DOCSLIB.ORG

Republican Nomination. at a Numerous and Respectable

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Republican nomination. At a numerous and respectable meeting of the Republicans of the county of Dutchess, convened pursuant to public motice, at Kelsey's Long-Room, in the town of Poughkeepsie, on Wednesday evening, April 1st, 1807 ... [Poughkeepsie, 1807]. REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. At a numerous and respectable meeting of the Republicans of the county of Dütchess, convened pursuant to public notice, at Kelsey's Long-Room, in the town of Poughkeepsie, on Wednesday evening, April 1st. 1807. CORNELIUS R. VAN WYCK, Secretary. JOSEPH THORN, Chairman, Resolved, that the Address to the Electors of the state of New-York, signed by a large majority of the Republican members of the legislature, & the Address of the Republican meeting of New-York, signed by Col. Few, Chairman, be read. These addresses having been read and unanimously approved.—Thereupon This meeting considering the present peculiar situation of this state and the republican cause, recollecting that about three years since Morgan Lewis was supported by republicans for the chief magistrate of this state, believing him at the time to possess republican principles and an uniformity of character, but disappointed in the principles, republicanism and conduct, of Morgan Lewis. Resolved unanimously, That Morgan Lewis does no longer possess our confidence, and in our opinion ought not to receive the support of any elector desirous to promote republican sentiments and ensure peace and harmony to the people. And amongst the many reasons which have led us to this determination we assign the following for the public consideration. For the duplicity of his conduct in opposing the Merchants Bank before his election and as soon as elected uniting with the colleagues of Purdy & Co to incorporate that institution. For disseminating the abominable principles that the means employed may be infamous and the motive of every member corrupt, and yet the law in itself be salutary and constitutional, thereby tending to corrupt the public sentiment of a people virtuous and independant. Republican nomination. At a numerous and respectable meeting of the Republicans of the county of Dutchess, convened pursuant to public motice, at Kelsey's Long-Room, in the town of Poughkeepsie, on Wednesday evening, April 1st, 1807 ... [Poughkeepsie, 1807]. http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.11302400 For withdrawing himself and his confidence from the republican party which elevated him to his present situation, & joining with men whose opinions are hostile to the republican sentiments which be professed. For uniting with a section & minority of the republican party, and denouncing as a faction a majority of that party which gave him his political existence. For descending from the dignity of his station, disclosing and misrepresenting the proceedings of his council, and writing with a view to gain partizans to a disappointed candidate for office. For sanctioning and approving of the proceedings of his present council of appointment, who call themselves republicans, who obtained their places by the aid of seventeen federal votes in the assembly, and who exercise their power in turning out of office republicans to make room for his followers and family connexions. For demanding in a suit against Thomas Farmer one hundred thousand dollars damages, because he presided as Chairman, and signed the proceedings of a republican meeting consisting, of upwards of one thousand free citizens of New-York, thereby intending to prevent the independant republicans of this state from meeting and expressing their sentiments of the conduct of their officers and servants. For delaying the appointment of a Judge of the Supreme Court for several months leaving the Supreme Court, the Court of Errors and the Council of Revision, destitute of the aid of an officer whose duties are so important, and as this meeting believe, for the sole purpose of gaining partizans, from among the friends of the expectants of that office. For not appointing a clerk for the county of Dutchess, in the place of the late Gilbert Livingston, thereby leaving the public records and documents of a respectable county without the care and superintendence of the proper officer, and in our opinion for the like motive of enlisting partizans from among the numerous expectants of that office. For consenting to become a candidate for Governor on a nomination of a minority of the Republican members of the Legislature, thus violating the first principles of Republicanism in refusing to submit to the majority, or impliedly confessing that he is not the Republican Candidate. Resolved, That this meeting do highly approve of the nomination made by a large majority of the Republican members of the Legislature of Daniel D. Tompkins, FOR GOVERNOR, AND John Broome, FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, And do recommend the above candidates to the support of all Republican nomination. At a numerous and respectable meeting of the Republicans of the county of Dutchess, convened pursuant to public motice, at Kelsey's Long-Room, in the town of Poughkeepsie, on