DOCSLIB.ORG

A Critical Assessment of the Originalist Case Against Administrative Regulatory Power: New Evidence from the Federal Tax on Private Real Estate in the 1790S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Critical Assessment of the Originalist Case Against Administrative Regulatory Power: New Evidence from the Federal Tax on Private Real Estate in the 1790S A Critical Assessment of the Originalist Case Against Administrative Regulatory Power: New Evidence from the Federal Tax on Private Real Estate in the 1790s Nicholas R. Parrillo CSAS Working Paper 20-17 Delegations and Nondelegation After Gundy NICHOLAS R. P A R R I L L O A Critical Assessment of the Originalist Case Against Administrative Regulatory Power: New Evidence from the Federal Tax on Private Real Estate in the 1790s abstract. The Supreme Court is poised to toughen the nondelegation doctrine to strike down acts of Congress that give broad discretion to administrators, signaling a potential revolu- tion in the separation of powers. A majority of the Justices have suggested in recent opinions that they are open to the far-reaching theory that all agency rulemaking is unconstitutional insofar as it coerces private parties and is not about foreign affairs. If adopted, this theory would invalidate most of the federal regulatory state. Jurists and scholars critical of rulemaking’s constitutionality base their claims on the original meaning of the Constitution. But these critics face a serious ob- stacle: early Congresses enacted several broad delegations of administrative rulemaking authori- ty. The critics’ main response has been that these early statutes do not count, because they fall into two areas in which (say the critics) the original nondelegation doctrine did not apply, or ap- plied only weakly: noncoercive legislation (e.g., giving benefits) or foreign-affairs legislation. This Article finds that the originalist critics of rulemaking are mistaken to say that no early congressional grant of rulemaking power was coercive and domestic. There is a major counterex- ample missed by the literature on nondelegation, indeed by all of legal scholarship, and not dis- cussed more than briefly even by historians: the rulemaking power under the “direct tax” of 1798. In that legislation, Congress apportioned a federal tax quota to the people of each state, to be paid predominantly by owners of real estate in proportion to their properties’ respective val- ues. Thousands of federal assessors assigned taxable values to literally every house and farm in every state of the Union, deciding what each was “worth in money”—a standard that the legisla- tion did not define. Because assessors in different parts of a state could differ greatly in how they did valuation, Congress established within each state a federal board of tax commissioners with the power to divide the state into districts and to raise or lower the assessors’ valuations of all real estate in any district by any proportion “as shall appear to be just and equitable”—a phrase unde- fined in the statute and not a term of art. The federal boards’ power to revise valuations en masse in each intrastate tax district is identical to the fact pattern in the leading Supreme Court prece- dent defining rulemaking. Thus, each federal board in 1798 controlled, by rule, the distribution of the federal real-estate tax burden within the state it covered. 1288 a critical assessment This Article is the first study of the federal boards’ mass-revision power. It establishes that the mass revisions (a) were o�en aggressive, as when the federal board in Maryland raised the taxable value of all houses in Baltimore, then the nation’s third-largest city, by 100 percent; (b) involved much discretion, given serious data limitations and the absence of any consensus meth- od; (c) had a major political aspect, as the federal boards were inheriting the contentious land- tax politics that had previously raged within the state legislatures, pitting the typical state’s rich commercial coast against its poor inland farms; (d) were not subject to judicial review; and (e) were accepted as constitutional by the Federalist majority and Jeffersonian opposition in 1798 and also by the Jeffersonians when they later took over, indicating the boards’ power was con- sistent with original meaning or, alternatively, with the Constitution’s liquidated meaning. In short, vesting administrators with discretionary power to make politically charged rules domesti- cally affecting private rights was not alien to the first generation of lawmakers who put the Con- stitution into practice. More broadly, this Article is the first in-depth treatment of the 1798 direct