks on us for holding supposedly anti-merchant views are similarly ridiculous; a casual look at the history of the men known collectively as the ‘Essex Junto’ would show that they have a long history of merchant activity, and one of them is the fiftieth richest man in this nation. Likewise, I myself earn my living as a merchant. We are a party dedicated to promoting industry, trade and westward expansion so that more men can gain access to land and wealth. We just also happen to believe that the common man should have a say in the affairs of the country he happens to call his own, which was the spirit of the revolution.
The final thing that I would like to say is that the attacks by both the Federalists and the Republicans showcase the problem already cropping up in the capital: these men have started to see any deviation from their Federalist/Republican paradigm as illegitimate and a variation on one idea or the other. They are not willing to accept that they leave a broad swathe of the American population unsatisfied, and that many of us have desires and wants and needs that can only be fulfilled by pursuing new ideas and new philosophies. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 23, 2014 14:58:22 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Autumn, 1790 Edition 3NewsNation Prepares for Contentious ElectionsNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The United States prepared for contentious federal elections this month as each of the three major political parties sought to gain an advantage heading into the 2nd Congress.
Each party prepared to wage electoral battle across the nation, though most specifically in those states hosting at-large elections. Federalists, Republicans, and National Democrats all saw opportunities in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, where a host of candidates possessed the ability to win a total of twenty-six seats. There were no secure incumbents or secure challengers in these races, but rather, just a group of politicians up or down by only a couple of percent. A party could gain a significant advantage by sweeping such a state, or just by denying another party a victory there.
There were a few individual races likely to attract attention as well. In New York, Representative Jeremiah Van Rensselaer (I-NY) faced a tough re-election battle this cycle against Indian trader James Gordon (ND) in New York's 6th congressional district. In Rhode Island, Paul Mumford (ND), James Sheldon (R), and Benjamin Bourne (F) stood neck-and-neck. And in Virginia, Abraham Venable (R) maintained only a small lead over Charles Litch (F) and Charles Clay (ND). The latter two races were of particular interest, as they were the only one-seat races featuring candidates from all three parties.
Those three parties all appeared on equal footing heading into the elections. The Republican Party just underwent a major leadership change, seeing Representative Elijah Surratt (R-VA) elected Chair after former Representative James Terrus (I-NY) departed the party. The Federalist Party received a body blow last month, when a number of leading Federalists broke off to form the National Democracy Party. And the National Democrats struggled just weeks after becoming a party to compete with two organizations formed over a year ago.
The NYDT projects that, if the election were held today, the House of Representatives would be comprised of 21 Republicans, 16 Federalists, 12 National Democrats, and 17 Independents. The House breakdown is presently 17 Republicans, 14 Federalists, 7 National Democrats, and 28 Independents. No party will possess a majority of seats, but the Republicans will possess the plurality.
Parties Clash in Bank DebateNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives continued a contentious debate over the formation of a national bank yesterday, setting the stage for another vote in the key measure.
Federalists and Republicans clashed over Representative Andrew Beaumont's (F-SC) proposal for a national banking system comprised of four regional banks coordinated by a single United States Bank. Beaumont developed the plan with former Representative James Terrus (I-NY), then a Republican, in a bid to create a suitable compromise between those viewing a national bank is essential to economic growth and those fearing the power of a national bank. But the Republicans refused to accept the middle-ground solution despite Terrus' urgings, and so Beaumont went ahead on his own with Terrus' support.
Beaumont delivered a well-reasoned argument for the bill on the House floor. "Our Vice President and our Secretary of the Treasury both admit that this legislation is needed to ensure financial stability of this country," he said, "every other nation on Earth has a central financial authority such as a national bank. You cannot exist without one." "And I believe the constitutionality is quite clear, he went onto say, "through the idea that Congress has whatever associated powers are necessary to carry out its main objectives, which fit very much in line with the need for a national banking system."
Representative Elijah Surrat (R-VA) took Beaumont to task, though, criticizing the bank at length. "I still fail to see how a Bank, established by the Federal Government and not authorized by the Constitution, benefits anyone," Surratt argued, "the proponents of this bill have failed time and time again to make a solid argument for a Bank in the first place." "Their argument of "destabilization" and "economic crisis" falls on deaf ears to the planters, farmers, and manufacturers that are and will continue to boom without the interference of a regulated and unconstitutional National Bank," he went onto say.
