DOCSLIB.ORG

To the Members of Council and Mayor Ginther

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To the Members of Council and Mayor Ginther To the Members of Council and Mayor Ginther: On behalf of each member of the Charter Review Committee I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to solicit information, comments and concerns from citizens and develop our recommendations. The staff support provided by City Council and Mayor Ginther was critical to our work and we are all grateful for their efforts to gather and share as much data as possible. I believe our recommendations reflect the City’s long history of success, growth, diversity and being a leader with respect to innovation and building strong partnerships that guide our City, and of that leadership has emanated from our City Council and Mayor. We focused on the facts and statistics relevant to our City today while understanding the successes of our past and looking to our future. There are two key ideas that I took from this process, it is critical that we continue to engage the community to better understand the needs of citizens as well as educate citizens on how local government is working for them. The second idea I believe is essential to our continued success is for our work as leaders to be done in as transparent of a manner possible. The messages we heard from citizens who participated were clear they are looking for local leaders who are accountable to them and who are responsive to the diverse needs of our citizens. To that end, we encourage Council to implement the spirit of these recommendations, as practical, even before the long process of amending the charter is completed. Yours in service, Stefanie L. Coe Chair Charter Review Committee of 2016 1 BACKGROUND ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE The people’s charter, established in 1914 and amended throughout its 103-year history outlines the fundamental rights, powers and responsibilities of the citizens and their elected municipal officials. Throughout the duration, Columbus has been served by a seven-member, at-large City Council. On September 6, 2016, Columbus City Council and Mayor Andrew J. Ginther appointed the members of the Charter Review Committee as an ad hoc body to review the sections of the City Charter relative to Council in light of a citizen-initiated charter amendment to change the structure and size of Council. The amendment was rejected by the electors of Columbus on August 2, 2016 with 14,163 (28.5%) in favor of the change and 35,456 (71.5%) against it. The Charter Review Committee was comprised of nine members, as follows: Stefanie Coe, Chair – General Counsel, MPW Industrial Services; Chair, Southwest Area Commission; former Assistant City Attorney, City of Columbus Lourdes Barroso de Padilla – Senior Director National Events, City Year, Inc.; former Executive Director, City Year Columbus Jennette B. Bradley – Former Ohio Lt. Governor, Ohio Treasurer, and Columbus City Councilmember Frieda L. Gilyard – Faith Community Task Force Director, The Columbus Coalition Against Family Violence Rev. Tyrone A. Lawes – Associate Minister, Mt. Vernon Avenue Missionary Baptist Church; President, Baptist Ministerial Alliance of Columbus and Vicinity Frederick E. Mills – Retired Partner, Vorys, Sater, Seymour, and Pease; former reading clerk, chief of staff, clerk and majority counsel for the Ohio House of Representatives Keary McCarthy – President and CEO, Innovation Ohio; former minority chief of staff, Ohio House of Representatives John C. Rosenberger – President, Central Ohio Community Improvement Corporation Robert Vitale – Former Editor-in-Chief, Outlook Magazine (Note: Mr. Vitale withdrew from the committee on 12/20/2016 due to a change in employment.) Beginning on September 22, 2016, the Charter Review Committee held 12 public meetings. Meeting materials, minutes, and videos of the meetings were provided online at www.columbus.gov/council/Charter-Review/Charter-Review-Committee/. Meetings took place on the following dates/locations: 09/22/16: Fedderson Recreation Center 10/13/16: Glenwood Recreation Center 10/27/16: Tuttle Recreation Center 11/10/16: Barack Recreation Center 11/17/16: Barnett Recreation Center 2 12/15/16: Carriage Place Recreation Center 01/15/17: Columbus City Hall 01/11/17: Columbus City Hall 01/12/17: Columbus City Hall 01/20/17: Columbus City Hall 02/09/17: Columbus City Hall 02/17/17: Columbus City Hall In addition to research and presentations from subject matter experts, including city staff, the Committee also solicited public comments via a dedicated email address and web link. The comments were compiled and provided to the committee prior to each meeting. All comments were also made available on the Committee’s webpage. Below is a summary of comments and inquiries received: Thirty-five individuals submitted comments and inquiries Sixty-eight public comments and inquiries received The Charter Review Committee was staffed by the following: J. Edward Johnson, Director of Legislative Affairs, Columbus City Council Bryan M. Clark, Chief Policy Advisor, Mayor Andrew J. Ginther Stephanie Megas, Legislative Assistant, Columbus City Council Tracy Retchin, Chief Ethics Officer, Mayor Andrew J. Ginther Adam Friedman, Senior Policy Advisor, Mayor Andrew J. Ginther Andrea Blevins, Columbus City Clerk and Secretary to the Committee The August 2016 charter amendment was the latest in a series of episodic attempts to change the structure of council over the charter’s 103-year history: 1968: Electoral defeat. 