DOCSLIB.ORG

A Stable Political Culture Confronts Change, 1765--1776

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Spring 1987 TOWN AND PROVINCE IN REVOLUTIONARY NEW HAMPSHIRE: A STABLE POLITICAL CULTURE CONFRONTS CHANGE, 1765--1776 MARILYN MULZER ROBBERT University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation ROBBERT, MARILYN MULZER, "TOWN AND PROVINCE IN REVOLUTIONARY NEW HAMPSHIRE: A STABLE POLITICAL CULTURE CONFRONTS CHANGE, 1765--1776" (1987). Doctoral Dissertations. 1514. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/1514 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example: • Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed. • Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages. • Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography. Order Number 8722438 Town and province in revolutionary New Hampshire: A stable political culture confronts change, 1765—1776 Robbert, Marilyn Mulzer, Ph.D. University of New Hampshire, 1987 Copyright ©1987 by Robbert, Marilyn Mulzer. All rights reserved. U MI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages _____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_______ 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy_______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g_______ e 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ^ 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages num bered . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received_________ 16. Other_______________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International TOWN AND PROUINCE IN REUOLUTIONARY NEW HAMPSHIRE: A STABLE POLITICAL CULTURE CONFRONTS CHANGE, 1765-1776 By MARILYN MULZER ROBBERT B.A. Northern Michigan University, 1365 M.A. Ohio University, 1967 DISSERTATION Submitted to the University of Nbuj Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For ths Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History May, 1SB7 ALL RIGHTS RESERUED c 1907 Marilyn Mulzer Robbert This dissertation has been examined and approved. n Dissertation director, Dr. Charles E. Clark, Professor of History D r . Robert C. Gilmore, Professor of History ____________ Dr . William Harris, Assistant Professor of History ___________ Dr . narc L . Schwar^T Associate Professor of History S.DrV Jere DaniBll, Professor of story, Dartmouth College ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation could not have been completed without the help of others. I am particularly grateful for hBlp from historians and librarians at New Hampshire’s major research institutions: Dr. Steven Cox and Mr. William CoplBy at ths New Hampshire Historical Society; Dr Frank flevers and Mr Andrew Taylor at the New Hampshire State Archives; and Mrs. Shirley Adamovich at the New Hampshire StatB Library. A Dissertation Fellowship from thB University of New Hampshire enabled me to spend a semester using their materials. I appreciate also the help I received from my professors: Dr. Robert Gilmore, Dr. J. William Harris, Dr. Darrett B. Rutman, and Dr Marc L. Schwarz, who guided my research efforts and helped me formulate my ideas. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Charles E. Clark, my advisor, who patiently listened to me talk through thorny research problems. My special thanks go to Mr Martin Dolan of Northern Michigan University, who read and criticized this dissertation and to my husband, who helped with typing and editing. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................... iii LIST OF TABLES..................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES.................................... vii ABSTRACT.............................................. viii CHAPTER PAGE INTRODUCTION......................................... 1 I. THE LEGISLATURE AND ITS LEADERS........... 13 11 . TOWNS BECOME AWARE OF THE PROBLEM......... 45 III. TOWNS CONSIDER THEIR OPTIONS.............. 33 IU. CONGRESS ACCEPTS RELUCTANTLY THE BURDENS OF GOUERNMENT.................... 13G U. TOWNS ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR NEW GOUERNMENT................... 174 UI. THE REUOLUTIONARY GOUERNMENTS: FAMILIAR PATTERNS CONTINUE...... 220 CONCLUSION........................................... 248 APPENDICES........................................... 252 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................... 2G1 v LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table I ............................................. 54 Table II............................................ 56 Table III........................................... 33 Table IU........................................... 38 Table.... U ........................................... 555 Table UI........................................... 558 Table.. UII........................................... 533 Table UII I ........................................... 53B Table... IX........................................... 541 vi LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 ............................................... 2B Figure 2 ............................................... 31 vii ABSTRACT TOWN AND PRGUINCE IN REUOLUTIDNARY NEUJ HAMPSHIRE: A STABLE POLITICAL CULTURE CONFRONTS CHANGE, 1755-1776 by Marilyn Mulzer Robbert University of New Hampshire, May, 13B7 This study analyzes the relationship oF the towns to the provincial government between 1765 and 1776 to understand the underlying process of the coming of the Revolution in New Hampshire. The Focus is on the towns, and the main sources are unpublished town records. For one part oF the study, I developed a system to identiFy legislative leaders Ca modiFication of Jack Greene’s method!, used Gini scores to compare the General Assemblies with the Provincial Congresses and the 1776 House oF Representatives, and constructed a composite biography For the E96 men who served during the period. viii A comparison oF the characteristics of the men who served in the three types of legislative bodies shows that there were no major changes From the beginning oF the pBriod to the Bnd in either ths typB oF man elected, or in the type who rose to leadership. The analysis oF the relationship oF the towns to the central government shows that New Hampshire residents became concerned about the threat to their rights as Englishmen earlier than previously thought, but they balanced that concern with a concern For law and order. Towns hesitantly engaged in revolutionary activities. The Provincial Congresses, New Hampshire’s revolutionary bodies, reluctantly assumed control oF the colony, and the new state government eFFectively used its authority to crush town proposals that would have given the people more control over their government. ix INTRODUCTION I am Bxtremelg happy in thB universal esteem of all this province, who emulate Bach ether in obliging me and endeavoring to make my administration as easy and profitable as thBy can. Whatever surmises may have arisen, or disgust taken place, against the other provinces, New Hampshire is not in the least involved in it. They are obedient, faithful subjects, and ready to exert their utmost to support and defend the British Government.^ In these words, in August 17B7, John Wentworth described to a friend his satisfaction with his new position as Royal Governor of New Hampshire and his firm belief that the people of the colony were equally pleased with King George Ill’s selection. Governor Wentworth was correct, for the moment, in his assessment of the colony’s temperament and of thB residents’ feelings towards him. Yet seven years later, in August 1775, the popular Governor abandoned
Recommended publications
  • A TUB to the WHALE": the FOUNDING FATHERS and ADOPTION of the FEDERAL BILL of RIGHTS Kenneth R

