Chris Hayes

Christopher Loffredo Hayes (; born February 28, 1979) is an American political commentator, television news anchor and author. Hayes hosts "All In with Chris Hayes", a weekday news and opinion television show on MSNBC. Hayes also hosts a weekly MSNBC podcast, "Why Is This Happening?" Hayes formerly hosted a weekend MSNBC show," Up with Chris Hayes". He is an editor-at-large of "The Nation" magazine.
Early life.
Hayes was born in Norwood, The Bronx, New York City, one of three sons of Roger and Geri Hayes. His mother is of Italian descent and his father is of Irish Catholic ancestry. His father moved to New York from Chicago while studying at a Jesuit seminary, and began community organizing in the Bronx. Roger Hayes spent several years leading community organizing at the Community Service Society of New York and now works as an assistant commissioner for the NYC Department of Health. Hayes's mother was a school teacher and now works for the NYC Department of Education. Hayes was raised Catholic, but stopped attending services in college and is now irreligious.
He is a childhood friend and schoolmate of comedian Desus Nice. Hayes attended New York City's prestigious Hunter College High School, where his classmates included Immortal Technique and Lin-Manuel Miranda, the latter of whom he directed in his first musical. After graduating, Hayes attended Brown University, from which he graduated in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy.
Journalism career.
Print.
Beginning in August 2001, for four years Hayes was a contributor to the independent weekly newspaper "Chicago Reader", where he covered local and national politics. In late 2003, he began a four-year stint at "In These Times", a labor-focused monthly magazine based in Chicago, where he was a senior editor.
From 2005 to 2006, Hayes was a Schumann Center Writing Fellow at "In These Times". From 2006 through 2007, Hayes was a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, and a contributing writer for "The Nation". On November 1, 2007, "The Nation" named him its Washington, D.C. editor, succeeding David Corn.
Hayes wrote extensively on issues central to the liberal community, including what ails the Democratic Party in the post-9/11 era and how the labor movement is changing. He also reported on progressive activists' work to resuscitate the "public option" during the 2009–2010 health care fight when many political insiders wrote it off as dead.
Hayes was an adjunct professor of English at St. Augustine College in Chicago and a Bernard L. Schwartz fellow at New America Foundation from 2008 to 2010.
Cable news.
Hayes guest-hosted "The Rachel Maddow Show" in July 2010 while Maddow was traveling in Afghanistan and later often filled in for Maddow when she was absent. Hayes has also hosted other MSNBC shows such as "The Ed Show", "Countdown With Keith Olbermann", and "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell".
On November 5, 2010, MSNBC announced that Hayes would be filling in for Keith Olbermann during Olbermann's suspension. However, the network later backtracked after finding out that Hayes had also made political contributions—the issue over which Olbermann was being suspended.
Hayes credits Maddow with his becoming a host at MSNBC, saying, "I absolutely would not be doing this if it weren't for her."
Chris Hayes is also the most frequent guest on Late Night with Seth Meyers.
"Up with Chris Hayes".
On August 1, 2011, MSNBC announced that Hayes would host a two-hour morning show on Saturdays and Sundays, each going into depth on current issues. The first airing of "Up with Chris Hayes" was September 17, 2011, and featured a live interview with Nancy Pelosi.
On May 27, 2012, Memorial Day Weekend, Hayes made comments on air regarding the use of the word "heroism" as applied to American servicemen killed in action, stating, "I feel uncomfortable about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. And I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect the memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers, and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that." His remark generated widespread controversy. Hayes initially defended his comment by urging people to listen to what he had actually said. Nonetheless, he apologized on his blog. Furthermore, on his June 2, 2012, show, he devoted a discussion to his comments and the disconnect between civilians and the military.
"All In with Chris Hayes".
On March 14, 2013, MSNBC announced that Hayes would take over the time slot formerly hosted by Ed Schultz, who would move to the weekends. At 34 years old, he became the youngest host of a prime-time show on any of the country's major cable news channels.
According to "The New York Times", the change was made in the hopes that MSNBC can win a wider audience than it did with Schultz. Hayes was said to transition better to "The Rachel Maddow Show" because he is seen as just as policy-oriented as Maddow. "Chris has done an amazing job creating a franchise on weekend mornings," said Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC. "He's an extraordinary talent and has made a strong connection with our audience."
"All In with Chris Hayes", Hayes's first prime-time show, premiered Monday, April 1, 2013.
The show won an Emmy in 2015 and again in 2018.
Podcasts.
In May 2018, Hayes launched a weekly podcast called "Why Is This Happening?", featuring interviews with political figures, activists, journalists, writers, and academics. The podcast's first live episode was recorded in November 2018, at Congregation Beth Elohim, in Brooklyn, New York, with author Ta-Nehisi Coates. Hayes' second live episode, held on February 24, 2019, featured an interview with Georgia politician and activist Stacey Abrams.
Views.
Press freedom.
Hayes criticized the United States government's decision to charge WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917 for his role in the 2010 publication of a trove of Iraq War documents and diplomatic cables leaked by Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. Hayes tweeted: "The Espionage indictment of Assange for publishing is an extremely dangerous, frontal attack on the free press. Bad, bad, bad."
Books.
Hayes's first book, "" was published by Crown Publishing Group in June 2012. A review in "The Atlantic" called it "provocative" and "thoughtful," but faulted its policy suggestions as less satisfying. "Kirkus Reviews" called it "forcefully written" and "provocative." Aaron Swartz described the book as "compellingly readable, impossibly erudite, and—most stunningly of all—correct."
Hayes' second book, "A Colony in a Nation", was published by W. W. Norton in March 2017.
Book festivals.
Hayes participated in the 2017 Brooklyn Book Festival (BKBF).
In April 2017, he was a featured author at the L.A. Times Festival of Books, which took place at the campus of USC.
Personal life.
On July 14, 2007, Hayes married his college sweetheart Kate Shaw, a former Supreme Court law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens who is currently a professor of law at the Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News; they met while attending Brown together. His father-in-law is veteran Chicago reporter Andy Shaw. Hayes and Shaw resided in Washington, D.C., until they moved to New York City, where "All in With Chris Hayes" is produced. They have three children.
Hayes' brother Luke worked on Barack Obama's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.
, Hayes is a member of the Democratic Party.


