The Lee Family and Freedom of the Press in Virginia the Free Press Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Lee Family and Freedom of the Press in Virginia the Free Press Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S ROGER MELLEN The Lee Family and Freedom of the Press in Virginia The free press clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is considered a unique and important part of our American democracy. While the origins of this right are a key to current legal interpretations, there is much misunderstanding about its genesis. This research uses eighteenth-century personal correspondence, other archival evidence, and published articles to demonstrate new connections between the Lee family of Virginia and the constitutional right to a free press. The important tradition of freedom of the press in the United of Virginia led Madison to pledge proposing a bill of rights if States owes a greater debt to one important family in Virginia than he were elected to Congress.2 When he did join the new House has been previously recognized. When we reflect upon the origins of of Representatives, Madison did as promised and composed the the right to freedom of the press, we tend to remember John Locke, amendments. He had as his template objections voiced to the new John Milton, James Madison, or even Thomas Jefferson. Delving a Constitution by the state ratifying conventions and the bills of bit more deeply, we might even connect to George Mason and the rights passed by many of the states, including the groundbreaking Virginia Declaration of Rights—the first time press freedom was Declaration of Rights of Virginia.3 enshrined within a bill of rights. Looking at British political roots, In the years since the states ratified the First Amendment, we may even link the concept to Sir William Blackstone, Lord many historians and legal theorists have tried to determine Bolingbroke, Cato (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon), or John its original intent, especially with regards to seditious libel (or Wilkes. However, digging deeper into the colonial American roots, prosecution by the government after-the-fact for criticism of this research finds an important association between the genesis government). Proponents of the Sedition Act of 1798 argued that of the idea of restricting a government’s freedom to interfere with it did not violate the First Amendment,4 although it appears to the press and three of the brothers from a famous Virginia family: have been a law abridging the freedom of the press. However, the Richard Henry Lee, Arthur Lee, and Thomas Ludwell Lee. concept of judicial review of the constitutionality of such acts had not yet been developed. Years later, Supreme Court Justice Oliver ames Madison did not initially agree with the need for a Bill Wendell Holmes, Jr., disagreed with the claim, “that the First of Rights for the new Constitution of the United States. He Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force” Jargued that while it was necessary to limit power in a monarchy, and suggested that the government had since shown remorse for the proposed federal republic would not need such protection.1 the Sedition Act.5 Generally accepted was the libertarian concept However, one of the main concerns of the antifederalists was the that freedom of the press, while not absolute, did prevent most lack of a bill of rights, and political pressure in his home state governmental interference, and did forbid prior restraint in all but the most extreme clashes with other important rights. Legal theorist ROGER P. MELLEN, Ph.D., is an associate Zechariah Chafee wrote in 1941 that the First Amendment goes professor in the department of journalism much further than simply forbidding prior restraint and includes and mass communications at New Mexico prohibition of seditious libel laws and prosecution. He suggested State University. that the intent was to “wipe out the common law of sedition, and make further prosecutions for criticism of government, without any incitement to law-breaking, forever impossible in the United States of America.”6 That view, that the First Amendment did not allow prosecution for seditious libel, was widely accepted until the 1960s when Leonard Levy’s book, Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in 122 Journalism History 43:3 (Fall 2017) Above, Adoption of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, a fanciful painting by Jack Clifton, 1974. Courtesy Library of Virginia. Right, first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Courtesy the Library of Congress. While primarily written by George Mason, the press freedom clause was in the handwriting of Thomas Ludwell Lee, of whom there are no extant images. It reads, “That the freedom of the press, being the great bulwark of liberty, can never be restrained but in a despotic government.” As amended in committee, it came to read, “That the freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick Governments.” Early American History, turned