Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on May 28, 2014 23:50:56 GMT -5
Admin and player-written headline news from around the nation will be posted here. This is meant to be a single thread containing all of the major news in the game.
Generally, the first newspaper article to break the story will be posted here.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 6, 2014 2:36:59 GMT -5
Spring 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesSeminole 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 7, 2014 2:27:39 GMT -5
Spring 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesVermont 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 7, 2014 2:28:08 GMT -5
Spring 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesKey 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 8, 2014 15:59:03 GMT -5
Summer 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesHouse 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:06:26 GMT -5
Summer 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesFederalists 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."
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:08:15 GMT -5
Summer 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesRevolution 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:11:07 GMT -5
Fall 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesIndian 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:14:38 GMT -5
Fall 1789 -- Originally posted in the Connecticut CourantUNITED STATES LIKELY TO ADD ANOTHER
(Hartford)- Both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate unanimously passed the Vermont Statehood bill. This legislation, sponsored by Congressman Samuel Jay of New Hampshire, would add a 14th state to the union. This comes after the Vermont territory and New York state announced a solution to their border issues. This bill is likely to receive President Washington's signature any day. However, many in the South harbor unease as this addition will sway the balance of power away from slave states in Congress. While no Southerners opposed this admission, it is unlikely that it will be so in the future without some sort of compromise.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:16:23 GMT -5
Fall 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesSouth, 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:23:24 GMT -5
Winter 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesJay 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:26:24 GMT -5
Winter 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesJay 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."
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:27:55 GMT -5
Winter 1789 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesBritish 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:31:35 GMT -5
Spring 1790 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesNEW 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:33:16 GMT -5
Spring 1790 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesKing 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:34:36 GMT -5
Spring 1790 -- Originally posted in the New York Daily TimesVermont 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 18, 2014 21:37:01 GMT -5
Spring 1790 -- Originally posted in the State Gazette of North Carolina The Federalist Party is Crumbling The Federalist Party has all but fallen apart after their failed attempts of establishing a National Bank and a Federal Education "commission". By Richard Johnston, Federal Hall Corespondent
"Federalist are reeling after their defeat at the hands of Republicans and Independents in the House of Representatives concerning a "national bank". Furthermore their attempts to establish a Federal Education Commission, of which many believe is a trigger for an eventual Federal Department of Education, has all but been tabled, again by Republicans. Although enjoying a Majority in the House of Representatives the Federalist Party just can't seem to get it together and vote as a bloc. Many are pointing to the fact that the leadership of the Federalist Party has been silent these past six months. Rarely has a prominent Federalist been seen in public, or in Federal Hall for that matter, and rarely has one published his opinions in an editorial or pamphlet.
Thomas Crowe of Pennsylvania was eager to defend his Federal Education bill on the House Floor, but was missing from the vote to table said bill. He and a whole host of Federalist where absent during the Banking Act Vote, giving Republicans the edge they needed to defeat it. Is this a trend that we can expect from now on? Vermont is a whole other story. Earlier this week voters and state legislators went to the polls electing two new house members as well as two new Senators. It was a big surprise to see two Republicans win in such a solid Northern Federalist State. Republicans picked up a House and Senate seat while Federalist were able to fend off a Republican challenger for a House Seat. An Independent took the other Senate Seat.
To put it simply the Federalist Party is in disarray and needs to rebound itself for the upcoming House Elections, unless of course they wish to see the House with a Republican Majority."
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 21, 2014 2:29:38 GMT -5
Summer 1790 -- Originally printed in the State Gazette of North CarolinaSeminole Army Surges, Attacks Continue State Gazette of North Carolina is the first to report on size and scope of the Seminole Hoard. By Jean Surratt, Deputy Editor
"It numbers in the thousands. It is organized like a standing army in Europe. It is very diverse. The Seminole forces that are currently raping and pillaging the countryside of Georgia is numbered at 12,000 infantry, mixed militia and bowmen with a number of 1,800 cavalrymen of which they are split between lancers and bowmen. The Creek, who have been seen in North Carolina are numbered at 10,000 infantry being mixed between musket carrying militias, club men and bowmen. Finally, the third and smallest tribe singled out by scouts and riders is the Choctaw. They number at 4,000 mixed infantry.
Days ago perhaps more than half of the 10,000 strong Creek force was seen destroying the Humphrey plantation near the trading settlement Cedar Shoals, Georgia. There they where witnessed scalping the homesteaders and farmers. The livestock and slaves slaughtered. It has been reported that all structures where set on fire. There are no survivors a riders report said. Before this riders report came in President Washington called on all States Militias to form up and head down to Georgia. Several Commanders have been named to head the Militia's. There are named below;
Colonel Thomas Jackson, Georgia Militia: In command of 5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry. Colonel William Charles Bathurst, New Hampshire Militia: In command of 6,000 infantry. Colonel Christopher Bretagne, New York Militia: In command of 6,000 infantry, 12 guns. Colonel Thomas Garrett, North Carolina Militia: In command of 3,000 infantry. Lieutenant Colonel John Brown, Virginia Militia: In command of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry.
The militias and volunteers are said to be gather in Savannah. The North Carolina State Gazette will let you know more as the situation unfolds."
[/div][/quote]
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 21, 2014 2:31:49 GMT -5
Summer 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesTerrus 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."
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 21, 2014 2:36:05 GMT -5
Summer 1790 -- Originally printed in the New England Blue StarTHE BATTLE OF SUWANNEE VILLAGE, by E. E. Raines The first American victory in the Seminole War occurred recently as the New England militia under Colonel William Charles Bathurst entered western Georgia and displaced the natives living in the Suwannee region who have risen up in violent insurrection. Bathurst, a veteran of the British military who joined the Continental Army during the Revolution, reported that the Suwannee suffered over a thousand casualties with the New England militia taking two dead and five wounded, mostly due to accidents. It is the hope of this paper that Colonel Bathurst’s victory will be the first of many, and that this will mark the point where the violent Seminoles and their allies are driven out of Georgia. Colonel Bathurst, in a letter to this paper, urged us not to read too much into his victory, stating that it was more of a removal operation than a pitched battle. However, he went on to state that he remained committed to the expulsion of the Seminoles and urged voters back home to support efforts to expand a national military that would be more qualified to address such threats in the future.
|
|