DOCSLIB.ORG

The Federalists' Cold War: the Fries Rebellion, National Security, and the State, 1787-1800 Paul Douglas Newman University of Pittsburghat Johnstown

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Federalists' Cold War: the Fries Rebellion, National Security, and the State, 1787-1800 Paul Douglas Newman University of Pittsburghat Johnstown The Federalists' Cold War: The Fries Rebellion, National Security, and the State, 1787-1800 Paul Douglas Newman University of Pittsburghat Johnstown Toforbear ...from taking navaland military measures to secure our trade, defend our territory in case of [French] invasion, andprevent, or sup- press domestic insurrection would be to offer up the United States a cer- tainprey to Europe and exhibit to the World a sad spectacle of national degradationand imbecility. James McHenry, Secretary of War, April, 1798' ...the business of defence would be very imperfectly done, if [Congress] confined their operations of defence to land and navalforces, and ne- glected to destroy the cankerworm which is corrodingin the heart ofthe country... there are a great number of aliens in this country from that nation [France] with whom we have atpresentalarmingdifferences...there are emissaries amongst us, who have not only fomented our differences with that country, but who have endeavored to create divisions amongst our own citizens. They are.. assiduously employed at this moment, and it is much to be lamented that there exists no authority to restrain this evil. Samuel Sitgreaves, U.S. Rep. PA, May 17982 In the spring of 1798, as war with France loomed on the horizon, James McHenry and Samuel Sitgreaves surveyed the state of national security, exter- nally and internally, and found it wanting. The national government should be stronger, they worried, for in power lies real security. Rewind eleven years. At 9:00 am on Monday morning, June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton rose to his feet on the floor of the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia. He stood to denounce the democratic, individual state-centered "New Jersey Plan" for a central government. For nearly six hours on one of that summer's hot- test days, Hamilton held the floor in an uninterrupted conditional endorse- ment of the "Virginia Resolves." He favored the latter for its strength, but to his mind, the national government should be much stronger than a federal union would allow. "...IWIe must establish a general and national govern- ment, completely sovereign," Hamilton demanded, "and annihilate the state distinctions and state operations." It was not the state governments them- selves that Hamilton feared, but their local orientation and tendency to bend to the sway of the people, who "seldom judge or determine right," that influ- 64 Pennsylvania History enced him to advocate an aristocratic, sovereign national government based on the British model. As much as the specter of popular democracy, the omni-presence of well fortified European forces surrounding the infant na- tion haunted Alexander Hamilton. Foremost among the defects of the demo- cratic Confederation of independent states, Hamilton lamented, were secu- rity matters: that the states "can raise no troops nor equip vessels before war is actually declared. They cannot heretofore take any preparatory measure be- fore an enemy is at your door." So here we see Hamilton at his most conser- vative, and his most monarchical. In order to attain an internal security, or "individual security" as he deemed it, Hamilton called for a limited electorate of elites, lifetime tenures for Presidents and Senators, and a national govern- ment veto of state laws. This powerful, sovereign, and energetic national state, invigorated with "public strength," could then provide a military de- fense to meet external security threats. Hamilton had two ends in mind that day, first, the creation of an omipotent, "completely sovereign" national state, and of course that end would be the means toward securing the survival of the country and its republican experiment. Hamilton concluded his oratory at about three in the afternoon, surprisingly to no general disapprobation. On Tuesday, the delegates went back to discussing the merits of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans, almost as if Monday had never occured. Although the federal document that emerged from Philadelphia would create a significantly weaker nation state than Hamilton thought prudent, it was a start, and one that he enthusiastically endorsed in his home state of New York and around the country in The Federalist. Like infants, nations too are born weak, he surmised, and if properly conditioned by doting parents both can mature to be strong adults. Hamilton's quest to build a national state of immense power did not end that steamy June afternoon in Philadelphia; rather it had just begun. For the twelve years to follow, Hamilton would work as a Treasury Secretary, a General, and a lobbyist to