the history of the First Amendment have rejected Levy’s views. Law professor David Anderson suggested on its head. Even his critics suggest this remains the most influential that Levy ignored the legislative history of the press clause, since it scholarly investigation of press freedom and original intent. Levy was inconsistent with his conclusion.9 Levy replied, “No demand argued that British jurist Sir William Blackstone was the primary at all existed for the legal protection of the press, and Anderson influence on the Americans as they began to write their own laws cites none.” Levy noted that the Virginia Declaration of Rights was and Levy stated that press liberty did not preclude prosecution for the first free press clause and that it was written by George Mason, seditious libel after publication.7 Even when he redrew his position composing alone, confronted by no pressure for press freedom.10 The some years later, Levy still claimed that this Blackstonian concept research being presented here includes many primary sources that was the only restraint intended by the free press clause of the Bill of Levy did not use, such as newspapers and private correspondence, Rights: “[T]he First Amendment was not intended to supersede to demonstrate that Levy is wrong on both of those counts and the common law of seditious libel.”8 The courts and many scholars suggest that his overall conclusion is flawed. Journalism History 43:3 (Fall 2017) 123 Other historians moved past legal interpretations and instead soundest judgment of all the Lee brothers. Brother William Lee examined the direct influence that Enlightenment philosophers had was the family businessman who resided for many years in London, on press freedom.11 Journalism historian David Copeland views but supported the American cause. He returned to Virginia in the freedom to speak and write openly as a logical extension of 1783.21 Youngest brother Arthur Lee worked as a diplomat for the the struggle for liberty of conscience, and points to Enlightenment new United States, but while he is remembered as being the most thought as the origin of American free press theory. Copeland’s brilliant of all, he was also something of a misfit.22 He was educated work builds on that of Frederick Siebert, who looks to John Locke at Eton, became a medical doctor at the University of Edinburgh as the inspiration, but Locke merely proposed an end to licensing, and a lawyer at the Middle Temple in London. Sister Alice Lee or prior restraint, and he did not actually develop a philosophy of was married to the prominent Philadelphia physician William freedom of the press.12 John Milton is also thought to have been Shippen, Jr., and sister Hannah Lee Corbin was something of a an inspiration to the colonists. He argued unsuccessfully against radical, converting from the established Church of England to English licensing and censorship of the Baptist, living with a man without a press in “Areopagitica: A Speech for legal marriage, and even asking that the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing” to “As the Stamp Act crisis with women be given the right to vote.23 Parliament in 1644.13 However, Milton’s thesis was not widely read at that time, Great Britain was heating up, here were three watershed his argument gained few followers,14 and some of the more progressive developments marking freedom he did not argue for complete freedom to of the press in eighteenth- publish anything but only against prior residents wanted a press that Tcentury Virginia, and the Lee brothers restraint. Milton was not a supporter were involved in each of them. of unrestricted press freedom, as he would convey their political The introduction of the first-ever suggested executing those who published constitutional protection for freedom anonymously and supported strong messages. At that time, there of the press was an historic moment, punishment for those who libeled church but it emanated from the flowering of or state.15 These more serious political was only one printing press a free and more radical press, which thinkers such as Milton, Locke, and only happened—and only could have Thomas Hobbes were rarely printed and in Virginia, and it had happened—after a new printer was read in the colonies. Political journalists a history of control introduced to the colony. related to the informal radical Whig This first step was in 1765, when party were more often quoted in colonial by the royal governor.” some of the more radical colonists newspapers than were the Enlightenment brought a second press to the capital philosophers, and they had much to say of Williamsburg to free the flow of regarding the importance of a press free to oppose the government information to the colony. As the Stamp Act crisis with Great in power. As newer historical research finds, public discourse driven Britain was heating up, some of the more progressive residents by these popular writings had a more direct influence on freedom wanted a press that would convey their political messages.
