The President's Cabinet

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Fairlie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Institution ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Complete History

The recent publication, within a few months of each other, of two independent works on the President's cabinet serves to call attention to an important political institution in this country, which has hitherto failed to receive adequate recognition. Mr. Bryce has stated that, in the government of the United States, there is “no such thing as a cabinet in the English sense of the term;” and the larger part of his short chapter discusses what the President's cabinet is not rather than what it is. But if the cabinet in the United States is not the same thing as the British cabinet, it is a significant factor in the operation of the government deserving more consideration than it has received.Mr. Learned disclaims any attempt at a complete history of the cabinet; and, as indicated in the sub-title, presents a series of studies on the origin and formation of the cabinet—its anatomy rather than its functions. But in tracing the development of the composition of the cabinet, approximately half of the text is devoted to chapters on the origin and formation of the executive departments, whose heads have been added to the cabinet as first organized. A second series of studies on cabinet practices and personnel is expected to follow.

The Political Economy of John Taylor of Caroline

1980 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Macleod
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
The Political ◽  
Thought Processes ◽  
John Adams ◽  
John Taylor ◽  
The Government ◽  
Style Of Writing ◽  
To Receive

After years of comparative neglect John Taylor of Caroline has recently begun to receive again a degree of attention more in keeping with his true importance. That his impact upon both his own generation and upon subsequent generations of historians has always been less than it might have been is due largely to his tortured style of writing and the tortuous thought processes it reflected. John Randolph of Roanoke once commented that Taylor needed only a translator to make an impact, and Thomas Jefferson, replying to a communication from John Adams in 1814, wrote that a book received by Adams must have been Taylor's An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: “neither the style nor the stuff of the author of Arator can ever be mistaken. [I]n the latter work, as you observe, there are some good things, but so involved in quaint, in far-fetched, affected, mystical conceipts [sic], and flimsy theories, that who can take the trouble of getting at them?” Taylor himself appeared to hold a fluent style in contempt, commenting that “A talent for fine writing is often a great misfortune to politicians.”Although Taylor's style renders study of his writings far from congenial, the consistency of his purpose and thought make it relatively easy to extract the main thrusts of his arguments. Far from a rigorous theorist he provides a running commentary upon the politics of his times. In that capacity, however, he never felt compelled to define clearly, even to himself perhaps, some of the central premises from which his arguments derived.

The History of the Department of State: VII

1911 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-432
Author(s):  
Gaillard Hunt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Provision ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government

Having considered in former numbers of this Journal the sometime and occasional duties of the Department, including among them certain contingent duties which it has never been called upon to perform, we may now advance to a consideration of its habitual functions.The organic act of the Department prescribed that the Secretary of State should keep “ the seal of the United States.” It is the mark of the supreme authority of the United States, and before the government went into operation under the Constitution, was in the custody of the Secretary of Congress, being used to verify all important acts, whether executive or legislative; but the debate on executive departments in the first constitutional congress indicated that Congress did not contemplate keeping the seal any longer, and thought it would necessarily pass to the custody of the Executive. The President did, in fact, take it under his control as soon as he assumed office and before legal provision had been made for it.

Security Council

1965 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-96
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Government ◽  
North Vietnam ◽  
To Receive ◽  
The Postponement

The Security Council held two meetings (1140th and 1141st) on August 5 and 7, 1964, to discuss a complaint of the United States government against the government of North Vietnam, which was expressed in a letter dated August 4, 1964, from the permanent representative of the United States addressed to the President of the Security Council. At the outset of the 1140th meeting on August 5, 1964, Mr. Morozov (Soviet Union) explained that he had requested the postponement of the meeting until August 6 to permit his delegation to receive necessary instructions from its government. With regard to this request, Mr. Stevenson (United States) pointed out that the UN Charter explicitly called for immediate reporting to the Council of measures taken by Members in the exercise of their right of self-defense. If the Council wished to adjourn after hearing the statement of the United States delegation, Mr. Stevenson had no objection. Mr. Hajek (Czechoslovakia) also opposed convening the meeting on August 5 on the grounds that Council members did not possess all the facts and views of the parties. To deliberate on the question on the basis of one version would not, he felt, serve the interests of the Council. Moreover, he did not feel that the circumstances constituted an emergency: The United States did not appear to be immediately threatened.

scholarly journals A Complete History of the United States

1937 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 130
Author(s):  
Burr W. Phillips ◽  
Clement Wood
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
History Of ◽  
Complete History

The Pet Banks in Jacksonian Politics and Finance, 1833–1841

1963 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry N. Scheiber
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Financial Policy ◽  
Andrew Jackson ◽  
Federal Funds ◽  
Political Role ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government

