DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutional Convention

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Constitutional Convention CORNELL MODEL UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE 2021 Copyright © 2021 by the Cornell Model United Nations Conference All rights reserved. This document or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the Cornell Model United Nations Conference (CMUNC) except when used for educational purposes. Commercial reproduction or reference to this document requires the express written consent of the current Secretary-General of CMUNC. Further terms of use for commercial purposes will be determined on a case-by-case basis. For more information on CMUNC, use the Contact Us page located at: cmunc.net 2 CMUNC 2021 Secretariat Secretary-General Malvika Narayan Director-General Bryan Weintraub Chief of Staff James “Hamz” Piccirilli Director of Events Alexandra Tsalikis Director of Outreach Akosa Nwadiogbu Director of Communications Annie Rogers Director of Finance Daniel Bernstein Director of Operations Andrew Landesman Under-Secretary Generals Robyn Bardmesser Avery Bower John Clancy Mariana Goldlust 3 From Your Chair Dear Delegates, My name is Isaac Chasen, and I’m going to be your committee chair for the Constitutional Convention Specialized Committee! A little about me: I’m a sophomore from New York City, studying Applied Economics and Management in the Dyson School here at Cornell. I’m a bit of a political junkie, and a massive New York sports fan. I also enjoy reading, running, and watching a lot of TV in my free time. I’m super excited about chairing this committee for CMUNC 2021. There are so many different directions the committee can take, from discussing the size and scope of the federal government to individual liberties, to the structure of a national bank. I’m hoping for a robust, wide-ranging debate that will cover many of the topics you’ll read about in this background guide. I also want to note the different format of this upcoming conference. While we cannot convene together in Ithaca, I will do my best to make this committee run as though we were in person. I hope you all will still participate in all aspects of the conference, and that we can still have great debates over Zoom. I will certainly do my best to make the weekend as fun as it possibly can be. I can’t wait to meet you all in April. I think this committee has the potential for many exciting committee sessions. I’m looking forward to a great weekend of MUN, and I hope you are as well. If you have any questions about the committee prior to the conference, please do not hesitate to reach out to me by email at [email protected]. Isaac Chasen Constitutional Convention Chair CMUNC 2021 4 History The American Revolutionary War and The Articles of The Confederation In 1775, tensions between Great Britain and her American colonies over taxation boiled over into war. The resulting conflict lasted 8 years, pitting Britain against the newly formed American Republic (with extensive help from the French) (History). In the midst of the war, the Second Continental Congress convened to devise a framework for formal governance of the new nation (the First Continental Congress met prior to the commencement of hostilities, and resolved to boycott British commodities). The Second Continental Congress served to both provide a unified command for the Patriot war effort and give the fledgling American government legitimacy. To this end, the Articles of Confederation, a document signed by delegates from all 13 colonies, was adopted (History). The Articles established the United States as a confederacy of sovereign states, with a weak federal government; it was more a government of previously existing states instead of a government of individuals (Teaching American History). Eventually, due to a combination of imperial overextension and a British inability to project adequate military power, the war ended in the colonies’ favor. However, the years following the British capitulation were chaotic. The lack of a strong federal government resulted in a total absence of a collective economic policy (History). States quarreled with one another over tariffs, and no laws prevented states from circulating their own currencies (Independence Hall). An economic downturn immediately following the war exacerbated these structural problems. Shay’s Rebellion The state of Massachusetts, like many others, responded to the fiscal adversity it faced with very strict economic policies. Daniel Shay, a veteran of the Revolutionary War, perceived the government’s policies as economic terrorism. Shay rounded up a group of followers (Shaysites) to overthrow the state government (Independence Hall). Though the rebellion was suppressed, the need for a strong federal government was made abundantly clear. 5 Current Situation The Second Continental Congress created the Articles of Confederation in 1776. With this document came a new continental government that came into action in the early 1780s (Teaching American History). The people were unhappy with the Articles and with a system governed by the wealthy and community leaders. Shay’s Rebellion, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The people were gaining power. To avoid an overthrow of the system, leading intellectual of the time such as Alexander Hamilton had the idea to hold the Constitutional Convention. Even though separate states had their own constitutions, Hamilton (and many others) believed it was necessary to have a stronger central government (Teaching American History). Some delegates will want to revise the Articles of Confederation and maintain strong state powers, others will want an entirely new document that could potentially lead the country to be a world leader, others may come up with a creative compromise. You have been invited to this Convention to reconsider the status of the Articles, it is entirely up to you, your negotiation skills and your ability to compromise to determine what will happen with the system of governance in America. 6 Topics The Size and Structure of the Government Introduction Experience with the British government’s oppressive rule and the failure of the Articles of Confederation brought delegates to Philadelphia with very clear ideas on how they could best establish the size and structure of the government to create a successful long-term system. Each delegate had different ideas with regards to each issue. The primary issues regarding power are surrounding who should have power, how much they should have, and how it should be distributed and checked. Another large issue was how to format a legislature in order to best represent the people. The issue of equal representation versus representation by population was one that was highly contested. Finally, the delegates had to determine how religion would factor into the new document Some delegates hoped to come out of the convention with a document that answered all of these questions in the long-term while other delegates wanted to create a document that would be edited generationally. This meant establishing a flexible document that could adapt to the times and not defining any laws too closely. By settling these debates, the delegates aimed to create a nation that could best serve the people without being too oppressive or, on the other hand, insufficient. The Debate Over Power A primary issue during the convention was how much power the government should have and therefore how large it should be. Some delegates pushed for a large body that would have more power over the states as a whole. This group, known as the Federalists, felt that the Articles of Confederation had left the states too divided. Other delegates, as a group called the Anti-Federalists, advocated for a weaker central authority. They cited the tyrannical precedent of oppression set by Britain as reasoning for why a weaker central authority would best serve the nation. Some delegates wanted the states to have more power, other delegates elected for a stronger central body to hold more authority over the states (Lloyd) 7 Separation of Powers Regardless of their views on how much power the government should have, oppression by the British government had left all the delegates eager to establish a system of spreading that power to avoid one body gaining too much influence. This issue was also addressed in the Articles of Confederation; however, by leaving too much power with the states delegates found there was no unifying body to connect the states. While most delegates agreed that this should not be the case, the question of how to limit an executive’s power was very controversial. Their ideas included a diffusion of power and a system of election (“The Major Debates”). A major concern, however, was that the power would be left to one person. One option for separating the powers stemmed from philosopher Montesquieu’s tripartite system (“Separation of Powers”). In his 1748 book, Montesquieu discussed the benefits of power distributed across legislative, executive, and judicial bodies. Some delegates believed that this, the most highly decentralized of the options proposed, would be the best for establishing a government. Structure of the Legislature Perhaps one of the biggest questions was how to structure the legislative branch. The previous structure, established under the articles, was a unicameral body in which each state had one vote. One option was to continue this structure; states would be equally represented in one congress. Some delegates argued that this was misrepresentative of state population and instead pushed for a system in which larger and more populous states would have more votes. An additional issue within this debate was whether or not slaves should be counted in determining a population count. The delegates also had to determine how they would elect delegates to their congressional body or bodies. Some delegates felt that it would be best for members to be elected by the people while others felt the state legislature should have that authority (“The Major Debates”).
Recommended publications
  • How Bad Were the Official Records of the Federal Convention?

