Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 21, 2014 2:36:35 GMT -5
Summer 1790 -- Originally printed in the State Gazette of North CarolinaMassacre on the Chattahoochee
New England Militia Members Kill 300 Civilians in raid on defenseless village. By Elijah Surratt, Editor"In what many are calling a "key victory" in Georgia, some are calling it what it really is; a civilian massacre. Colonel William Bathurst lead a group of 6,000 New England Militia members in battle formation in an attack on a defenseless village of Shawnee tribe members situated on the Chattahoochee river. On the morning of June 12, 1790, a scout approached the New England Militia encampment. There he gave the following intelligence to Colonel Bathusrt. The State Gazette has received the following quote from unnamed military sources; "Colonel, there is a village ahead that is completely unprotected. There are only women, children, and the elderly inside." What transpired next is that the Colonel mustered his men and proceeded towards the village with malice in mind. To add further insult to injury it was said that the Colonel had a smile on his face before issuing the orders to attack a village only comprised of women, children, and the elderly. A dispatch suggests the following; "With the 1st Massachusetts, the so-called "God's warriors", leading the center front line, the New Hampshire Militia attacked the village from the northeastern side and dispersed the population, most of whom fled to across the river. After taking control of the eastern bank, the militia made a quick search for food, ammunition, and intelligence within the village. Finding little of use, the buildings were set on fire and the troops withdrew with captives in tow." The final report suggests that 300+ civilians where killed along with another 700 wounded. Not only that, their houses, corrals, and storehouses lay in ruin. Only two militia members where killed, as a result of an accident. This news comes to us after hearing of the raid in Cedar Shoals, Georgia. Major Northen News Papers are hailing this a victory for the United States. The State Gazette of North Carolina sees this military maneuver for what it really is, a massacre of Civilians. This paper will keep you informed as to what President Washington seeks to do now that one of his Colonels has massacred a civilian village and burnt it to the ground."
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 21, 2014 2:37:15 GMT -5
Summer 1790 -- Originally printed in the New England Blue StarNATIONAL DEMOCRACY PARTY FOUNDED, by E. E. Raines Much to the surprise of many political observers, the Federalist Party seems to have collapsed due to internal divisions and dissatisfaction with party leadership as well as some slight ideological differences. The leaders of the split – primarily New England congressmen and a number of New England industrialists joined by some independent and Republican politicians – have also expressed a desire to continue supporting the Washington administration. A number of defectors to the movement are quite influential, and we shall provide a short profile of some of these men: Timothy Pickering: Adjutant General during the Revolution, Pickering is credited with preventing the British from advancing beyond West Point. Francis Dana: Ambassador to Russia during the Revolution, presently sitting on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Theophilus Parsons: A legal scholar whose Conciliatory Resolutions did much to win over the famous Samuel Adams to the federal Constitution, and who helped draft the Massachusetts Constitution. George Clymer: One of the five men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Elbridge Gerry: Formerly a Republican, Gerry participated in the Constitutional Convention. THE DEMOCRACY PRIMER, by G. Battle Hughes With the formation of the National Democracy Party, it is important to explain the philosophical underpinnings of the idea of democracy for the consumption of those less versed in its nuances and history. As democracy argues that Democracy, it is important to state, is not the same thing as mob rule. In fact, democratic Athens had far more political stability and order than Republican Rome, and never entered into a state of tyranny through domestic machinations in the way that Rome did. Likewise, democracy is not antithetical to the idea of republicanism – in fact, it could be argued that democracy is the true virtue of republicanism and the idea that will allow our republic to reach its full potential. At this time, I would like to hearken back to the immortal words of Mr. Paine, explaining why the Colonies needed to be freed from British rule: “Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems; England to Europe, America to itself.” This idea is central to the idea of democracy, as well. It is not possible that a small group of people – wealthy aristocrats – can effectively govern a great mass of humanity – the laborers, the soldiers and the artisans. Any such system is doomed to failure because it, by its very state of being, runs counter to the rules of sensible thought. A man may be a successful trader, but his ship does not run without a crew. A man may be a great farmer, but his plantation is not handled by his hands alone. A man may be a general for the ages, but he is not his army. In this same sense, a man may be a great orator or statesman but he is nothing without his populace, and it is the populace that must hold him in confidence for him to be an effective leader. --- Was it not the rallying cry of our revolution that a man without political representation can not be made to pay taxes? Yet here we are fourteen years later and our own government, on this continent, ruling in our name and our name alone, has a great mass of citizens that pay taxes to various state entities yet does not grant them political representation. The hypocrisy