enact policies that would create a vibrant and varied national economy, ensure the public credit, and provide internal and external security not only as ends in themselves, but as means to the ultimate goal of finishing what he believed was started at Phila- delphia--the establishment of a "national government, completely sovereign." (He would work with and through several of the most conservative members of the Federalist elite, whom earlier historians have referred to as "The High Federlists." This essay terms them "Hamiltorians" and will identify them be- low.) Viewing this activity, especially the development of those internal and external security systems, through the lens of the modern "national security state"concept can do two things at once; it can rationalize what has heretofore been considered actions of irrational Federalist paranoia in the 1790s while at the same time revealing Hamilton for the true Machiavellian that he was.3 The Fries Rebellion, National Security, and the State, 1787-1800 65 The National Security State and the Early Republic During the hottest days of the Cold War, Southern historian C. Vann Woodward lamented that America's "age of free security" had come to an end with the close of World War II.4 Woodward as well as historians of American foreign policy have maintained that prior to 1945, oceanic buffers and weak neighbors in the Western Hemisphere afforded the U.S. a "free" national se- curity in two ways. These conditions not only precluded expensive defensive measures during peacetime, but they saved Americans from increased govern- mental authority and incursions upon their liberties. During this era, America erected military schemes only during wartime and relaxed its defensive pos- ture during peacetime. Thus, the tensions natural to a democratic-state be- tween guarding the individual liberties of its citizens and providing for na- tional security rarely surfaced. In the last two decades, historians of the Cold War have described the post-War American reaction to a perceived Soviet threat as the creation of a "national security state." Jet propulsion, nuclear weapons, and intercontinen- tal delivery systems shrunk the world and destroyed America's natural barriers of defense. Meanwhile, most Americans feared a Communist conspiracy to destroy America and dominate the globe. They feared the possibility of mili- tary invasion or nuclear attack. But just as much, Americans worried that the Communists would infiltrate American society and government, spread the ideology of socialism, and corrode the Americans' attachment to their own core values of independence, democracy, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion. The nation would then become ripe for Communist revolution and Soviet invasion. This popular attitude of anti-Communism sanctioned the national government's augmentation of power and authority during peace- time through the implementation of: (1)foreign and domestic policies such as containment, intervention, and the communist-hunting of McCarthyism (2)institutions like the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the Department of Defense and (3)legislation like the Taft-Hartley Act, the McCarran Act, and massive tax increases. Americans willingly and otherwise sacrificed their tax dollars and, more important, their individual liberties for the preservation of shared national core values. In the 194 0s and 1950s the threat seemed real enough, and many people, all too agreeably, complied. Fear motivated a democratic people to accept governmental strictures designed by national security advisors and military personnel whom they did not elect. Fear also led them to champion the oppressive policies, legislation, and bom- bastic anti-communist antics of some men they did choose. According to most historians of American foreign relations, the age of "free security" died with the close of the Second World War.5 Even the most recent edition of a very popular reader for undergraduates on American foreign relations from the Revolution to 1920 still opens with C. Vann Woodward's 1960 article describing the era as an "age of free security."6 66 Pennsylvania History Indeed, in Cold War America, national security came with a very high price tag. But this does, not mean that during America's first century and a half that security was always free.7 When we judge the national security con- cerns of earlier policymakers by the benchmarks of popular attitude, policies, institutions, legislation, and perceptions of power relationships, the national security state model emerges as a useful tool for understanding the intercon- nection of America's foreign relations and domestic policies during the pre- Cold War era--especially the 1790s. In that decade, the Hamiltonian Feder- alists attempted to build their own version of a national security state, al- though obviously to a lesser extent than did their Cold War followers. Their reaction to French Jacobinism in many ways