    How Bad Were the Official Records of the Federal Convention?

    How Bad Were the Official Records of the Federal Convention? Mary Sarah Bilder* ABSTRACT The official records of the ConstitutionalConvention of 1787 have been neglected and dismissed by scholars for the last century, largely to due to Max Farrand'scriticisms of both the records and the man responsible for keeping them-Secretary of the Convention William Jackson. This Article disagrees with Farrand'sconclusion that the Convention records were bad, and aims to resurrect the records and Jackson's reputation. The Article suggests that the endurance of Farrand'scritique arises in part from misinterpretationsof cer- tain proceduralcomponents of the Convention and failure to appreciate the significance of others, understandable consideringthe inaccessibility of the of- ficial records. The Article also describes the story of the records after the Con- vention but before they were published, including the physical limbo of the records in the aftermath of the Convention and the eventual deposit of the records in March 1796 amidst the rapid development of disagreements over constitutional interpretation. Finally, the Article offers a few cautionary re- flections about the lessons to be drawn from the official records. Particularly, it recommends using caution with Max Farrand's records, paying increased attention to the procedural context of the Convention, and recognizing that Constitutionalinterpretation postdated the Constitution. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1621 A NOTE ON THE RECORDS .....................................
  • Committee Releases Report Examining DPW's Efficiency