Beaumont, Surratt, and Representative Pierre Broussard (F-MA) then clashed regarding the Dutch financial system, arguing about whether it's decentralized model might be applied in the United States. Surratt claimed that the Dutch had, without a national bank, created lengthy and significant economic growth. But Broussard pointed out that the Dutch system had failed miserably in 1763, leading to a massive economic crisis, and that the Bank of Amsterdam had acted as a de facto national bank since then. Beaumont further argued that the Dutch could rely on exploiting their colonies to make up for financial instability -- something the US would never do. Surratt fired back that if the US established tyrannical, unconstitutional state bodies, it might not be far from creating colonies.
Representative Terrus moved for a vote on the legislation today; most Republicans were expected to vote against the bill, while most Federalists and National Democrats were expected to support it.
Terrus Leaves Republican Party NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Chairman of the Republican Party, James Terrus, resigned his post then declared himself an independent yesterday in a surprising turn of events. Terrus' son, a Representative from New York, followed his lead. James Terrus and Representative Jack Terrus (I-NY) both left the Republican Party yesterday, declaring a desire to focus on constituent service instead of partisan concerns. The elder Terrus resigned his post as Chairman of the Republican Party to this end, a role he held since the Party's founding last year. According to reports, he wrote the party's chair, and organized most of its initial activities. But the former Congress and present attorney for the United States said it was time to leave, a sentiment echoed by his son. Terrus' departure from the Republican Party marked a significant event, both given his service as Chair and his authorship of the Bill of Rights. Terrus was amongst the most influential Northern Republican, and many wondered how the Republican Party might fare without his contacts in New York and New England. Analysts pointed towards the rise of the National Democrats in particular as a threat to the Republicans' Northern holdings, given the National Democratic Party's strong New England roots. Both James Terrus nor Jack Terrus declined to comment on the issue, except to both say that "service to constituents must come before service to party." In the News VARALA -- Empress Catherine II of Russia and King Gustav III of Sweden signed a peace treaty in this Finnish city last week, ending a two year conflict undertaken by Gustav based upon flimsy allegations of Russian aggression. Neither the Swedes nor the Russians gained any territory or concessions through the conflict, agreeing merely to restore pre-war borders and relations. Some 21,000 Swedes and some 9000 Russians died during the conflict. BOSTON, MA -- Pierre Broussard, a Federalist, won election to the House of Representatives from Massachusetts this week, replacing Benjamin Goodhue, who resigned for unknown reasons. Opinion National Government Must Assume State Debt by Representative Thaddeus Stewart (F-MD)
The readers of this publication shall be behooved to consider the broad, NATIONAL INTEREST in contrast to the narrow STATE interests. State interests would have us as a pauper nation, with each state a single duchy, presided by an all-powerful Duke ignoring the duly-elected national President. A fever has gripped the minds of certain Representatives of the Several States, which would cast aside the singular national interest hard-won with the BLOOD OF PATRIOTS in our WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. While several Representative would see our new nation divided along sectional state lines, the Federalist Party would have use be one nation, for the good of all.
Certainly the PARTY OF THE MOB, the New Democracy Party, and their sisters-in-arms, the Democrat-Republicans, will place the narrow interests of the few in the states above that of the many throughout our new nation. The national Federalists are the only PARTY committed to NATIONAL UNITY.
The Democrat-Republicans object to the very concept of a national debt, suggesting that debts incurred during the WAR belong solely to those states thereof. The Federalist Party is true to consider that all states gave some measure of devotion, and no aspersions shall be cast in the matter, and that all debts must be repayed.
Perhaps, the Democrat-Republicans truly believe that certain states sacrificed such a substantial amount more of blood and credit, that the other states can not imagine to aid in the repayment thereof. I believe, however, that ALL DEBTS CAN AND MUST BE REPAYED. Any state debt incurred during the War of Independence by a state, must be assumed by the new national government, in order to establish the credit of our new nation.