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Federalist Era 1787-1800
    THE FEDERALIST ERA 1787-1800 Articles of Confederation: the first form of government. *NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TOO WEAK! Too much state power “friendship of states” examples of being too weak: • No President/No executive • Congress can’t tax or raise an army • States are coining their own money • Foreign troubles (British on the frontier, French in New Orleans) Shays’ Rebellion: Daniel Shays is a farmer in Massachusetts protesting tax collectors. The rebellion is a wake up call - recognize we need a new government Constitutional Convention of 1787: Delegates meet to revise the Articles, instead draft a new Constitution • Major issue discussed = REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS (more representatives in Congress, more influence you have in passing laws/policies in your favor) NJ Plan (equal per state) vs. Virginia Plan (based on population) House of Representatives: GREAT COMPROMISE Based on population Creates a bicameral Senate: (two-house) legislature Equal, two per state THREE-FIFTHS • 3 out of every 5 slaves will count for representation and taxation COMPROMISE • increases representation in Congress for South Other Compromises: • Congress regulates interstate and foreign trade COMMERCIAL • Can tax imports (tariffs) but not exports COMPROMISE • Slave trade continued until 1808 How did the Constitution fix the problems of the Articles of Confederation? ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION CONSTITUTION • States have the most power, national • states have some power, national government government has little has most • No President or executive to carry out
    [Show full text]
  • Popular Sovereignty, Slavery in the Territories, and the South, 1785-1860
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2010 Popular sovereignty, slavery in the territories, and the South, 1785-1860 Robert Christopher Childers Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Childers, Robert Christopher, "Popular sovereignty, slavery in the territories, and the South, 1785-1860" (2010). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 1135. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1135 This Dissertation 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 Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES, AND THE SOUTH, 1785-1860 A Dissertation 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 Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of History by Robert Christopher Childers B.S., B.S.E., Emporia State University, 2002 M.A., Emporia State University, 2004 May 2010 For my wife ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing history might seem a solitary task, but in truth it is a collaborative effort. Throughout my experience working on this project, I have engaged with fellow scholars whose help has made my work possible. Numerous archivists aided me in the search for sources. Working in the Southern Historical Collection at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill gave me access to the letters and writings of southern leaders and common people alike.
    [Show full text]
  • PEAES Guide: the Historical Society of Pennsylvania
    PEAES Guide: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania http://www.librarycompany.org/Economics/PEAESguide/hsp.htm Keyword Search Entire Guide View Resources by Institution Search Guide Institutions Surveyed - Select One The Historical Society of Pennsylvania 1300 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-732-6200 http://www.hsp.org Overview: The entries in this survey highlight some of the most important collections, as well as some of the smaller gems, that researchers will find valuable in their work on the early American economy. Together, they are a representative sampling of the range of manuscript collections at HSP, but scholars are urged to pursue fruitful lines of inquiry to locate and use the scores of additional materials in each area that is surveyed here. There are numerous helpful unprinted guides at HSP that index or describe large collections. Some of these are listed below, especially when they point in numerous directions for research. In addition, the HSP has a printed Guide to the Manuscript Collections of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP: Philadelphia, 1991), which includes an index of proper names; it is not especially helpful for searching specific topics, item names, of subject areas. In addition, entries in the Guide are frequently too brief to explain the richness of many collections. Finally, although the on-line guide to the manuscript collections is generally a reproduction of the Guide, it is at present being updated, corrected, and expanded. This survey does not contain a separate section on land acquisition, surveying, usage, conveyance, or disputes, but there is much information about these subjects in the individual collections reviewed below.