Recommended publications
  • X001132127.Pdf
    ' ' ., ,�- NONIMPORTATION AND THE SEARCH FOR ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE IN VIRGINIA, 1765-1775 BRUCE ALLAN RAGSDALE Charlottesville, Virginia B.A., University of Virginia, 1974 M.A., University of Virginia, 1980 A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia May 1985 © Copyright by Bruce Allan Ragsdale All Rights Reserved May 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: 1 Chapter 1: Trade and Economic Development in Virginia, 1730-1775 13 Chapter 2: The Dilemma of the Great Planters 55 Chapter 3: An Imperial Crisis and the Origins of Commercial Resistance in Virginia 84 Chapter 4: The Nonimportation Association of 1769 and 1770 117 Chapter 5: The Slave Trade and Economic Reform 180 Chapter 6: Commercial Development and the Credit Crisis of 1772 218 Chapter 7: The Revival Of Commercial Resistance 275 Chapter 8: The Continental Association in Virginia 340 Bibliography: 397 Key to Abbreviations used in Endnotes WMQ William and Mary Quarterly VMHB Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Hening William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being� Collection of all the Laws Qf Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the year 1619, 13 vols. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia Rev. Va. Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence, 7 vols. LC Library of Congress PRO Public Record Office, London co Colonial Office UVA Manuscripts Department, Alderman Library, University of Virginia VHS Virginia Historical Society VSL Virginia State Library Introduction Three times in the decade before the Revolution. Vir­ ginians organized nonimportation associations as a protest against specific legislation from the British Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of a Free Press in Prerevolutionary Virginia: Creating
    Dedication To my late father, Curtis Gordon Mellen, who taught me that who we are is not decided by the advantages or tragedies that are thrown our way, but rather by how we deal with them. Table of Contents Foreword by David Waldstreicher....................................................................................i Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................iii Chapter 1 Prologue: Culture of Deference ...................................................................................1 Chapter 2 Print Culture in the Early Chesapeake Region...........................................................13 A Limited Print Culture.........................................................................................14 Print Culture Broadens ...........................................................................................28 Chapter 3 Chesapeake Newspapers and Expanding Civic Discourse, 1728-1764.......................57 Early Newspaper Form...........................................................................................58 Changes: Discourse Increases and Broadens ..............................................................76 Chapter 4 The Colonial Chesapeake Almanac: Revolutionary “Agent of Change” ...................97 The “Almanacks”.....................................................................................................99 Chapter 5 Women, Print, and Discourse .................................................................................133
    [Show full text]
  • The Appellate Question: a Comparative Analysis of Supreme Courts of Appeal in Virginia and Louisiana, 1776-1840
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1991 The appellate question: A comparative analysis of supreme courts of appeal in Virginia and Louisiana, 1776-1840 Mark F. Fernandez College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Law Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Fernandez, Mark F., "The appellate question: A comparative analysis of supreme courts of appeal in Virginia and Louisiana, 1776-1840" (1991). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539623810. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-jtfj-2738 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if _ unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle to Interpret Arlington House, 1921–1937,” by Michael B
    Welcome to a free reading from Washington History: Magazine of the Historical Society of Washington, D.C. As we chose this week’s reading, news stories continued to swirl about commemorative statues, plaques, street names, and institutional names that amplify white supremacy in America and in DC. We note, as the Historical Society fulfills its mission of offering thoughtful, researched context for today’s issues, that a key influence on the history of commemoration has come to the surface: the quiet, ladylike (in the anachronistic sense) role of promoters of the southern “Lost Cause” school of Civil War interpretation. Historian Michael Chornesky details how federal officials fended off southern supremacists (posing as preservationists) on how to interpret Arlington House, home of George Washington’s adopted family and eventually of Confederate commander Robert E. Lee. “Confederate Island upon the Union’s ‘Most Hallowed Ground’: The Battle to Interpret Arlington House, 1921–1937,” by Michael B. Chornesky. “Confederate Island” first appeared in Washington History 27-1 (spring 2015), © Historical Society of Washington, D.C. Access via JSTOR* to the entire run of Washington History and its predecessor, Records of the Columbia Historical Society, is a benefit of membership in the Historical Society of Washington, D.C. at the Membership Plus level. Copies of this and many other back issues of Washington History magazine are available for browsing and purchase online through the DC History Center Store: https://dchistory.z2systems.com/np/clients/dchistory/giftstore.jsp ABOUT THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. The Historical Society of Washington, D.C., is a non-profit, 501(c)(3), community-supported educational and research organization that collects, interprets, and shares the history of our nation's capital in order to promote a sense of identity, place and pride in our city and preserve its heritage for future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Yorktown Victory Center Replacement Will Be Named 'American Revolution Museum at Yorktown'