tax’s administra- tion. It shows that the tax, measured by personnel, was the largest federal administrative en- deavor, outside the military, of the Constitution’s first two decades. It is remarkable that today’s passionate debate on whether the administrative regulatory state violates the Framers’ Constitu- tion has so far made no reckoning with this endeavor. This Article’s dataset is available at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IGMJ7E. 1289 the yale law journal 130:1288 2021 author. William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School, and Professor of History (secondary appointment), Yale University. For comments on all or parts of the manuscript, I thank Gregory Ablavsky, Bruce Ackerman, Jonathan Adler, Kevin Arlyck, Nicholas Bagley, Jack Beermann, Emily Bremer, Daniel Carpenter, Ronald Cass, Charlotte Crane, Saul Cornell, Kathe- rine Mims Crocker, Blake Emerson, Frank W. Garmon, Jr., Philip Hamburger, Kristin Hickman, Daniel Hulsebosch, Gary Lawson, John Manning, Jennifer Mascott, Jerry Mashaw, Aaron Niel- son, James Pfander, Michael Rappaport, Daphna Renan, Jed Shugerman, Chris Walker, Ilan Wurman, and participants in the Darling Foundation Originalism Works-in-Progress Confer- ence at the University of San Diego, the Fordham Constitutional History Workshop, the George Mason University Nondelegation Roundtable, the Harvard Public Law Workshop, the Power in the Administrative State Workshop Series at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of San Diego Faculty Workshop. For discussions about the project, I am grateful to Ian Ayres, Michael Blaakman, Maureen Brady, Peter Conti-Brown, Justin Driver, Farley Grubb, Naomi Lamoreaux, Sophia Lee, Scott C. Miller, Claire Priest, David Schleicher, Adam J. White, Robert E. Wright, and Taisu Zhang. I owe special thanks to Frank W. Garmon, Jr. and Carole Shammas, for generously sharing with me the important datasets they respectively created on the direct tax; to Yair Listokin, for in-depth discussions of certain economic aspects of the subject; and to Ju- dith Green Watson, for advising me on the project in light of her extensive research in direct-tax records. For the crucial service of locating sources, I am indebted to the staffs of the Connecticut Historical Society, the Daughters of the American Revolution Library, the Princeton University Library Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, the Rhode Island Historical Society, the Rutgers University Library Special Collections and Archives, the Suffolk County Historical Society, the U.S. National Archives, and the Yale Law Library (especially Julian Aiken and Maryellen Larkin); and to Elizabeth Barnett and Karen Needles. For financial support, I thank Yale Law School and the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund. All errors are my own. 1290 a critical assessment article contents introduction 1293 i. federal taxation of real estate in 1798: fundamentals 1318 A. The Direct Tax’s Background, Political Origins, and Substance 1318 B. The Administrative Organization and Scale of the Valuation Apparatus 1327 C. The Federal Boards’ Sweeping Exercises of Power 1339 ii. indeterminacy in the federal boards’ revisions: hamilton’s “very bad business of valuations” 1345 A. The Continental Congress’s Failure at Real-Estate Valuation, 1777-89 1348 B. The Absence of Clear Principles in State Tax Statutes, 1796-98 1350 C. Indeterminacy in Deciding Value from Land’s Annual Income or Historical Sale Prices 1358 D. Indeterminacy in the Federal Legislation of 1798: “No Necessity that the Principles of Valuation Should Be Uniform in All the States” 1366 E. Indeterminacy in Implementing the Federal Legislation of 1798 1370 1. Secretary Wolcott’s Guidance 1370 2. The Federal Boards’ Regulations and Approaches 1372 3. The Connecticut Federal Board’s Sale-Price Research 1379 4. Official Valuations and Population Density 1384 iii. the political aspect of the federal boards’ revisions 1391 A. State Legislative Tax Politics That Federal Boards Inherited 1392 B. Congress’s Options for Handling Intrastate Politics and Its Choice to Delegate 1401 C. Politics and the Structure, Personnel, and Process of the Federal Boards 1405 D. Politics and the Substantive Decisions of Federal Boards 1408 1291 the yale law journal 130:1288 2021 iv. no judicial review of the federal boards’ revisions 1417 A. Equity? 1418 B. Writ of Error? 1419 C. Certiorari? 1419 D. Mandamus? 