Jason Sorens

Jason Sorens is a lecturer in the department of government at Dartmouth College. He has been an affiliated scholar with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University since 2008. His primary research interests include fiscal federalism, public policy in federal systems, secessionism, and ethnic politics. Sorens received his B.A. in economics and philosophy, with honors, from Washington and Lee University and his Ph.D in political science from Yale University. He is the founder of the Free State Project and president of Ethics & Economics Education of New England, an effort to boost ethical and economic literacy in New England through programs for high schoolers, opinion leaders, and the general public.
Free State Project.
In July 2001, Sorens published an essay titled "Announcement: The Free State Project", in which he proposed the idea of a political migration, with 20,000 libertarians to move to a single low-population state (New Hampshire, selected in 2003) in order to make the state a stronghold for libertarian ideas.
, 20,000 people have signed this statement of intent—completing the original goal—and 1,909 people are listed as "early movers" to New Hampshire on the FSP website, saying they have made their move prior to the 20,000-participant trigger.
Published works.
Sorens' work has been published in "International Studies Quarterly", "Comparative Political Studies", "Journal of Peace Research", "State Politics and Policy Quarterly", and other academic journals, and his book "Secessionism: Identity, Interest, and Strategy" was published by McGill-Queen's University Press in 2012.


Mary Shields

Mary Shields is a local politician who was a Fianna Fáil councillor on Cork City Council representing the Cork South West Local Electoral Area. She was first elected at the Irish local elections, 1999 and retained her seat at each subsequent election through to 2014. From the Bishopstown area of Cork she is a stay-at-home-mother. She served as Lord Mayor of Cork from 2014 to 2015, succeeding Catherine Clancy. This was the first time in Cork's history that two women had succeeded each other to the office of Lord Mayor.