    Committee Releases Report Examining DPW's Efficiency

    Ad Populos, Non Aditus, Pervenimus Published Every Thursday Since September 3, 1890 (908) 232-4407 USPS 680020 Thursday, September 22, 2005 OUR 115th YEAR – ISSUE NO. 38-2005 Periodical – Postage Paid at Westfield, N.J. www.goleader.com [email protected] SIXTY CENTS Committee Releases Report Examining DPW’s Efficiency By PAUL J. PEYTON the division, a redesign of the DPW’s wide mailings, and an annual report Specially Written for The Westfield Leader North Avenue facility’s front entry to would enhance the division’s efforts, WESTFIELD -- A volunteer include a receptionist area for the the report states. Regular reports to citizen’s committee report reviewing division and a change in the phone the town council and a division name the operations of the maintenance system to properly direct calls to the are also encouraged, as are weekly and construction division of the de- administrative assistant. E-mail via staff meetings to discuss work priori- partment of public works (DPW) in- the town’s website for work orders is ties and monthly meetings with user cludes 14 recommendation on en- also recommended. groups including town sports leagues, hancing division productivity, com- Customer service training pro- the board of education, Westfield Area munication and customer service. The grams for all employees, establish- Chamber of Commerce, Downtown report was presented to the mayor ment of performance schedules for Westfield Corporation and the recre- amd town council Tuesday night. completion of work on trees, roads, ation department are recommended The committee recommends the parks and fields, etc., and the installa- to better plan for future DPW projects.
  • Philadelphia, the Indispensable City of the American Founding the FPRI Ginsburg—Satell Lecture 2020 Colonial Philadelphia

    Philadelphia, the Indispensable City of the American Founding the FPRI Ginsburg—Satell Lecture 2020 Colonial Philadelphia

    Philadelphia, the Indispensable City of the American Founding The FPRI Ginsburg—Satell Lecture 2020 Colonial Philadelphia Though its population was only 35,000 to 40,000 around 1776 Philadelphia was the largest city in North America and the second-largest English- speaking city in the world! Its harbor and central location made it a natural crossroads for the 13 British colonies. Its population was also unusually diverse, since the original Quaker colonists had become a dwindling minority among other English, Scottish, and Welsh inhabitants, a large admixture of Germans, plus French Huguenots, Dutchmen, and Sephardic Jews. But Beware of Prolepsis! Despite the city’s key position its centrality to the American Revolution was by no means inevitable. For that matter, American independence itself was by no means inevitable. For instance, William Penn (above) and Benjamin Franklin (below) were both ardent imperial patriots. We learned of Franklin’s loyalty to King George III last time…. Benjamin Franklin … … and the Crisis of the British Empire The FPRI Ginsburg-Satell Lecture 2019 The First Continental Congress met at Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia where representatives of 12 of the colonies met to protest Parliament’s Coercive Acts, deemed “Intolerable” by Americans. But Congress (narrowly) rejected the Galloway Plan under which Americans would form their own legislature and tax themselves on behalf of the British crown. Hence, “no taxation without representation” wasn’t really the issue. WHAT IF… The Redcoats had won the Battle of Bunker Hill (left)? The Continental Army had not escaped capture on Long Island (right)? Washington had been shot at the Battle of Brandywine (left)? Or dared not undertake the risky Yorktown campaign (right)? Why did King Charles II grant William Penn a charter for a New World colony nearly as large as England itself? Nobody knows, but his intention was to found a Quaker colony dedicated to peace, religious toleration, and prosperity.
  • Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in Maryland

    Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in Maryland

    Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in Maryland Founding the Proprietary Colony The founding and establishment of the propriety government of Maryland was the product of competing factors—political, commercial, social, and religious. It was intertwined with the history of one family, the Calverts, who were well established among the Yorkshire gentry and whose Catholic sympathies were widely known. George Calvert had been a favorite of the Stuart king, James I. In 1625, following a noteworthy career in politics, including periods as clerk of the Privy Council, member of Parliament, special emissary abroad of the king, and a principal secretary of state, Calvert openly declared his Catholicism. This declaration closed any future possibility of public office for him. Shortly thereafter, James elevated Calvert to the Irish peerage as the baron of Baltimore. Calvert’s absence from public office afforded him an opportunity to pursue his interests in overseas colonization. Calvert appealed to Charles I, son of James, for a land grant.1 Calvert’s appeal was honored, but he did not live to see a charter issued. In 1632, Charles granted a proprietary charter to Cecil Calvert, George’s son and the second baron of Baltimore, making him Maryland’s first proprietor. Maryland’s charter was the first long-lasting one of its kind to be issued among the thirteen mainland British American colonies. Proprietorships represented a real share in the king’s authority. They extended unusual power. Maryland’s charter, which constituted Calvert and his heirs as “the true and absolute Lords and Proprietaries of the Region,” might have been “the best example of a sweeping grant of power to a proprietor.” Proprietors could award land grants, confer titles, and establish courts, which included the prerogative of hearing appeals.
  • Tennessee Counties Named for Patriots & Founding Fathers

    Tennessee Counties Named for Patriots & Founding Fathers

    Tennessee Counties named for Patriots & Founding Fathers Photo County amed for Anderson County Joseph Anderson (1757-1837), U.S. Senator from TN, and first Comptroller of the U.S. Treasury. During the Revolutionary War, he was an officer in the New Jersey Line of the Continental Army. Bedford County Revolutionary War Officer Thomas Bedford Bledsoe County Anthony Bledsoe (ca 1795-1793), Revolutionary War Soldier, Surveyer, and early settler of Sumner County. Blount County William Blount (1749-1800) was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of North Carolina, the first and only Governor of the Southwest Territory, and was appointed as the Regimental Paymaster of the 3rd NC. Regiment during the Revolutionary War. Davidson County William Lee Davidson (1746-1781) a Brigadier General who died in the Revolutionary War Battle of Cowan’s Ford. DeKalb County Johann de Kalb (1721-1780) A German-born baron who assisted the Continentals during the Revolutionary War Fayette County Marquis de La Fayette (1757-1834) a French aristocrat and military officer who was a General in the Revolutionary War Franklin County Founding Father Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) Greene County Nathaniel Greene (1742-1786) Major General in the Continental Army During the Revolutionary War. Hamilton County Founding Father Alexander Hamilton (ca.1755- 1804) Hancock County John Hancock (1737-1794) President of the Continental Congress Hawkins County Benjamin Hawkins (1754-1816) was commissioned as a Colonel in the Continental Army where he served under George Washington for several years as his main French interpreter. Henry County Revolutionary-era Patriot Patrick Henry (1736- 1799) Jackson County Revolutionary War Veteran and President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845).
  • Impeachment As a Remedy

    Impeachment As a Remedy

    Washington University Law Review Volume 12 Issue 1 January 1926 Impeachment As a Remedy C. S. Potts Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation C. S. Potts, Impeachment As a Remedy, 12 ST. LOUIS L. REV. 015 (1926). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol12/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPEACHMENT AS A REMEDY IMPEACHMENT AS A REMEDY By C. S. Ports* On April 1, 1926, the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, after a series of committee investigations covering a period of more than a year, and after a vigorous and very earnest debate of three days duration,' resolved by a vote of nearly five to one2 to prefer impeachment charges against George W. English, United States district judge for the eastern district of Illinois. A few days later the charges were presented to the Senate, but that body, on account of the pressure of other matters, postponed the trial of the case until a special session of the Senate called to meet on Novem- ber 10, 1926. In this way the ponderous machinery of impeachment was set in motion, and, but for the recent resignation of the respondent, we would have witnessed the tenth1 great national trial, with the ninety-six senators sitting as judge and jury and the House of Repre- sentatives, through its board of managers, adding to its inquisitorial functions previously performed, those of prosecutor on behalf of the nation.
  • A TUB to the WHALE": the FOUNDING FATHERS and ADOPTION of the FEDERAL BILL of RIGHTS Kenneth R