Certain Democrat-Republicans believe that debt is strictly held by states. Yet the SEVERAL STATES did not rebel against the British Crown, the UNITED STATES REBELLED against the British Crown, and it is the United States that must repay the debts incurred thereof. Repaying the debts shall establish our new, fledgling nation as a responsible nation among the GRAND GAME of sovereign, international relations. Failing to repay our debts would show the new United States as a beggar nation, not fit to be negotiated with. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 24, 2014 20:39:57 GMT -5
"There is no greater defense against tyranny than a well-informed voter."1790 Election Edition (Winter, 1790)NewsThe Gubernatorial RacesBOSTON, MA -- The readers of the New York Daily Times will decide two of four key gubernatorial races this November, those in New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
Josiah Bartlett, a Republican, and Governor John Sullivan, a Federalist, face off in New Hampshire. A former colonial assemblyman and Continental Congressman, Bartlett is presently the Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, having turned down an appointment to the United States Senate. Bartlett is widely regarded as a moderate Republican. A Major General during the War for Independence, Sullivan spent the last few years serving as President and then Governor of New Hampshire, though he also served in the Continental Congress and as State Attorney General. Sullivan is widely regarded as a more ardent Federalist. Bartlett is favored in the race.
Governor John Collins, a Federalist, and Arthur Fenner, a Republican, face off in Rhode Island. The incumbent Governor, Collins previously served in the Continental Congress, and as a representative to Washington. Though a moderate Federalist, Collins is best known for resolving to support the Constitution, despite popular opposition. The challenger in the race, Arthur Fenner, is a newcomer with little experience in government. He is viewed as a staunch Republican. Fenner is favored in the race.
Federalists and independents clash in two other states. Beverly Randolph, an independent, is fighting a losing battle against Henry Lee III, a Federalist, for election as Virginia's Governor. George Plater, also an independent, seems set to defeat John Eager Howard, a Federalist, to win Maryland's Governorship.
The House RacesTRENTON, NJ -- Voters in New Jersey must choose amongst a cluster of candidates in a confusing at-large election expected to be extremely important politically, though major electoral battles are also expected in New York's 3rd District and Rhode Island's 1st District.
There are eight candidates running in New Jersey's at large election to fill the state's four congressional seats. Four independents, two National Democrats, and two Republicans all seek election to Congress to represent the state. The eight candidates are listed as follows in order of estimated popularity:
Abraham Clark (I) -- Clark is a folk hero in New Jersey, thanks to a long career of selfless service. While working as an attorney, Clark regularly provided free legal aid to poor persons accused of crimes, hoping to make the justice system more fair. While in the Continental Congress, Clark refused to use his influence to safeguard his two sons, both of whom were captured, imprisoned, and tortured by the British while serving in the Continental Congress. Indeed, when the British offered to free his children if he agreed to recant support for independence, Clark refused. Since the war, Clark has remained consistently involved in politics, and is very well-respected.
Jonathan Dayton (ND) -- Representative Dayton is an incumbent, serving since 1789, though his service record is undermined by his failure to once attend a session of the House of Representatives. Dayton is a highly experienced legislator, having served in the Continental Congress, New Jersey General Assembly, and New Jersey Legislative Council. Dayton served with honor during the War for Independence as well, joining at the age of 15, and rising to the rank of Captain by war's end. But Dayton's hopes for re-election were significantly undermined by his failure to attend Congress, even once, during the last session.
Elias Boudinot (I) -- Representative Boudinot is an incumbent, serving since 1789. A strong but independent supporter of the President, Boudinot is generally viewed as a moderate, who eschews both the Republicans' opposition to federal government and the National Democrats' support of a strong federal government. Previously, Boudinot served as a Continental Congressman and as President of the Continental Congress, and before that as a Colonel in the Continental Army. Before the war, Boudinot was an attorney and a New Jersey Provincial Assemblyman, where he fought for independence.
Aaron Kitchell (R) -- New Jersey Assemblyman Aaron Kitchell is an experienced state legislator, whose spent much of the last decade in the New Jersey Assembly. He established a reputation there of opposition to the federal government, but is otherwise not particularly well-known.
Lambert Cadwalader (ND) -- Representative Lambert Cadwalader is an incumbent, serving since 1789. Prior to being elected to Congress, he served in the Continental Congress, the New Jersey Provincial Assembly, and the Philadelphia Committee of Correspondence. He served in the Continental Army during the War for Independence, where he achieved the rank of Colonel before being captured then paroled.