1421 E. Judicial Review Through Enforcement by Distress, or A�er? 1422 F. Judicial Review Through Enforcement by Sale of Land, or A�er? 1425 G. Conclusion: Statutes as the Sole Source of Review of Valuations 1427 v. constitutional acceptance of the federal boards’ revision power, 1798-1861 1429 A. Acceptance of the Federal Boards’ Rulemaking Discretion in 1797-1800 1430 B. Repeal of the Record-Updating Provisions, 1800-1801 1437 C. The Jeffersonians’ Continuing Implementation of the 1798 Direct Tax, 1801-05 1438 D. Jeffersonian Direct Taxes in the War of 1812 1440 1. The Initial Tax of 1813: Reducing Rulemaking Discretion, for Nonconstitutional Reasons 1441 2. The Permanent Tax of 1815: Increasing Rulemaking Discretion Back to the 1798 Level 1449 3. The Peacetime Pullback of 1816 1453 E. The Civil War Direct Tax, 1861 1454 conclusion 1455 1292 a critical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Life in the Early Republic: a Machine-Readable Transcription
    Library of Congress Social life in the early republic vii PREFACE peared to them, or recall the quaint figures of Mrs. Alexander Hamilton and Mrs. Madison in old age, or the younger faces of Cora Livingston, Adèle Cutts, Mrs. Gardiner G. Howland, and Madame de Potestad. To those who have aided her with personal recollections or valuable family papers and letters the author makes grateful acknowledgment, her thanks being especially due to Mrs. Samuel Phillips Lee, Mrs. Beverly Kennon, Mrs. M. E. Donelson Wilcox, Miss Virginia Mason, Mr. James Nourse and the Misses Nourse of the Highlands, to Mrs. Robert K. Stone, Miss Fanny Lee Jones, Mrs. Semple, Mrs. Julia F. Snow, Mr. J. Henley Smith, Mrs. Thompson H. Alexander, Miss Rosa Mordecai, Mrs. Harriot Stoddert Turner, Miss Caroline Miller, Mrs. T. Skipwith Coles, Dr. James Dudley Morgan, and Mr. Charles Washington Coleman. A. H. W. Philadelphia, October, 1902. ix CONTENTS Chapter Page I— A Social Evolution 13 II— A Predestined Capital 42 Social life in the early republic http://www.loc.gov/resource/lhbcb.29033 Library of Congress III— Homes and Hostelries 58 IV— County Families 78 V— Jeffersonian Simplicity 102 VI— A Queen of Hearts 131 VII— The Bladensburg Races 161 VII— Peace and Plenty 179 IX— Classics and Cotillions 208 X— A Ladies' Battle 236 XI— Through Several Administrations 267 XII— Mid-Century Gayeties 296 xi ILLUSTRATIONS Page Mrs. Richard Gittings, of Baltimore (Polly Sterett) Frontispiece From portrait by Charles Willson Peale, owned by her great-grandson, Mr. D. Sterett Gittings, of Baltimore. Mrs. Gittings eyes are dark brown, the hair dark brown, with lighter shades through it; the gown of delicate pink, the sleeves caught up with pearls, the sash of a gray shade.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Historical Magazine, 1946, Volume 41, Issue No. 4
    MHRYMnD CWAQAZIU^j MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY BALTIMORE DECEMBER • 1946 t. IN 1900 Hutzler Brothers Co. annexed the building at 210 N. Howard Street. Most of the additional space was used for the expansion of existing de- partments, but a new shoe shop was installed on the third floor. It is interesting to note that the shoe department has now returned to its original location ... in a greatly expanded form. HUTZLER BPOTHERSe N\S/Vsc5S8M-lW MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE A Quarterly Volume XLI DECEMBER, 1946 Number 4 BALTIMORE AND THE CRISIS OF 1861 Introduction by CHARLES MCHENRY HOWARD » HE following letters, copies of letters, and other documents are from the papers of General Isaac Ridgeway Trimble (b. 1805, d. 1888). They are confined to a brief period of great excitement in Baltimore, viz, after the riot of April 19, 1861, when Federal troops were attacked by the mob while being marched through the City streets, up to May 13th of that year, when General Butler, with a large body of troops occupied Federal Hill, after which Baltimore was substantially under control of the 1 Some months before his death in 1942 the late Charles McHenry Howard (a grandson of Charles Howard, president of the Board of Police in 1861) placed the papers here printed in the Editor's hands for examination, and offered to write an introduction if the Committee on Publications found them acceptable for the Magazine. Owing to the extraordinary events related and the revelation of an episode unknown in Baltimore history, Mr. Howard's proposal was promptly accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • The Morehead Family of North Carolina and Virginia
    Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from State Library of North Carolina http://www.archive.org/details/moreheadfamilyofOOmore THIS COPY IS NUMBER OF AN EDITION OF FIFTY COPIES PRINTED IN FEBRUARY, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-ONE AND IS PRESENTED TO <f^ tatc £lbraru ,6valclgk,?l . C. THE MOREHEAD FAMILY ; RaleigM 1 1 ;, fHE U ii/ FAMILY GOVERNOR JOHN MOTLEY MOREHEAD , ^VHNMO 1796-1866HEHEAD Portrait by William Garl Broiine, 1S59 IVATfeLY PRINTf NEWYOEF- 1921 ! L ±J G J: ..•i,\\iVn yd Library Worth Carolina State Raleigh THE MOREHEAD FAMILY OF NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA JOHN MOTLEY MOREHEAD (III) '/ ', PRIVATELY PRINTED NEW YORK 1921 an CopjTight, 1921, by John Motley Morehead (HI) CONTENTS CHAPTER ' PAGE I The Moreheads of England, Scotland and Ireland . 3 II David jNIorehead of London 24 III The Moreheads of the Northern Neck, Virginia . 32 IV The Moreheads of the Northern Piedmont Region 37 V The Moreheads of the South Piedmont Region, Virginia 44 VI The Moreheads of North Carolina 51 VII The Lindsay Family 94 VIII The Harper Family 99 IX The Motley Family 102 X The Forrest Family 106 XI The Ellington Family 107 XII The Norman Family 108 XIII The Gray Family Ill XIV The Connally Family 115 XV The Graves Family 118 XVI The Lathrop Family 124 The Turner Family (See Chapter IV) 37 The Williams Family (See Chapter XIV) . .115 The Lanier Family (See Chapter XIV) .... 115 The Kerr Family (See Chapter XV) 118 r '^' ^ A 7 (.. ?:• 'J- k s ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE Coat of Arms of the Morehead Family .... Facing page lu Governor John Motley Morehead Frontispiece Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, Began Its Career with the January Number
    THE SOUTH C AROLINA HISTORICAL AND GENEALOGICAL M AGAZINE. PUBLISHED Q UARTERLY BY* » THE S OUTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY CHARLESTON, S. C. EDITEDY B A.. S SALLEY, JR., SECRETARY A ND TREASURER OF THE SOCIETY. VOLUME I . Printed f or the Society by THE WALKER. EVANS A COOSWELL CO., Charleston, S. C. I900. OFFICERS OFHE T South C arolina Historical Society President, G en. Edward MoCbady. 1st V ice-President, Hon. Joseph W. Barnwell. 2nd V ice-President, Col. Zimmerman Davis. Secretary a nd Treasurer and Librarian, A.. S Salley) Jr. Curators : Lang d on Cheves, Henry. A M. Smith, D. E. Huger Smith, Theodore D. Jervey, S. Prioleau Ravenel, Thomas della Torre. Charles. W Kollock, M. D. Boardf o Managers. All of the foregoing officers. Publication C ommittee. Joseph W. Barnwell, Henry A. M. Smith. A.. S Salley, Jr. THE SOUTH C AROLINA HISTORICAL AND GENEALOGICAL M AGAZINE PUBLISHED Q UARTERLY BY THE SOUTH C AROLINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY, CHARLESTON, S. C. VOL-— I No. 1. JANUARY, 10OO- Printed l or the Society by THE WALKER. EVAN5 & COOS WELL CO., Charleston, S. C. CONTENTS Letter f rom Thomas Jefferson to Judge William Johnson 3 The M ission of Col. John Laurens to Europe in 1781 ... 13 Papersf o the First Council of Safety ±1 The B ull Family of South Carolina 76 Book R eviews and Notes 91 Notes a nd Queries 98 The S outh Carolina Historical Society 107 N.. B The price of a single number of this Magazine is one d ollar to any one other than a member of the South Carolina H istorical Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Princeton University Department of Politics POL 321 – American
    Princeton University Department of Politics POL 321 – American Political Thought Spring 2021 Keith E. Whittington M 10:00-10:50 live Zoom 113 Fisher Hall, 258-3453 Weekly recorded lectures on Canvas [email protected] office hours: by appointment This course explores the recurring themes and problems in American political thought. The course will draw on primary sources relating to the ideas and actions that have shaped the American conception of freedom, democracy, community, and nationhood. It will consider these works as contributions to political theory, but it will also focus on the relationship between political ideas and political and social events. The course will make a broad survey of American history and the debates that have driven, shaped and surrounded American political and social events from the colonial era through the late twentieth century. Precepts Precepts are a required component of the course, and you must sign up for and regularly attend a precept. Regularly attending a precept is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a passing grade in participation. Participation in the class constitutes 15% of your grade in the class. Given our current pandemic situation, the lecture portion of the class with consist of recorded lectures. These lectures will provide new information as well as discuss assigned texts. Viewership of the lectures will be monitored, and you will be expected to take into account lecture materials as well as the written materials in your written assignments. Both the lectures and the readings (other than what is in the book) will be available on the Canvas course website.
