DOCSLIB.ORG

Fighting for the Speakership: the House and the Rise of Party Government

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fighting for the Speakership: the House and the Rise of Party Government Fighting for the Speakership: The House and the Rise of Party Government Jeffery A. Jenkins Department of Politics University of Virginia Charles Stewart III Department of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Chapter Outline Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. The Evolving Roles and Responsibilities of House Officers in the Antebellum Era Chapter 3. Organizational Politics under the Secret Ballot Chapter 4. Bringing the Selection of House Officers into the Open Chapter 5. Shoring Up Partisan Control: The Speakership Elections of 1839 and 1847 Chapter 6. Partisan Tumult on the Floor: The Speakership Elections of 1849 and 1855-56 Chapter 7. The Speakership and the Rise of the Republican Party Chapter 8. The Organizational Caucus Institutionalizes, 1861–1891 Chapter 9. The Organizational Caucus Persists, 1891–2011 Chapter 10. Conclusion Chapter 1 Introduction The U.S. House of Representatives is organized by whichever political party holds a majority of its seats. This fact has consequences. Controlling the organization of the House means that the majority party decides who will preside over its deliberations, who will set the policy agenda, and who will dominate the workhorses of the chamber, the standing committees. Organizing the House does not mean the majority party will win all battles, but it does give the party a leg-up in virtually any question that gets considered by that body. There is nothing in the Constitution that rests the organization of the House in the hands of the majority party. The practice has evolved over the past two centuries, to the point that party organization of the House has become routinized. Ahead of each election, the two parties announce that they will meet in caucus on a date certain, just after the election, to choose not just their own leaders, but also their nominees for the leadership positions of the chamber, notably the Speaker as well as other officers like the Clerk. The party caucuses also select the committee slates, including the chairs. When the new House finally convenes, the decisions determined in caucus are presented to the full House by the caucus leaders, where they are ratified either by party-line votes (as in the case of the speakership election) or by unanimous consent (as in the case of committee slates, including the chairs). It was not always this way. For the first half century after the founding of the Nation, it would be a stretch to say that parties controlled the organization of the House at all; it would be a lie to say that the organization of the House was routine. The first several Congresses chose Speakers and other officers who were known by contemporaries to be dedicated Federalists and Republicans, but they were not nominated by Federalist or Republican caucuses. When caucuses 1-2 arrived on the scene in the 1840s, their record was spotty. They sometimes settled on a nominee, sometimes not — and even when they did, the nomination often exhibited little weight on the final outcome. For example, anyone not physically present at the caucus meeting was under no obligation to support the nominee. Thus, party caucuses might settle organizational matters, but quite frequently they were just the first round of a fight that would resume on the House floor. Before the Civil War, struggle, contention, and deadlock over the organization of the House was common. Nearly one-third of all speakership contests from the founding of the Republic until the outbreak of the Civil War (13 of 41) took more than one ballot to resolve. At least twice, the “minority party” actually saw one of their own elected Speaker. Even the selection of subordinate offices could be contentious. During the same antebellum period, the House required multiple ballots to select its Clerk nine times and its Printer four times. If the majority party did not routinely control the top officers of the House, why would we expect them to control the committees? Even though party caucuses and leaders had a role in determining committee lists, the composition of important congressional committees well into the nineteenth century frequently favored the minority party (Canon and Stewart 1995, 2001; Canon, Nelson, and Stewart 2002). The first Speaker, Frederick Muhlenberg, was selected through an informal process that lacked any trappings of formal party politics, and he initially lacked the authority to appoint committees. Modern Speakers, such as Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, and John Boehner, are recognized primarily as agents of their parties who are expected (normatively and empirically) to use the formal levers of power in the House to further their parties’ legislative goals. The standing committees are constructed by party-based “committees on committees” that have 1-3 increasingly used the lens of party goals to focus attention on whom to give plum assignments and to allow to chair the committees (Dodd and Oppenheimer 2001; Aldrich and Rohde 2005; Sinclair 2005, 2006). How did we move from the world of Muhlenberg to the world of Boehner? What difference did this evolution make for internal House politics, policymaking, and the course of American political development? These are the questions that animate this book. At the core is our account of how the chief House officers, but especially the Speaker, came to be presumptively owned by the majority party, meaning operationally, the majority party caucus. Party caucuses first arose in the mid-1790s, in an attempt to bind party