James Linn (R) -- James Linn is an experienced juror and legislator, whose served in the New Jersey General Assembly and the New Jersey Legislative Council, where he was Vice President of the Council. Prior to that, he was an attorney and a Judge in Somerset County. Linn is known for his strong Republican views.
John Witherspoon (I) -- A signer of the Declaration of Independence, Witherspoon intended a career as a clergyman, but found himself drawn into politics out of need. He served as President of the New Jersey College for a number of years, during which he transformed the college from a debt-riddled failure into a thoroughly sound, respected institution. He served twice in the New Jersey General Assembly, and strongly supported the United States Constitution.
James Schureman (I) -- Representative Schureman is an incumbent, serving since 1789. He's staked out a record as a strong but independent supporter of President George Washington, while avoiding the partisan battles in New York City. He previously served in the Continental Congress and New Jersey General Assembly, where he was known for his proficiency in helping arrange compromises between competing factions. Schureman originally made a name for himself in the Continental Army, where he served with honor.
Representative Egbert Benson, a Federalist, faces a tough challenge from Theodorus Bailey, a Republican, in New York's 3rd Congressional District. An honored graduate of Harvard and Dartmouth, Benson made a name for himself as an attorney in New York City before the revolution, but gave up his profiting firm to support the revolution. He's staked out a position as a moderate Federalist during the course of a lengthy political career, previously serving as New York Attorney General, Continental Congressman, and New York Assemblyman. A career militiamen, Theodorus Bailey achieved the rank of Brigadier General during the Revolutionary War, and has remained politically involved since then. Benson is presently expected to defeat Bailey.
The voters of Rhode Island must choose between three candidates in the nation's only major three-way single-district race. Representative Benjamin Bourne, a moderate Federalist, faces a challenge from Paul Mumford, a National Democrat, and James Sheldon, a Republican. Bourne is a former soldier, assemblyman, and public servant, who staked out a pro-Washington position in Congress. Mumford is a former Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and the current LIeutenant Governor of Rhode Island. He is known for is strong support for direct democracy. Sheldon is a political newcomer with little experience, who is not very well known, but is popular due to his strong anti-government beliefs.
The Senate Races
NEW YORK CITY, NY -- New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts hosted the three most important Senate races this year. Senator Philip Schuyler, a Federalist, may be defeated by Aaron Burr, a Republican, in New York this year. A veteran legislator with years of experience in the New York General Assembly and New York State Senate, Schuyler truly distinguished himself during the War for Independence, when he served as a Major General, commanding the Northern Department. He played a role in uncovering Benedict Arnold's treachery in this position. A lawyer by trade, Burr is presently the New York State Attorney General, and previously served in the New York General Assembly. He is presently leading Schuyler by a wide margin. Senator Jonathan Elmer, an independent, faces a tough challenge from John Rutherfurd, a Federalist, in New Jersey. A doctor by trade, Elmer is a relatively low-key legislator, whose served in the Continental Congress and the New Jersey Legislative Council. He was a militia officer during the War for Independence, but never fought due to health issues that plague him to this day. Rutherfurd is a New Jersey Assemblyman, whose made a quick name for himself over the last two years as a strong supporter of Washington, and moderate policymaker. He is currently leading Elmer considerably. Senator Tristram Dalton, a Federalist, faces a challenge from George Cabot, a National Democrat, in Massachusetts. The incumbent Dalton previously served as Speaker of the Massachusetts General Assembly, and as a Massachusetts Senator, before entering federal politics. He is considered a strong supporter of the President, but also a reasonable policymaker, who supports republicanism. Cabot is a former member of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, whose staked out a position as a strong National Democrat, favoring pure democracy and a larger federal government. James Monroe is running for Senate as a Republican in Virginia, and is expected to win by a landslide. In the News NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives moved to a vote yesterday on the Assumption Act, James Terrus' proposal for the federal government to assume state debts. Most expected the plan to pass given strong National Demcoratic and Federalist support, despite strong Republican opposition. NEWBERN, NC -- The Southern Journal-Constitution levied charges yesterday that Colonel William Bathust, commander of a militia unit operating in Georgia, massacred defenseless Indian women and children. Bathurst claimed that all Indians were in effect combatants. There was no comment from the Washington administration about whether charges might be brought against Bathurst, but it certainly appeared unlikely. Opinion The Times' Candidates
by the New York Times Editorial Board
The New York Daily Times strives for neutrality in its news reporting, but the staff and editorial board here possess opinions just like everyone else. The NYDT is proud to represent those views through electoral endorsements. The NYDT urges its readers to make informed decisions based off its objective content -- but also hopes its readers will consider the opinions of the staff that serve them daily.