    DISPATCH A Newsletter of the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation • Spring 2012 Yorktown Victory Center Replacement Will Be Named ‘American Revolution Museum at Yorktown’ Along with a physical transforma- bonds, is estimated at $46 tion of the Yorktown Victory Center will million. Private donations come a new name – “American Revolu- to the Jamestown-Yorktown tion Museum at Yorktown” – adopted Foundation, Inc., will sup- May 10 by the Jamestown-Yorktown port elements of gallery Foundation Board of Trustees and and outdoor exhibits and endorsed by the Jamestown-Yorktown educational resources. Foundation, Inc., Board of Directors. “The new name high- Recommended by a board naming lights the core offering of study task force, the new name will the museum, American be implemented upon completion of Revolution history,” said the museum replacement, and in the Frank B. Atkinson, who meantime the Yorktown Victory Center chaired the naming study will continue in operation as a museum task force comprised of 11 The distinctive two-story main entrance of the American of the American Revolution. members of the Jamestown- Revolution Museum at Yorktown will serve as a focal point Construction is expected to start Yorktown Foundation for arriving visitors. in the second half of 2012 on the proj- and Jamestown-Yorktown name were identified, and research ect, which includes an 80,000-square- Foundation, Inc., boards, “and the in- was undertaken on names currently in foot structure that will encompass ex- clusion of the word ‘Yorktown’ provides use. Selected names were tested with panded exhibition galleries, classrooms a geographical anchor. We arrived Yorktown Victory Center visitors and and support functions, and reorganiza- at this choice through a methodical reviewed by a trademark attorney and tion of the 22-acre site.
    [Show full text]
  • William Preston and the Revolutionary Settlement
    Journal of Backcountry Studies EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the third and last installment of the author’s 1990 University of Maryland dissertation, directed by Professor Emory Evans, to be republished in JBS. Dr. Osborn is President of Pacific Union College. William Preston and the Revolutionary Settlement BY RICHARD OSBORN Patriot (1775-1778) Revolutions ultimately conclude with a large scale resolution in the major political, social, and economic issues raised by the upheaval. During the final two years of the American Revolution, William Preston struggled to anticipate and participate in the emerging American regime. For Preston, the American Revolution involved two challenges--Indians and Loyalists. The outcome of his struggles with both groups would help determine the results of the Revolution in Virginia. If Preston could keep the various Indian tribes subdued with minimal help from the rest of Virginia, then more Virginians would be free to join the American armies fighting the English. But if he was unsuccessful, Virginia would have to divert resources and manpower away from the broader colonial effort to its own protection. The other challenge represented an internal one. A large number of Loyalist neighbors continually tested Preston's abilities to forge a unified government on the frontier which could, in turn, challenge the Indians effectivel y and the British, if they brought the war to Virginia. In these struggles, he even had to prove he was a Patriot. Preston clearly placed his allegiance with the revolutionary movement when he joined with other freeholders from Fincastle County on January 20, 1775 to organize their local county committee in response to requests by the Continental Congress that such committees be established.
    [Show full text]
  • First Founding Father: Richard Henry Lee and the Call for Independence'
    H-Nationalism Miller on Unger, 'First Founding Father: Richard Henry Lee and the Call for Independence' Review published on Monday, January 4, 2021 Harlow Giles Unger. First Founding Father: Richard Henry Lee and the Call for Independence. New York: Da Capo Press, 2017. 336 pp. $28.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-306-82561-3. Reviewed by Grace Miller (Independent Scholar) Published on H-Nationalism (January, 2021) Commissioned by Evan C. Rothera (University of Arkansas - Fort Smith) Printable Version: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=54369 In First Founding Father, Harlow Giles Unger credits another historical figure with the founding of American democracy—Richard Henry Lee. Unger, a prolific scholar of US history, has published twenty-seven books, ten of which are biographies of the Founding Fathers. Through correspondence, autobiographies, memoirs, and relevant artwork, Unger brings Lee’s role and his experience during the American Revolution to life. Unger traces Lee’s life alongside the story of US independence and argues for the critical, yet unacknowledged, role that Lee played in uniting the thirteen colonies and shaping the first democratic government. Incorporating Lee into the pantheon of the Founding Fathers challenges a popular historical record, but also adds nuance and complexity to the story of US independence. First Founding Father contains a beginning, middle, and end of sorts: before the war, during the war, and after the war. During these critical phases, Unger makes clear that Richard Henry Lee was among the first to call for three important ideas—independence before the war, a union during the war, and a bill of rights after the war.
