|
Post by terrus on Jun 25, 2014 22:03:15 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Winter, 1790 Edition 2NewsFederal Government Takes FormNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The federal government took form yesterday as President George Washington signed a series of bills into law, establishing the federal judiciary, executive cabinet departments, and the nation's defense forces.
Washington signed a dozen acts yesterday, ranging from the Judiciary Act to the Army Act, and effectively establishing the federal government by doing so. The executive expanded to include five cabinet-level Departments (State, Treasury, Foreign Affairs, Army, and Navy), a cabinet-level position (United States Counsel), and three independent services (Postal Service, Patent Service, and Library of Congress). The judiciary took form with a five-member Supreme Court, two three-member Appeals Courts, and one trial court for each state. Federal finances came into being through the Revenue Act, which established a national tariff to fund federal government operations. Amidst all of this, the federal government adopted a flag, going with the traditional ensign of the old Continental Army.
The first Congress of the United States passed each of these bills, accomplishing a remarkable amount in just two years, but there remained more to be done. Congress was still considering yesterday whether the federal government should assume state debts, and whether Congress should charter a national bank. Both these issues stood imminently controversial with Republicans strongly opposing both proposals, but Federalists and National Democrats supporting these measures. Congress also needed to address the issue of errors in the Bill of Rights, which was incorrectly reported to the states. And Congress had yet to this day to consider where the nation should place its capital, temporarily located at New York City.
These oversights paled in comparison to the vast amount done over the past two years, though, and there was little doubt that Congress stood in high esteem nationally for its effective legislating.
The Connecticut Contest
HARTFORD, CT -- The Connecticut House of Representatives election transformed from a forgotten backwater into a confusing battlefield this week as the various national parties sought to win the state's at-large election for it's five seats in the House.
Federalists, Republicans, and National Democrats alike poured efforts into Connecticut, where eight major candidates competed yesterday for five seats. Many Connecticut citizens found the electoral situation confusing, given the high number of candidates, and many expected this state to rely upon party affiliation more than any other besides Pennsylvania. The New York Daily Times expected the Federalists to win three seats, the Republicans one seat, and independent Jonathan Sturges one seat, if the election were held today.
The eight major candidates in the race as of yesterday, listed by estimated popularity: Roger Sherman (F) -- Representative Sherman is amongst the most venerated statesmen in the nation, the only individual to sign the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Though a Federalists, he is widely respected across party lines, having been described by none other than Thomas Jefferson as "a man who never said a foolish thing in his life." He was a part of the Committee of Five that helped draft the Declaration of Independence. Pierpont Edwards (R) -- A lawyer by trade, Edwards served in the Continental Army during the War for Independence, then went onto serve in the Connecticut House of Representatives and the Continental Congress. A close friend of Aaron Burr, Edwards took control of Benedict Arnold's properties after Arnold's conviction, demonstrating great mercy to the man. James Hillhouse (F) -- A graduate of Yale, Hillhouse practiced law before joining the Governor's Foote Guard, where he served with honor during the War for Independence. He spent five years in the Connecticut House of Representatives after the war, and another two on the Council of Assistants. Hillhouse is widely regarded as a reasonable, fair legislator. Jonathan Sturges (I) -- Representative Sturges is a highly experienced statesman, whose served twice as a judge, State Representative, State Councilman, Continental Congressman, and United States Representative. Sturges is considered to be a strong supporter of the President, but also an independent thinker. Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. (F) -- Representative Trumbull is a career Connecticut legislator, whose spent his life helping advance the state's interest. He's served in a variety of roles -- lister, grand juror, surveyor of highways, justice of the peace, and selectman -- but he is best known for becoming Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives in 1788 after fourteen years there. He's generally viewed as a moderate Federalist. Tapping Reeve (I) -- Reeve is a lawyer and educator, founder of the Litchfield Law School, amongst the most prestigious institutions in the nation. Beloved by his students, Reeve is running for office in the hopes of making positive reforms for the nation, though he has little political experience himself. Still, he is considerable a formidable force, and a brilliant man. Jeremiah Wadsworth (ND) -- Wadsworth is a career politician and businessman, who most infamously abused his position as Commissary of the Continental Army to profit immensely, often at the expense of military operations. Wadsworth kept his position because of political ties, and now seeks to use his considerable wealth to win another office from which to reap great benefits. Stephen Mix Mitchell (F) -- Mitchell is not very well-known in Connecticut, despite a career of public service. He's served as a judge, Continental Congressman, State Representative, and attorney, and excelled in all of these roles. Many view him as the black horse of the race, expecting him to win election despite his low starting point.
OpinionConnecticut's Finest
The New York Daily Times proudly endorses the following candidates in Connecticut's House of Representatives election: Roger Sherman. The State of Connecticut cannot hope to find a better congressional candidate than Roger Sherman. Sherman has stood at the forefront of the movement for liberty since its inception, risking his life by signing the Continental Association, and by signing the Declaration of Independence. Let it be noted too that he did not merely place his autograph upon the Declaration -- he was a member of the Committee of Five, personally helping Jefferson author the document. Perhaps this is why Jefferson has stated that Sherman is "a man who has never said a foolish thing in his life." Sherman's commitment to republicanism is only outdone by his legislative prowess. There's a reason he signed the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution -- because every time this nation needed an excellent statesmen to help develop an important document, Sherman's help was immediately sought. Indeed, Sherman played a key role in developing the Great Compromise, which permitted our Constitution's completion. Roger Sherman is a giant of our time, who undeniably deserves Connecticut's support. James Hillhouse. Mr. Hillhouse's bravery and service during the War for Independence is unquestioned and is tied very deeply to the State of Connecticut. He led a group of student volunteers in a valiant attempt to fight back a British invasion at New Haven, working with students at his alma mater of Yale where he took a law degree which he put to use defending the innocent and enforcing the law. His knowledge in this instance will surely help the Congress as they consider laws dealing with individual rights and liberties as we move forward in building our young Republic. Having exchanged letters with Mr. Hillhouse there is little to doubt his honesty and integrity going back to his history as a young law student, and the fights he has undertaken in his native home of New Haven both to defend against the British and to beautify the city show that he is dedicated to those he serves, no matter what the capacity is. It is for these strongly positive attributes that we are proud to endorse Mr. Hillhouse.