Wednesday evening, April 1st, 1807 ... [Poughkeepsie, 1807]. http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.11302400 independent electors, as men of unblemished reputation possessing Republican sentiments, and uniformity of political characters, without numerous family connexions and dependants. Resolved That this meeting will nominate a candidate for the office of senator for the Middle District from the county of Dutchess, in the place of Robert Johnston, Enquire, by a committee from the different towns in the county. The committee then retired and after consultation they returned and reported that they had unanimously agreed to nominate Abraham H. Schenck, To be supported for that office at the ensuing election. Resolved, That this meeting highly approve of the nomination made by their sand committee. Resolved, That we concur in the nomination of Clark Lawrance, As a candidate for the office of Senator for the Middle district from the county of Delaware. Resolved, That we repose entire confidence in the patriotism of the President of the United States, and in the administration of the general government. Resolved, That we highly approve of the undeviating Republicanism and inflexible integrity of the hon. Robert Johnston. Resolved, That Gurdon Miller, Samuel Slee, George Bloom, Martin Hoffman, and Jabez Bosworth, be a committee to promote the election of the above candidates. JOSEPH THORN, Chairman. CORNELIUS R. VAN WYCK, Secretar To the Republican Electors of Dutchess County. Fellow-Citizens, REPOSING with confidence, on your virtue and discernment, and trusting, for success at the approaching election in the acknowledged integrity and republicanism of Judge Tompkins, we had thought it unnecessary to address you on the present occasion: but such unwarantable attempts have been made to seduce you from the paths of rectitude, that we feel it our duty to come forward, at this crisis, in order to check the progress of error and misrepresentation. Republican nomination. At a numerous and respectable meeting of the Republicans of the county of Dutchess, convened pursuant to public motice, at Kelsey's Long-Room, in the town of Poughkeepsie, on Wednesday evening, April 1st, 1807 ... [Poughkeepsie, 1807]. http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.11302400 The preceeding resolutions contain a summary of our objections against the re-election of Morgan Lewis. It is not our intention to add to this list of irrefragible charges against him: but, it may not be improper to state, that the Council of Appointment, for the present year, was chosen at an unusually early period. The principal reason, assigned for this extraordinary measure was the urgent necessity of appointing a Clerk for the county of Dutchess, and a Judge of the Supreme Court, offices which had long been vacant. The Council was accordingly chosen on the second day after the Legislature convened. It has often been in session. With this Council Governor Lewis has transacted much business of infinitely less moment to the state, displaced many true and incorruptible republicans, and elevated, to their places, federalists, and his family dependants. What possible explanation, honourable to the Governor and the other members of the Council can be given for this palpable inconsistency of conduct and gross neglect of the public interest? Will they presume to shield themselves, from public odium, under the paltry and pitiful excuse, that the offices are important, and that great deliberation is required in weighing and deciding the claims of the respective applicants for those posts? If the Council, composed of the Governor, and four prominent men of his party, cannot after two months deliberation, select two fit men for those offices, they are surely inadequate to the stations, they fill, and ought not again to receive your support. Yet this subterfuge has been reported to by the friends of Governor Lewis: but on the slightest investigation in fails them, and plainly discovers their object, in delaying these appointments, to be unjustifiable and disgraceful. Fellow Citizens! Read with candor and attention, the above resolutions, view the evident “defection” of Mr. Lewis from the republican party, and ask yourselves, whether he does not come recommended to you in a truly “questionable shape.” Who nominated him as a candidate for the office of Governor for the next three years? a minority of the republican members of the Legislature. Who are confessedly to support him at the ensuing election? A small minority of the Republicans of the state, in conjunction with the leaders of the federal party. Republicans! Have you not hitherto combatted federalism from principle? Have you not deemed federal measures productive of incalculable mischief to your country? With what plausibility of reason, or colour of patriotism then, can you abandon first principles and advocate so corrupt a union? Do you ask for proof of this coalition? We refer you to the noisy declamation of leading federalists; to their avowed partiality for Mr. Lewis, to the proceedings of the council of appointment & to the records of the state.
Recommended publications
  • De Witt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System in New York