Representatives from New Jersey:
The NYDT endorses Abraham Clark, Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon, James Schureman for United States Representative from New Jersey. These four independents can provide better representation for New Jersey than any political party.
Abraham Clark embodies the virtues of service and sacrifice, virtues fundamental to being a good lawmaker. The best representatives are those committed to serving their constituents -- those that will put constituents' needs above personal political gain. Clark did that regularly as an attorney when he took on the cases of poor, desperate citizens for no profit at all, something unheard of in his jurisdiction. He continued to demonstrate his commitment to the public good in the Continental Congress, where he refused to make any decision that might slightly benefit him, even when it meant leaving his two sons, officer in the Continental Army, in harm's way. The best representatives are also those that exemplify self-sacrifice -- those that will do what is necessary, even if it might mean political misfortune. Clark proved beyond any doubt that he'd put integrity above personal considerations when, as a Continental Congressman, he refused to renounce his support for independence -- even though the British threatened to torture Clark's captured sons unless he did. Clark refused to give up the cause of liberty, even though it meant great political suffering, because he felt the people's well-being more important than his own. Let the people repay Clark now by elevating him to Congress -- and let the people repay themselves by electing a man who will serve and sacrifice for New Jersey.
Elias Boudinot is tireless public servant, whose unending commitment to the national good makes him amongst the best candidates for Congress this year. Boudinot supported independence long before the war, fighting for it in the New Jersey Provincial Assembly. The New Jersey native sacrificed much of his personal wealth to ensure New Jersey militia units were properly equipped, then joined the revolutionary cause himself. But Boudinot did not get the combat position he desired -- instead, he was desired the tedious, difficult job of overseeing British prisoners, and of supplying American prisoners. He excelled in his role despite his preference for action because his dedication came not from a desire for glory or gain, but a hope to truly help the cause of liberty. Later, in the Continental Congress, he made a name for himself as a smart legislator, a reasonable man willing to compromise where necessary, and for that reason he was made President of the Continental Congress. Now, after two years of service in the House of Representatives, he wishes re-election to continue supporting reasonable, non-partisan policies -- he should be given the chance.
John Witherspoon is a distinguished man of faith and honor, who an be relied upon to advance New Jersey's interests. He spent a career as a clergyman before reluctantly entering politics, having hoped to spend his entire life helping his community. But called upon to help improve education, he found himself serving as President of the New Jersey College, an institution he turned around in just a few years. Witherspoon found the college a debt-riddled, incompetence-saddled college -- and turned it into a premier national university. Voters drafted him into the New Jersey General Assembly thereafter, where he helped write key legislation that brought about the formation of our nation. Amidst all of this, Witherspoon made his claim to fame by signing the Declaration of Independence, declaring at a dangerous time that he desired either liberty or death. Witherspoon possesses the integrity, experience, and honor needed in a United States Congressman, and should be given the opportunity to serve.
James Schureman is brilliant young politician, whose made a name for himself in Congress as a reasonable moderate. The fires of war forged Schureman, who shot through the ranks of the Continental Army, before winning election to the New Jersey General Assembly. He spent years serving there, helping to craft many of the most important laws in the state's history, and becoming an important player. Ultimately, he won a promotion to the Continental Congress, where he was one of few representatives with a perfect attendance record. Schureman saw at a time when most were afraid of government that the federal government was still important -- and he did everything in his power to make sure that government delivered for its people, without delivering tyranny upon them. He's done even better as a United States Representative, repeatedly putting New York's interests above his own. He made perhaps the greatest name for himself through his support of the Bill of Rights, a document for which he proudly voted.
Representative from Rhode Island:
The New York Daily Times must endorse Benjamin Bourne for Rhode Island Representative, given his incredible record of public service. Bourne distinguished himself on the battlefield during the Revolutionary War, not as a general, but as a lieutenant, fighting on the front lines with the citizens he now seeks to serve. Following the war, he served in the New Jersey State Assembly, where he made a name for himself for crafting militia law. Several years later, he spearheaded the effort to overhaul New Jersey's militia laws, creating the system in place today. Since 1789, he's superbly represented Rhode Island in the House of Representatives, helping preserve Rhode Island's agricultural interests while also promoting its booming merchant industry. Bourne now seeks re-election to continue promoting a intelligent defense policies, reasonable trade policies, and generally a moderate direction for the country. He is definitely the best choice in Rhode Island.