    A TUB to the WHALE": the FOUNDING FATHERS and ADOPTION of the FEDERAL BILL of RIGHTS Kenneth R

    "A TUB TO THE WHALE": THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS Kenneth R. Bowling Seamen have a custom, when they meet a whale, to fling him out an empty tub by way of amusement, to divert him from laying violent hands upon the ship. Jonathan Swift, Tale of a Tub (1704) Like a barrel thrown to the whale, the people were to be amused with fancied amendments, until the harpoon of power, should secure its prey and render resistance ineffectual. [Samuel Bryan], ''Centinel NO. 19, ' ' (Philadel- phia) Independent Gazetteer, October 7, 1788 The constitutional role of the federal Bill of Rights has been monu- mental. This fact would surprise most members of the First Federal Congress, the body which reluctantly proposed to the states the con- stitutional amendments later called the Bill of Rights.' The Federalist Mr. Bowling is a member of the First Federal Congress Project at George Wash- ington University, Washington, D.C. This article is based upon a chapter in his "Politics in the First Congress, 1789-1791" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin 1968). Additional research was conducted under a grant from the National Endow- ment for the Humanities. ' Although much has been written about the Bill of Rights, very little of it re- lates to the legislative history of its adoption. This is particularly true about the polit- ical aspects, most of which are contained in previously unstudied manuscripts. Robert A. Rutland, The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776-1791 (Chapel Hill 1955), which focuses on the background of the amendments, aptly summarizes its passage through the First Federal Congress.
  • The Signers of the U.S. Constitution

    The Signers of the U.S. Constitution

    CONSTITUTIONFACTS.COM The U.S Constitution & Amendments: About the Signers (Continued) The Signers of the U.S. Constitution On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention came to a close in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There were seventy individuals chosen to attend the meetings with the initial purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island opted to not send any delegates. Fifty-five men attended most of the meetings, there were never more than forty-six present at any one time, and ultimately only thirty-nine delegates actually signed the Constitution. (William Jackson, who was the secretary of the convention, but not a delegate, also signed the Constitution. John Delaware was absent but had another delegate sign for him.) While offering incredible contributions, George Mason of Virginia, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign the final document because of basic philosophical differences. Mainly, they were fearful of an all-powerful government and wanted a bill of rights added to protect the rights of the people. The following is a list of those individuals who signed the Constitution along with a brief bit of information concerning what happened to each person after 1787. Many of those who signed the Constitution went on to serve more years in public service under the new form of government. The states are listed in alphabetical order followed by each state’s signers. Connecticut William S. Johnson (1727-1819)—He became the president of Columbia College (formerly known as King’s College), and was then appointed as a United States Senator in 1789.
  • Congressional Record-Senate. 1497

    Congressional Record-Senate. 1497

    1909~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1497 By 1\Ir. LOVERING:· Petition of T. S. Howes and others, of insecticides and fungicides in interstate commerce (H. R. Dennis Grange, No. 260, favoring a national Wghways commis- 21318)-to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. sion-to the Committee on Agriculture. · Also, petition of board of directors of New Jersey Chapter of By l\Ir. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan: Papers to accompany American Institute of Architects, favoring integrity of the plan bills for relief of Martin J. Cole and Eli D. Johnson-to the for improvement of Washington by placing the Lincoln me­ Committee on Invalid Pensions. morial at west end of the 1\iall-to the Committee on the By l\Ir. l\IALBY: Petition of Gouverneur (N. Y.) Grange, Library. favoring creation of a national Wghways commission-to the Also, petition of Hamilton Grange, No. 79, Pah·ons of Hus­ Committee on Agriculture. • bandry, of Hamilton Square, N. J., favoring establishment of By Mr. l\IANN: Petition of employees of Isthmian Canal postal savings banks and a parcels post-to the Committee on Commission and Panama Railroad Company, against action on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. part of United States Government or Isthmian Canal Commis­ sion curtailing commissary privileges-to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. SENATEG . Also, petition of Fort Worth (Tex.) freight bureau of Texas Hardware Jobbers' Association, favoring H. R. · 22901, 22902, THURSDAY, January 28,1909. and 22903, relative to interst..'lte-rate requirement-to the Com­ Prayer by ·the Chaplain, Rev. Edward E. Hale. mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
  • 6 City Square (Circa 1911-1922)