Jonathan Sturges. In looking for men who have a history of dedicated political service to their peers and fellow citizens, one need look no further than Representative Sturges, a lawyer and jurist from Fairfield, Connecticut who has served in various offices since 1772. Since then, his neighbors, his friends, and his constituents trusted Sturges to so adequately represent their views in the Connecticut House of Representatives, in the Continental Congress, in the Council of Assistants, and in the House of Representatives for the Federal Government. In addition to a long history of dedicated service to the people of his state, Representative Sturges served as a justice of the peace and and judge of the probate court in Fairfield, giving evidence to both his advanced knowledge of the law as well as his dedication to serving justice above his own aims.
And in Congress, Representative Sturges has fought valiantly to support our President George Washington in every way, voting in the interests of Connecticut on policies to expand industry and greatly increase commerce in a way that will ensure that Connecticut and these united States will be a strong and serious player in global political and economic affairs. He has served with distinction, and this paper sees no reason to cause Representative Sturges to lose his job given the issues facing our young Republic.
Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. proved himself a highly capable representative of Connecticut over the last two years, and deserves the opportunity to continue serving this state in the United State House of Representatives. Trumbull joined the Federalist Party, strongly supporting the policies of President George Washington, and generally believing the nation needed a strong federal government, but also strong state governments. Trumbull refused to join the National Democrats when they broke off, though, finding their radical support of abolitionism and democracy unacceptable. He was turned off even more by the National Democrats' -- and the Republicans' -- adoption of a "national platform." Trumbull is a man whose puts Connecticut's interests first, something he's done for the entirety of the last two years, and something he can be relied upon to do for the next two years.
The New York Daily Times does not solely endorse Trumbull for his service in Congress, though -- the Times also endorses Trumbull because of his excellent legislative experience. He rose to become the Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives after just a few years of service for a reason -- because he is an intelligent, skilled policymaker. In these difficult times, Congress does not need partisan ideologues, it does not need those who will just follow a party line. Congress needs smart, independent thinkers, who will do what needs to be done. Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. is just such a man.
Stephen Mix Mitchell. Like Mr. Hillhouse and Representative Sturges, Mr. Mitchell comes from a law background, a practice that he used to defend the innocent in his home in Wehtersfield. His knowledge of the law and his good service to his community, like Representative Sturges, provided Mr. Mitchell with the support to serve in the state House of Representatives, serving alongside Representative Sturges since 1778. He served his country in the Continental Congress, and participated in the convention to craft and ratify our current Constitution, ensuring that Mr. Mitchell could take credit in the birth of our young Republic. With the understanding of our systems and the law-making process given his experience, Mr. Mitchell would serve Connecticut quite well as a member of the national House of Representatives. His service to the birth of this nation is admirable and is without peer in many communities throughout these united States, and it is because of that this paper is proud to endorse Mr. Mitchell for the upcoming election.
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 26, 2014 9:59:06 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Winter, 1790 Edition 3NewsAllegations Surface of Burr-Jay LinkNEW YORK CITY, NY -- Rumors circulated Federal Hall this week that Aaron Burr, candidate for United States Senator from New York, played a role in Samuel Jay's failed plot to assassinate the President.
Two different Congresspersons told the New York Daily Times on condition of anonymity yesterday that rumors abounded that Burr played a role in Jay's attempt to kill President George Washington. Jay infamously conspired with Benedict Arnold and a British member of Parliament last year to murder Washington, but his attempt collapsed when the NYDT revealed the plot after weeks of investigation. The United States arrested Jay and Arnold several months ago when the two re-entered the country, but other members of the two's "Dagger Club" were believed to still be at large.
The Congresspersons told the New York Daily Times that reliable sources indicated Burr's involvement in the conspiracy to kill Washington. There was undeniable motive for Burr to act, given his longstanding feud with the President, which originated when Washington failed to commend Burr for his role in the evacuation of New York City. Washington likely merely made an error of omission there, but Burr took it very personally, and the two have since been considered personal enemies. There was also a clear means for Burr to act, given that Burr and Jay, as two of only a few Northern Republicans, undoubtedly maintained a close relationship.
But the Attorney for the United States in the Jay and Arnold cases, James Terrus, denied yesterday that the government had any intention to arrest or charge Burr in the near future. "There is a lot of talk here in New York about Burr possibly having played a role, and we obviously follow up on all concrete leaders," Terrus said, "but we have yet to find any conclusive evidence indicating that Burr knowingly helped Jay and Arnold." Terrus declined to comment further on the matter, stating that "this is an ongoing investigation, and I do not want to reveal anything prejudicial at this time."
The NYDT was unable to contact Burr for a comment.
Washington Names Cabinet
NEW YORK CITY, NY -- President George Washington named the members of his cabinet yesterday, selecting members of each major party to lead the departments of the federal government.
The President appointed four cabinet officers yesterday, just weeks after naming Thomas Jefferson as the nation's Ambassador at Large. Washington named former Representative Daniel Carroll (F-MD), an old friend who played a key role at the constitutional convention, as Administrator of the United States, putting him in charge of the federal bureaucracy. Washington nominated Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Gordon Battle Hughes (ND-NH) as Superintendent of the United States, making Hughes as the civilian overseer of the Army. Washington tapped famous naval Captain John Paul Jones to serve as Commandant of the United States, making Jones the civilian overseer of the Navy. And the President appointed Alexander Hamilton, the famed author of the Federalist Papers, as Secretary of the Treasury. President Washington was expected to appoint former Representative James Terrus (I-NY) as the nation's legal Counsel.
Washington named members of every party to his cabinet, selecting two Federalists, two independents, a National Democrat, and a Republican to administrate the federal government. The President's decision in this regard surprised few, given his longstanding opposition to the formation of political parties, and to partisan selection. But it left the federal government divided amongst a group of individuals with starkly different views on how the central administration should operate. Given the expected departure of Vice President John Adams to the Supreme Court, many wondered how Washington could hope to coordinate these disparate officials. But the President stood confident in the wisdom of his appointments yesterday.
The United States Senate still needed to confirm Washington's appointments, though, and such confirmation was not expected to come until next session.
President Announces Supreme Court Picks
NEW YORK CITY, NY -- President George Washington announced his picks for the Supreme Court yesterday, selecting five supporters of a strong federal government to sit on the nation's highest court, led by Vice President John Adams.