Representative from New York's 3rd Congressional District
New York is a state known for its experienced, competent legislators, men like James Terrus, Jackson Clay, and Egbert Benson. The NYDT proudly endorses Benson because without a doubt, he will provide the state the most powerful representation possible. Benson's experience is unparalleled -- he's served as New York Attorney General, State Assemblyman, Safety Committeeman, Continental Congressman, Annapolis Convention delegate, and United States Congressman. Before that, he spent years practicing law to great effect, becoming amongst the most influential attorneys in New York City. Benson gave up that authority to support the revolution, but he never gave up the competence that led him to rise so quickly. Now, he's risen again, and New York should elevate him once more to Congress to allow him to continue his superb service.
Governor of New Hampshire
New Hampshire deserves a governor that is a man of principle, which is why the New York Daily Times endorses Josiah Bartlett. Bartlett is a Republican, making him an oddity in the NorthEast, but his reasonable nature and moderate views allow him to excellently serve his state. He's proven himself to be a logical, reliable servant while on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and previously proved his legislative prowess while drafting the Articles of Confederation. Let this man with great legislative and judicial experience now join the third branch of government, and become Governor.
Governor of Rhode Island
Governor John Collins is almost certain to face defeat this November, but his commitment to his principles brings the unyielding respect (and the endorsement) of the New York Daily Times. Collins supported ratifying the Constitution at a time when few in his state supported his views -- but he stood by his principles, even in the face of certain political destruction. The nation can use more statesmen like him -- more men who will serve the public good, not give into the tyranny of the masses.
Senator from New York:
An able representative of the interests of the State of New York in the Senate, Senator Schuyler has shown the leadership that this country needs. As a General during the War for Independence, he worked hard alongside our great President George Washington to secure freedom and liberty for this young Republic while Mr. Aaron Burr was busy serving with and under Benedict Arnold, a man whose actions were so despicable they are below the mention of this publication. While Senator Schuyler was building his own commercial enterprise- a successful sea operation that has given Senator Schuyler the knowledge and the experience to deal with the affairs of international commerce that is important to these united States, Mr. Burr was the confidant and friend of Benedict Arnold who was hatching his plot to overthrow the government of these united States and assassinate the President.
With the support of the legislature of New York, there is no question that Senator Schuyler will be able to continue to serve the State of New York with honor. He'll fight for a stronger national economy to allow our nation to thrive, while Aaron Burr seeks only to turn it over to thieves and ruffians- to the kind of Republicans that have voted to legalize piracy. To the kind of Republicans that want to turn all decisions to commoners with no understanding. This country needs Senator Schuyler, and the State of New York would do right by sending him to represent the State in the Senate.
Senator from New Jersey
The New York Daily Times cannot offer an endorsement in the New Jersey senate race for two candidates of equal stature face off there, and a victory by either will be a victory for all.
Senator from Massachusetts
Another experienced voice in the Senate, Tristram Dalton from Massachusetts is a man whose experience and history is what these united States needs now, more than ever. Educated in law, experienced as a merchant, Senator Dalton has put this new Republic on a path to future growth and prosperity based on his education and experience. And his love for this country goes back to the founding of this new nation, having worked hard and tirelessly for independence since those glorious days in 1776. He seeks to retain his seat from George Cabot, a man who recently was an ally of Dalton before joining an organization known as the "National Democrats," an organization built around personalities and the desire for power rather than the strength of our union. While Dalton was promoting strength and prosperity, Cabot was instead part of a group to expand the right to vote to all men- to the heretics, to the debtors, the prisoners, the criminals that would delight greatly in the decimation and destruction of our union. While Dalton has been working for a stronger union, Cabot was seeking to destroy it by turning power over to the mob.
There is no more sensible choice in this year than Tristam Dalton. An honest Christian and a servant of Massachusetts, he is the man to keep this union strong while it is clear that George Cabot, traitor and heathen, seeks to tear it asunder. |
|