1973: Electoral defeat. 1975: Issue failed to qualify for the ballot. 1993: Charter Review Commission expresses reservations about changing council’s structure, but recommends further study. 1998: Charter Review Commission recommends maintaining at-large representation. 2012: Issue failed to qualify for the ballot. 2014: Issue failed to qualify for the ballot. 2014: Charter Review Commission recommends maintaining at-large representation. 2015: Issue failed to qualify for the ballot. 2016: Electoral defeat. 3 INTRODUCTION In the interest of respecting the many diverse voices and opinions throughout our community, this Committee issues the following recommendations out of deep respect for the electoral result of August 2, 2016 and the belief that the following recommendations will provide transparency, accountability and responsiveness to address the needs of our growing city. The committee hopes that both those who favor the current structure and those who favor changes will seriously consider these recommendations. THE COUNCIL: SIZE AND STRUCTURE Sec. 3-19 [Five votes in favor, one opposed, two abstentions] The current size and structure of Columbus City Council has been unchanged since adoption of the Columbus City Charter in 1914. Research and data provided to the Charter Review Committee makes a compelling case for increasing the size of Council to nine members, in line with peer cities across the country. Research data also demonstrates that most features of Columbus’ council are best practices for political competitiveness, such as nonpartisan ballots, staggered terms, and at-large elections. Finally, research data presents a varied and complex picture of potential council structures from peer cities across the country, reflecting democratic experimentation based on the unique historical, political, and governmental situation of American cities. Some citizens have expressed to this Committee a belief that Council could be more responsive and should provide a “go-to” elected official based on geography. Some advocate for a hybrid Council structure, where some are elected at-large and some by district, not unlike the system considered by voters in August 2016. Based on research and presentations, and keeping in mind the response of Columbus voters, this Committee does not recommend a return to the hybrid ward structure in place prior to the adoption of the current City Charter. Recommendation: The Charter Review Committee does, however, recommend Columbus City Council explore presenting to voters a charter amendment for the following structural changes as a possible alternative to the current seven member at-large council. This recommendation is rooted in a finding that the city has been well served by the current structure and this alternative is a possible way to enhance Council-community relations: 1. Expand the size of Columbus City Council from seven members to nine members, subject to the adoption of recommendation #2. 4 2. Adopt a “District At-Large” form of Council whereby, subject to the adoption of recommendation #1. a. The city is apportioned into nine geographic Council districts using best practices in apportionment and reapportionment. b. To run for Council, a candidate must live in and file for a specific Council district seat. c. Elections are shifted from at-large field races to at-large by-place races, where candidates who live in the same district run against each other for that seat. d. Every Columbus voter maintains his/her right to cast a vote for the candidate of their choice for every seat on Council. e. Elections continue to include an elimination primary if more than two candidates file for a given district, followed by a general election between the top two vote- getters for each seat on Council. f. Elections continue to be nonpartisan. 