    [Show full text]
  • Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence Table of Contents
    SIGNERS OF THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 56 Men Who Risked It All Life, Family, Fortune, Health, Future Compiled by Bob Hampton First Edition - 2014 1 SIGNERS OF THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTON Page Table of Contents………………………………………………………………...………………2 Overview………………………………………………………………………………...………..5 Painting by John Trumbull……………………………………………………………………...7 Summary of Aftermath……………………………………………….………………...……….8 Independence Day Quiz…………………………………………………….……...………...…11 NEW HAMPSHIRE Josiah Bartlett………………………………………………………………………………..…12 William Whipple..........................................................................................................................15 Matthew Thornton……………………………………………………………………...…........18 MASSACHUSETTS Samuel Adams………………………………………………………………………………..…21 John Adams………………………………………………………………………………..……25 John Hancock………………………………………………………………………………..….29 Robert Treat Paine………………………………………………………………………….….32 Elbridge Gerry……………………………………………………………………....…….……35 RHODE ISLAND Stephen Hopkins………………………………………………………………………….…….38 William Ellery……………………………………………………………………………….….41 CONNECTICUT Roger Sherman…………………………………………………………………………..……...45 Samuel Huntington…………………………………………………………………….……….48 William Williams……………………………………………………………………………….51 Oliver Wolcott…………………………………………………………………………….…….54 NEW YORK William Floyd………………………………………………………………………….………..57 Philip Livingston…………………………………………………………………………….….60 Francis Lewis…………………………………………………………………………....…..…..64 Lewis Morris………………………………………………………………………………….…67
    [Show full text]
  • Oaks, the 05/30/2002
    VLR Listed: 12/5/2001 NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 10-90) NRHP Listed: 5/30/2002 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 6 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES MKK I 7 2002 REGISTRATION FORM Thla form is for use in nominating or requesting detennlnatlonninationsa for individuaindividuall properties and districts. See instructio s in Hov to Complete the national .Begister of Historic Places Reqistration Form (National Re_giater Bulletin 16A) . Con?)lete eacchh ite"m— by marlcing "x" "" in the appccpziate box or by entering tl a information requested. If any-item'fcloes not apply to the (property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functictionsi , architectural clasaificatixe, materials, and areas of s gnificance, enter only cateooriea and subcategories from the instructions, Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheet—^_ s {KPiia-D^S For=. m 10-900,n_anft_a . ^ typewriter, word pro tssoi, or computer, to coBDiete all iteme.; • ^, 1. Name of Property historic name THE OAKS other names/site number INNES HILL VDHR FILE No.: 30-320 2. Location street & number 8457 Oaks Road not for publication N/A city or town Warrenton vicinity _X state Virginia code VA county Fauquier code 061 zip code 20186 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this _r_ nomination, request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 May Christopher Rivera.Pdf (1.964Mb)
    School of Graduate Studies Colorado State University–Pueblo 2200 Bonforte Boulevard Pueblo, Colorado 81001 (719) 549–2100 “INTO DUST AND OBSCURITY”: SILAS DEANE AND THE DRAFTING OF THE 1778 TREATY OF ALLIANCE by Christopher Michael-Anthony Rivera _____________________ A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY–PUEBLO Pueblo, Colorado, USA MAY 2015 Master’s Thesis Committee: Advisor: Dr. Matthew L. Harris Dr. Paul Conrad Dr. Brigid Vance STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted and approved for the partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at Colorado State University–Pueblo. It is deposited in the University Library and available to borrowers of the library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowed without special permission, provided that, accurate acknowledgment of their source is indicated. Requests for permission to use extended quotations, or to reproduce the manuscript in whole or in part, may be granted by the History Graduate Program or the Graduate Studies Director in History in the interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. Signed: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ APPROVAL BY THESIS ADVISOR THIS THESIS HAS BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE SHOWN BELOW: ________________________________ ____________ Dr. Matthew Harris Date Committee Chair Professor of History ________________________________ ____________ Graduate Studies Director in History Date Dr. Matthew Harris “INTO DUST AND OBSCURITY”: SILAS DEANE AND THE DRAFTING OF THE 1778 TREATY OF ALLIANCE by Christopher Michael-Anthony Rivera Silas Deane’s role during the American Revolution has been examined by numerous academics, including George Clark, Jonathan Dull, Julian Boyd, Richard Morris, David Jayne Hill, and Walter Isaacson.
