DOCSLIB.ORG

John Dickinson Before He Was “A Farmer”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
John Dickinson Before He Was “A Farmer” TRIMMING LIBERTY’S TREE: JOHN DICKINSON BEFORE HE WAS “A FARMER” Benjamin Asher Fogel AN HONORS THESIS in History Presented to the Faculty of the Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors 2017 Warren Breckman, Honors Seminar Director Daniel Richter, Thesis Advisor ______________________________ Siyen Fei Undergraduate Chair, Department of History ii To my grandfather, Herbert Sidney Kulik (Z”L) iii Acknowledgments I cannot adequately express the gratitude I hold for the many people who have willingly and unselfishly sacrificed their time and energy to support me in this endeavor. I equally share gratitude for the resolve of my friends and family who have not sacrificed their patience or composure as I relentlessly lectured about this project each day until they retired and consistently delivered a prolix, in the form of an email, in their inboxes each morning. Their warm-heartedness, persistent encouragement, and honest critiques guaranteed the success of this project. Thank you to my advisor Dr. Daniel Richter who was willing to take me on as a pupil and first challenged me to critically look at the complexity of John Dickinson’s mind. Thank you to my seminar advisor Dr. Warren Breckman whose feedback and guidance always ensured that this thesis stayed on course. I hope both have taken an immense pleasure in watching this project grow from its rugged beginnings. I cannot imagine where this project would be without Dr. Jane Calvert and the John Dickinson Writings Project. Much of this research would not have been possible without their gracious backing. Dr. Calvert has served as a remarkable teacher and guide for this thesis, and I thank her for her care and counsel. Thank you to Marvin and Sybil Weiner for their generous support of this project and patronage of American history through their travel awards. Thank you to the Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship and Constitutionalism for their sponsorship of the project. I have benefited greatly from the input and help of Dr. Rogers’ Smith and the post-doctoral fellows James Hrdlicka and Shenila Khoja-Moolji. Thank you to the Yale Undergraduate Research Conference for giving me a platform to share my project. Thank you to his honor Judge Randy Holland iv for sending me his book, his most useful advice, and for his interest in my efforts. Thank you to his honor Justice Eric Stockdale for being a gracious host to me in London and imparting some of his brilliance unto me. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Lesley Whitelaw and the staff at the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple’s archive in London. Dr. Whitelaw’s passion for history was rivaled only by her hospitality. Thank you to the John Dickinson Mansion and their dedicated staff who work to keep memory of the past alive. They were kind enough to look for, find, and gift me an out-of-print book. As always, I’m thankful to my parents for their unconditioned love and zealous support. While I’m grateful that my parents have animated my love of history through the fields of Brandywine, to Masada’s plateau, and to Tulum’s ruins, the one and most important recurring feature has been my father’s hand on my shoulder and my mother’s endearing smile. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 1: ………………………………………………………..………………………………………17 Chapter 2: ………………………………………………………………………………………………..33 Chapter 3: …………………………………………………………………………………..……………71 Chapter 4: ……………………………………………………………………………………………....100 Conclusion: ………………………………………………………………………………………...…..123 Bibliography/Works Cited: ……………………………………………………………………..…..129 1 Trimming Liberty’s Tree John Dickinson before he was “a Farmer” 2 “There is a natural aristocracy among men,” wrote an aging Thomas Jefferson, “the grounds of this are virtue and talents.”1 Several years removed from his presidency, Jefferson had just reconnected with John Adams after a series of vicious public fights had led to a decade long estrangement between the old friends. Removed from politics and well into retirement, the two dignified veterans were free to reminisce on their shared journey and sojourn into the philosophy of nature, the state, and man. Their missives are graceful and sophic and there is a calming charm to their exchange. “There was a little Aristocracy among Us, of Talents and Letters,” wrote Adams. “Mr Dickinson was primus interpares; the Bell Weather; the leader of the Aristocratical flock.”2 “The natural aristocracy,” responded Jefferson, “I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.”3 Citing their fading memories, neither Adams nor Jefferson were able to recall whether it was Richard Henry Lee of Virginia or John Dickinson of Pennsylvania that had written the 1774 Petition to the King in response to the Intolerable Acts. While recalling the merits of his fellow travellers, Adams’ professed his admiration for Dickinson’s talents, but he found, even in the comfort of retirement, little redemption in Dickinson’s political career. Adams, like many after him, fixated on one moment in Dickinson’s long public life. Despite his recognition of Dickinson as first among equals, to Adams, Dickinson’s legacy could be confined to little more than his momentous decision not to sign the Declaration of Independence. Adams had once praised Dickinson’s vociferous assertion 1 “To John Adams from Thomas Jefferson, October 28, 1813,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified October 5, 2016. 2 “From John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, November 12, 1813,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified October 5, 2016. 3 “To JA from TJ, October 28, 1813,” Founders Online. 