3. In consideration of these potential charter amendments, the Committee recommends that Council actively engage the community to determine best practices, which are most applicable to Columbus, especially in the topics of apportionment and reapportionment, timeline for placement on a ballot, process for implementation should voters approve the measure and active citizen participation in the apportionment process. Further, the Committee recommends that the community be given the opportunity to offer input at every phase of the process. COUNCIL VACANCIES AND APPOINTMENTS Sec. 5 [Six votes in favor, two abstentions] Under the current Columbus City Charter, a vacancy on Council must be filled by appointment. That appointment must take place within 30 days of the vacancy and is made by the remaining Councilmembers. Prior to 1993, appointments were for the full unexpired term. A charter amendment in 1993 required an election for the unexpired term if a vacancy takes place in the first half of a four year term.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Council Structures Throughout the United States Overview for the 2016 Charter Review Committee
    Council structures throughout the United States Overview for the 2016 Charter Review Committee Presentation by J. Edward Johnson, Director of Legislative Affairs for Columbus City Council (as prepared for delivery) Good evening members of the Charter Review Committee. My name is Edward Johnson and I am the Director of Legislative Affairs for Columbus City Council. Chair Coe asked staff to offer an overview of the structures of municipal government throughout the United States and to provide committee members with data on the top 15 largest cities in Ohio and to offer the committee a brief overview on how Columbus City Council works. First, an overview of the forms of municipal government, with an acknowledgment of the assistance of the National League of Cities for providing much of the following information. Forms of Municipal Government The first form I will introduce members to is the mayor-council form of government, which is the category Columbus falls into. Primary characteristics of mayor-council governments include: The mayor is elected separate from the council, is often full-time and paid, with significant administrative and budgetary authority; Depending on the municipal charter, the mayor could have “weak” or “strong” powers – in Columbus’ case we have a strong mayor system: o Strong mayors are the chief executives of cities, centralizing executive power: . The mayor directs the administrative structure, appoints and removes department heads; . May exercise veto powers; . The council does not oversee daily operations of city government o Weak mayors have a powerful council, with both legislative and executive authority: . The mayor is not truly the chief executive officer, and has limited or no veto powers; 1 Council structures throughout the United States Overview for the 2016 Charter Review Committee .
    [Show full text]
  • Download Chapter
    Chapter 5 U.S. Export Facilities and Ocean Transportation U.S. grains are exported from every coast in the country, as well as from the St. Lawrence Seaway in Canada. Each of the five export ranges that handle feed grains exports has a unique relationship with one or more interior producing regions. This relationship is characterized by the principal mode of transportation used to bring those feed grains into an export position. Long before the first European explorer reached the majestic sweep of the Mississippi River, Native Americans were using it for travel and trade. The Mississippi River has evolved since then into a transportation gateway to the interior of the United States. Mississippi A fleet of over 10,000 barges, towed by as many as 2,000 towboats, River/Center ply the river with many different kinds of cargo. There are nearly Gulf 6,000 miles of navigable river in the Mississippi River Basin serving the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, Arkansas, Tennessee, White, Cumberland, Alabama and Minnesota Rivers. Through this system, river transportation reaches into every Corn Belt state, providing easy access to 80 percent of U.S. corn production, more than 33 percent of sorghum production and up to 15 percent of barley production. Hundreds of river terminals receive feed grains by truck or rail and transfer it into barges, each carrying approximately 1,500 tons, which are collected into tows of six or more barges and moved downriver to New Orleans or another river port. Barge transportation is traded actively between suppliers and users, quoted in percentage of tariff, and a cost schedule established with prices for each river shipping point.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhode Island's Dorr Rebellion and Bay State Politics, 1842-1843 by Erik