    [Show full text]
  • John Adams Contemporaries
    17 150-163 Found2 AK 9/13/07 11:27 AM Page 150 Answer Key John Adams contemporaries. These students may point out that Adams penned defenses Handout A—John Adams of American rights in the 1770s and was (1735–1826) one of the earliest advocates of colonial 1. Adams played a leading role in the First independence from Great Britain. They Continental Congress, serving on ninety may also mention that his authorship committees and chairing twenty-five of of the Massachusetts Constitution and these.An early advocate of independence Declaration of Rights of 1780 makes from Great Britain, in 1776 he penned him a champion of individual liberty. his Thoughts on Government, describing 5. Some students may suggest that gov- how government should be arranged. ernment may limit speech when the He headed the committee charged public safety requires it. Others may with writing the Declaration of Inde- suggest that offensive or obscene pendence. He served on the commis- speech may be restricted. Still other sion that negotiated the Treaty of Paris, students will argue against any limita- which ended the Revolutionary War. tions on freedom of speech. 2. Adams was not present at the Consti- tutional Convention. However, while serving as an American diplomat in Handout B—Vocabulary and London, he followed the proceedings. Context Questions Adams and Jefferson urged Congress 1. Vocabulary to yield to the Anti-Federalist demand a. disagreed for the Bill of Rights as a condition for b. caused ratifying the proposed Constitution. c. until now 3. The Alien and Sedition Acts gave the d.
    [Show full text]
  • Alien and Sedition Acts • Explain Significance of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions Do Now “The Vietnam War Was Lost in America
    Adams SWBAT • Explain significance of the Alien and Sedition Acts • Explain significance of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions Do Now “The Vietnam War was lost in America. Public opinion killed any prospect of victory.” • What is the meaning of this statement? • What is more important, liberty (ie. free speech) or order (ie. security)? John Adams President John Adams • John Adams (Federalist) becomes President in 1797 *Due to an awkward feature of the Constitution, Jefferson becomes VP John Adams • During his presidency Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts • How does the cartoonist portray Adam’s actions? Alien and Sedition Acts, 1798 • Required immigrants to live in the Naturalization Act U.S. for l4 years before becoming a citizen • Allowed President to expel foreigners from the U.S. if he Alien Act believes they are dangerous to the nation's peace & safety • Allowed President to imprison or Alien Enemies Act expel foreigners considered dangerous in time of war • Barred American citizens from saying, writing, or publishing any Sedition Act false, scandalous, or malicious statements about the U.S. Gov, Congress, or the President Alien and Sedition Acts • The 4 acts together became known as the Alien and Sedition Acts • Response to the Alien and Sedition Acts: - Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions - (written by T. Jefferson & J. Madison) declared the Acts unconstitutional Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions 1. Called for the states to declare the Alien and Sedition Act null & void (invalid) 2. Introduced concept of nullification (ignoring
    [Show full text]
  • Numbered Record Hooks C O Ii C E R Ii I N G \.F I 1 I T a Ry Operations and Service
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES MICROFILM PUBLICATIONS PAMPHLET DESCRIBING M853 Numbered Record Hooks C o ii c e r ii i n g \.f i 1 i t a ry Operations and Service, Pay»• and Settlement of Accounts, and Supplies in the War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON. 1973 RICHARD NIXON President of the United States ARTHUR F.SAMPSON Acting Administrator of General Services JAMES B. RHOADS Archivist of the United States The records reproduced in the microfilm publication are from War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records Record Group 92 in the National Archives Building NUMBERED RECORD BOOKS CONCERNING MILITARY OPERATIONS AND SERVICE, PAY AND SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, AND SUPPLIES IN THE WAR DEPARTMENT COLLECTION OF REVOLUTIONARY WAR RECORDS On the 41 rolls of this microfilm publication are reproduced 199 numbered record books, with related separate indexes and one unnumbered record book, concerning Revolutionary War