3 for the cause of liberty in the widely acclaimed Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767-1768). But, asserting a caprice in 1776, Adams suggested Dickinson betrayed both his conscience and countrymen by refusing to vote for Lee’s Resolution on Independence. Adams cast Dickinson as a coward, others called him a cheat, and some went as far to charge him a charlatan preventing the confiscation of his wealth. Dickinson’s contributions in the public arena, however, were not limited to 1776: he was repeatedly elected by his countrymen to advocate their interests in the Pennsylvania Assembly, the Stamp Act Congress, the First Continental Congress, the Second Continental Congress, and the Confederation Congress. He was chosen by his colleagues to represent the colonies to the crown and other nations of the world, and asked to pen the Declaration of Rights and Grievances (1765), the Petition to the King (1774),4 the Olive Branch Petition (1775), and the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms (1775),5 Model Treaty, or Plan of 1776, and the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (1777). Dickinson had become the de facto voice of the colonies making his decision not to sign the Declaration of Independence all the more confusing. In an attempt to understand Dickinson’s perplexing political decision-making, Dickinson’s contemporaries, and scholars in succeeding years, have attempted to ascribe a singular motive or ideology to rationalize his decisions. In this process, historians have 4 Although Dickinson’s precise contributions to the 1774 Petition were disputed, the final three quarters of the Petition undoubtedly comes from his own hand. While there exists the possibility that he worked from a transitional, missing draft, his contributions to the published Petition are now agreed upon. See Edwin Wolf, “The Authorship of the 1774 Address to the King Restudied,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2 (1965): 189-224. 5 While the authorship remains disputed, it is evident that a significant portion of the version of the Declaration finally adopted by the Second Continental Congress was Dickinson's original work. There is an ongoing debate about Thomas Jefferson and John Rutledge's contributions and what portions Dickinson merely edited. See Julian Boyd, “The Disputed Authorship of The Declaration on the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 1775,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (1950), 51-73. 4 formulaically offered a banal creed or vogue ideology to explain away a sequence of events from 1767 to 1776, ignoring the influence of Dickinson’s preceding years. With this approach, experiences that were essential in the fashioning of Dickinson’s worldview—his upbringing, his theology, his education, his legal practice, and early political career—are neglected and the important influences they had left unquestioned. Instead, for historians, Dickinson’s decision not to sign the Declaration confounded the meaning of his sobriquet, “Penman of the Revolution,” and defined how his politics would be treated in the historiography of the Revolution. From the earliest histories of the Revolution, Dickinson’s career was viewed from Adams’ perspective: although a prodigious patriot in the 1760s, Dickinson’s alleged political conservatism proved too strong, “conquering [his] patriotism” as one scholar framed it.6 Both the nineteenth-century Whig and the twentieth-century Progressive interpretations of the Revolution offered similar characterizations of Dickinson’s politics, albeit providing different rationales for it. Both schools, however, are consonant in their questioning of his motives in 1776. The professed power to question Dickinson’s patriotism comes from the privilege of the present. It seems difficult for modern scholars to divorce their study of the Revolution from their knowledge of its outcome, but teleological history, or reading present-day understandings back in history, should be avoided. A familiarity with the events caused by the signing of the Declaration, that is, the foundation of American democracy, colors the perception of Dickinson. By denying the Declaration, it was as if Dickinson denied the founding of the Republic, all it has accomplished, and all that it 6 H. Trevor Colbourn, “The Historical Perspective of John Dickinson,” Early Dickinsoniana (The Boyd Lee Spahr Lectures in Americana, Dickinson College, 1951-1961, Carlisle, Pa., 1961), 37.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • JAMES LOGAN the Political Career of a Colonial Scholar
    JAMES LOGAN The Political Career of a Colonial Scholar By E. GORDON ALDERFER* A CROSS Sixth Street facing the shaded lawn of Independence Square in Philadelphia, on the plot now hidden by the pomp- ous facade of The Curtis Publishing Company, once stood a curious little building that could with some justice lay claim to being the birthplace of the classic spirit of early America. Just as the State House across the way symbolizes the birth of independ- ence and revolutionary idealism, the first public home of the Loganian Library could represent (were it still standing) the balanced, serene, inquiring type of mind so largely responsible for nurturing the civilization of the colonies. The Loganian, the first free public library in America outside of Boston and by some odds the greatest collection for public use in the colonial era, was the creation of James Logan, occasionally reputed to have been the most learned man in the colonies during the first half of the eighteenth century. Logan journeyed to Amer- ica with William Penn in 1699 as Penn's secretary, and became in effect the resident head of the province. Two years later, when Penn left his province never to return, Logan was commissioned Secretary of the Province and Commissioner of Property. He was soon installed as Clerk of the Provincial Council and became its most influential member in spite of his youthfulness. Even- tually, in 1731, Logan became Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, and, five years later, as President of the Provincial Council, he assumed *Dr. E. Gordon Alderfer is associated with CARE, Inc., New York, in a research and administrative capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Vandalia: the First West Virginia?