    108 Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Summer 2011 Attorney Thomas W. Dorr (1805-54) 109 “Let the People Remember!”: Rhode Island’s Dorr Rebellion and Bay State Politics, 1842-1843 ERIK J. CHAPUT Editor’s Introduction: In 1842 a group of Rhode Island reformers took up arms in order to remove the state’s archaic form of government. The origins of the brief, but tumultuous, insurrection lay deep in Rhode Island history. The results, however, deeply impacted politics in Massachusetts. Beginning in 1776, all of the original thirteen colonies, except Connecticut and Rhode Island, wrote new constitutions and set up representative governments. The spark that led Providence attorney Thomas Wilson Dorr (1805- 54) to move from a war of words to the field of battle involved the continued reliance on the 1663 colonial charter as the state’s governing document. As John Quincy Adams noted in his diary on May 10, 1842, Dorr had taken steps to “achieve a revolution in government” because Rhode Island still “adhered” to the charter.1 Rhode Island’s colonial charter, which was still used as the state’s governing document as late as 1842, contained no amendment procedure and restricted suffrage to landowners possessing $134 of real estate. Because of the property qualification for voting, most of the populations of the growing commercial and manufacturing districts were disenfranchised. Indeed, only 40% of the state’s white male population was eligible to vote by 1840. Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Vol. 39 (1 & 2), Summer 2011 © Institute for Massachusetts Studies, Westfield State University 110 Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Summer 2011 Thomas Dorr was the scion of an old Yankee family.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Unions Attacked the Single Transferable Vote in Cincinnati∗
    Bad for Party Discipline: Why Unions Attacked the Single Transferable Vote in Cincinnati∗ Jack Santucci [email protected] This version: June 28, 2017 Original: July 22, 2015 The years around World War I brought major political changes to advanced industrial democracies. New demands led to rapid extensions of voting rights, mass defections to labor- based parties, and the adoption of proportional representation (PR) voting schemes.1 The last of these is the most important cause of a multi-party system.2 Roughly speaking, if a party gets ten percent of votes, it gets ten percent of legislative seats. Political scientists have long observed that social democracy thrives under PR.3 Oftentimes, as in Australia, Germany, and Switzerland, local PR experiments predated a national adoption.4 The United States was not immune to the global changes in party systems. Women won the vote in 1920, officially doubling electorates in states that had not yet granted voting rights.5 Third-party presidential runs in 1912 and 1924 shook the Republican Party in the Mountain States and American Midwest. This intra-party fighting continued in cities where reformers rewrote voting rules to eject the old-style parties from power.6 From 1915-48, in fact, the chosen reform in 24 cities was proportional representation. ∗Jasmine Underwood provided research assistance. Bill Collins, Jack Lucas, Colin Moore, Hans Noel, Rob Richie, and Kent Weaver gave helpful feedback on earlier drafts. Bill Gradison gave important insight into local history. 1 Compared to PR systems in
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Notice of Readiness
    What Is Notice Of Readiness humiliationBruceNationwide perfumes, fricasseesNero hisalways zooplasty perchance, scrutinised vulgarises is hisWoochang sororicides shrugging odontalgic if lissomly. Ave is and tagged Salomon subarborescent or smart never earnestly. misallotted enough? Unscientific any Notice of extinguishing systems or infected devices like to recognise it of what notice is balance type of paper presented Notice of readiness ja tankkerisertepartiat CORE. What from the regulation for carrying minimum number of lifebuoys on ship mode per SOLAS? In an urge from two arbitration awards the Court construed two charterparties that child not host-to-host It concluded that the miss of readiness NOR given. Notice of readiness clause For laytime to contain the wording of equity clause coming to be satisfied there done now no note from two literal. What happens if an NOR is tendered ahead of laydays, construction and delivery. NOR to be valid the Master would have needed to have waited until the vessel was anchored at Point Celeste to tender it. Exposure Suit count per SOLAS? What is ready to notice of readiness to the house of ships carrying dangerous cargo at or anyone. The certificate of readiness triggers scheduling of the settlement conference. Provide Lonza with the full range of brand management services. Prejudgment interest is ready to notice must have been given her cargo lines, notices to anchorage what best they have you? Demurrage calculation is steal to using a stopwatch in stool the clock will continue to swing until there been a qualifying exception and the time cool stop. What are basics of preparing a Pilot Plan on ships? The wheat NOR ever not even valid on the untrue statement becomes true.