members in the critical organizational votes that are the first order of business when a new Congress convenes (Harlow 1917; Risjord 1992).1 Yet, they were only sporadically employed in the earliest years of the Republic and largely fell into disuse in the early years of the nineteenth century. The role of the majority party caucus in the formal organization of the House reentered regular practice later in the nineteenth century. The grip of the majority party caucus on organizational matters tightened twice, at moments when the political stakes were high and party leaders saw control of the Speaker and other senior House officers as central to achieving their political goals. The first instance was during the early years of the Second Party System, when Martin Van Buren and his followers recognized that the formal leadership of the House possessed valuable resources for the creation of effective mass political parties in the United 1 At the same time, congressional caucuses (made up of party members of both the House and Senate) were major players in determining presidential nominations. These congressional nominating caucuses were a staple of the First Party System, and lasted through 1824. 1-4 States. The second instance was during the Civil War, when efforts to effect a cross-party organization in the prior Congress nearly backfired for the majority Republicans. These were two critical moments in the history of the House’s organization that resulted in the majority party caucus claiming an enhanced role in determining who would sit in the chair and who would dominate the committees. However, the influence of party on the House’s organization did not grow monotonically. Rather, from the 1830s to the 1860s, the House often fought bitterly over who the Speaker and other officers would be, with the party caucus playing a highly variable role in determining the final outcome. The primary reason why the majority party failed to guarantee its predominance in organizing the House after the 1830s is that Van Buren and his followers also unwittingly created a highly visible platform on which anti- and pro-slavery forces could test their strength in national politics. This platform was constructed by a House rules change in 1838 that for the first time made the ballot for Speaker public. (Previously, the balloting for all House officers, including Speaker, had been secret.) The rules change was instituted to give party leaders reliable information about who had supported the party nominee for Speaker and other offices. Before long, it was transformed into a mechanism for the ultras on both sides of the slavery debate to observe who was voting for nominees considered to be on the “right” side of the issue — not at all what the Van Burenites had in mind. The modern Republican party, starting with the second Civil War Congress, established the party caucus, once-and-for-all, as the only legitimate venue for the resolution of intra-party divisions about who would be Speaker. The utility of settling internecine disputes in caucus and then presenting a united front on the floor was quickly recognized by the minority Democrats, who followed suit by settling on their Speaker nominee in caucus, too. As a result, the opening 1-5 session of the 39th Congress (1865) was the first in which each party officially placed a single individual’s name into nomination for Speaker and then proceeded to vote for these nominees strictly by party. The Civil War Congresses were unique in American history, owing to the exclusion of the South from the body. The majority Republicans were a purely regional party by construction and highly cohesive, viewed historically. The minority Democrats were also northern, but not by construction. When the South returned to the House at the end of Reconstruction, the result was to make the two parties more evenly matched numerically. They also became more ideologically diverse. These two factors — narrow party margins and ideologically divided parties — had been the primary ingredients that fueled the intense battles over the speakership before the Civil War. And yet, unlike the antebellum era, the parties after the Civil War managed to keep their fights to themselves and their ideological divisions from spilling out onto the House floor. As a consequence, when Thomas Brackett Reed (R-Me.) became Speaker in 1889, the common understanding in the House, bolstered by two decades of experience, was that the party caucuses were cohesive on organizational matters.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EDWARD J. GAY and FAMILY PAPERS (Mss
    EDWARD J. GAY AND FAMILY PAPERS (Mss. 1295) Inventory Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collections Special Collections, Hill Memorial Library Louisiana State University Libraries Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Reformatted 2007-2008 By John Hansen and Caroline Richard Updated 2013 Jennifer Mitchell GAY (EDWARD J. AND FAMILY) PAPERS Mss. # 1295 1797-1938 SPECIAL COLLECTIONS, LSU LIBRARIES CONTENTS OF INVENTORY SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3 BIOGRAPHICAL/HISTORICAL NOTE ...................................................................................... 4 SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE ................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF SERIES ............................................................................................................................ 7 Series I., Correspondence and Other Papers, 1797-1938, undated ................................................. 8 Series II., Printed Items, 1837-1911, undated ............................................................................... 58 Series III., Photographs, 1874-1901, undated. .............................................................................. 59 Series IV. Manuscript Volumes, 1825-1919, undated. ................................................................ 60 CONTAINER LIST .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Capitol Dome