    Vandalia: The First West Virginia? By James Donald Anderson Volume 40, No. 4 (Summer 1979), pp. 375-92 In 1863, led by a group of staunch Unionists, the western counties of Virginia seceded from their mother commonwealth to form a new state. This was not the first attempt to separate the mountanious area from the piedmont and the tidewater country. Patriotism, however, played little part that time. Less than a century previous a group of entrepreneurs and land speculators from the eastern seaboard and England had endeavored to establish a new colony, Vandalia, in the frontier region south and east of the Ohio River. The boundaries of the proposed province closely match those of the present state of West Virginia. Their efforts ended in failure, but that was not for a lack of trying. Since the country was sparsely populated, the inspiration for separation had to come from elsewhere. Some of the leading merchants and politicians in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and England hoped to profit from their efforts. Printer and philosopher Benjamin Franklin, his son Sir William, governor of New Jersey, Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the Northern Department Sir William Johnson, his deputy George Croghan, merchants George Morgan and John Baynton, and lawyer and Speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly Joseph Galloway all interested themselves in the project. The leading lights of the movement, though, were members of a prominent and prosperous Quaker mercantile family, the Whartons of Philadelphia.1 The Wharton males, guided and inspired by patriarch Joseph, Senior (1707-76), had risen in two generations from relative poverty to riches in local trade, the export-import business, and sponsoring small industries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania Assembly's Conflict with the Penns, 1754-1768
    Liberty University “The Jaws of Proprietary Slavery”: The Pennsylvania Assembly’s Conflict With the Penns, 1754-1768 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the History Department in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts in History by Steven Deyerle Lynchburg, Virginia March, 2013 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Liberty or Security: Outbreak of Conflict Between the Assembly and Proprietors ......9 Chapter 2: Bribes, Repeals, and Riots: Steps Toward a Petition for Royal Government ..............33 Chapter 3: Securing Privilege: The Debates and Election of 1764 ...............................................63 Chapter 4: The Greater Threat: Proprietors or Parliament? ...........................................................90 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................113 1 Introduction In late 1755, the vituperative Reverend William Smith reported to his proprietor Thomas Penn that there was “a most wicked Scheme on Foot to run things into Destruction and involve you in the ruins.” 1 The culprits were the members of the colony’s unicameral legislative body, the Pennsylvania Assembly (also called the House of Representatives). The representatives held a different opinion of the conflict, believing that the proprietors were the ones scheming, in order to “erect their desired Superstructure of despotic Power, and reduce to
    [Show full text]
  • D-12 Goldsborough House, (Goldsborough-Phelps House)
    D-12 Goldsborough House, (Goldsborough-Phelps House) Architectural Survey File This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse- chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation such as photographs and maps. Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research project; look at the MHT web site (mht.maryland.gov) for details about how to make an appointment. All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust. Last Updated: 07-21-2003 • ' - 200 HIGrI STREET The lock cover on the front door of this house is • inscribed ''Goldsborough 176 0-1800 '', al thov_gh the exact date it was built is not knowu. Two stories tall and constructed of brick laid in Flemish bond, this is one of t11e most elegant and well kept up homes in Cambridge. It is symmetrical in design with the exception of a wing added to the rear. The layout is a center hall and single parlor pattern, and almost all of the original interior woodwork remains intact. The front facade is fairly plain with the exception of a handsome Greek Revival style portico supported by four fluted Doric columns • • • ' - NPS Form 1~900 OMB No.