The President named Adams to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and named John Jay, James Wilson, Andrew Beaumont, and Marcus Wells as Associate Justices. Washington selected a diverse group in terms of experience, selecting two well-known legal theorists (Jay and Wilson), two accomplished trial attorneys (Adams and Welles), and one merchant without legal education (Beaumont). The Commander in Chief clearly sought to ensure a variety of perspectives on important issues through these picks. But President Washington displayed no ideological diversity through these appointments, nominating four Federalists and one National Democrat to the Court, and thus demonstrating a strong desire for a court likely to support a larger federal government.
Washington's choices sparked some controversy as a result, and analysts in Washington expected some Senate Republicans to seek to reject these nominations."The Republicans got just one cabinet office, while the Federalists got two plus the Director of the Postal Service," said NYDT Editor Matthew Swaim, "but now, being told that they're getting no representation on the Supreme Court -- you can bet that will drive the Republicans mad." But most analysts expected the Republicans to be unable to reject the appointments, given the likely support of National Democrats and Federalists.
The Senate was expected to take up the nominations in March.
In the News
BRUSSELS -- The Austrian Empire crushed the republican revolution in the Austrian Netherlands this month, destroying the United States of Belgium just a year after it declared independence. The Austrians reclaimed the territory through a series of swift and decisive military maneuvers, which the Hapsburg monarch finally undertook after making peace with the Ottoman Empire. The republic had never stood much of a chance of survival, not only thanks to a lack of international recognition, but also because of divisions between Statis and Vonckists. The United Kingdom, Prussia, and United Provinces had already recognized that Austria controlled the region in July.
PARIS -- Jacob Jay, the son of disgraced former Congressman Samuel Jay (I-NH), died during a training accident outside Paris last week. Jay had travelled to France to fight with French monarchial forces against the revolution. There were some reports of suspicious circumstances surrounding his death, but no investigation was expected given the chaotic situation in France, where the National Assembly has still failed to propose a constitution thanks to continuous political infighting.
OpinionIntroducing a Columnist
by Marcus Wells, New York Daily Times Columnist Greetings fellow readers let me start by introducing myself, my name is Marcus Wells, and once Senate convenes, I will begin hearings to be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Being a loyal New Yorker, and as a friend of the Editor of the New York Daily Times, Matthew Swaim, I've agreed that should I be confirmed to the Supreme Court, I will be a semi-regular contributor to the paper, giving opinions on decisions, and raising issues that I believed needed to be raised. Let me state for the record before confirmations begin that I believe slavery is a sin cast upon us all as long as it is permitted in this country, but from a constitutional standpoint, I believe States have a right to decide the matter of slavery. So I will defend the right of states to keep and maintain the practice of slavery, but believe a grand compromise must be agreed to by our Congress where this issue stands on the future of slavery and where it stands with future states. I also argue each point based on it's constitutional merit believing that checks and balances are in place for a reason I will argue the constitution and if persons disagree with the constitution they should try to adopt it as I believe the constitution should always be a living and breathing document meant to be edited and amended as needed to fit our needs as we grow as a nation. Once again, I would like to thank Matthew Swaim and the New York Daily Times for allowing me to be a contributor, and I hope to provide positive news after my confirmation hearing. Until next time.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 28, 2014 0:54:38 GMT -5
1791: This newspaper is now being read by citizens in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 28, 2014 17:26:32 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Spring, 1791 Edition 1NewsDemocratic-Republican Coalition FormedNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The National Democrats and the Republicans allied to form the Democratic-Republican coalition yesterday, working together to control Congress despite completely opposing views on the federal government.
A group of key representatives from the two parties declared support for the Republicans' speaker candidate yesterday, even though the Republican Party had yet to announce a Speaker nominee. Representative Albert Hannover (D-MA) and Representative David Lee (D-VT) both publicly stated support for whomever the Republicans selected to be Speaker, demonstrating that the National Democrats had decided as a party to simply endorse anyone put forward by the Republicans. Representative Elijah Surratt (R-VA) and Representative Thomas Cole (R-VA) both also endorsed the "Republican" candidate, shedding no light on whom might end out being that person.
The Democratic-Republican coalition shocked congressional observers, given the two parties' utterly contrasting views. The Republican Party strongly opposed many of Washington's proposals during the last two years, especially those put forward by Treasurer designate Alexander Hamilton. The Republicans notably voted against the Banking Act and the Assumption Act. The National Democracy Party strongly supported these bills and the President in general, meanwhile, and actually called for an even bigger federal government than that desired by Washington's predominantly Federalist cabinet.
The two parties appeared ready to set aside policy differences, though, in order to achieve political victory over the Federalists.
Federalists Gain Little from Strong Showing
NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Federalist Party dominated the 1790 campaign, unveiling a surprisingly well-organized electoral machine, but picked up few seats in Congress because of the Federalists' tough strategic position heading into the elections.The Federalists, Republicans, and National Democrats all picked up seats in Congress in November, largely by defeating independent representatives. The Republicans gained six House seats, the Federalists four House seats and one Senate seat, and the National Democrats three House seats and one Senate seat. The Federalists also gained a seat in the House of Representatives after Jack Terrus (I-NY) joined the party yesterday. A few partisan incumbents did lose re-election, but the various parties more than made up for that by taking on non-aligned Congressmen. Most of the incumbents defeated last year were independents, whose presence in the House of Representatives fell from 28 seats to 14 seats.The Federalists demonstrated the strongest electoral organization during the contest, despite declining to adopt a national platform. The Federalist media machine put out more than five times as many editorials as the Republicans, and more than five times as many editorials as the National Democrats combined. The Federalists also gained the sole newspaper endorsements during the election, being the only party to lobby the New York Daily Times. Federalist politicians held three times as many campaign events as Republican politicians, and three times as many campaign events as National Democratic politicians. And the Federalists wrote nearly four times as many petitions to state legislatures as the National Democrats, and nearly five times as many legislative petitions as Republicans.The Federalists failed to make significant gains in the House, though, thanks to the disorganized nature of the various at-large House elections. The high volume of general pleas being sent out left voters uninterested in party politics, and looking more at individual candidates, despite the high number of candidates in the races. The Federalists still did very well in the most hotly contested races, such as Connecticut, but failed to gain strength elsewhere. The Federalists backed a number of independent, pro-administration candidates during the election, however, which led many yesterday to ask whether those independents might repay that support by joining Hamilton's coalition.The Federalists only gained a single seat in the Senate, meanwhile, thanks to a generally tough cycle for the party. Six of the nine incumbents running for re-election were Federalists, most notably Senator Philip Schuyler (F-MD), who only narrowly won an incredibly difficult re-election battle against Aaron Burr. The Federalists won four of those six races, facing defeats only in Virginia, where the incredibly popular James Monroe was running as a Republican, and Delaware, which Representative George Vining (ND-NH) won only by keeping his candidacy a secret until election day. The Federalists also picked up a seat in New Jersey, where John Rutherford defeated Senator Jonathan Elmer (I-NJ).The Federalists ultimately demonstrated the ability to undertake an organized, cohesive political action -- sadly, that effort simply came in a year in which the Federalists had everything to lose but little to gain.Burr Cleared of Dagger Involvement NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The United States Counsel designate, James Terrus, confirmed to the New York Daily Times yesterday that Aaron Burr played no role in Samuel Jay's conspiracy to kill President George Washington, despite common belief.