    THE CAPITOL DOME The Capitol in the Movies John Quincy Adams and Speakers of the House Irish Artists in the Capitol Complex Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way A MAGAZINE OF HISTORY PUBLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL HISTORICAL SOCIETYVOLUME 55, NUMBER 22018 From the Editor’s Desk Like the lantern shining within the Tholos Dr. Paula Murphy, like Peart, studies atop the Dome whenever either or both America from the British Isles. Her research chambers of Congress are in session, this into Irish and Irish-American contributions issue of The Capitol Dome sheds light in all to the Capitol complex confirms an import- directions. Two of the four articles deal pri- ant artistic legacy while revealing some sur- marily with art, one focuses on politics, and prising contributions from important but one is a fascinating exposé of how the two unsung artists. Her research on this side of can overlap. “the Pond” was supported by a USCHS In the first article, Michael Canning Capitol Fellowship. reveals how the Capitol, far from being only Another Capitol Fellow alumnus, John a palette for other artist’s creations, has been Busch, makes an ingenious case-study of an artist (actor) in its own right. Whether as the historical impact of steam navigation. a walk-on in a cameo role (as in Quiz Show), Throughout the nineteenth century, steam- or a featured performer sharing the marquee boats shared top billing with locomotives as (as in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), the the most celebrated and recognizable motif of Capitol, Library of Congress, and other sites technological progress.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW ORLEANS NOSTALGIA Remembering New Orleans History, Culture and Traditions
    NEW ORLEANS NOSTALGIA Remembering New Orleans History, Culture and Traditions By Ned Hémard Royal Gumbo “What is New Orleans?” asked Kermit Ruffins, New Orleans jazz trumpeter and vocalist. His answer is the very essence of the Crescent City: “New Orleans is Creole gumbo, filé gumbo, cowan gumbo, chicken gumbo, smoked sausage gumbo, hot sausage gumbo, onion gumbo.” Cowan, or snapping turtle, for sale in New Orleans’ Ninth Ward For a remarkable description of a mouth-watering Louisiana gumbo, there is none better than that offered by food historian, writer and documentary filmmaker, Lolis Eric Elie, in an article appearing in the Smithsonian (2012). And of course, as we all might do, he said his mom’s was by far the best: “My mother’s gumbo is made with okra, shrimp, crabs and several kinds of sausage (the onions, garlic, bell pepper, celery, parsley, green onions and bay leaf go without saying). My mother’s gumbo is a pleasing brown shade, roughly the color of my skin. It is slightly thickened with a roux, that mixture of flour and fat (be it vegetable, animal or dairy) that is French in origin and emblematic of Louisiana cooking. When served over rice, my mother’s gumbo is roughly the consistency of chicken and rice soup.” Chef John Besh’s idea of his “Mamma’s Seafood Gumbo” Gumbo, called a soup by some, a stew by others, is categorized by which of the the three thickeners is used: okra, filé or roux. It is understandable that there is much controversy surrounding the origins and etymology of this popular South Louisiana dish.
    [Show full text]
  • Xerox University Microfilms 3 0 0North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75 - 21,515
    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e 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 thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper le ft hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Antislavery Violence and Secession, October 1859
    ANTISLAVERY VIOLENCE AND SECESSION, OCTOBER 1859 – APRIL 1861 by DAVID JONATHAN WHITE GEORGE C. RABLE, COMMITTEE CHAIR LAWRENCE F. KOHL KARI FREDERICKSON HAROLD SELESKY DIANNE BRAGG A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2017 Copyright David Jonathan White 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the collapse of southern Unionism between October 1859 and April 1861. This study argues that a series of events of violent antislavery and southern perceptions of northern support for them caused white southerners to rethink the value of the Union and their place in it. John Brown’s raid at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and northern expressions of personal support for Brown brought the Union into question in white southern eyes. White southerners were shocked when Republican governors in northern states acted to protect members of John Brown’s organization from prosecution in Virginia. Southern states invested large sums of money in their militia forces, and explored laws to control potentially dangerous populations such as northern travelling salesmen, whites “tampering” with slaves, and free African-Americans. Many Republicans endorsed a book by Hinton Rowan Helper which southerners believed encouraged antislavery violence and a Senate committee investigated whether an antislavery conspiracy had existed before Harpers Ferry. In the summer of 1860, a series of unexplained fires in Texas exacerbated white southern fear. As the presidential election approached in 1860, white southerners hoped for northern voters to repudiate the Republicans. When northern voters did not, white southerners generally rejected the Union.