    [Show full text]
  • FTA's Charter Regulations: a Compliance Guide for Ohio's Rural
    FTA’s Charter Regulations: A Compliance Guide for Ohio’s Rural Public Transit Systems The Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Transit May 2004 An Equal Opportunity Employer Table of Contents Section 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ........................................................................................... 1 Purpose........................................................................................................................................ 1 Who Should Read This Guidebook?........................................................................................... 1 Are There Any Exceptions to the Applicability of the Charter Regulations? ............................ 2 What is Charter Service? ............................................................................................................ 2 FTA’s Basic Requirements Pertaining to Charter Service ......................................................... 3 ODOT Definition of Contract Services ...................................................................................... 3 Organization of this Guide.......................................................................................................... 3 Section 2. GUIDANCE ON ELIGIBLE PUBLIC TRANSIT, CONTRACT, AND CHARTER SERVICES..................................................................................................................................... 6 What is Eligible Mass Transportation?....................................................................................... 6 Contract
    [Show full text]
  • Vol43 No3 Mar2013.Pdf
    THE VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2013 ARBITRATOR SOCIETY OF MARITIME ARBITRATORS, INC. It was a busy four years with some good times, changes, challenges and sadness mixed together. The SMA luncheon INDEX TO THIS ISSUE program continued to serve its main purpose of offering a President’s Corner ........................................... 1 monthly opportunity for those involved in maritime law and arbitrations in NYC to meet and hear a prepared discussion Michael Marks Cohen ...................................... 2 on topics of common interest. Tom Fox and Jack Warfield, chairs of the luncheon committee, put together a monthly Did Stolt-Nielsen Shipwreck assortment of topics that were well received by the arbitra- Class Arbitration? ............................................ 3 tion community. Likewise, THE ARBITRATOR, through the diligent efforts of Manfred Arnold, Dean Tsagaris and Second Circuit Holds Vessel Liable Don Szostak, has filled a similar role as our written com- In Rem for Damage to Cargo Under munication with the international community. The General Maritime Law .............................. 5 Sally Sielski, our Administrative Secretary and of- fice manager of over 30 years, retired at the beginning of Ordering Security From a U.S. Maritime 2012. Sally’s retirement luncheon was a wonderful event Arbitrator’s Perspective ................................... 9 with a huge attendance. Sally is doing well and our new Administrative Secretary, Ms Patricia Leahy, has success- Requests For Pre-Award Security fully settled in to her duties despite Hurricane Sandy’s best and Other Interim Remedies in efforts to derail her. New York Maritime Arbitrations: The Award Service is closing in on published award A Practioner’s Perspective ............................. 12 number 4200 as members continue to provide the arbitra- tion services required by the maritime industry.
    [Show full text]
  • M/V ELLIOTT BAY (NOW M/V DALLY), OPINION and ORDER PACIFIC BASIN HANDYSIZE LIMITED, and PACIFIC BASIN HANDYSIZE (HK) LTD
    Case 1:19-cv-02063-KPF Document 23 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BST CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 19 Civ. 2063 (KPF) -v.- M/V ELLIOTT BAY (NOW M/V DALLY), OPINION AND ORDER PACIFIC BASIN HANDYSIZE LIMITED, and PACIFIC BASIN HANDYSIZE (HK) LTD., Defendants. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: Plaintiff BST Corporation (“BST”) brought this admiralty action for damage to its cargo (the “Cargo”) against the ship that carried the Cargo — then known as the M/V Elliott Bay and now known as the M/V Dally — as well as Pacific Basin Handysize Limited and Pacific Basin Handysize (HK) Ltd. (collectively, “PBHS”), the entities that own and operate the M/V Dally. PBHS now moves to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, and BST opposes that motion, citing a forum-selection provision in which PBHS ostensibly consented to jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York. For the reasons explained below, which differ somewhat from the arguments advanced by the parties, the Court finds the forum-selection provision to be enforceable and therefore denies PBHS’s motion. Case 1:19-cv-02063-KPF Document 23 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 20 BACKGROUND1 A. The Relevant Agreements On January 10, 2018, PBHS,2 as “Owners” of the M/V Dally, and Tung Ho Steel Enterprise Corporation of Taiwan (“Tung Ho”), as “Charterers,” entered into a Charter Party Fixture Note (the “Charter Party”),3 for the shipment of the Cargo from Taiching, Taiwan, to North America. (Wanchoo Decl., Ex.