    De Witt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System in New York

    73] Cornell University Library JK 731.M2 ... De Witt Clinton and the origin of th 3 1924 002 312 662 SlrUDEES IN HISTORY, ECONOMIOS AND PUBLIC LAW EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Volume XXVIII] [Number 1 De WITT CLINTON AUD THE ORIGIN OF THE SPOILS SYSTEM IN NEW YORK HOWARD LEE McBAIN, Ph.D., /Sometime Honorary Fellow in Constitutional Lam, Colwmhia Univeriity THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, AGENTS London : P. S. King & Son 1907 THE LIBRARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY 1 DeWITT CLINTON AND THE ORIOIN OF THE SPOILS SYSTEM IN NEW YORK Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924002312662 STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Volume XXVIII] [Number 1 De WITT CLINTON AND THE ORIGIN OF THE SPOILS SYSTEM IN NEW YORK HOWARD LEE McBAIN, Ph.D., Sometime Honorary Fellow in Constitutional Law, Colvmhia University THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, AGENTS London : P. S. King & Son 1907 Copyright, 1907, BY HOWARD LEE McBAIN 1 JK 1S) CONTENTS CHAPTER I EARLY PATRONAGE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION PAGE Introduction 11-15 Misrepresentations of DeWitt Clinton's policies 11-12 Sources for study of 12 Plan of present study of New York patronage 13-15 Relation of systems previous to 1801 13 Relation of national systems I3~i5 Washington's policy of patronage 15-25 His problems differ from those of his successors 16-17 His attitude toward anti-adoptionists 17-20 In general 17-18 In Rhode Island 18-20 His consideration of Revolutionary services 20-21 His general principles in making appointments 21-23 Later consideration of politics in cabinet appointments 23-24 His New York appointments—Theory of Hamiltonian influencejrefuted.
  • Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in New York

    Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in New York

    Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in New York During the decade preceding the War for Independence, New York was divided into two large provincial factions—the Delanceys and the Livingstons. When independence neared, the Delanceys were in power and they remained loyal to the king. The opposition to British imperial policy consisted of three groups—the radical elements led by New York City mechanics who advocated independence from Great Britain, a very conservative group that wanted reconciliation, and another conservative group that wanted to delay independence but would not give up key colonial rights. Because conservatives controlled the third Provincial Congress, that body gave no instructions on the question of independence to New York’s delegates to the Second Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia. Not being instructed, the New York delegation, standing alone, did not vote on independence on 2 July 1776. Earlier, in response to the Continental Congress’ resolution of 15 May 1776, the third Provincial Congress had called on the electors in the different counties to elect a fourth provincial congress which might draft a constitution creating a state government. The election took place and the new Provincial Congress on 9 July resolved unanimously to join the other colonies in declaring independence. The next day it renamed itself the Provincial Convention. On 1 August the Convention appointed a committee of thirteen to draft a state constitution and to report by 26 August. The committee did not report until 12 March 1777. After almost six weeks of debate, the Convention on 20 April voted “in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State” to adopt the constitution.
  • Washington and Saratoga Counties in the War of 1812 on Its Northern

    Washington and Saratoga Counties in the War of 1812 on Its Northern

    D. Reid Ross 5-8-15 WASHINGTON AND SARATOGA COUNTIES IN THE WAR OF 1812 ON ITS NORTHERN FRONTIER AND THE EIGHT REIDS AND ROSSES WHO FOUGHT IT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Illustrations Maj. Gen. Jacob Brown 3 Map upstate New York locations 4 Map of Champlain Valley locations 4 Chapters 1. Initial Support 5 2. The Niagara Campaign 6 3. Action on Lake Champlain at Whitehall and Training Camps for the Green Troops 10 4. The Battle of Plattsburg 12 5. Significance of the Battle 15 6. The Fort Erie Sortie and a Summary of the Records of the Four Rosses and Four Reids 15 7. Bibliography 15 2 Maj. Gen. Jacob Brown as depicted3 in an engraving published in 1862 4 1 INITIAL SUPPORT Daniel T. Tompkins, New York’s governor since 1807, and Peter B. Porter, the U.S. Congressman, first elected in 1808 to represent western New York, were leading advocates of a war of conquest against the British over Canada. Tompkins was particularly interested in recruiting and training a state militia and opening and equipping state arsenals in preparation for such a war. Normally, militiamen were obligated only for three months of duty during the War of 1812, although if the President requested, the period could be extended to a maximum of six months. When the militia was called into service by the governor or his officers, it was paid by the state. When called by the President or an officer of the U.S. Army, it was paid by the U.S. Treasury. In 1808, the United States Congress took the first steps toward federalizing state militias by appropriating $200,000 – a hopelessly inadequate sum – to arm and train citizen soldiers needed to supplement the nation’s tiny standing army.
  • The Constitutional History of New York