    [Show full text]
  • Few Americans in the 1790S Would Have Predicted That the Subject Of
    AMERICAN NAVAL POLICY IN AN AGE OF ATLANTIC WARFARE: A CONSENSUS BROKEN AND REFORGED, 1783-1816 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jeffrey J. Seiken, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor John Guilmartin, Jr., Advisor Professor Margaret Newell _______________________ Professor Mark Grimsley Advisor History Graduate Program ABSTRACT In the 1780s, there was broad agreement among American revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton about the need for a strong national navy. This consensus, however, collapsed as a result of the partisan strife of the 1790s. The Federalist Party embraced the strategic rationale laid out by naval boosters in the previous decade, namely that only a powerful, seagoing battle fleet offered a viable means of defending the nation's vulnerable ports and harbors. Federalists also believed a navy was necessary to protect America's burgeoning trade with overseas markets. Republicans did not dispute the desirability of the Federalist goals, but they disagreed sharply with their political opponents about the wisdom of depending on a navy to achieve these ends. In place of a navy, the Republicans with Jefferson and Madison at the lead championed an altogether different prescription for national security and commercial growth: economic coercion. The Federalists won most of the legislative confrontations of the 1790s. But their very success contributed to the party's decisive defeat in the election of 1800 and the abandonment of their plans to create a strong blue water navy.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Historical Magazine, 1942, Volume 37, Issue No. 3
    G ^ MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE VOL. XXXVII SEPTEMBER, 1942 No. } BARBARA FRIETSCHIE By DOROTHY MACKAY QUYNN and WILLIAM ROGERS QUYNN In October, 1863, the Atlantic Monthly published Whittier's ballad, "' Barbara Frietchie." Almost immediately a controversy arose about the truth of the poet's version of the story. As the years passed, the controversy became more involved until every period and phase of the heroine's life were included. This paper attempts to separate fact from fiction, and to study the growth of the legend concerning the life of Mrs. John Casper Frietschie, nee Barbara Hauer, known to the world as Barbara Fritchie. I. THE HEROINE AND HER FAMILY On September 30, 1754, the ship Neptune arrived in Phila- delphia with its cargo of " 400 souls," among them Johann Niklaus Hauer. The immigrants, who came from the " Palatinate, Darmstad and Zweybrecht" 1 went to the Court House, where they took the oath of allegiance to the British Crown, Hauer being among those sufficiently literate to sign his name, instead of making his mark.2 Niklaus Hauer and his wife, Catherine, came from the Pala- tinate.3 The only source for his birthplace is the family Bible, in which it is noted that he was born on August 6, 1733, in " Germany in Nassau-Saarbriicken, Dildendorf." 4 This probably 1 Hesse-Darmstadt, and Zweibriicken in the Rhenish Palatinate. 2 Ralph Beaver Strassburger, Pennsylvania German Pioneers (Morristown, Penna.), I (1934), 620, 622, 625; Pennsylvania Colonial Records, IV (Harrisburg, 1851), 306-7; see Appendix I. 8 T. J. C, Williams and Folger McKinsey, History of Frederick County, Maryland (Hagerstown, Md., 1910), II, 1047.