of this stance is so clear, so apparent, that continuing it for long will make us the laughingstock of men and nations. By the standards that we ourselves have set, the common men of this nation would be fully just to rise up and overthrow our government because of their lack of representation. To preserve the peace of our nation and our social fabric, we should show a willingness to dispense justice where George III was not – give these men their rights, respect their autonomy and respect the common liberties that all men share in common by right of birth. --- These men now denied political representation are those most deserving of it, for many of them bled and suffered for our nation. I fought in our revolution, and I served as an officer over men from common background. I can tell you that I did not bleed or suffer or struggle any more than they did – if any group men earned our independence, it was the American working man, strong in heart and body and him that we owe our independence too. Right now, thousands of common men have left New England for the south in order to help them fight native invaders. This army does not consist solely of aristocrats and merchants, but is in the vast majority an army of the common man. If we ask them to fight for the safety and interests of landed aristocrats, we should at least have the basic human dignity to give them the same kinds of political representation. --- A man who tells you that the common man can not guide our nation is a fool or a force of malevolence, either ignorant of his own status or so wrapped up in his own interests that he can not tolerate a perceived threat to his special status. I know that I am no wiser than any other man, and no other man wiser than I; I have land, yes, but the landless man looks to his interests and the interests of his family as well as I. Any man who claims special knowledge of the affairs of a nation-state on the grounds that he has land is an ignorant man and should not be trusted to lead. I recognize my limitations. If I need boots, I will turn to a bootmaker – so to does the common man. If I need health, I will turn to a doctor – so to does the common man. If I need food, I will turn to the farmer – so to does the common man. If I need work, I will turn to the laborer – so to does the common man. If I need information, I will turn to the paper – so to does the common man. It is because of this realization that I claim no special knowledge of this world, no great enlightenment that makes me capable of leading a state and condemns my fellow man to political repression. The landed aristocrat will tell you that he is qualified to lead this nation because he owns land and makes money. I ask you who will defend his land and his money? Will it be the aristocrats himself or will it be the men who labor in their fields, build their mansions, man their ships and make their goods? We all know this answer. --- I do not seek – and the National Democracy Party – does not seek the overthrow of our new republic. I just seek the fulfillment of our republic. Republic, from res publica – res meaning a solid, real thing and publica meaning that it pertains to the well-being of the public. If our state seeks to deal with the well being of the public in a solid, real manner, it must bring the public to the table and allow them not just a voice, but a vote.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 21, 2014 2:40:52 GMT -5
Summer 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesJay, Arnold ArrestedNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The United States captured Samuel Jay and Benedict Arnold in New England yesterday after Jay notified federal authorities that the two planned to cross the border, reportedly in a bid for clemency.
Federal authorities apprehended the two infamous traitors in Vermont near the Canadian border yesterday. Jay and Arnold crossed from Canada to the United States this week in secret for unknown purposes, but Jay soon sent notice to the President as to the two's location. Jay, who fled the country after conspiring to kill President George Washington, reportedly hoped to gain clemency by turning in Arnold, who infamously betrayed the United States during the War for independence. President Washington dispatched a group of former Continental Army officers to arrest the two, who were then imprisoned in New York City.
Representative James Terrus (R-NY) resigned from Congress late yesterday to take charge of the prosecution of Jay and Arnold at the bequest of the President. Terrus turned Arnold over to New York state authorities, so as to permit Arnold to be charged with a number of crimes relating to his betrayal while serving as a Continental Army officer in New York. New York was expected to ask that Arnold be hung. Terrus kept custody of Jay, reportedly to permit the federal government to ultimately file conspiracy to commit murder charges against Jay upon the establishment of a federal judiciary. The United States was not expected to charge Jay with treason, given the high level of evidence required for a conviction.
Most Americans celebrated the capture of Arnold and Jay, two wildly unpopular individuals widely considered to be traitors. While serving as a Major General of the Continental Army, Arnold provided significant intelligence to British forces on American defenses in New York, and offered to ensure a British victory at West Point in return for £20,000. The Continental Army discovered Arnold's plans when a messenger between him and the British was captured, but Arnold escaped arrest, and ultimately commanded British forces against the United States for the next several years. While serving in Congress, Jay conspired with a number of other individuals including Arnold to kill President Washington, a plot revealed by the New York Daily Times. Jay narrowly escaped prosecution, though, by fleeing to Canada.