    [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]
  • The Loyal Opposition in Civil War Philadelphia Author(S): Nicholas B
    The Loyal Opposition in Civil War Philadelphia Author(s): Nicholas B. Wainwright Source: The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Jul., 1964), pp. 294-315 Published by: Historical Society of Pennsylvania Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20089715 Accessed: 29/09/2009 14:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hsp. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Historical Society of Pennsylvania is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. http://www.jstor.org The Loyal Opposition in Civil War Philadelphia Behind the military fronts of the great "War Between the States" were the political fronts.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the Commemorative Ceremony-A Description
    .DOCUMENT RESUME . SO00947 9 : Commemoration,Ceremony in konor, of the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the First ContinentalCongress in the United States House' of Representatives,September Twenty-Fifth, Nineteen Hundred andSeventy-Four. INSTITUTION Congress of the U.-$., Washington, D.C. House. 'REPORT NO 93-413 PUB:DATE 75 i NOTE 151p. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington,.D.C. 20402 (stockno. -052-071-00432-7, $1.80) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$8.69 Plus Postage. -DESCRIPTORS American Culture; American Studies; Civics;*Colonial History (United States); ConstitutiOnal History; . Educational Resources; *FederalGovernment; Federal 'Programs; Government Publications; GovqrnmentRole; History Instruction; Political Influences;Political .Science; Politics; *Primary Sources;Roference Materials; Resource Materials;. RevolutionaryWar (United States); Social History; *supplcmentary Reading Materials; *United StatesHistelry IDENTIFIERS *Eicdntenniai; *Continental CongressOst) ABSTRACT This documen+ provides a report ofactivities undertaken at the first official bicentennialcelehrntion by the U.S. Congress in January 1974..The projectwas initiated .to provide commemoration of the First ContinentalCongress which met in Philadelphia in September 1774. The booldetpresents the proceedings of the commemorative ceremony-a descriptionof tiazo Old Guard Fife Drum Corps, and the Camerata Chorus Of Washington.In the major portion of the booklet, a documentaryhistory of the First Continental Congress is presented. Thethree sections
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers of the House of Commons
    Parliamentary Information List BRIEFING PAPER 04637a 21 August 2015 Speakers of the House of Commons Speaker Date Constituency Notes Peter de Montfort 1258 − William Trussell 1327 − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Styled 'Procurator' Henry Beaumont 1332 (Mar) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Sir Geoffrey Le Scrope 1332 (Sep) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Probably Chief Justice. William Trussell 1340 − William Trussell 1343 − Appeared for the Commons alone. William de Thorpe 1347-1348 − Probably Chief Justice. Baron of the Exchequer, 1352. William de Shareshull 1351-1352 − Probably Chief Justice. Sir Henry Green 1361-1363¹ − Doubtful if he acted as Speaker. All of the above were Presiding Officers rather than Speakers Sir Peter de la Mare 1376 − Sir Thomas Hungerford 1377 (Jan-Mar) Wiltshire The first to be designated Speaker. Sir Peter de la Mare 1377 (Oct-Nov) Herefordshire Sir James Pickering 1378 (Oct-Nov) Westmorland Sir John Guildesborough 1380 Essex Sir Richard Waldegrave 1381-1382 Suffolk Sir James Pickering 1383-1390 Yorkshire During these years the records are defective and this Speaker's service might not have been unbroken. Sir John Bussy 1394-1398 Lincolnshire Beheaded 1399 Sir John Cheyne 1399 (Oct) Gloucestershire Resigned after only two days in office. John Dorewood 1399 (Oct-Nov) Essex Possibly the first lawyer to become Speaker. Sir Arnold Savage 1401(Jan-Mar) Kent Sir Henry Redford 1402 (Oct-Nov) Lincolnshire Sir Arnold Savage 1404 (Jan-Apr) Kent Sir William Sturmy 1404 (Oct-Nov) Devonshire Or Esturmy Sir John Tiptoft 1406 Huntingdonshire Created Baron Tiptoft, 1426.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Ingersoll: the ^Aristocrat As Copperhead
    Charles Ingersoll: The ^Aristocrat as Copperhead HE INGERSOLL FAMILY is one of America's oldest. The first Ingersoll came to America in 1629, just nine years after the T^Mayflower. The first Philadelphia Ingersoll was Jared Inger- soll, who came to the city in 1771 as presiding judge of the King's vice-admiralty court. Previously, he had been the King's colonial agent and stamp master in Connecticut. During the Revolution, Jared remained loyal to the Crown. He stayed in Philadelphia for the first two years of the war, but in 1777, when he and other Tories were forced to leave, he returned to Connecticut, where he lived quietly until his death in 1781.1 Jared's son, Jared, Jr., was the first prominent Philadelphia Inger- soll. He came to Philadelphia with his father in 1771, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1778. Unlike his