    The Constitutional History of New York

    The Constitutional History of New York Charles Z. Lincoln's five-volume The Constitutional History of New York from the Beginning of the Colonial Period to the Year 1905, Showing the Origin, Development, and Judicial Construction of the Constitution remains the authoritative history of the evolution of the State Constitution through the 19th century and the forces that shaped the principles it has embraced. The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York has excerpted a number of passages from this compilation which are of particular relevance to the history of the State Courts: • A profile of the author • The Colonial Judiciary • The New York Judiciary, 1777-1845 • The Judiciary Article Under the Third Constitution (1846) • The First Constitution, 1777 • Amendments to the First Constitution - The Convention of 1801 • Woman Suffrage • Woman Suffrage Addendum CHARLES Z. LINCOLN Charles Z. Lincoln was born August 5, 1848, at Grafton, Vermont. An orphan at eight years of age, he resided during his childhood years with various relatives. He was educated in public schools and at Chamberlain Institute, in Randolph, New York. Mr. Lincoln taught school in Cattaraugus and Chautauqua Counties until 1871, when he began the study of law with Joseph R. Jewell, at Little Valley, New York, and with Charles S. Cary, at Olean, New York. He was admitted to the bar in 1874 and thereafter engaged in private practice. He has been President and Attorney of [photograph and biographical Little Valley, a member of the Board of information courtesy of the Education, a State Senator and a Convention Manual of the Sixth New Delegate to the New York Constitutional York State Constitutional Convention Convention of 1894.
  • The Council of Revision and the Limits of Judicial Power James T

    The Council of Revision and the Limits of Judicial Power James T

    COMMENTS The Council of Revision and the Limits of Judicial Power James T. Barry IIIt The limits of judicial power and the proper role of the judici- ary in the Constitutional scheme have always been matters of great controversy. Recent manifestations of this controversy include the debate over the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment, the breadth of standing requirements, the inclusion of judges on the Federal Sentencing Commission, and the role of the judiciary in appointing independent counsels to investigate executive branch officials. Al- though these issues are usually discussed on more abstract grounds, the historical background of the Constitution often creeps into the debate. In this context, one event often mentioned is the Framers' de- bate over and rejection of a Council of Revision at the Constitu- tional Convention of 1787. The proposed Council would have vested the federal veto power in an institution composed of the President and several members of the federal judiciary, presuma- bly the Justices of the Supreme Court. The history of this proposal illustrates how the Framers, faced with a model of judicial involve- ment in the lawmaking process, chose instead a judiciary that took no part in the creation of laws. In so doing, the Framers effectively chose to preclude the courts from deciding matters of public policy and to create a special place for the courts in the separation of powers scheme. Though the history of the proposed Council is relevant to many issues that perennially confront the courts, scholars have given that history remarkably little attention. This comment seeks to remedy that lack of scholarship by examining the history of the t B.S.F.S., Georgetown University, 1986; J.D.
  • Claudius Victor Boughton: Namesake and Mystery Man

    Claudius Victor Boughton: Namesake and Mystery Man

    Claudius Victor Boughton: Namesake and Mystery Man By Preston E. Pierce The Ontario County Town of Victor was created by the legislature on May 26, 1812. Ch. 52 of the Laws of 1812 not only created the town by subdividing the old Town of Bloomfield, it also named the new township Victor. There is no doubt that the town is named for Claudius Victor Boughton. He was the son and grandson of a prominent founding family.1 His father and grandfather (Hezekiah Boughton, Sr. and Jr.) were soldiers of the Revolution. His uncle, Enos Boughton, made the original purchase (Number 11; 4th Range) of the land that became the Town of Victor from the Phelps and Gorham land company, using money supplied by Hezekiah Boughton, Sr. (and “other members of the family,”).2 Detail of 1790 map of Phelps and Gorham Purchase (see p. 19). Since at least 1851, the accepted explanation for the choice of a name for the town has been that Claudius Victor Boughton was a man of affairs and distinguished himself as a bearer of dispatches in the War of 1812.3 For his distinguished service, the state legislature may have presented Claudius Victor Boughton with a sword. That story has been widely repeated in nearly every local history. 1 Claudius Victor Boughton was the son of Hezekiah Boughton, Jr. (and Huldah Wilson); a brother of Enos Boughton who actually made the initial purchase of what became the Town of Victor. Enos was a secretary to William Walker, a land agent for Phelps and Gorham. See: Willis A.
  • CHAPTER IV. the Second Constitution, 1821