There was no word yesterday on what defense Jay or Arnold might employ to avoid execution.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 15:59:30 GMT -5
Autumn 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesFederalist Party DividesNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The Federalist Party divided in two yesterday, a group of leading Federalists departing Alexander Hamilton's political coalition to establish the National Democracy Party, which appeared to support a strong, democratic federal government. Speaker of the House Pro Tempore Gordon Battle Hughes (F-NH) led the movement to establish the new party, followed by a number of Federalists both moderate and extreme in nature. Hughes convinced a number of leading Federalists in Congress to follow him including Albert Hannover (MA), David Lee (VT), Orison Pratt (MA), and Fisher Ames (MA) in the House, and Paine Wingate (NH) in the Senate. Timothy Pickering, a well-known Federalist not in Congress, also followed. A few independents and even one Republican, Representative Elbridge Gerry (MA), also joined the New Democracy Party. The New Democracy Party saw its members include every member of the Boston Society (a New England consortium of now former Federalists) and the Essex Junto (a group of now former Federalists favoring a significantly expanded federal government).
Hughes published a lengthy editorial in the New England Blue Star announcing the formation of the National Democracy Party, which he said planned to support President George Washington while promoting democracy. Hughes specifically called for universal white male suffrage, expressing disdain for the land ownership limitations imposed by every state in the union. The Speaker Pro Tempore's argument centered less on justifying himself, though, and more on defending his views. "Democracy, it is important to state, is not the same thing as mob rule," Hughes wrote, "in fact, democratic Athens had far more political stability and order than Republican Rome, and never entered into a state of tyranny through domestic machinations in the way that Rome did." "Likewise, democracy is not antithetical to the idea of republicanism," he went onto pen, "in fact, it could be argued that democracy is the true virtue of republicanism and the idea that will allow our republic to reach its full potential."
Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC) led Federalists in condemning the National Democrats, though, who Beaumont described as likely to "claim a friend in Benedict Arnold." "This action isn't about representation, it's not about new ideas and new liberties," Beaumont told the NYDT, "it's about personality politics, plain and simple." "If these representatives were so concerned about how to strengthen the ideas that our Party brings to the table, they could have worked to bring in new leadership," he went onto say, "they could have participated in the legislative process." "I for one still believe strongly in our party, in the leadership of heros like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams," he concluded, "and I will be happy to welcome back these poor men when they suffer the defeat they deserve so we can work on building a better and stronger Republic."
Republicans condemned the new party just as harshly as Federalists, though National Democrats denied the Journal's claims. The Southern Journal Constitution, known for its Republican sympathies, called the National Democrats "copy-cat Federalists," differentiated only by the view that "if you are a successful individual ... you somehow are the same as the unsuccessful." "This [will] be the rallying cry of the NDP," the paper implied, "you there, merchant, you didn't build that!" Representative Pratt dismissed these arguments, though, stating that the National Democrats split off simply because "the Federalist Party is no longer an effective or representative vehicle for advancing the interests and liberties of the American nation, [and] "this new organisation will provide a democratic, efficient choice of representation for the American people."
The National Democrats next needed to prove that they possessed the ability to represent the American people, namely through victory in the 1790 elections, which most analysts agreed yesterday were likely to be extremely contentious.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:00:22 GMT -5
Autumn 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesFrench Cancel Elections, Limit Liberty PARIS, FR-- The National Constituent Assembly cancelled regularly scheduled elections, restricted religious freedom, and banned certain political organizations in recent months, continuing an anti-republican trend that worried many observers. The National Constituent Assembly resolved last month not to hold elections this year, even though its members were elected for one-year terms nearly a year ago. The Assembly took ownership of every church in the country, as well, and ordered every minister to accept complete government control of his parish. Additionally, the Assembly banned workers' groups, unions, and guilds, significantly restricting the ability of common Frenchmen to organize. The National Party led the effort to enact these reforms as part of its greater mission to depose King Louis XVI, whose support for the United States during the War for Independence led to the victory at Yorktown. The Royal Democrats opposed most of these measures, preferring to maintain a regular schedule of free and fair elections, and to protect the freedoms of religion and political organization. But the Royal Democrats were outvoted, and King Louis XVI stood in no position to defy the assembly. The Royal Democrats scored a few victories in the past few months, however, notably establishing the right to a trial by jury. These republicans also provided for the creation of an independent judiciary, and abolished all hereditary titles except for that of King. The National Party maintained a plurality in the National Constituent Assembly, however, and analysts doubted the ability of the Royal Democrats to successfully advocate for a more republican system. The National Constituent Assembly did not make significant progress on the Constitution it was created to design over the last few months, focusing instead on the projects proposed by the National Party.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:01:29 GMT -5
Autumn 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesHouse Considers State Debt Assumption NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives held a contentious debate this week on whether the federal government should assume state debts incurred during the War for Independence.