military operations and service, pay and settlement of accounts, and sup- plies. These records are part of War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records, Record Group 93. Most of the numbered record books were created during the period 1775-833 but some were continued in use or were begun in the early postwar years, and a few are copies made after 1800 of earlier records. The separate indexes were compiled in the 19th and 20th centuries by custodians of the records. The War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records An act of Congress of August 7, 1789 (1 Stat. 49) established the Department of War in the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright © 1989, 2000, 2006, by Salem Press, Inc. Copyright © 2015 by Salem Press, a Division of EBSCO Information Services, Inc., and Grey House Publishing, Inc
    Copyright © 1989, 2000, 2006, by Salem Press, Inc. Copyright © 2015 by Salem Press, A Division of EBSCO Information Services, Inc., and Grey House Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. For permission requests, contact [email protected]. For information contact Grey House Publishing/Salem Press, 4919 Route 22, PO Box 56, Amenia, NY 12501. ¥ The paper used in these volumes conforms to the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, Z39.48-1992 (R1997). Publisher's Cataloging-In-Publication Data (Prepared by The Donohue Group, Inc.) American presidents.—Fourth edition / editor, Robert P. Watson, Lynn University. 2 volumes : illustrations, maps ; cm “Editor, First Edition, Frank N. Magill ; editors, Third Edition, Robert P. Watson, Florida Atlantic University [and] Richard Yon, University of Florida.” Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: Volume 1. The American Presidency, George Washington–Woodrow Wilson —volume 2. Warren G. Harding–Barack Obama, Index. ISBN: 978-1-61925-940-9 (set) ISBN: 978-1-68217-081-6 (v.1) ISBN: 978-1-68217-082-3 (v.2) 1. Presidents—United States—Biography. 2. Presidents—United States—History. 3. United States—Politics and government. I. Watson, Robert P., 1962- E176.1 .A6563 2015 973.09/9 B First Printing Printed in the United States of America Introduction The Pageantry of the Presidency forty-third man to hold the office, but he was To many people, the presidency is the most vis- the forty-fourth president because Grover ible part of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791 David P
    The University of Chicago Law Review VOLUME 61 NUMBER 3 SUMMER 1994 of Chicago © 1994 by The University The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791 David P. Curriet Judicial review of legislative and executive action has been such a success in the United States that we tend to look exclu- sively to the courts for guidance in interpreting the Constitution. The stock of judicial precedents is rich, accessible, and familiar, but it does not exhaust the relevant materials. Members of Congress and executive officers, no less than judges, swear to uphold the Constitution, and they interpret it every day in making and applying the law.' Like judges, they often engage in t Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor and Interim Dean, The University of Chicago Law School. The author wishes to thank the Kirkland & Ellis Faculty Research Fund, the Mayer, Brown & Platt Faculty Research Fund, the Morton C. Seeley Fund, the Raymond & Nancy Goodman Feldman Fund, and the Sonnenschein Faculty Research Fund for financial support; Charlene Bangs Bickford, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Helen E. Veit of the First Federal Congress Project for access to hitherto unpublished reports of the debates; Kenneth Bowling, Gerhard Casper, Richard Posner, and Richard Ross for invalu- able advice and encouragement; and Keith Garza for exemplary research assistance. ' "M[T]he whole business of Legislation," said Representative Theodore Sedgwick in 1791, "was a practical construction of the powers of the Legislature. ." Gales & Seaton, eds, 2 Annals of Congress 1960 (1791) ("Annals"). See generally Frank H. Easterbrook, PresidentialReview, 40 Case W Res L Rev 905 (1989-90); Jefferson Powell, ed, Languages of Power: A Source Book of Early American ConstitutionalHistory xi-xii (Carolina Aca- demic Press, 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Presidents Worksheet 43 Secretaries of State (#1-24)