    [Show full text]
  • A Navy in the New Republic: Strategic Visions of the U.S
    ABSTRACT Title of Document: A NAVY IN THE NEW REPUBLIC: STRATEGIC VISIONS OF THE U.S. NAVY, 1783-1812 Joseph Payne Slaughter II, Master of Arts, 2006 Directed By: Associate Professor Whitman Ridgway Department of History This study examines the years 1783-1812 in order to identify how the Founders’ strategic visions of an American navy were an extension of the debate over the newly forming identity of the young republic. Naval historiography has both ignored the implications of a republican navy and oversimplified the formation of the navy into a bifurcated debate between Federalists and Republicans or “Navalists” and “Antinavalists.” The Founders’ views were much more complex and formed four competing strategic visions-commerce navy, coastal navy, regional navy, and capital navy. The thematic approach of this study connects strategic visions to the narrative of the reestablishment of the United States Navy within the context of international and domestic events. This approach leaves one with a greater sense that the early national period policymakers were in fact fledgling naval visionaries, nearly one hundred years before the advent of America’s most celebrated naval strategist, Alfred Thayer Mahan. A NAVY IN THE NEW REPUBLIC: STRATEGIC VISIONS OF THE U.S. NAVY, 1783-1812 By Joseph Payne Slaughter II Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 2006 Advisory Committee: Professor Whitman Ridgway, Chair Professor James Henretta Professor Jon Tetsuro Sumida © Copyright by Joseph Payne Slaughter II 2006 Acknowledgements Many thanks to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • President Thomas Jefferson V. Chief Justice John Marshall by Amanda
    A Thesis Entitled Struggle to Define the Power of the Court: President Thomas Jefferson v. Chief Justice John Marshall By Amanda Dennison Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Arts in History ________________________ Advisor: Diane Britton ________________________ Graduate School The University of Toledo August 2005 Copyright © 2005 This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. Acknowledgments Finishing this step of my academic career would not have been possible without the support from my mentors, family, and friends. My professors at the University of Toledo have supported me over the past three years and I thank them for their inspiration. I especially thank Professors Alfred Cave, Diane Britton, Ronald Lora, and Charles Glaab for reading my work, making corrections, and serving as advisors on my thesis committee. I am eternally grateful to the University of Toledo History Department for their financial and moral support. When I came to the University of Toledo, I would not have survived my first graduate seminar, let alone long enough to finish this project without the experience from my undergraduate career at Southwestern Oklahoma State University. I thank Professors Laura Endicott and John Hayden for their constant support, reading drafts, and offering suggestions and Professors Roger Bromert and David Hertzel for encouraging me via email and on my visits back to Southwestern. Ya’ll are the best. I have a wonderful support system from my family and friends, especially my parents and brother. Thank you Mom and Dad for your encouragement and love.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington City, 1800-1830 Cynthia Diane Earman Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School Fall 11-12-1992 Boardinghouses, Parties and the Creation of a Political Society: Washington City, 1800-1830 Cynthia Diane Earman Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Earman, Cynthia Diane, "Boardinghouses, Parties and the Creation of a Political Society: Washington City, 1800-1830" (1992). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 8222. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/8222 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOARDINGHOUSES, PARTIES AND THE CREATION OF A POLITICAL SOCIETY: WASHINGTON CITY, 1800-1830 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of History by Cynthia Diane Earman A.B., Goucher College, 1989 December 1992 MANUSCRIPT THESES Unpublished theses submitted for the Master's and Doctor's Degrees and deposited in the Louisiana State University Libraries are available for inspection. Use of any thesis is limited by the rights of the author. Bibliographical references may be noted, but passages may not be copied unless the author has given permission. Credit must be given in subsequent written or published work. A library which borrows this thesis for use by its clientele is expected to make sure that the borrower is aware of the above restrictions.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2013
    Stony Brook CURRENTS Vol. VIII, No. 1 A Newsletter of the Suffield Historical Society J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3 The mission of the Suffield Historical LEAVITT DAY BOOK GIFTED by Anne Borg Society is to collect, preserve and stimulate interest in the history of The King House Museum archives has recently ac- Suffield and the region and to actively share it. The Society hopes quired a fascinating Day Book of “T. Leavit & Son No. 1 to inspire a sense of community, as 1800” through the generous donation by Lester Smith well as to provide an understanding who purchased the book from a dealer some years ago. T. and appreciation of Suffield’s past. Leavitt was Thaddeus Leavitt who built the old house now on the south corner of North Main Street and the Country Suffield Historical Society Club road. He was a prosperous local merchant who ran a President store which supplied area residents with a wide variety of Edward Chase, III goods. In his diary (a partial typed copy of which is at the Vice President Kent Memorial Library) he notes on August 9, 1788 “This Arthur Sikes, Jr. day Raised the Frame of a store adjoining the north end of Treasurer my Hous.” Presumably, the store was run from a room in Gary Mandirola his home before this date. Secretary Nancy Noble Thaddeus traveled to New York to purchase goods for his Historian & Curator store. On May 14, 1786 he notes in his diary “...also saw Lester Smith his Highness George Washington Esquier President of the Committee Chairmen United States of America - whom God long preserve.” At some point he and Asahel Hatheway were partners, and Samuel S.
    [Show full text]