Terrus wrote a letter to the New York Daily Times to proclaim Burr's innocence, which many in Federal Hall had questioned. "There were many allegations floating around that Burr might have played a role in the conspiracy to kill President Washington," the nation's de facto attorney wrote, "but after a careful investigation, I have concluded that Aaron Burr had no knowledge of this conspiracy before the New York Daily Times revealed it, and that Burr had no intention or desire to kill the President." A number of Congresspersons had alleged that Burr played a role in Jay's conspiracy to kill Washington, an accusation that ultimately cost Burr a United States Senate seat many had expected him to win. Burr did reportedly maintain a close relationship with Jay, who infamously conspired with Benedict Arnold and a British Member of Parliament to kill the President. Burr also had a longstanding personal feud with Washington, originating from Washington's failure to commend Burr for heroism during the War for Independence. Terrus confirmed yesterday that Burr played no actual role in the conspiracy, though, clearing the name of this admirable New Yorker. In the News NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The New York Daily Times purchased the New York Morning Post yesterday, and by doing so became the second most read newspaper in the United States. The NYDT just barely beat out the Boston Gazette in terms of readership, falling second only to the Pennsylvania Gazette.NEW YORK CITY, NY -- President George Washington named James Terrus to be Counsel of the United States yesterday, making his final cabinet appointment. The Senate must confirm the nomination of Terrus, who recently joined the Federalist Party.
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 29, 2014 12:21:56 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Spring, 1791 Edition 2NewsSpeakership to go to D-R CoalitionNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Democratic-Republican Coalition appeared set to secure the Speakership of the House for the 2nd Congress, despite efforts by Federalists and independents to re-elect independent Representative Frederick Muhlenberg (I-PA).
The Republicans and National Democrats united last week to form a new Democratic-Republican Coalition, which most observers expected to seize control of the Speakership. The new political alliance planned to elect a Republican as Speaker, though neither party announced yesterday who the two had decided to anoint. Most analysts guessed that the D-R block planned to name a National Democrat as Majority Leader, though that was uncertain as of today as the two parties never publicly announced the arrangement. But the new Democratic-Republican Coalition appeared set to seize the Speakership, despite the Federalists' efforts to re-elect Frederick Muhlenberg, an independent well-respected by other independents, who served as Speaker last session without controversy.
Most political analysts remained stunned by the alliance between the Republicans and the National Democrats, given the two parties' utterly contrasting views. The Republican Party, comprised mostly of Southerners, opposed many of Washington's proposals during the last two years, especially those put forward by Treasurer designate Alexander Hamilton. The Republicans notably voted against the Banking Act and the Assumption Act. The National Democracy Party, comprised nearly entirely of Northerners, strongly supported these bills and the President in general, and actually called for an even bigger federal government than that desired by Washington's predominantly Federalist cabinet. The two parties ultimately aligned despite sharing few policy views.
Republicans lauded the new coalition, which permitted the 23 Republicans in the House to take control of the 67 seat chamber. "This is a bright day for the American people," said Representative Thomas Cole (R-VA), "this Coalition will force both parties to be the best they can be, as well as limiting the overbearing Federal government that the Federalists want." Cole was the only Republican or National Democrat to make a statement about the matter publicly.
Federalists condemned the D-R block, though, calling it an "alliance of extremism." "The supporters of a massive federal government, those who have called for state power to be obliterated and republicanism to be replaced with democracy, now join with the opponents of the federal government, who have called for the legalization of piracy," said Representative Jack Terrus (F-NY), "I shudder to think how quickly this alliance will dismember our federalist system, and replace it with some kind of unitary democracy." Terrus expressed amusement at "the Republicans complaining about Federalists supporting a strong federal government, while joining with those who have expressed the desire to abolish the states."
The Federalists' complaints seemed unlikely to make much of a difference at the end of the day, though, as the Democratic-Republican Bloc marched towards a congressional majority.
Republicans Make Gains in Governor Races
RICHMOND, VA -- The Republican Party made small gains during the 1790 gubernatorial elections, defeating Federalists in New Hampshire and Virginia, but failing to seize the Maryland or Rhode Island state houses, leaving the Federalists in control of a majority of state executives.
The Republicans scored significant victories in Virginia and New Hampshire, but failed to overcome Federalist opponents in Maryland and Rhode Island. The Republicans scored a landslide victory in New Hampshire, where Josiah Bartlett defeated unpopular Federalist Governor John Sullivan. The Republicans picked up another governorship in Virginia, where Governor Beverly Randolph joined the Republican Party after the Republicans helped her narrowly win re-election, defeating Henry Lee III. The Federalists enjoyed a significant success in Maryland, though, where Governor John Eager Howard won re-election by a twenty point margin thanks to heavy Federalist campaigning. And the Federalists narrowly achieved victory in Rhode Island, where Federalist Governor John Collins had faced a tough challenge from Arthur Fenner, a Republican.
The Republican's gains and the Federalists' holds during the 1790 election demonstrated two important strategic paradigms. First, that the Federalists possessed little ability to gain ground, given Federalist control of so many elected offices. The Federalists won two of four competitive gubernatorial elections in November -- but still lost control of a governorship, and granted the Republicans control of two, because nearly every incumbent was a Federalist. Second, that the National Democrats possessed next to no strength outside the federal government. Not one National Democrat was a serious candidate for Governor in any state, not even in New Hampshire, where Representative Gordon Battle Hughes (ND-NH) dominated the political landscape. Heading into 1792, the Federalists thus needed to find a way to make gains despite a strong position, while the National Democrats needed to find a path to relevance outside the federal government. French Assembly Abolishes Religious Freedom PARIS, FRANCE -- The National Constituent Assembly ordered every priest to take an oath of loyalty to the state last month, then proceeded to deport or execute hundreds of ministers that refused to put state above God.