The House spent the week debating the Assumption Act, legislation authored by Representative James Terrus (R-NY) providing for the federal government to assume state debts accrued during the war for independence. Nearly every state took on a significant amount of debt during the war to pay for combat operations, and every state continued to be plagued by those debts today. Some states have made significant strides in paying off those debts, such as Virginia, but others have made little to no progress at all, such as New York.
Terrus argued that the federal government had a responsibility to assume the debts, joined by Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC). "The states presently bear a severe financial burden as a result of the War for Independence, as a result of fighting to establish ultimately this very government," he said on the House floor, "it is only right that this government should assume that burden -- as it is that burden that permits this government's existence. It is only correct that this government should assume that burden -- since the national defense is amongst this government's responsibilities. And it is only ideal that this government should assume that burden, as such will ensure the federal government possesses too much debt to undertake any imposition of tyranny."
But Representative William Brandt (R-SC), joined by several Southern Republicans, stated that the measure amounted to a massive federal over-reach. "Allow the states to manage their own finances," he argued, "placing the burden in the hands of the national government injures all while doing very little to mitigate the elimination of debt." " The government exists ... at the discretion and will of the people not upon the organization of states," he went onto say, "state autonomy should be prioritized as important and [each state should maintain the autonomy] to care for [its] own defence, [its] own debt and [its] own care with the national government providing a mere framework for confederation as exists presently."
Most analysts expected the bill to fail despite Brandt's opposition, given wide support amongst Northerners, Federalists, and National Democrats.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:03:36 GMT -5
Autumn 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesHouse Considers New Bank BillNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives considered a new proposal for a national bank yesterday, setting the state for another partisan battle despite the bill's author's attempts to reach a middle ground.
The House convened debate on the National Bank System Act of 1790 today, leaving little time to consider the bill before end of session. Representative Andrew Beaumont (F-SC) authored the legislation, which establishes four regional banks more apt to be controlled in each region, and then a national bank to coordinate those regional banks. The four regional banks encompassed New England (RI, MA, CT, NH, VT), the Mid-North (NY, PA, NJ), the Mid (MD, DE, VA), and the South (NC, SC, GA).
Representative Beaumont delivered an impassioned argument in favor of the legislation on the House floor, calling the bill constitutional because a national government needed a bank to perform its most basic functions. Beaumont also argued the nation needed a bank for economic reasons, noting that the United States faced a dearth of credit. Finally, Beaumont pointed towards the regional system as a way to address concerns about a national bank possessing too much power. Representative Thaddeus Steward (F-MD) joined in supporting the bank.
No Republican commented on the legislation today, except Representative Jack Terrus (R-NY), who simply called for a vote. But most analysts expected the vast majority of Republicans to strongly oppose the bill. "Representative Beaumont developed the present bank proposal with me with the regional system designed to address my party's concerns," said former Representative James Terrus (R-NY), "but every member of my party made it clear that there could be no compromise on this issue, so I would not expect there to be any compromise."
The House previously rejected a national bank proposal, but only by one vote.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:05:07 GMT -5
Autumn 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesParties Clash in Bank DebateNEW YORK CITY, NY -- The House of Representatives continued a contentious debate over the formation of a national bank yesterday, setting the stage for another vote in the key measure.
Federalists and Republicans clashed over Representative Andrew Beaumont's (F-SC) proposal for a national banking system comprised of four regional banks coordinated by a single United States Bank. Beaumont developed the plan with former Representative James Terrus (I-NY), then a Republican, in a bid to create a suitable compromise between those viewing a national bank is essential to economic growth and those fearing the power of a national bank. But the Republicans refused to accept the middle-ground solution despite Terrus' urgings, and so Beaumont went ahead on his own with Terrus' support.