    CHAPTER IV. the Second Constitution, 1821

    CHAPTER IV. The Second Constitution, 1821. The evolution of our Constitution has brought it to a condition where amendments are comparatively easy. The rule requiring a vote by the people once every twenty years, or oftener, as the legislature may provide, to de­ termine whether a convention shall be called to revise the Constitution, affords frequent opportunities for con­ sidering the Constitution as a whole; while, by another provision, the legislature may, at any time, submit to the people specific propositions for amendment, without con­ sidering the whole instrument. This provision furnishes an easy method of altering the Constitution to meet new conditions; indeed, the method is rather too easy, for it affords opportunity for frequent attempted changes in the fundamental law; and if the Constitution, for any reason, happens to be unsatisfactory to a given class of people, and they find that they cannot do all that they think they wish to do, under the existing Constitution, they immediately seek to amend it, as if it were a statute, not possessing permanent character. The ease with which we may now propose amendments is in marked contrast to the difficulties surrounding the subject of constitutional changes during the first forty-five years of our history. It has already been noted that the first Constitution contained no provision for its own amendment. The legislature could not, as it may now do, submit to the people propositions for specific amendments, nor could [613] Digitized by the New York State Library from the Library's collections. 6i4 Constitutional History of New York. it direct that a convention be held to consider amend­ ments, or a general revision.
  • 1St New York State Legislature - Wikipedia

    1St New York State Legislature - Wikipedia

    1st New York State Legislature - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_New_York_State_Legislature The 1st New York State Legislature, consisting of the New York State 1st New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly, met from September 9, 1777, to Legislature June 30, 1778, during the first year of George Clinton's governorship, first at Kingston and later at Poughkeepsie. ← State 2nd → Constitutional Convention Background Apportionment and election Sessions State Senate Districts Senators Senate House, Kingston, the place Employees of the first session of the State State Assembly Senate (2007) Districts Overview Assemblymen Employees Jurisdiction New York, United States Notes Sources Term September 9, 1777 – June 30, 1778 Senate The 4th Provincial Congress of the Colony of New York convened at White Members 24 Plains on July 9, 1776, and declared the independence of the State of New President vacant York. The next day the delegates re-convened as the "Convention of Temporary Pierre Van Representatives of the State of New-York" and on August 1 a committee was President Cortlandt appointed to prepare a State Constitution. The New York Constitution was Assembly adopted by the Convention on April 20, 1777, and went into force Members 70 (de facto 65) immediately, without ratification by popular vote. Speaker Walter Livingston Sessions 1st September 1, 1777 – October The State Senators were elected on general tickets in the senatorial 7, 1778 districts, and were then divided into four classes. Six senators each drew 2nd January 5, 1778 – April 4, 1778 lots for a term of 1, 2, 3 or 4 years and, beginning at the following election in April 1778, every year one fourth of the State Senate seats came up for 3rd June 22, 1778 – June 30, 1778 election to a four-year term.[1] 1 of 7 12/17/2018, 12:04 PM 1st New York State Legislature - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_New_York_State_Legislature Assemblymen were elected countywide on general tickets to a one-year term, the whole assembly being renewed annually.
  • Commentaries on Chancellor Kent

    Commentaries on Chancellor Kent

    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 74 Issue 1 Symposium on Commemorating the Two Hundredth Anniversary of Chancellor Article 3 Kent's Ascension to the Bench December 1998 Commentaries on Chancellor Kent Judith S. Kaye Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Judith S. Kaye, Commentaries on Chancellor Kent, 74 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 11 (1998). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol74/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. COMMENTARIES ON CHANCELLOR KENT JUDITH S. KAYE* INTRODUCTION It is my distinct pleasure to be a part of this symposium on Chan- cellor James Kent, whose name stands securely alongside the giants of the law.' At this school, which bears his name, you understandably feel a special connection to Chancellor Kent. As Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York-our state's highest court-I too feel a special connection to him. Chancellor Kent's por- trait hangs directly over my shoulder as I sit on the bench of our magnificent courtroom in Albany.2 Every day during the Court's ses- sions, he looks out on attorneys presenting issues that were unimag- inable 200 years ago when he took the bench, yet he unquestionably contributed greatly to their resolution.
  • H. Doc. 108-222