    6 City Square (Circa 1911-1922)

    1 6 City Square (circa 1911-1922) From: Boston Landmark Commission’s Charlestown Historic Resources Study 1981 (E. W. Gordon, Consultant)*: Number 6 City Square is a well-designed neoclassical bank building, faced with granite on the main façade and sidewalls of brick. There is a well executed mural on the south east wall with a tromp l’oeil Ionic portico, multi-pane round arched windows and dentilated entablature 6 City Square 2015 Original owner: Charlestown Trust Company Architecturally the former Charlestown Trust Company building is a fine example of early 20th century commercial 2 architecture. Particularly noteworthy are its main entrance’s elegant enframements- its portico in antis with monumental fluted Ionic columns and heavy dentilated and cornice-headed entablature. Also memorable is a mural, which covers the parking lot wall (possibly by Richard Haas?). 6 City Square entry detail, 1981 A Boston 200 plaque on the bank's main façade reads "In the late 18th century, no Charlestown resident as well known as Nathaniel Gorham. He was born here, became a successful 3 businessman and settled here with his family in the Gorham home fronting on City Square. During the Revolutionary war he served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate. He gained national recognition when he was named to the Continental Congress in the 1780s. He became its president in 1786 and signed the Constitution in 1787. He died in Charlestown in 1796". In 1875 three contiguous buildings number 6, 7, 8, 9 were located on this site. Two stables were located to the rear. At that time an E Baker owned this property.
  • Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment As Justice of the Peace

    Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment As Justice of the Peace

    Catholic University Law Review Volume 45 Issue 2 Winter 1996 Article 2 1996 Marbury's Travail: Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment as Justice of the Peace. David F. Forte Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation David F. Forte, Marbury's Travail: Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment as Justice of the Peace., 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 349 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol45/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES MARBURY'S TRAVAIL: FEDERALIST POLITICS AND WILLIAM MARBURY'S APPOINTMENT AS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE* David F. Forte** * The author certifies that, to the best of his ability and belief, each citation to unpublished manuscript sources accurately reflects the information or proposition asserted in the text. ** Professor of Law, Cleveland State University. A.B., Harvard University; M.A., Manchester University; Ph.D., University of Toronto; J.D., Columbia University. After four years of research in research libraries throughout the northeast and middle Atlantic states, it is difficult for me to thank the dozens of people who personally took an interest in this work and gave so much of their expertise to its completion. I apologize for the inevita- ble omissions that follow. My thanks to those who reviewed the text and gave me the benefits of their comments and advice: the late George Haskins, Forrest McDonald, Victor Rosenblum, William van Alstyne, Richard Aynes, Ronald Rotunda, James O'Fallon, Deborah Klein, Patricia Mc- Coy, and Steven Gottlieb.
  • Chapel Re-Opening in France Marks Ties to Carroll Students

    Chapel Re-Opening in France Marks Ties to Carroll Students

    Chapel re-opening in France marks ties to Carroll students SAINT-OMER, France – In a bright space that used to be a chapel for the College of English Jesuits here, 12 larger-than-life portraits hung along the side, representing students from a bygone era. The official opening of the Chapel of the Jesuits as a new arts and performing space for the town of Saint-Omer in northern France harkened back to the early days of the school, which opened in the 16th century, when Catholic worship was banned in England. The chapel’s re-opening to the public, after a four-year renovation, was a cooperative effort between the town of Saint-Omer and the United States, especially the state of Maryland. The Oct. 14 opening marked the 275th anniversary of the arrival at the English College by Daniel Carroll in 1742. Daniel’s brother John and cousin Charles followed the path to Saint-Omer in 1748. All were about 12 or 13 years old when they arrived at the school. Daniel Carroll of Rock Creek, born in 1730, one of only five people who signed both the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution, first arrived at the College of English Jesuits in 1742 and studied there for six years. John Carroll (b. 1735) and Charles Carroll of Carrolton (b. 1737), arrived at Saint- Omer in 1748. Inspired by the Jesuits teaching at the school, John joined the order, became a priest, and eventually was named the first bishop in the United States in 1789 when the Diocese of Baltimore covered the original 13 colonies.