In September 1833, Andrew Jackson issued an executive order ending deposit of Federal funds in the Bank of the United States, which had been the government depository since 1817. The culmination of Jackson's long struggle with the Bank and its friends in Congress, this measure closed a chapter in the political history of the era. To the conservative Jacksonians, “victory over the Bank of the United States was a consummation” that freed the state banks and business enterprise from the control of a powerful and despised institution. To the radical, hard-money faction of the Democratic party, however, “removal of the deposits” (as the order was popularly termed) was merely a first step toward more fundamental reform—elimination of the monetary disturbances that they attributed to reliance on bank paper for the currency of the country. Because of this divergence of views, partisan and factional disputes over Jacksonian financial policy did not cease with victory over the Bank. Central to the continuing debate was the relationship of die Treasury Department to the group of state-chartered banks, usually called the “pet banks,” in which Federal funds were deposited after September 1833. My purpose here is to review Treasury operations in die period 1833–1841, to suggest the political role of die pet banks and the economic impact of financial policy in die administrations of Jackson and Van Buren.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven H. Steinmo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Tax Compliance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tax Revenue ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Political Cultures ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
Treat All

Why are some people more willing to pay their taxes than others? In some countries the government is able to collect more than 90% of the taxes it is owed, while in other countries more than 30% of tax revenue goes missing due to tax evasion. This book explores this question by examining the fiscal history of five different democratic nations: Sweden, Britain, Italy, the United States, and Romania. This chapter introduces the book and draws out the central themes introduced in the substantive chapters. Drawing on these rich historical chapters, the introduction shows that successful states have developed strong administrative capacities, treat all taxpayers fairly, and deliver value for the monies they collect. This chapter argues that differences in tax compliance across countries is not explained by different political cultures, but is instead explained by differences in the efficacy of state institutions and the ways they have interacted with their citizens.

Constitutional Law in 1952–1953

1954 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-113
Author(s):  
David Fellman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Government Printing ◽  
American Constitution ◽  
American Government ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
History Of ◽  
Reference Service ◽  
The Government

There was no change in the personnel of the Supreme Court during the 1952 Term. But following the close of the Term, on September 8, 1953, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, who had been appointed to the Court by President Truman in 1946, died unexpectedly at the age of 63. To replace him President Eisenhower gave a recess appointment to Governor Earl Warren of California on October 2. The new Chief Justice was sworn in on October 5.Two important developments in the constitutional law field during the period under review occurred outside the Court. One was the publication by the Government Printing Office, in 1953, of a newly revised annotatedConstitution of the United States, prepared by the Legislative Reference Service under the editorship of Edward S. Corwin. The annotations come down to June 30, 1952. The last annotated Constitution was published in 1938 under the editorship of W. C. Gilbert. The new work, an ample book of about 1400 large pages, is indispensable for students of American government.Noteworthy also was the appearance of the first two volumes of William Winslow Crosskey's monumental study of the American Constitution, under the title ofPolitics and the Constitution in the History of the United States.

The Origins of U.S. Support for an Autocratic Iran

1983 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Habib Ladjevardi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Department ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Office ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
British Foreign Office ◽  
The U.S

At a time when the history of relations between the United States and the former Iranian regime (as well as other autocratic states) is being reconsidered, it is important to recognize that U.S. support for one-man rule in Iran did not commence in 1953 subsequent to the fall of the government of Dr. Mossadegh. A study of the diplomatic records of the U.S. State Department and the British Foreign Office indicates an earlier beginning.

The Abrogation of British Extraterritoriality in China 1942–43: A Study of Anglo-American-Chinese Relations

1977 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. C. Chan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central China ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
South West ◽  
History Of ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Government ◽  
Nationalist Government ◽  
Wuhan Area

The Marco Polo Bridge Incident on 7 July 1937 has been commonly regarded as the beginning of the second Sino-Japanese war. The early days of the war were a history of rapid Japanese advances and, inversely, of the equally fast retreat of the Chinese. The Chinese Nationalist Government evacuated Nanking and moved westward to the Wuhan area in late November 1937. Central China soon became untenable in face of heavy Japanese reinforcements; the Chinese government again evacuated in October 1938, this time much further west to Chungking in Szechwan. There was no declaration of war and China clearly had the sympathy of Britain and the United States. The two countries continued to recognize the government at Chungking, under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek, as the government of China, despite the fact that it retained control only over the south-west corner of the country. Pearl Harbor strengthened the tie of relations; the Chungking government won Britain, the United States, and the Netherlands as allies in its colossal struggle against Japan.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document