The National Constituent Assembly enacted legislation in February requiring every priest to take an oath of loyalty to the nation, and providing for the deportation or execution of any minister that refused. Though some French pastors happily agreed to take the oath, many more objected to this newest limitation on religious freedom, which came just months after the French government took ownership of all churches and other religious properties, and proceeded to sell those lands for profit. According to rumor, the National Constituent Assembly next planned to abolish all religious orders, including the nunnery.
The National Constituent Assembly horrified observers in the present, however, by effectively abolishing religious freedom in France. Effectively, the French government established a state religion, ordered every priest to teach that religion, and executed anyone that stood in the way. Those that had hoped for France to become a republic recognized, with sadness, that the nation was instead becoming a tyranny of the majority.
The National Constituent Assembly took control of France in 1789, even though it was created ostensibly only to draft a constitution. According to numerous reports, work on that Constitution continued to be slow, as the National Constituent Assembly continued to focus on running the country not drafting a constitution.
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jul 1, 2014 15:48:26 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Summer, 1791 EditionNewsFederal Government Assumes State DebtNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The United States assumed the vast majority of the debt held by the states over the last week, after President George Washington signed the Assumption Act into law following a lengthy congressional battle.
The federal government assumed approximately fifty million dollars in state debts, all incurred during the War for Independence. The Treasury Department took on a massive annual interest obligation through the measure, forcing the federal government to pay approximately $3.5 million per year in interest. The states escaped that financial liability thanks to the Assumption Act, leaving New York and Massachusetts in particular in much better economic shape. Northern states did not benefit alone, though -- Georgia, ravaged by war, was greatly helped out by the sudden disappearance of a large segment of its debt.
The Federalist Party achieved a major victory through the enactment of the Assumption Act, which Treasurer Alexander Hamilton championed. The Federalists spoke at length about the federal government taking over state war debts during the 1790 elections, and achieving that aim before the end of the 1st Congress was a definite success. The Republicans took a major hit by contrast, seeing a bill enacted that Thomas Jefferson had strongly opposed. The National Democrats neither gained nor lost, playing a role in the act's passage, but not enough of one to gain significant public credit.
The Federalists' victory on assumption turned all eyes in New York towards the proposal for a national banking system, which was also part of Hamilton's proposal for economic advance.
Muhlenberg Narrowly Wins Speakership
NEW YORK CITY, NY -- Representative Frederick Muhlenberg (I-PA) won re-election as Speaker of the House yesterday in an unexpected upset that demonstrated the strength of the Federalist Party in Congress. A Federalist-independent coalition re-elected Muhlenberg, narrowly defeating the Democratic-Republican Coalition. The Democratic-Republicans possessed the clear advantage in the fight, needing to only convince a single independent to support the D-R block candidate to win the Speakership. Yet the Democratic-Republicans lost this monumental political battle yesterday, outmaneuvered by the Federalist Party. The Federalists carefully solicited independent support over the last month, agreeing to account for the concerns of independents, and backing the independent Muhlenberg, in order to gain the trust of all thirteen independents in the House. Speaker Muhlenberg served as Speaker of the House last session, and received broad, bipartisan support for his work. Muhlenberg left much of the day-to-day operations of the House to his deputy, Representative Gordon Battle Hughes (D-NH), and instead focused on legal issues. Hughes, a Federalist turned National Democrat, struggled through a controversial tenure, beating off a tough challenge for authority by Representative Jackson Clay (F-NY), and then facing immense criticism for a number of technical errors. Hughes pledged not to return as Deputy Speaker this session, and many expected Muhlenberg to seek a new deputy to handle day-to-day operations. The Federalists' support for Muhlenberg all but ensured that a Federalist would possess this role, which meant in all effect that the Federalist Party was the majority in Congress today. King Louis Approves New Constitution PARIS, FRANCE -- King Louis XVI approved a new Constitution for France this month that transformed the nation into a constitutional monarchy with an elected legislature, independent judiciary, and restrained executive in the form of the King.
The National Constituent Assembly finally proposed the Constitution in August after spending much of the last two years enjoying the perks of ruling the nation instead of serving the people. The Assembly ended religious freedom, suspended civil liberties, and endorsed mob rule during that period, leading to consistent instability, violence, and rioting across the country. The King's efforts to restore order were universally rejected by the National Constituent Assembly, which executed numerous critics of its methods without trial, and deported many more. The National Constituent Assembly most notably suspended elections in 1790, so as to permit it to continue ruling without any accountability.
King Louis XVI happily approved the Constitution once it was completed, surprising few given his longstanding support of constitutional monarchy. The Constitution established a governmental system best described as a hybrid between the United States and the United Kingdom. The King retained power as executive, but an elected Legislative Assembly assumed lawmaking authority, and a new independent Judiciary took over the courts. The Legislative Assembly stood as the most powerful branch by far, however, retaining the ability to overrule vetoes by the King and to overrule the courts. Most expected the members of the National Constituent Assembly to win election to the Legislative Assembly, despite having previously promised not to seek office in the new government.
Observers expressed relief at the new Constitution, however, because it seemed to mark a change in direction for France. "We've seen a lot of concerning tends in the last couple years with the suspension of civil liberties and freedoms by the National Constituent Assembly," said NYDT Editor Matthew Swaim, "but I'm very happy to know now that France is moving towards truly republican ideals."
In the News FRANKFORT, VA -- The Kentucky Counties of Virginia petitioned for statehood yesterday, asking to joint the Union as its fifteenth state. Most expected the state to be quickly admitted, and to be granted two representatives.NEW YORK CITY, NY -- President George Washington signed the first federal budget into law yesterday. The budget did not account for the assumption of state debt, and contained a small surplus as a result.
OpinionThe Times' View: Electoral Reform Needed by Matthew Swaim, Editor
The United States enjoyed its second federal election last year, during which over a hundred candidates competed for the votes of forty thousand respectable, informed citizens. There is a great deal about the elections that should make any American proud -- the peaceful transfer of seats between opponents, the free and fair nature of the campaigning. Nothing created by man is perfect, though, and these elections contained some flaws. The greatest flaw of all, without doubt -- multi-member, at-large districts.
