Peter J. Aschenbrenner - Böcker

Upon declaring independence from Britain in July 1776, the United States Congress urgently needed to establish its credentials as a legitimate government that could credibly challenge the claims of the British Crown. In large measure this legitimacy rested upon setting in place the procedural and legal structures upon which all claims of governmental authority rest. In this book, Aschenbrenner explores the ways in which the nascent United States rapidly built up a system of parliamentary procedure that borrowed heavily from the British government it sought to replace. In particular, he looks at how, over the course of twenty-five years, Thomas Jefferson drew upon the writings of the Chief Clerk of the British Parliament, John Hatsell, to frame and codify American parliamentary procedures. Published in 1801, Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States presents rules, instances, citations and commentary as modern readers would expect them to appear, quoting Hatsell and other British authorities numerous times. If the two nations suffered any unpleasant relations in the First War for American Independence - Aschenbrenner concludes - one would be hard pressed to detect it from Jefferson’s Manual. Indeed, direct comparison of the House of Commons and the Continental Congress shows remarkable similarities between the ambitions of the two institutions as they both struggled to adapt their political processes to meet the changing national and international circumstances of the late-eighteenth century.

When James Monroe became president in 1817, the United States urgently needed a national transportation system to connect new states and territories in the west with older states facing the Atlantic Ocean. In 1824, the Supreme Court declared that Congress had the power to regulate traffic on all navigable rivers and lakes in the United States. Congress began clearing obstructions from rivers, and these projects enabled steamboats to transform cross-country travel in the United States. This book explains how building a nationwide economic market was essential to secure the loyalty of geographically remote regions to the new republic. Aschenbrenner defends the activist role of President James Monroe (1817-1825) and Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835). Under their leadership, the federal government made national prosperity its 'Job One'. The market revolution transformed the daily lives of households and businesses in the United States and proved to Americans that they shared a common social and economic destiny. As Monroe declared at the conclusion of his Presidency: 'We find abundant cause to felicitate ourselves in the excellence of our institutions'.

When James Monroe became president in 1817, the United States urgently needed a national transportation system to connect new states and territories in the west with older states facing the Atlantic Ocean. In 1824, the Supreme Court declared that Congress had the power to regulate traffic on all navigable rivers and lakes in the United States. Congress began clearing obstructions from rivers, and these projects enabled steamboats to transform cross-country travel in the United States. This book explains how building a nationwide economic market was essential to secure the loyalty of geographically remote regions to the new republic. Aschenbrenner defends the activist role of President James Monroe (1817-1825) and Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835). Under their leadership, the federal government made national prosperity its 'Job One'. The market revolution transformed the daily lives of households and businesses in the United States and proved to Americans that they shared a common social and economic destiny. As Monroe declared at the conclusion of his Presidency: 'We find abundant cause to felicitate ourselves in the excellence of our institutions'.

John Hatsell (1733-1820) held the office of Clerk of the House of Commons from 1768 to 1820. In his letters and Memorabilia entries - published here for the first time - Hatsell brought to bear his intimate familiarity with high politics during the reign of George III. Hatsell's expertise in financial policy inspired him to offer counsel to Pitt the Younger during Pitt's first premiership (1783-1801). Hatsell's other correspondents include Henry Addington (speaker 1789-1801 and prime minister 1801-1804), Charles Abbot (speaker 1802-1817), and William Eden (diplomat and President of the Board of Trade in the Ministry of All the Talents, 1806-1807). Hatsell centres his attention on the enduring constitutional significance of the changes he experienced in his public and private life. Hatsell's wry humour is often on display as he reveals the lighter side of social and political life in Great Britain.

Upon declaring independence from Britain in July 1776, the United States Congress urgently needed to establish its credentials as a legitimate government that could credibly challenge the claims of the British Crown. In large measure this legitimacy rested upon setting in place the procedural and legal structures upon which all claims of governmental authority rest. In this book, Aschenbrenner explores the ways in which the nascent United States rapidly built up a system of parliamentary procedure that borrowed heavily from the British government it sought to replace. In particular, he looks at how, over the course of twenty-five years, Thomas Jefferson drew upon the writings of the Chief Clerk of the British Parliament, John Hatsell, to frame and codify American parliamentary procedures. Published in 1801, Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States presents rules, instances, citations and commentary as modern readers would expect them to appear, quoting Hatsell and other British authorities numerous times. If the two nations suffered any unpleasant relations in the First War for American Independence - Aschenbrenner concludes - one would be hard pressed to detect it from Jefferson’s Manual. Indeed, direct comparison of the House of Commons and the Continental Congress shows remarkable similarities between the ambitions of the two institutions as they both struggled to adapt their political processes to meet the changing national and international circumstances of the late-eighteenth century.