Beaumont delivered a well-reasoned argument for the bill on the House floor. "Our Vice President and our Secretary of the Treasury both admit that this legislation is needed to ensure financial stability of this country," he said, "every other nation on Earth has a central financial authority such as a national bank. You cannot exist without one." "And I believe the constitutionality is quite clear, he went onto say, "through the idea that Congress has whatever associated powers are necessary to carry out its main objectives, which fit very much in line with the need for a national banking system."
Representative Elijah Surrat (R-VA) took Beaumont to task, though, criticizing the bank at length. "I still fail to see how a Bank, established by the Federal Government and not authorized by the Constitution, benefits anyone," Surratt argued, "the proponents of this bill have failed time and time again to make a solid argument for a Bank in the first place." "Their argument of "destabilization" and "economic crisis" falls on deaf ears to the planters, farmers, and manufacturers that are and will continue to boom without the interference of a regulated and unconstitutional National Bank," he went onto say.
Beaumont, Surratt, and Representative Pierre Broussard (F-MA) then clashed regarding the Dutch financial system, arguing about whether it's decentralized model might be applied in the United States. Surratt claimed that the Dutch had, without a national bank, created lengthy and significant economic growth. But Broussard pointed out that the Dutch system had failed miserably in 1763, leading to a massive economic crisis, and that the Bank of Amsterdam had acted as a de facto national bank since then. Beaumont further argued that the Dutch could rely on exploiting their colonies to make up for financial instability -- something the US would never do. Surratt fired back that if the US established tyrannical, unconstitutional state bodies, it might not be far from creating colonies.
Representative Terrus moved for a vote on the legislation today; most Republicans were expected to vote against the bill, while most Federalists and National Democrats were expected to support it.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:07:20 GMT -5
Winter 1790 -- Originally printed in the Maryland GazetteGazette Under New OwnershipIn an auction of the Maryland Gazette to the Public, the newspaper popular around Maryland has been purchased by Massachusetts National Democrat Albert Hannover, who has stated he "plans to use the paper to spread news around the nation and promote the National Democrat philosophy further south." While tensions between the ND party and the Federalists are still high from the schism, it is predicted that the two will be forced to form a coalition in order to maintain a majority in the House.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:09:16 GMT -5
Winter 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesFederal 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:10:45 GMT -5
Winter 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesWashington 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:11:16 GMT -5
Winter 1790 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesPresident 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:13:02 GMT -5
Summer 1790 -- Originally printed in The Southern Journal-ConstitutionRepublicans Dominate the Southern States Elijah Surratt, Chairman of the Republican Party delivered a stunning victory for Republicans south of Maryland. By Jean Surratt, Editor "In what this newspaper is calling a complete routing of the Federalist Party south of Pennsylvania with perhaps a small hold on Maryland, Republicans have won the day. From the Chesapeake to the Chattahoochee the Republican Party can claim the Southern united States as their political playground. Congressmen Elijah Surratt, Alfred Schmidt, and Thomas Cole peppered newspapers and street corners with a simple three point proposal by the Republican Party; Neutrality, No National Bank, and finally State Sovereignty. The message resonated as the Republican Party can claim near complete control of the Georgia and Virginia Congressional delegations while having footholds in Maryland, South and North Carolina. The most surprising result was perhaps Maryland where the Republican Party fended off a vicious Federalist onslaught of editorials claiming doom and gloom if Republicans where elected. Turns out the simple platform of the Republican Party earned them 2 of the six seats in Maryland garnering near 31% of the overall vote. The results are as follows; Maryland (At-large) (6 elected) William Pinkney (R) (9.60%) Joshua Seney (R) (11.47%) Philip Key (I) (11.22%) Ethan Mulready (F) (11.37%) Thaddeus Steward (F) (11.29%) William Vans Murray (F) (21.13%) Republicans and Federalist combined took 74% of the overall vote in Maryland while Independents and a single Nationalist made up the rest. In what is sure to be a battleground State moving