    PRESIDENTS WORKSHEET 43 NAME SOLUTION KEY SECRETARIES OF STATE (#1-24) Write the number of each president who matches each Secretary of State on the left. Some entries in each column will match more than one in the other column. Each president will be matched at least once. 9,10,13 Daniel Webster 1 George Washington 2 John Adams 14 William Marcy 3 Thomas Jefferson 18 Hamilton Fish 4 James Madison 5 James Monroe 5 John Quincy Adams 6 John Quincy Adams 12,13 John Clayton 7 Andrew Jackson 8 Martin Van Buren 7 Martin Van Buren 9 William Henry Harrison 21 Frederick Frelinghuysen 10 John Tyler 11 James Polk 6 Henry Clay (pictured) 12 Zachary Taylor 15 Lewis Cass 13 Millard Fillmore 14 Franklin Pierce 1 John Jay 15 James Buchanan 19 William Evarts 16 Abraham Lincoln 17 Andrew Johnson 7, 8 John Forsyth 18 Ulysses S. Grant 11 James Buchanan 19 Rutherford B. Hayes 20 James Garfield 3 James Madison 21 Chester Arthur 22/24 Grover Cleveland 20,21,23James Blaine 23 Benjamin Harrison 10 John Calhoun 18 Elihu Washburne 1 Thomas Jefferson 22/24 Thomas Bayard 4 James Monroe 23 John Foster 2 John Marshall 16,17 William Seward PRESIDENTS WORKSHEET 44 NAME SOLUTION KEY SECRETARIES OF STATE (#25-43) Write the number of each president who matches each Secretary of State on the left. Some entries in each column will match more than one in the other column. Each president will be matched at least once. 32 Cordell Hull 25 William McKinley 28 William Jennings Bryan 26 Theodore Roosevelt 40 Alexander Haig 27 William Howard Taft 30 Frank Kellogg 28 Woodrow Wilson 29 Warren Harding 34 John Foster Dulles 30 Calvin Coolidge 42 Madeleine Albright 31 Herbert Hoover 25 John Sherman 32 Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • Like It Or Not, Trump Has a Point: FISA Reform and the Appearance of Partisanship in Intelligence Investigations by Stewart Baker1
    Like It or Not, Trump Has a Point: FISA Reform and the Appearance of Partisanship in Intelligence Investigations by Stewart Baker1 To protect the country from existential threats, its intelligence capabilities need to be extraordinary -- and extraordinarily intrusive. The more intrusive they are, the greater the risk they will be abused. So, since the attacks of 9/11, debate over civil liberties has focused almost exclusively on the threat that intelligence abuses pose to the individuals and disfavored minorities. That made sense when our intelligence agencies were focused on terrorism carried out by small groups of individuals. But a look around the world shows that intelligence agencies can be abused in ways that are even more dangerous, not just to individuals but to democracy. Using security agencies to surveil and suppress political opponents is always a temptation for those in power. It is a temptation from which the United States has not escaped. The FBI’s director for life, J. Edgar Hoover, famously maintained his power by building files on numerous Washington politicians and putting his wiretapping and investigative capabilities at the service of Presidents pursuing political vendettas. That risk is making a comeback. The United States used the full force of its intelligence agencies to hold terrorism at bay for twenty years, but we paid too little attention to geopolitical adversaries who are now using chipping away at our strengths in ways we did not expect. As American intelligence reshapes itself to deal with new challenges from Russia and China, it is no longer hunting small groups of terrorists in distant deserts.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Bartlett Interviewer: Fred Holborn Date of Interview: January 6, 1965 Place of Interview: Washington, D.C
    Charles Bartlett Oral History Interview – JFK #1, 1/6/1965 Administrative Information Creator: Charles Bartlett Interviewer: Fred Holborn Date of Interview: January 6, 1965 Place of Interview: Washington, D.C. Length: 91 pp. Biographical Note Bartlett, Washington correspondent for the Chattanooga Times from 1948 to 1962, columnist for the Chicago Daily News, and personal friend of John F. Kennedy (JFK), discusses his role in introducing Jacqueline Bouvier to JFK, JFK’s relationship with Lyndon Baines Johnson, and JFK’s Cabinet appointments, among other issues. Access Open. Usage Restrictions According to the deed of gift signed October 11, 1983, copyright of these materials has been assigned to United States Government. Copyright The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excesses of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. The copyright law extends its protection to unpublished works from the moment of creation in a tangible form. Direct your questions concerning copyright to the reference staff.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]