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

    "A TUB TO THE WHALE": THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS Kenneth R. Bowling Seamen have a custom, when they meet a whale, to fling him out an empty tub by way of amusement, to divert him from laying violent hands upon the ship. Jonathan Swift, Tale of a Tub (1704) Like a barrel thrown to the whale, the people were to be amused with fancied amendments, until the harpoon of power, should secure its prey and render resistance ineffectual. [Samuel Bryan], ''Centinel NO. 19, ' ' (Philadel- phia) Independent Gazetteer, October 7, 1788 The constitutional role of the federal Bill of Rights has been monu- mental. This fact would surprise most members of the First Federal Congress, the body which reluctantly proposed to the states the con- stitutional amendments later called the Bill of Rights.' The Federalist Mr. Bowling is a member of the First Federal Congress Project at George Wash- ington University, Washington, D.C. This article is based upon a chapter in his "Politics in the First Congress, 1789-1791" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin 1968). Additional research was conducted under a grant from the National Endow- ment for the Humanities. ' Although much has been written about the Bill of Rights, very little of it re- lates to the legislative history of its adoption. This is particularly true about the polit- ical aspects, most of which are contained in previously unstudied manuscripts. Robert A. Rutland, The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776-1791 (Chapel Hill 1955), which focuses on the background of the amendments, aptly summarizes its passage through the First Federal Congress.
  • HISTORIC RESOURCES CHAPTER 2015 REGIONAL MASTER PLAN for the Rockingham Planning Commission Region

    HISTORIC RESOURCES CHAPTER 2015 REGIONAL MASTER PLAN for the Rockingham Planning Commission Region

    HISTORIC RESOURCES CHAPTER 2015 REGIONAL MASTER PLAN For the Rockingham Planning Commission Region Rockingham Planning Commission Regional Master Plan Historical Resources C ONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 What the Region Said About Historical Resources ............................................................................ 2 Historical Resources Goals ............................................................................................................... 3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 5 Historical Background and Resources in the RPC Region....................................................................... 5 Preservation Tools .......................................................................................................................... 9 Key Issues and Challenges ............................................................................................................. 18 What Do We Preserve? ................................................................................................................. 18 Education and Awareness .............................................................................................................. 19 Redevelopment, Densification, and Tear-Downs ................................................................................ 20
  • The Search for Security Maine After Penobscot