    [Show full text]
  • NOMINATION FORM for NPS USE ONLY ENTRY NUMBER DATE (Type All Entries - Complete Applicable Sections )
    rAiE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE STATE: Form 10-300 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (Dec. 1968) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Virginia COUNTY: NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACI ES Ri chmond INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY ENTRY NUMBER DATE (Type all entries - complete applicable sections ) COMMON: Menokin (Francis Lightfoot Lee House) AND/OR HISTORIC: Menokin STREET AND NUMBE R:4 _miles northWeSt Of WarSEW via County Rte 690 to roadside marker, then left on dirt road for 1.5-miles to the house ruins. CITY OR TOWN: Warsaw STATE CODE C OUNTY: CODE Vi r-xHni a Richmond i$$ffi$''&&&tW$fiffl&lffiitt&&' Xvx'^v v. .-* £ ' - - ' '.V^xo vXvxxKviv.. .: .: :.. tf+WvVfX 'A'." : ••.'•'•\.fAf. #''• §*>$$#&> :A;?> flWF: Ife: /VxtolifcJNx:::' v! v ' ! : . ;:;v. x, :. .V.:;:.:.f;: xo:* ;VXv ' ; : ' ' ':'' ;•,. /,,.. x'x'i:'x '•<•'; '•'• ;;';:;'' ' !x xj, xXxX;::xX;Xx .: STATUS ACCESSIBLE oo CATEGORY OWNERSHIP (Check One) TO THE PUBLIC Z District Q Building 5Q| Public Q Public Acquisitior i: Occupied 1 1 Yes: 0 Site Q Structure Q Private }JX) In Process D Unoccupied KJ Restricted Q _. , _, Both 1 1 Being Conside red CD Preservation work Unrestricted CD Ob|ecf 1 | K- in progress Q No: [X$ U PRESENT USE (Check One or More as Appropriate) ID Agricultural Q Government | | Park I | Transportation | | Comments 1 f tt: Commercial Q Industrial [ | Private Residence n Other (-.Specify; (2|X K- Educational Q Military | | Religious rj Vacant oo Entertainment Q Museum | | Scientific n -T ii!!|!i|ii|i||l!||||li;i:^Y ..,. 4;-;::,,:::,: :^; OWNERS NAME: Mr. J. Murwin Qmohundro in STREET AND NUMBER: m P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson and Franklin
    Jefferson and Franklin ITH the exception of Washington and Lincoln, no two men in American history have had more books written about W them or have been more widely discussed than Jefferson and Franklin. This is particularly true of Jefferson, who seems to have succeeded in having not only bitter critics but also admiring friends. In any event, anything that can be contributed to the under- standing of their lives is important; if, however, something is dis- covered that affects them both, it has a twofold significance. It is for this reason that I wish to direct attention to a paragraph in Jefferson's "Anas." As may not be generally understood, the "Anas" were simply notes written by Jefferson contemporaneously with the events de- scribed and revised eighteen years later. For this unfortunate name, the simpler title "Jeffersoniana" might well have been substituted. Curiously enough there is nothing in Jefferson's life which has been more severely criticized than these "Anas." Morse, a great admirer of Jefferson, takes occasion to say: "Most unfortunately for his own good fame, Jefferson allowed himself to be drawn by this feud into the preparation of the famous 'Anas/ His friends have hardly dared to undertake a defense of those terrible records."1 James Truslow Adams, discussing the same subject, remarks that the "Anas" are "unreliable as historical evidence."2 Another biographer, Curtis, states that these notes "will always be a cloud upon his integrity of purpose; and, as is always the case, his spitefulness toward them injured him more than it injured Hamilton or Washington."3 I am not at all in accord with these conclusions.
    [Show full text]