scholarly journals Historical Significance of the term “Cabinet” in England and the United States

1909 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-346
Author(s):  
Henry Barrett Learned
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
The United States ◽  
Revolutionary War ◽  
Central Administration ◽  
American Government ◽  
George Washington ◽  
Historical Significance ◽  
The Right ◽  
Council Of State

The institution which is today termed the president's cabinet was, in its origin, a creation of George Washington. It grew out of the need of a vigorous, well organized and well directed central administration which should somehow be closely associated and unified under an executive chief magistrate.Even before the close of the Revolutionary War there were signs that men desired to see the continental government in the guidance of a capable and trusted chief. There were occasional suggestions, too,—among which Pelatiah Webster's is quite the best known—that a committee or board of administrative officials not too strictly hampered by congress, might aid the chief executive as counsellors. Though ready after a brief discussion to establish a single executive magistrate at the head of the projected government, the convention of 1787 seems to have balked at Gouverneur Morris's crude plan for a president's council. The convention yielded, however, to the president the right to require from the principal officers their opinions in writing, and thus unconsciously helped to predetermine a privy council. In the early autumn of 1787 George Mason of Virginia expressed his fear lest there should “grow out of the principal officers of the great departments” what he termed a Council of State. The phrase was quickly reiterated by George Clinton of New York. James Iredell in answer to Mason, perceiving and writing of the analogy between some such body and the English cabinet committee, viewed the possibility of its existence in the new American government as in no wise dangerous.

The God of the Internet

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Goldsmith ◽  
Tim Wu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Critical Time ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Human Operators ◽  
The Right ◽  
E Mail

If you had met Jon Postel in 1998, you might have been surprised to learn that you were in the presence of one of the Internet’s greatest living authorities. He had a rambling, ragged look, living in sandals and a large, unkempt beard. He lived like a modern-day Obi-Wan Kenobi, an academic hermit who favored solitary walks on the Southern California beach. When told once by a reporter that readers were interested in learning more about his personal life, he answered: “If we tell them, they won’t be interested anymore.” Yet this man was, and had been for as long as anyone could remember, the ultimate authority for assignment of the all-important Internet Protocol (IP) numbers that are the essential feature of Internet membership. Like the medallions assigned to New York City taxicabs, each globally unique number identifies a computer on the Net, determining who belongs and who doesn’t. “If the Net does have a God,” wrote the Economist in 1997, “he is probably Jon Postel.” Jon Postel was a quiet man who kept strong opinions and sometimes acted in surprising ways. The day of January 28, 1998, provided the best example. On that day Postel wrote an e-mail to the human operators of eight of the twelve “name servers” around the globe. Name servers are the critical computers that are ultimately responsible for making sure that when you type a name like google.com you reach the right address (123.23.83.0). On that day Postel asked the eight operators, all personally loyal to Postel, to recognize his computer as the “root,” or, in essence, the master computer for the whole Internet. The operators complied, pointing their servers to Postel’s computer instead of the authoritative root controlled by the United States government. The order made the operators nervous—Paul Vixie, one of the eight, quietly arranged to have someone look after his kids in case he was arrested. Postel was playing with fire. His act could have divided the Internet’s critical naming system into two gigantic networks, one headed by himself, the other headed by the United States. He engineered things so that the Internet continued to run smoothly. But had he wanted to during this critical time, he might have created chaos.

1. An Ad Hoc Navy

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Craig L. Symonds
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
The United States ◽  
Revolutionary War ◽  
Royal Navy ◽  
Supply Line

‘An ad hoc navy: the Revolutionary War (1775–1783)’ describes the Patriots’ response to the British Royal Navy strongholds in Boston and New York and the role of armed vessels during the Revolutionary War. It begins with George Washington’s attempts to threaten the British supply line using boats. The Continental Navy was founded on October 13, 1775, but the new program could hardly challenge the Royal Navy. With the exception of John Paul Jones, the Continental Navy proved mostly disappointing. The United States won its independence largely because the determination of the Patriot forces outlasted the British willingness to fight—and to pay for—a war three thousand miles away.

It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office

2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 953-954
Author(s):  
Linda Trimble
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Political Representation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Professional Women ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
Work Skills ◽  
Comprehensive Survey ◽  
Political Office ◽  
The Right

It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office, Jennifer L. Lawless, Richard L. Fox, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 203.It Takes a Candidate explains why professional women aren't running for political office in sufficient numbers to narrow the persistent gender gap in political representation in the United States. By means of a comprehensive survey of men and women in the political “pipeline professions,” the authors discovered that women remain less politically ambitious than men. Even highly qualified women tend not to envision political careers or to believe they have the right stuff for politics. Remarkably, women who do decide to run for office often doubt their credentials. In contrast, men with similar qualifications have little difficulty imagining holding even the highest political positions, as they accept their life and work skills as unique training for elected public service.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document