    The Search for Security Maine After Penobscot

    Maine History Volume 21 Number 3 Article 2 1-1-1982 The Search for Security Maine after Penobscot James S. Leamon Bates College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Leamon, James S.. "The Search for Security Maine after Penobscot." Maine History 21, 3 (1982): 119-154. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal/vol21/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine History by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JAMES S. LEAMON T he Search for Security Maine after Penobscot The Penobscot campaign of 1779 made little impact on the military outcome of the American Revolution. The focus of military action was shifting to the southern states when the British seized Bagaduce (Castine) at the mouth of the Penobscot River and defeated the expedition dispatched by Massachusetts to drive them out.1 For people in the District of Maine, however, the Penobscot defeat represented a calamity of the first order. During the rest of the war, they had to contend with a garrison of regular British troops in their midst. To Bagaduce flocked loyalists who, with a vigor sharpened by vengeance, joined the regulars in plundering the coast. Active loyalist participation injected a new note of personal vindictiveness in what now became a civil war. Amid internal dissension and a growing sense of isolation and despair, unified defense collapsed throughout the District.
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present

    CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present

    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
  • Lco~[), Nrev~ Lham~Sfn~[E ]977 SUPREME COURT of NEW HAMPSHIRE Appoi Nted

    Lco~[), Nrev~ Lham~Sfn~[E ]977 SUPREME COURT of NEW HAMPSHIRE Appoi Nted

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. 6~N ~~~~'L~©DUCu~©u~ U(Q ll~HE ~£~"~rr»~~h\~lE (ot1l~u g~ U\]~V~ li"~A[~rr~s.~~Du 8 1.\ COU\!lCO~[), NrEV~ lHAM~Sfn~[E ]977 SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Appoi nted_ Frank R. Kenison, Chief Justice Apri 1 29, 1952 Edward J. Lampron, Senior Justice October 5, 1949 William A. Grimes, Associate Justice December 12, 1966 Maurice P. Bois, Associate Justice October 5, 1976 Charles G. Douglas, III, Associate Justice January 1, 1977 George S. Pappagianis Clerk of Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions li:IDdSlWi&iImlm"'_IIIII'I..a_IIIHI_sm:r.!!!IIIl!!!!__ g~_~= _________ t.':"':iIr_. ____________ .~ • • FE~l 2 ~: 1978 J\UBttst,1977 £AU • "1 be1.J..e.ve. tha..:t oWl. c.oWtt hM pWl-Oue.d a. -6te.a.dy c.OWl-Oe. tfvtoughoL1;t the. ye.aJlA, tha..:t U ha.6 pll.ogll.u-6e.d . a.nd a.ppUe.d the. pJUnuplu 06 OUll. law-6 -Ln a. ma.nne.ll. c.o Y!.-6-L-6te.r"t wUh the. pubUc. iMe.Il.Ut a.nd that aU the. jud-LuaJty w-L.U c..oJ1-ti.nue. to be, a. -6a.6e.guaJtd to the. .V,b eJr.;t,[u, 1l.e..6 po MibiJ!ft[u a.nd d-Lg nUy we. c.heJLU h. " Honorable Frank R. Kenison, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, liThe State of the Judiciary,1I 3 MAR 77 House Record, page 501.
  • Loyalists in New Hampshire During the American Revolution