father, Jared, Jr., wholeheartedly supported the Revolution. Subsequently, he was a member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a member of the city council, city solicitor, attorney general of Pennsylvania, and United States District Attorney. Politically, he was an ardent Fed- eralist, but politics and affairs of state were never his prime interest; his real interest was the law, and most of his time and energy was devoted to his legal practice.2 Jared, Jr.'s, son, Charles Jared Ingersoll, was probably the most interesting of the Philadelphia Ingersolls. Like his father, grand- father, and most of the succeeding generations of Ingersolls, Charles Jared was a lawyer. He began a practice in Philadelphia in 1802, but devoted much of his time to politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Charter Constitutionalism: the Myth of Edward Coke and the Virginia Charter*
    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 7-2016 Charter Constitutionalism: The yM th of Edward Coke and the Virginia Charter Mary Sarah Bilder Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary Sarah Bilder. "Charter Constitutionalism: The yM th of Edward Coke and the Virginia Charter." North Carolina Law Review 94, no.5 (2016): 1545-1598. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 94 N.C. L. REV. 1545 (2016) CHARTER CONSTITUTIONALISM: THE MYTH OF EDWARD COKE AND THE VIRGINIA CHARTER* MARY SARAH BILDER** [A]ll and every the persons being our subjects . and every of their children, which shall happen to be born within . the said several colonies . shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities . as if they had been abiding and born, within this our realm of England . .—Virginia Charter (1606)1 Magna Carta’s connection to the American constitutional tradition has been traced to Edward Coke’s insertion of English liberties in the 1606 Virginia Charter. This account curiously turns out to be unsupported by direct evidence. This Article recounts an alternative history of the origins of English liberties in American constitutionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Story of the Faulkner Murals by Lester S. Gorelic, Ph.D. the Story Of
    The Story of the Faulkner Murals By Lester S. Gorelic, Ph.D. The story of the Faulkner murals in the Rotunda begins on October 23, 1933. On this date, the chief architect of the National Archives, John Russell Pope, recommended the approval of a two- year competing United States Government contract to hire a noted American muralist, Barry Faulkner, to paint a mural for the Exhibit Hall in the planned National Archives Building.1 The recommendation initiated a three-year project that produced two murals, now viewed and admired by more than a million people annually who make the pilgrimage to the National Archives in Washington, DC, to view two of the Charters of Freedom documents they commemorate: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. The two-year contract provided $36,000 in costs plus $6,000 for incidental expenses.* The contract ended one year before the projected date for completion of the Archives Building’s construction, providing Faulkner with an additional year to complete the project. The contract’s only guidance of an artistic nature specified that “The work shall be in character with and appropriate to the particular design of this building.” Pope served as the contract supervisor. Louis Simon, the supervising architect for the Treasury Department, was brought in as the government representative. All work on the murals needed approval by both architects. Also, The United States Commission of Fine Arts served in an advisory capacity to the project and provided input critical to the final composition. The contract team had expertise in art, architecture, painting, and sculpture.
    [Show full text]
  • The Characters Behind the Constitution, 6 BYU J
    Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law Volume 6 | Issue 3 Article 3 9-1-1992 The hC aracters Behind the Constitution Tim Slover Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Tim Slover, The Characters Behind the Constitution, 6 BYU J. Pub. L. 513 (1992). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol6/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Characters Behind the Constitution Tim Slover* I would like to draw for you today a quick sketch of the 55 men who deliberated our future as a nation, and single out a few for fuller portraits. Eight of the 55 men who deliberated our political present had signed the Declaration of Independence eleven years earlier in the same room, Independence Hall, in which they now met. And one, John Dickinson of Delaware, had refused to sign the Declaration. Six of the delegates had signed the Articles of Confederation which were then governing America and which were about to be abolished by the present convention. Fifty-two of the 55 had served in Congress. We need to think of that fact when we hear-not ourselves, of course, but others, disparage the institution of Congress. Among the many great men which that body produced was James Madison, the father of the Constitution.Seven had been governors of their states.
    [Show full text]