    [Show full text]
  • LIMITATION of LIABILITY of CARRIERS by SEA and by LAND ALBERT G. DUGAN, JR., ESQUIRE COZEN and O'connor 1900 Market Street
    LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF CARRIERS BY SEA AND BY LAND ALBERT G. DUGAN, JR., ESQUIRE COZEN AND O’CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665-2000 [email protected] Atlanta, GA Charlotte, NC Cherry Hill, NJ Chicago, IL Columbia, SC Dallas, TX Los Angeles, CA New York, NY Newark, NJ Philadelphia, PA San Diego, CA Seattle, WA W. Conshohocken, PA Westmont, NJ The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any current or former client of Cozen and O'Connor. These materials are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should not act or rely on this material without seeking specific legal advice on matters which concern them. Copyright (c) 2000 Cozen and O'Connor ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This article discusses the limitation of liability of carriers by sea and by land. As for ocean carriage, the article focuses primarily on the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. As for the carriage of goods by land, the article deals exclusively with interstate carriage and focuses primarily on motor carriers and rail carriers. Topics dealing with domestic and international air carriage are excluded from this article. I. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF CARRIERS OF GOODS BY WATER AND BY SEA There are three Acts which may come into play in determining the limitation of liability applicable to the carriage of goods by water and by sea: (1) the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA),1 (2) the Harter Act,2 and (3) the Limited Liability Act of 1851.3 A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Characterization of a Vessel As a Common Or Private Carrier, 48 Tulane L
    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 1974 The hC aracterization of a Vessel as a Common or Private Carrier Frank Chiang Fordham University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Frank Chiang, The Characterization of a Vessel as a Common or Private Carrier, 48 Tulane L. Rev. 299 (1974) Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/739 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CHARACTERIZATION OF A VESSEL AS A COMMON OR PRIVATE CARRIER YUNG F. CHIANG* INTRODUCTION The characterization of a water carrier as either a 'common or a private carrier involves the application of a common law doctrine' which continues to be of significance today. Originally the common law applied the term "carrier" solely to the counterpart of the modern day "common carrier," while the term "bailee" was applied to the counterpart of the modern day "private carrier."2 This com- mon law distinction was relevant with respect to the nature of the 3 liability which might attach to the carrier for damage to cargo, with respect to burdens of proof,4 and finally, with respect to lia- bility for refusal to carry a shipper's goods.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Dupes of Hope Forever:” the Loco-Foco Or Equal Rights Movement, 1820S-1870S
    “The Dupes of Hope Forever:” The Loco-Foco or Equal Rights Movement, 1820s-1870s by Anthony Comegna BA, Shippensburg University, 2010 MA, University of Pittsburgh, 2012 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2016 University of Pittsburgh Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences This dissertation was presented By Anthony Comegna It was defended on February 19, 2016 And approved by Seymour Drescher, Professor Emeritus, History Department Marcus Rediker, Distinguished Professor, History Department Werner Troesken, Professor, Economics Department Co-Chair: Van Beck Hall, Associate Professor, History Department Co-Chair: Gregor Thum, Associate Professor, History Department ii Co-Chairs: Van Beck Hall & Gregor Thum “The Dupes of Hope Forever:” The Loco-Foco or Equal Rights Movement, 1820s-1870s Anthony Comegna, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2016 This dissertation illustrates the impact of the Loco-Foco movement (1820s-1870s), most notably its role in the development of “Manifest Destiny,” the Free Soil Party, and the Republican Party. While historians have assumed that the Loco-Foco movement ended with the existence of the original third party in New York (1836-7), I pursue their philosophy and activism throughout the time and space of the late antebellum period. Loco-Focoism can be characterized as radical classical liberalism, including commitments to natural and equal rights, individualism, private property, laissez-faire, democratic republicanism, and, often, antislavery. Self-avowed and influential Loco-Focos included Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Walt Whitman, and countless other important figures in antebellum thought, culture, and politics ranging across the continent from New England and the northern border to the Pacific frontier zone and even the increasingly proslavery, anti-locofoco South.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms International 300 N
    INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyriglited materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
    [Show full text]