    Loyalists in New Hampshire During the American Revolution

    Wesleyan University The Honors College Those “Inimical to the American Cause”: Loyalists in New Hampshire during the American Revolution by Eric Spierer Class of 2010 A thesis submitted to the faculty of Wesleyan University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Departmental Honors in History Middletown, Connecticut April, 2010 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 A Note on Terms, Spelling, and Abbreviations 6 Introduction 8 Chapter One: A New Political Reality 19 Chapter Two: The ―Cause of Liberty‖ the Imprisonment of Loyalists 52 Chapter Three: ―the Cries of my Wife and Sufforing Babes‖ 69 Conclusion: Loyalist or Not? 102 Bibliography 113 2 Acknowledgements ―Research, of course, is no substitute for wisdom The sum of a million facts is not the truth,‖ wrote William Manchester in The Death of a President. He was right: research and facts cannot replace wisdom and truth. This is why budding historians need help—and lots of it—to combine their research and their ideas into an original thesis that hopefully grasps at the smallest bit of wisdom and truth. The kind and knowledgeable staff members of the New Hampshire State Archives deserve my ultimate praise and appreciation for their help with this project. I especially valued the advice and guidance I received from my many conversations with State Archivist Dr. Frank Mevers, whose willingness to help was unwavering. Brian Nelson and Benoit Shoja were generous with their time and patience when I needed help finding a source or could not decipher the eighteenth century script. The staff at the New Hampshire Historical Society, and particularly Bill Copeley, was repeatedly helpful during my frequent trips.
  • H. Doc. 108-222

    H. Doc. 108-222

    34 Biographical Directory DELEGATES IN THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS CONNECTICUT Dates of Attendance Andrew Adams............................ 1778 Benjamin Huntington................ 1780, Joseph Spencer ........................... 1779 Joseph P. Cooke ............... 1784–1785, 1782–1783, 1788 Jonathan Sturges........................ 1786 1787–1788 Samuel Huntington ................... 1776, James Wadsworth....................... 1784 Silas Deane ....................... 1774–1776 1778–1781, 1783 Jeremiah Wadsworth.................. 1788 Eliphalet Dyer.................. 1774–1779, William S. Johnson........... 1785–1787 William Williams .............. 1776–1777 1782–1783 Richard Law............ 1777, 1781–1782 Oliver Wolcott .................. 1776–1778, Pierpont Edwards ....................... 1788 Stephen M. Mitchell ......... 1785–1788 1780–1783 Oliver Ellsworth................ 1778–1783 Jesse Root.......................... 1778–1782 Titus Hosmer .............................. 1778 Roger Sherman ....... 1774–1781, 1784 Delegates Who Did Not Attend and Dates of Election John Canfield .............................. 1786 William Hillhouse............. 1783, 1785 Joseph Trumbull......................... 1774 Charles C. Chandler................... 1784 William Pitkin............................. 1784 Erastus Wolcott ...... 1774, 1787, 1788 John Chester..................... 1787, 1788 Jedediah Strong...... 1782, 1783, 1784 James Hillhouse ............... 1786, 1788 John Treadwell ....... 1784, 1785, 1787 DELAWARE Dates of Attendance Gunning Bedford,
  • H. Doc. 108-222

    H. Doc. 108-222

    THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 1789–2005 [ 43 ] TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING The Constitution (Art. I, sec. 4) provided that ‘‘The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year * * * on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.’’ Pursuant to a resolution of the Continental Congress the first session of the First Congress convened March 4, 1789. Up to and including May 20, 1820, eighteen acts were passed providing for the meet- ing of Congress on other days in the year. Since that year Congress met regularly on the first Mon- day in December until January 1934. The date for convening of Congress was changed by the Twen- tieth Amendment to the Constitution in 1933 to the 3d day of January unless a different day shall be appointed by law. The first and second sessions of the First Congress were held in New York City; subsequently, including the first session of the Sixth Congress, Philadelphia was the meeting place; since then Congress has convened in Washington, D.C. [ 44 ] FIRST CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1789, TO MARCH 3, 1791 FIRST SESSION—March 4, 1789, 1 to September 29, 1789 SECOND SESSION—January 4, 1790, to August 12, 1790 THIRD SESSION—December 6, 1790, to March 3, 1791 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—JOHN ADAMS, of Massachusetts PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—JOHN LANGDON, 2 of New Hampshire SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—SAMUEL A. OTIS, 3 of Massachusetts DOORKEEPER OF THE SENATE—JAMES MATHERS, 4 of New York SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—FREDERICK A.
  • Few Americans in the 1790S Would Have Predicted That the Subject Of