    [Show full text]
  • The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860
    PRESERVING THE WHITE MAN’S REPUBLIC: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM, 1847-1860 Joshua A. Lynn A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Harry L. Watson William L. Barney Laura F. Edwards Joseph T. Glatthaar Michael Lienesch © 2015 Joshua A. Lynn ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Joshua A. Lynn: Preserving the White Man’s Republic: The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860 (Under the direction of Harry L. Watson) In the late 1840s and 1850s, the American Democratic party redefined itself as “conservative.” Yet Democrats’ preexisting dedication to majoritarian democracy, liberal individualism, and white supremacy had not changed. Democrats believed that “fanatical” reformers, who opposed slavery and advanced the rights of African Americans and women, imperiled the white man’s republic they had crafted in the early 1800s. There were no more abstract notions of freedom to boundlessly unfold; there was only the existing liberty of white men to conserve. Democrats therefore recast democracy, previously a progressive means to expand rights, as a way for local majorities to police racial and gender boundaries. In the process, they reinvigorated American conservatism by placing it on a foundation of majoritarian democracy. Empowering white men to democratically govern all other Americans, Democrats contended, would preserve their prerogatives. With the policy of “popular sovereignty,” for instance, Democrats left slavery’s expansion to territorial settlers’ democratic decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • Stonewall Jackson
    AMERICAN CRISIS BIOGRAPHIES STONEWALL JACKSON HENRY ALEXANDER WHITE. A.M.. Ph.D. Author of " Robert E. Lee and the Southern Confederacy," "A History of the United States," etc. PHILADELPHIA GEORGE W. JACOBS & COMPANY PUBLISHERS COPYRIGHT, 1908, BY GEORGE W. JACOBS & COMPANY Published January, 1909 This volume is dedicated to My Wife Fanny Beverley Wellford White PREFACE THE present biography of Stonewall Jackson is based upon an examination of original sources, as far as these are available. The accounts of Jack son s early life and of the development of his per sonal character are drawn, for the most part, from Doctor Eobert L. Dabney s biography and from Jackson s Life and Letters, by Mrs. Jackson. The Official Eecords of the war, of course, constitute the main source of the account here given of Jackson s military operations. Colonel G. F. E. Henderson s Life is an admirable of his career study military ; Doctor Dabney s biography, however, must remain the chief source of our knowledge concerning the personality of the Confederate leader. Written accounts by eye-witnesses, and oral statements made to the writer by participants in Jackson s campaigns, have been of great service in the preparation of this volume. Some of these are mentioned in the partial list of sources given in the bibliography. HENRY ALEXANDER WHITE. Columbia, S. C. CONTENTS CHRONOLOGY 11 I. EARLY YEARS 15 II. AT WEST POINT .... 25 III. THE MEXICAN WAR ... 34 IV. THE VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE 47 V. THE BEGINNING OF WAR . 63 VI. COMMANDER OF VOLUNTEERS AT HARPER S FERRY ..
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Middletown Transcript Take Orders for Funeral'work
    'î-.r : • pppf gtiSfl — I.....M.7.. I R:ü keep at store cut Sowers, also PERSONALITIES THE EPISCOPAL SUNDAY-SCHOOLS TOWNSEND The Middletown Transcript take orders for funeral'work. E. J. Hiss Elnora Davis is visiting friends in Seventh Annual Institute to be Held at Sherman Webb, of Odessa, visited town Steel«, Store in Town Hall. Sassafras Md. -■ Seaford Next Week on Sunday. Matts clos® as Follows, The Rev. F. H. Moore will preach in Mrs. Ida R. McCrone has been visiting The seventh annual Sunday-school in­ Mrs. Maggie Lee is visiting relatives Men’s Nobby (Join* North—7.20 a. m , 10.0ia.m.,S.50 p.m., the Armstrong Chapel on next Sunday %43 p. m. and 9 p.m. „ _ in Baltimore. stitute of the Diocese of Delaware will be near Smyrna. Going South—8.00 a.m.. 1.10 p. m„ and * p.m afternoon at 2.30 o’clock. All are cor­ held at St. Luke’s P. E. Church, Seaford, For Odessa—75.0 a. m.. a. m. li-3u ». in., Miss Lenora Lee is spending.this week Miss Shake, of Georgetown, is visiting dially invited. next week, beginning on Monday even- 4-For'Warwick. Cecilton and Earlville S.20 a, at Atlantic City. Mrs. Husfelt this week. The members of the W. C. T. U. are The programme is as follows: High=grade m, and 4.46 p. m. mjr. delighted with the success of the supper Mr. and Mrs. E S. Jones weie in Wil­ Monday—7.45 P. M., The confirmation Walter Bolton, of near town, is visiting MIDDLETOWN, DEL., MAY 4, 1907.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record
    CONGRESSIONAL• RECORD. PROCEEDINGS .AND DEBATES OF THE FORTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. SESSION. IN .SENATE. circumstances of great mercy, in the enjoyment of reason, and of health and every needed blessing. MONDAY, December 1, 1879. It hath seemed good unto Thee, 0 God, in Thine inscrntB,ble provi­ dence, to remove by the hand of death from this body one of its mem­ The first Monday of December being "the day prescribed by the Con­ bers. We pray that Thou wouldst bless his affilcted family. Sustain stitution of the United States for the annual meeting of Congress, the them in their sore bereavement and comfort them with the consola­ second session of the Forty-sixth Congress commenced this day. tions of our most holy religion. And may we be deeply impressed, . The Senators assembled in the Senate Chamber in the Capitol at by this solemn event, of our own mortality, of the shortness and un­ Washington City. certainty of life, and of the importance of being prepared for our The VICE-PRESIDENT of the United States (Hon. WILLIAM A. departure; for we know neither the day nor the hour when we shall WHEELER, of New York) took the chair and called the Senate to or- be called hence. der at twelve o'clock noon. · And, 0 God, we invoke Thy blessing to rest upon another member SENATORS PRESENT. of this body, whom Thou hast sorely stricken, in removing by death The following Senators were prt:i;ent: from his companionship the partner of his joys and his sorrows. We F1·om the State of­ invoke Thy blessing to rest upon him in his sore affliction.
