Revolution in the Chesapeake, 1675–1679

2020 ◽  
pp. 75-96
Author(s):  
Noeleen McIlvenna
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Representative Government ◽  
Bacon's Rebellion ◽  
Poll Tax

This chapter places Bacon’s Rebellion in the context of political developments in the surrounding colonies. In Virginia, Governor Berkeley had recently disenfranchised many of the poorer farmers. This allowed his elite supporters in the assembly to pass a high poll tax. Dissatisfaction became violent in the summer of 1676, in both Virginia and in an area of Maryland known as the Clifts. The rebellions were eventually suppressed, but when a new governor tried to tax the Albemarle settlers, he was met with Culpeper’s Rebellion, which successfully saved representative government in North Carolina.

Between ‘Savage Man’ and ‘Most Faithful Englishman’ Manteo and the Early Anglo-Indian Exchange, 1584–1590

Itinerario ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Leroy Oberg
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Chesapeake Bay ◽  
One Year ◽  
Anglo Indian

In August of 1587 Manteo, an Indian from Croatoan Island, joined a group of English settlers in an attack on the native village of Dasemunkepeuc, located on the coast of present-day North Carolina. These colonists, amongst whom Manteo lived, had landed on Roanoke Island less than a month before, dumped there by a pilot more interested in hunting Spanish prize ships than in carrying colonists to their intended place of settlement along the Chesapeake Bay. The colonists had hoped to re-establish peaceful relations with area natives, and for that reason they relied upon Manteo to act as an interpreter, broker, and intercultural diplomat. The legacy of Anglo-Indian bitterness remaining from Ralph Lane's military settlement, however, which had hastily abandoned the island one year before, was too great for Manteo to overcome. The settlers found themselves that summer in the midst of hostile Indians.

Silence of the Land: On the Historical Irrelevance of Territory to Congressional Districting and Political Representation in the United States

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Political Representation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Representative Government ◽  
Congressional District ◽  
Congressional Districts ◽  
Communities Of Interest

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.

Supervision: Supervision and Clinical Practicum in Telepractice

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sena Crutchley
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
First Year ◽  
University Of North Carolina ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Support Personnel ◽  
Clinical Practicum ◽  
Training Support ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
The University

This article describes how a telepractice pilot project was used as a vehicle to train first-year graduate clinicians in speech-language pathology. To date, six graduate clinicians have been trained in the delivery of telepractice at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Components of telepractice training are described and the benefits and limitations of telepractice as part of clinical practicum are discussed. In addition, aspects of training support personnel involved in telepractice are outlined.

Use of the AMA Guides in State Workers' Compensation Systems: 2009 Update

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
South Carolina ◽  
South Dakota ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Specific Guideline ◽  
Compensation Systems

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.

Nursing and Environmental Health Roundtable: August 26-27, 2002, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Final Report

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Nastoff ◽  
◽  
Diane M. Drew ◽  
Pamela S. Wigington ◽  
Julie Wakefield ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Research Triangle
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document