Five states with multiple seats in Congress held at-large elections in November, pitting up to a dozen candidates against each other in messy, complex contests. Many voters expressed downright confusion about these races, finding it difficult to keep track of so many persons running for the same seats. Some voters relied solely on partisanship to make decisions as a result, picking the Republican nominees or the Democratic nominees, instead of actually taking the time to learn about individual candidates. Some voters relied solely on name recognition, picking the most popular candidates, not the most well-qualified. But across the board, voters expressed unhappiness with the system, which made the election difficult for all involved.
There is no good reason for holding at-large races. There is no history of doing so here in the United States as the provinces used single-member districts, and indeed the states today use single-member districts. There is no theoretical reason for doing so as single-member districts facilitate republicanism by permitting representatives to focus on serving specific groups of people, instead of trying to serve a large populace. There is no practical reason for doing so as at-large, multi-member races only make election administration more difficult, while making it harder for voters to properly keep track of candidates. The arguments for such a system are indeed thin at best.
There is good reason not to hold at-large races, reason most clearly expressed merely by pointing out the growing number of seats in the House of Representatives. There are presently sixty-seven representatives, but there are expected to be ninety by the end of this Congress. That number will likely only grow with time. And that growth will leave states like Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maryland, and New Jersey with only growingly complex elections. Virginia may have seventeen seats in the next Congress; could you imagine if voters were asked to keep track of the 50 candidates running for those seventeen seats?
Single member districts allow this nation to send representatives to Federal Hall that are elected by a small number of constituents, thus keeping the government accountable to the people. Single member districts make elections simpler, and thus fairer and freer. Single member districts ensure that parties cannot dominate the process by allowing voters to take enough time to consider independent candidates. And single member districts allow us to avoid the confusing electoral messes we saw last year. Our states have used single-member districts to great success over the last two decades, and the colonies did prior to that -- let us continue with this successful system.
For these reasons, the New York Daily Times encourages the New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Maryland legislatures to abandon at-large elections, and instead adopt single-district systems. Let our new republic's government be as successful, and as simple, as the state governments that share authority with it.
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jul 2, 2014 11:22:57 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Autumn, 1791 Edition 1NewsKing Louis Arrested; Instability ReturnsPARIS, FR -- The French government arrested King Louis XVI several weeks ago after he sought to flee to royalist-dominated Montmédy, where he reportedly hoped to start a counter-revolution, a revelation that prompted significant instability across France.
Constables apprehended the royal family on June 20-21 in Varennes in NorthEast France after a Postmaster recognized the nation's monarch. The King and his family left the Tulieres Palace, where the French government had essentially imprisoned Louis, late in the evening on June 20th. The royal family dressed in commoners' clothes to effectuate the escape, then attempted to reach Montmédy, a heavily fortified city garrisoned by 10,000 troops loyal to Louis including several thousand mercenaries. A simple postman in Sainte-Menehould recognized the King from his portrait, however, and alerted constables, who apprehended King Louis in Varennes, just 31 miles from Montmédy.
King Louis planned to undertake a counter-revolution from Montmédy, using the safety provided by the military force there to reclaim the throne. The King left a written message behind for the National Constituent Assembly, renouncing support for the nation's constitution, but pledging to establish a government with an elected legislature possessing some real authority. Louis reportedly hoped to retake absolute power without bloodshed, though his wife was less optimistic. The Queen left behind documents that completely renounced elected government, and called for the forceful reimposition of complete royal authority. Both the King and Queen indicated a willingness to request foreign support to suppress the revolution.
The King's arrest prompted outrage and shock amongst the French people, who previously viewed the nation's monarch as a benevolent ruler. Louis declined to violently suppress the revolution on numerous attempts, after all, and accepted the French Constitution with only some hesitation. King Louis' attempt to flee to Montmédy made it clear that he accepted the people's efforts only out of necessity, though, and made it equally clear that the monarch had every intention to restore royal authority. Protesters took to public squares across the nation to demand that, given the revelation of the King's true loyalties, the monarchy be replaced with a republic. An unruly demonstration on the Champ de Mars ultimately turned violent, leading troops to kill dozens in a bid to restore order.
The National Constituent Assembly took no official action in response to the attempt to flee, other than placing the King under house arrest, but many wondered if France's new Legislative Assembly might end the constitutional monarchy upon convening in October.
Slaves Revolt in Saint-Domingue
PORT AU PRINCE -- A slave revolt in Saint-Domingue threatened to completely destroy the island's government as thousands of slaves seized control of large swaths of the colony, massacring any whites unable to escape in time.
A group of approximately ten thousand slaves revolted on August 21, and successfully seized control of the Northern area of the island over the next ten days. The heavily armed white population of the French colony fought viciously to suppress the revolt, but failed overwhelmingly with horrid result. The slaves reportedly pillaged, raped, tortured, killed, and mutilated overseers, owners, and any other whites that failed to escape. Government authorities scrambled to maintain order in the rest of the island, but the only whites reportedly still alive in the North were those in a few armed, fortified camps.
The French government deemed the situation dire yesterday, but maintained its ability to restore order. Colonial officials declared a state of emergency, and requested support from France, though the instability there made the receipt of rapid aid unlikely. But colonial troops joined with white volunteers over the last few days to seek to put down the revolution, and many on the island expected its heavily-armed citizenry to succesfully suppress the revolting slaves. Some believed the situation to be far worse than the state admitted, though, and a number of whites sought to flee Saint-Domingue yesterday.
The slave revolt in Saint-Domingue sent shock waves through much of the world, and especially the American South, where many wondered whether the government should take steps to prevent any future American slave revolt. Some even suggested that the United States should assist the Saint Dominguen government, though many maintained that the United States should not involve itself in European colonial affairs. It remained to be seen how Congress, or the President, would react.