    [Show full text]
  • The King's Mountain Men, the Story of the Battle, with Sketches of The
    THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY 9733364 W58k ILLINOIS HISTORICAL SDRVW i THE KING'S MOUNTAIN MEN THE STORY OF THE BATTLE, WITH SKETCHES OF THE AMERIGAN SOLDIERS WHO TOOK PART KATHRINE KEOGH WHITE Author of 'ABRAM RYAN. Poet-Priest of the South;'* "THE LAND PIRATES OF THE SOUTH;" "THE GANDER- TOURNAMENT OF THE SOUTHERN MOUNTAINS;" Etc. DAYTON, VIRGINIA JOSEPH K. RUEBUSH COMPANY vm COPYRIGHT BY JOSEPH K. RUEBUSH CO. 1924 DEDICATED TO MY BROTHER, WILLIAM THOMAS WARREN WHITE Student, Educator and Scholar r 54307; i The Edition of this Book Has Been Limited to Five Hundred Copies SECTION ONE Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/kingsmountainmenOOwhit CONTENTS SECTION ONE PREFACE Page I. The Battle of King's Mountain 3 II. Watauga and Its Records 6 III. General John Sevier 64 IV. Letter by Draper to Martin 68 V. Letters by Christian to Draper 79 VI. Franklin and the Whites 97 VII. Militia Rosters 103 VIII. Incident in the Life of Alexander Moore 105 IX. Greer and McElwee Data 107 X. Diary of Captain Alexander Chesney 108 XI. Sundry Pension Declarations 113 SECTION TWO Personal Sketches of King's Mountain Soldiers APPENDIX Tennessee Revolutionary Pensioners List BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX PREFACE The list in this book, of the heroes who won the battle of King's Mountain, does not assume to be complete. So far as I am aware, no rosters are in existence. Historians are not agreed as to the number of the Americans who were in the expedition.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Contributions & Related Activity Report
    Political Contributions & Related Activity Report 2010 CARTER BECK JOHN JESSER DAVID KRETSCHMER SVP & Counsel VP, Provider Engagement & COC SVP, Treasurer & Chief Investment Officer ANDREW LANG LISA LATTS SVP, Chief Information Officer Staff VP, Public Health Policy MIKE MELLOH VP, Human Resources DEB MOESSNER ANDREW MORRISON 2010 WellPAC President & General Manager KY SVP, Public Affairs BRIAN SASSI WellPAC Chairman EVP, Strategy & Marketing, Board of Directors BRIAN SWEET President & CEO Consumer VP, Chief Clinical Pharmacy Officer JOHN WILLEY Director, Government Relations TRACY WINN ALAN ALBRIGHT WellPAC Treasurer Manager, Public Affairs Legal Counsel to WellPAC WellPAC Assistant Treasurer & Executive Director 1 from the Chairman Recognizing the impact that public policy decisions have on our stakeholders, WellPoint has made a commitment to be involved in the political process. Our efforts include policy development, direct advocacy, lawful corporate contributions and the sponsorship of WellPAC, the non- partisan political action committee of WellPoint associates. WellPAC’s purpose is to help elect candidates for federal and state office who share our mission of making health care reform work for our customers, our associates, our investors and the communities we serve. WellPoint pays the PAC’s administrative costs as allowed by law, but all WellPAC contributions are funded through the voluntary support of eligible WellPoint associates. In 2010, WellPAC contributed $596,999 to federal candidates, political parties and committees, and $192,581 to candidates and committees at the state and local levels. In total, WellPoint made more than $2.8 million in corporate political contributions. Additionally, our public affairs team actively engaged with lawmakers and candidates at the federal level, and in our 14 core business states.
    [Show full text]