    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.
  • The Colonial and Revolutionary War Family Connections

    The Colonial and Revolutionary War Family Connections

    1. The Dows family, from which Stephen Leland 2. John Adams Chandler Born 3. The Arthur Tappan Averill ancestry traces back to 16. Andrew Jackson and Miss Isabella B. Hostetter were united in marriage in Explore your place in history Dows descended, originally spelled the name at Fryeburg, Maine in 1833 he Captain John Averill who was commissioned under Dubuque, Iowa. Mrs. Jackson was a native of Lancaster County Pa., the daughter Dowse. The great-grandfather of Stephen L. was of the ninth generation of the crown of Great Britain. The next in descent was of Abraham and Lydia (White) Hostetter, natives of Pennsylvania and of German resided in Charleston at the outbreak of the family settled in New England. John Averill, a soldier of the Revolutionary War. ancestry, on the father’s side, and pure American on the side of the mother, she being The Colonial and Revolutionary War Revolution, and at the time of the battle of (see Chandler Pump connections 4. About 1652, John Upton came to America and able to trace her progenitors very nearly back to the landing of the Mayflower. Bunker Hill his property was destroyed. in Block 95 Lot 11 also) settled at what was then Salem Village, now known Family Connections as Danvers Mass., Francis J. Upton was several 17. Captain William Ives was born in England, and came to Boston in the ship “Truelove” in 1633. generations in line from this family. In 1639 he located at New Haven, Connecticut. His name appears in the civil compact dated June 4, 1639, 18.
  • Alternative Reading Guide for the 1619 Project Essays ©2021

    Alternative Reading Guide for the 1619 Project Essays ©2021

    Alternative Reading Guide for The 1619 Project Essays ©2021 Below are essays from the New York Times 1619 Project and a Pulitzer Center designed reading guide along with a supplemental reading guide and questions. You can find the 1619 essays below in the full issue from the Pulitzer Center. The 1619 Project, while being accused of some historically fallacious claims, created a groundswell of conversation in the United States. In fact, the response was so monumental that many schools began to use the 1619 Project in their curriculum. This adds a necessary richness to American classrooms where too often the voices and experiences of black Americans, who were instrumental in helping to shape and define America’s place in history, have often been downplayed or even ignored. We welcome the new discussion and hope that it continues. The danger we see in using only the 1619 Project as a guide to race relations and black American history is that it drowns out some of the voices of black resilience, strength and true heroism. Much of the 1619 Project focuses on oppression and grievance as the collective voice of the black American experience. This alternative reading guide takes the Pulitzer Center’s guide and adds an additional reading to each 1619 Project essay for a more complete picture of the black American experience and contribution to American society. We encourage all classrooms using the 1619 Project to consider adding these or other supplemental readings to expand their curriculum, promote robust dialogue and discussion, and add further dimension to the nuance and complexity of the building of America.
  • 1. Name of Property Historic Name Margeson, Richman, Estate Other Names/Site Number Hawkridge, Edwin, Estate; Loomis, Ralph, Estate

    1. Name of Property Historic Name Margeson, Richman, Estate Other Names/Site Number Hawkridge, Edwin, Estate; Loomis, Ralph, Estate

    NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8-86) United States Department of the Interior i r National Park Service 01990' National Register of Historic Places NATIONAL Registration Form REGISTER This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations of eligibility for individual properties or districts. See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, styles, materials, and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories listed in the instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900a). Type all entries. 1. Name of Property historic name Margeson, Richman, Estate other names/site number Hawkridge, Edwin, Estate; Loomis, Ralph, Estate 2. Location street & number Long Point Road N/A I I not for publication city, town Newington (Pease Air Force Base) N/A I I vicinity" state New Hampshire code NH county Rockingham code 015 zip code 03801 3. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property private 1 1 building(s) Contributing Noncontributing public-local [x"| district 2 ____buildings I public-State site ____ sites [xl public-Federal structure 1 structures 1 object ____ objects 1 Total Name of related multiple property listing: Number of contributing resources previously N/A listed in the National Register ____ 4. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this IS! nomination ED 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.