In the News NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives took up a new docket yesterday, considering several important issues. Observers expected a major battle on a bill seeking to establish a national banking system, and some debate regarding the apportionment of the next Congress. Analysts did not expect much controversy over the proposal to admit Kentucky to the union, or the Judiciary Act of 1791, which would complete the work of establishing the federal court system.SISTOVA -- The Hapsburg Empire made peace with the Ottoman Empire last month, ending a four-year conflict that cost thousands of lives. The Hapsburgs made small territorial gains through the treaty, unsurprising given that the Hapsburgs made huge advances during the conflict, but the Ottoman Empire regained most of its territory thanks to the breakout of Prusso-Austrian tensions. The Russian Empire remained at war with the Ottoman Empire, though peace talks between those two powers were reportedly underway, and were expected to end in Russia's favor given that Russia scored several impressive victories this year.
BIRMINGHAM -- Rioters burned buildings, looted stores, and attacked religious dissenters for several days in this increasingly conservative British city last week, prompting the British government to deploy troops to the area to restore order. A clash between those favoring the French Revolution and those opposing the French Revolution prompted the civil disorder, which was overwhelmingly focused on religious dissenters. Many of those dissenters fled the city over the last week, viewing the British government's response as insufficient. The government was expected to try a few of the most prominent looters.
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jul 5, 2014 9:15:48 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print"Winter, 1791 EditionNewsSlave Catastrophe in Saint-DominguePORT AU PRINCE -- Revolting slaves in Saint-Domingue gained ground over the last several month, massacring thousands of whites while securing nearly a third of the French colony, whose authorities appeared on the verge of collapse.
More than 100,000 slaves rose up against Saint-Domingue authorities over the last few months, transforming a small revolt in August into a full-fledged revolution. The slaves fought hand-to-hand at first, but later used captured weapons to advance, seizing the entire Northern third of the island. Well-armed slave owners fought back harshly, assisted by colonial authorities, but were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The slaves demonstrated little mercy or respect for human life, reportedly torturing, raping, murdering, and mutilating thousands of captured whites.
The Saint-Domingue colony stood in chaos this week as a result of the revolt, the government on the verge of collapse, and many whites simply seeking to flee. Colonial authorities requested assistance from France once again, and issued another declaration of emergency, calling upon all inhabitants to take up arms. But many citizens had already given up the flight, and were attempting to flee the island as opposed to trying to hold onto it. Several thousand lacked the ability to do so, being reportedly trapped in small, fortified positions in the North, which were slowly falling to the slaves day by day.
The United States had made no official comment on the revolt as of yesterday.
New French Government Convenes
PARIS -- The new Legislative Assembly convened last month as the French Constitution took effect, though the future of France's constitutional monarchy remained in question after the King's flight to Varennes last month.
The Constitution of France took effect on October 1st, and the Legislative Assembly convened that very day. Young members of the middle class with little political experience dominated the 745 member assembly, given that the Constitution prohibited members of the National Assembly from serving in the first term of the Legislative Assembly. A number of influential members of the National Assembly still significantly influenced the Legislative Assembly, though, through the two factions that formed within the Legislative Assembly over the last month. The American hero Gilbert du Motier de La Fayette and his colleague Antoine Barnave influenced the 260 Feuillants, members of the Legislative Assembly that favored carefully sticking to the Constitution. The radicals Jacques Pierre Brissot, Condorcet, and Pierre Victurnien Vergniaud influenced the 135 Jacobins and Cordeliers, radical leftists that reportedly desired the establishment of a full-fledged democracy. Some 345 independents sat between these two parties.
The Feuillants on the one hand, and the Jacobians and Cordeliers on the other, each sought to influence the Legislative Assembly's important work this session. The assembly needed to design the new French government, replacing the temporary ministries still run by technocrats appointed by the King. The assembly needed to address France's difficult financial situation, finding a way to raise enough revenue to pay interest on France's significant debts, and also to fund reconstruction to undo the damage done by violent revolutionary protests over the last two years. The assembly needed to develop a solution to the problem of the emigres, well-off French citizens that fled the nation during the revolution, whose money and expertise were needed for France to again prosper. And the assembly needed to develop a plan for France's foreign policy, recognizing that many European powers were wary of the new French government, given the National Assembly's radical nature.
The United States continued to recognize France's Constitutional government, through the King. House Quiet on Bank, Apportionment
NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives considered the important issues of apportionment and a national bank over the last few months, but few in the lower House bothered to debate the measures, surprising observers. The House considered the National Bank System Act and the Apportionment Act of 1791 over the last several months. Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC) authored the former bill, a compromise proposal that established a national bank as desired by Federalists, but sought to placate Republicans by anchoring that national bank in four regionally-controlled institutions. Representative Jack Terrus (F-NY) authored the latter bill, which provided for the expansion of Congress based off the decennial census, calling for 90 seats in the House of Representatives, and approximately forty thousand persons in each congressional district. Both bills were expected to be contentious, though the Apportionment Act along political not ideological lines. Yet there was insignificant debate on both bills in the House. Representative Beaumont himself made the only statement of note on the National Bank System Act, delivering a lengthy speech in favor of it, which received no response beyond applause from supportive Federalists. No one made a noteworthy comment on the Apportionment Act, the only real statement being one of unexplained opposition. The House was set to complete voting on the two pieces of legislation just after the new year. Most observers expected the Apportionment Act to pass, while the National Bank System Act had a more questionable future. Many wondered if the members of Congress were losing interest as it moved from more fundamental, philosophical questions onto more mundane governmental questions. But the inactivity certainly favored the Federalists, whose slim congressional control allowed them to bring up whatever bills they preferred, and thus to pass them without much opposition given the lack of debate.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 6, 2014 23:14:32 GMT -5
1792: This newspaper is now being read by citizens in Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina. It has reached national level.
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jul 7, 2014 15:11:57 GMT -5
"All the News That's Fit to Print" Spring, 1792 Edition 1 News US Victory in Georgia
SAVANNAH, GA -- The United States formally concluded its campaign against Seminole-led Indians in Georgia last month, disbanding its militia forces nine months after the US' decisive victory at the Battle of Ocmulgee Town.
President George Washington disbanded the four militia divisions raised to combat the invasion last month, marking the official end of the two-year Seminole War. The Seminoles kicked off the conflict in 1789, undertaking a murderous campaign to ravish Georgian frontier settlements. The Georgia militia quickly found itself overwhelmed, and the Seminoles ransacked the state with impunity for much of the year. President Washington called up four divisions worth of militiamen to combat this threat in 1790, though, and those troops achieved a string of victories in late 1790 and early 1791. Most of the Indians gave up the fight at that point.