    H. Doc. 108-222

    1854 Biographical Directory County, N.Y., and Wellsboro Academy, Wellsboro, Pa.; stud- Eighty-second Congresses); interment in Forest Home Ceme- ied law; was admitted to the bar in 1847 and commenced tery, Forest Park, Ill. practice in Lawrenceville, Pa.; district attorney of Tioga Bibliography: Boxerman, Burton A. ‘‘Adolph Joachim Sabath in Con- County 1850-1856; during the Civil War assisted in the or- gress: The Early Years, 1907-1932.’’ Journal of the Illinois State Historical ganization of Company A of the famous Bucktail Regiment; Society 66 (Autumn 1973): 327-40; Boxerman, Burton A. ‘‘Adolph Joachim appointed by Governor Curtin paymaster with the rank of Sabath in Congress: The Roosevelt and Truman Years.’’ Journal of the Il- linois State Historical Society66 (Winter 1973): 428-43. major in the reserve corps; moved to Pottsville, Pa., and resumed the practice of law; elected as a Democrat to the SABIN, Alvah, a Representative from Vermont; born in Forty-sixth Congress (March 4, 1879-March 3, 1881); presi- Georgia, Franklin County, Vt., October 23, 1793; attended dent of the Pennsylvania National Bank for several years; the common schools and Burlington College; member of the also interested in various other business enterprises; died State militia and served during the War of 1812; studied in Pottsville, Schuylkill County, Pa., March 12, 1901; inter- theology in Philadelphia; was graduated from Columbian ment in St. Patrick’s (No. 3) Cemetery. College (now George Washington University), Washington, D.C., in 1821; was ordained a minister and preached at RYTER, Joseph Francis, a Representative from Con- Cambridge, Westfield, and Underhill until 1825, when he necticut; born in Hartford, Conn., February 4, 1914; at- returned to Georgia, Vt.; was pastor of the Georgia Baptist tended the parochial schools and St.
  • "The Jacksonian Reformation: Political Patronage and Republican Identity"

    "The Jacksonian Reformation: Political Patronage and Republican Identity"

    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2019 "The Jacksonian Reformation: Political Patronage and Republican Identity" Max Matherne University of Tennessee Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Recommended Citation Matherne, Max, ""The Jacksonian Reformation: Political Patronage and Republican Identity". " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2019. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/5675 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Max Matherne entitled ""The Jacksonian Reformation: Political Patronage and Republican Identity"." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in History. Daniel Feller, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Luke Harlow, Ernest Freeberg, Reeve Huston Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) The Jacksonian Reformation: Political Patronage and Republican Identity A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Max Matherne August 2019 Dedicated to the memory of Joshua Stephen Hodge (1984-2019), a great historian and an even better friend.
  • Judicial Notice / Issue 5

    Judicial Notice / Issue 5

    ISSUE 5 AUTUMN 2007 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York JOHN JAY AS NEW YORK'S FIRST TO BETTER THE BENCH: The Labor of CHIEF JUSTICE BY WalteR StahR C. C. Burlingham1 n the late spring of 1777, after finishing their work BY GEORge MARtin OFFICERS: on the state constitution, John Jay and the other del- egates meeting in Kingston turned to the question of Albert M. Rosenblatt, hat, YOU maY asK, who would fill certain key positions in the new state President I can a single lawyer, government. The constitution provided a procedure W not holding public office, for appointing justices and most other state officers: a council of John D. Gordan, III, do to improve the quality of appointment consisting of the governor and four Vice President his state’s judges? “Nothing” senators. However, fearing that the war doubtless would have been would delay the election of a governor Frances Murray, the answer given by most Secretary and senators and anxious for the new lawyers who practiced in New courts to start work, the delegates York City in the early twen- Stephen P. Younger, named the judicial officers imme- tieth century. But Charles C. Treasuer diately, with the proviso that they Burlingham, generally known Marilyn Marcus, ‘John Jay, by B.B.E.’, one of the earliest Executive Director portraits of Jay, by an artist now known only by his initials. BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Helaine M. Barnett would only continue to serve if con- Barbara A. Brinkley firmed by the council of appointment at its first session.