forward, Maryland held for the Federalist Party this go round. If Maryland was a nail bitter then Virginia sucked the oxygen out of the Federalist Party. The Federalist Party succeeded in electing one member of the ten-man delegation from Virgina, and even that race was very very close. We're told it went down to the wire, by hundreds of votes. Overall Republicans hold 8 of the 10 Virginia Seats. Virginia 1: Steven Fisher (R) unopposed 2: James Markham Marshall (F) (50%) vs Andrew Moore (R) (50%) 3: Elijah Surratt (R) (75%) vs Arthur Lee (F) (25%) 4: Richard Bland Lee (I) (45.48%) vs Patrick Henry (R) (54.52%) 5: James Madison (R) unopposed 6: Abraham B. Venable (R) (45%) vs Charles Lintch (F) (35%) vs Charles Clay (ND) (20%) 7: John Page (R) (60%) vs +Meriwether Smith (R) (40%) 8: William Branch Giles (R) unopposed 9: Elijah MacDonald (I) unopposed 10: Thomas Cole (R) (70%) vs Thomas Edmonds (F) (30%) No surprise here considering Thomas Jefferson and Elijah Surratt, the most prominent Republicans in Government, hail from Virginia. Their networking and campaigning proved near flawless. Virginia doesn't seem to be offering any ground to the Nationalist or Federalist Party in the near future. North Carolina saw zero Federalist elected. In fact those who they did run saw absolute defeat at the ballot box. The results are as follows North Carolina 1: John Baptista Ashe (I) unopposed 2: Hugh Williamson (I) (40%) vs +Nathaniel Macon (R) (60%) 3: Michael Davenport (R) (90%) vs +Alexander Mebane (R) (10%) 4: John Steele (I) (90%) vs +Joseph MacDowell (10%) 5: John Sevier (R) (60%) vs +William Barry Grove (F) (40%) Republicans were able to pick off a Federalist and Independent claiming a total of 3 of the 5 North Carolina House Seats. The remaining seats belong to Independents. William Barry Grove, the only Federalist to run for the House in North Carolina was defeated handily by Republican John Sevier. South Carolina could also be ranked up there with Maryland as a strong contender for the Federalists, however it's believed the wealth of Congressman Andrew Beaumont is the only reason for the Federalists to remain afloat in this State. Considering Congressman Beaumont spent most of his time trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to elect Federalists it was a surprise to see him win with such a margin. South Carolina results as follows; South Carolina 1: Andrew Beaumont (F) (70%) vs Aedanus Burke (R) (30%) 2: Robert Barnwell (F) unopposed 3: Alfred Schmidt (R) (80%) vs Thomas Anderson (I) (20%) 4: Thomas Sumter (I) unopposed 5: Thomas Tudor Tucker (R) unopposed This newspaper certainly sees both Thomas Sumter and Robert Barnwell being challenged in 1792. Aside from that South Carolina continues the trend of it's southern neighbors by being a hotbed of Republicanism. Finally our most Southern State of Georgia saw Republicans hold on to all three House Seats. This was due to fact that only one incumbent was challenged. Results are as follows; Georgia 1: Francis Willis (R) unopposed 2: Robert G Hill (R) (70%) vs Anthony Wayne (I) (30%) 3: William Brandt (R) unopposed That wraps up our final edition dedicated to the National Elections. We'll be sure to update our readers of what went on the race for Governor and Senator in our next regular edition of The Southern Journal-Constitution."
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:13:51 GMT -5
Summer 1790 -- Originally printed in The Southern Journal-ConstitutionDemocratic-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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:15:22 GMT -5
Spring 1791 -- Originally printed in The Virginia IndependentNew Vibrant Economy? By Alexander O'Connor, Economic Correspondent
At the end of last year the American economy saw its first advancement forward with the completion of a cotton mill in Rhode Island. It was constructed for use by Samuel Slater who apprenticed for English industrialist Richard Arkwright. The mill, which is powered by water, is used for spinning, roving, and carding cotton. Some in Federal Hall hope this will boost the Nations Economy.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:16:40 GMT -5
Spring 1791 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesFrench 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:18:56 GMT -5
Summer 1791 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesFederal 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:19:46 GMT -5
Summer 1791 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesMuhlenberg 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.
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 1, 2014 16:20:22 GMT -5
Summer 1791 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesKing 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."
|
|
Bruce
Administrator
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 7, 2014 0:36:38 GMT -5
Autumn 1791 -- Originally printed in the New York Daily TimesKing 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.
|
|