Colonel William Charles Bathurst rose to become the hero of the conflict, though the militia commander did not survive the war. Bathurst commanded the militia forces during the Battle of Suwanee Village and the Battle of Fort Mountain, two key victories in the campaign. Bathurst and Colonel Thomas Garrett jointly commanded the American forces during the next major engagement, the Battle of Ocmulgee Town, where the United States achieved a decisive victory, ending the conflict. Bathurst died during that battle, struck by an arrow. Garrett retained command through the rest of the day, distinguishing himself.
President Washington recommended that Bathurst be awarded the Military Badge of Merit in recognition of his accomplishments, but not everyone appreciated Bathurst's work. The State Gazette of North Carolina criticized Bathurst at length for his conduct during the Battle of Suwanee Village, during which militia forces reportedly massacred several hundred Indian women and children. The Southern paper alleged that Bathurst happily commanded his troops to execute prisoners and non-combatants. But Bathurst's officers denied these claims, declaring that the Indian women and children had joined the Indian men in violently resisting the militia.
It had not yet been decided yesterday whether Bathurst should receive that medal -- but it was very clear yesterday that the Seminole War had been decided for the United States.
House Approves Bank Bill NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives approved Representative Andrew Beaumont's (F-SC) proposal to establish a national bank system yesterday, marking a significant victory for the Federalist majority.
The House voted 40-15 yesterday to approve the National Bank System Act of 1791, Representative Beaumont's compromise monetary proposal. Beaumont authored the legislation in a bid to please Federalists and Democrats, who strongly desired a national bank to stimulate economic growth, while also placating Republicans, who feared the power of such a central institution. The Beaumont proposal 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. No one besides Beaumont commented on the legislation.
The House previously rejected a national bank proposal, but only by one vote, thanks to a united Republican Party and a divided Federalist Party. The Federalist Party stood in solidarity in favor of the National Bank System Act, though, while the Republicans had no single view on the legislation.
The Nation's Newspaper, Renamed NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The New York Daily Times shortened its name to become the New York Times yesterday after becoming the most read periodical in the nation.
The New York Times established itself as the most read paper nationally over the last year, surpassing both the Pennsylvania Gazette and the Boston Gazette. The Times controlled nearly a third of the news market yesterday, more than any other paper in the country. Citizens in every state read the paper as of this week, making it one of only three national periodicals. The newsgroup dominated the New York media market, being read by more than half of readers in the state. The company's profits increased by 40% year over year as a result of this growth.
The Editor of the New York Times, Matthew Swaim, credited the paper's journalists, deliverymen, and support staff for its rapid rise. "When I founded this periodical just three years ago, I saw it becoming a small bastion of objectiveness in the media world, not the nation's largest newspaper," he said, "I am shocked, pleased, and above all honored to be able to lead this paper to new heights thanks to the hard work of its staff." Swaim expressed "what I can only call the most severe gratitude for the opportunity to help inform voters through this great organization."
The New York Times remained a publicly traded company.
In the News NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to approve the Apportionment Act of 1791 yesterday, which provided for the expansion of the House to ninety seats after this session. The bill awarded each state a congressional seat for every 40,000 inhabitants, slightly expanding the size of the average district, even as it expanded the size of the House of Representatives. Virginia stood as the largest recipient of seats still with Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut not far behind.
PORT AU PRINCE, SD -- The French colonial government in Saint-Domingue appeared on the verge of collapse this year as the massive slave revolt on the island continued. Nearly 100,000 slaves had taken up arms as of last month, and colonial authorities were losing on every front. The slaves reportedly sought to transform their uprising into a full-on revolution with the ultimate goal of establishing a slave-dominated state.
NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The New York Legislature considered legislation yesterday providing for significant tax cuts in the state. United States Attorney James Terrus called for the cuts, which were widely supported by New York Federalists. Terrus noted that with revenue rising thanks to the national capital's placement in New York City, and expenditures falling due to the assumption of state debts, New York possessed the definite ability to cut taxes without impacting the provision of services. Terrus argued that those tax cuts could spark significant economic growth.
TRENTON, NJ -- The New Jersey Legislature considered legislation yesterday providing for electoral reform in the state. United States Attorney James Terrus called upon the state to act, asking the Legislature to drop its confusing at-large congressional districts in favor of a traditional single-district, single-representative system. Terrus argued that the traditional system allowed representatives to be held more accountable by the people, as representatives would serve smaller groups of people.
DOVER, DE -- The Delaware Legislature considered legislation yesterday aimed at establishing a public university to teach students in the state. Many expressed surprise that the state was even considering such a move, noting that it'd represent the first ever public university. But National Democrats in the state strongly favored the measure, which gained traction due to the National Democracy Party's dominance in the state.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 7, 2014 17:09:46 GMT -5
The New York Daily Times has changed its name to the New York Times.
|
|
|
Post by Magenta on Jul 15, 2014 20:41:22 GMT -5
Opinion [/u][/center] Shall the National Democrats Be Disbanded?What once started as an intriguing if misguided movement to promote an even more democratic Republic than the one our Constitution currently provides, with a helping hand from a good dose of personality conflict, seems to be languishing across the nation. While the National Democrats largely denied it at the outset,it does seem in retrospect that at least a sizable portion, if not an outright majority, of the representatives that joined the National Democratic did so out of a personality conflict with leaders in the Federalist Party. Yet now with the leaders of the national Democrats largely disappearing from this most recent campaign, as well as Federalist legislative leadership moving into the executive branch, it seems this personality conflict no longer exists and that much of the energy that motivated the National Democrats has completely disappeared. With the exception of perhaps a few handful of New England areas, the National Democrats have no real presence in national politics. While they may retain some influence in several States, it seems clear now that they have no real ability to impact the legislative agenda in our capital. This begs the question: should the National Democrats continue to even campaign and hold seats as National Democrats? It seems clear that the answer is no. The only real substantive policy issue that there was a compelling issue and that was distinctly different from either the Republicans or Federalists was the matter of enfranchising even more people and having more direct democracy. On matters of a national bank or state debt or separation of powers between the federal government and the states, the National Democrats shared their views with one of these two larger parties. It seems clear now that the National Democrats who remain, in order to provide a stronger voice for their constituents back home, should join either the Federalist or Republican factions or follow the lead of our President and continue to strive for independence. Strong representation for their districts can not be achieved by still identifying as National Democrats. Thaddeus Steward is a representative from Maryland
|
|