HK First

HK First is a localist political party in Hong Kong. It has one representative in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, Claudia Mo, a former pan-democratic Civic Party member. It was founded in 2013 by two pro-democracy legislators, Claudia Mo and Gary Fan, to "defend the city's culture from 'mainlandisation'".
History.
The group was formed on 31 January 2013 by the two pan-democratic legislators, Claudia Mo of the Civic Party and Gary Fan of Neo Democrats who shared sympathy with the growing localist sentiment in Hong Kong. It claims to "help safeguard not only Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy, but also its lifestyle as guaranteed unchanged for 50 years under one country, two systems and stipulated in the Basic Law".
It concerns the cultural aspects of the Hong Kong lifestyle, including the use of traditional Chinese characters, Cantonese and traditional phonetic translation between English and Cantonese, in which many localists deemed to be under "invasion" of the mainland China's simplified Chinese, Mandarin Chinese and its phonetic translation. It also opposed the influxes of mainland tourists, grey goods traders, Mainland schools children who were seen as taken away the quota of the local students, panic-buying of baby formula and various social issues in related to Hong Kong–Mainland conflict. Despite its localist agenda, the group does not advocate for Hong Kong independence as compared to many other localists. It opposed the government's Individual Visit Scheme to limit the number of mainland tourists. They co-sponsored a controversial ad which claimed that reducing immigration would help the people of Hong Kong to get to the bottom of the housing problem, while rejecting claims of bias or discrimination against mainlanders, despite condemnation from the Equal Opportunities Commission. Fan later introduced a motion on adhering to the need to "put Hong Kong people first" in formulating policies, but the motion was ultimately defeated.
Gary Fan ran in the 2012 Legislative Council election with a "moderate" localist agenda in the New Territories East while Claudia Mo ran in Kowloon West with the slogan of "against mainlandisation". The two ran again in the 2016 Legislative Council election, in which Fan lost in the ferocious competition in New Territories East and left the group only one representative. In November 2016, Mo announced her resignation from the Civic Party, citing her differences with the party on matters especially localism. She said she would continue serving the legislature as an "independent democrat" under the label "HK First".


Liberalism and radicalism in Hungary

This article gives an overview of liberalism and radicalism in Hungary. It is limited to liberal and radical parties with substantial support, mainly proved by having had a representation in parliament. The sign ⇒ denotes another party in that scheme. For inclusion in this scheme it is not necessary that parties labeled themselves as a liberal party.
Background.
From the start of liberalism in Hungary its program is combined with the struggle for independence from the Habsburg-rule and thus more autonomy in the country's affairs in relation with the Austrian Empire and later Austria-Hungary. The two realists groups, Deákists and Kossuthists, differ in their attitude towards the Habsburg rulers. Both groups had a conservative liberal or even conservative philosophy by the beginning of the 20th century.
History.
In the antebellum period, liberalism was very successful and led by the party of Károlyi, but after the communist revolution of 1919, and during the conservative regency, liberalism became limited to small city-based parties. After the 1988 end of communist rule, liberalism reconstituted itself in the Alliance of Free Democrats ("Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége", member LI), ELDR), a center market liberal party. Originally also the Young Democrats chose a liberal profile, but soon they developed into a national-conservative party.
From Extreme Left to Kossuth Party.
and in 1924, it was renamed the "Kossuth Party". It was disbanded by 1945.


Van Wyck Homestead Museum

The Van Wyck Homestead Museum or Van Wyck-Wharton House (pronounced Van Wike) is an early 18th-century Dutch colonial house in the Town of Fishkill, New York, United States of America. It served as a headquarters to a major military supply depot during the American Revolutionary War and has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since April 13, 1972; the adjoining Fishkill Supply Depot Site has been listed on the NRHP since January 21, 1974. It is located on US 9 just south of Interstate 84. Excavations during the construction of a nearby gas station and the Dutchess Mall in the early 1970s unearthed many artifacts at the site, particularly materiel.
Background.
The Van Wycks were an aristocratic family originally from Holland who were a prominent part of Dutchess County history. Members of the Van Wyck family served in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and also held both local and national political positions.
In 1732, Cornelius Van Wyck (1694–1761), a surveyor, built a house with three rooms on 959 acres (approximately 3.88 km²) of land he had purchased from Catheryna Rombout Brett, the daughter of Francis Rombouts, who was one of the grantees of the original patent to the land in the area issues by King James II of England. Later (before the year 1757) the house was extended and the original structure became the east wing of the enlarged house. Since then, the building has remained a Dutch colonial construction featuring a characteristic central hall with two identical doors.
Revolutionary War and afterward.
During the American Revolutionary War, the property was the home of Isaac Van Wyck. However, because of its strategic location with regard to the Hudson River and major roads, the Old Albany Post Road (later US 9) running north-south and the road running east-west (later NY 52 and Interstate 84), it was requisitioned by the Continental Army. The building became the headquarters of the Fishkill Supply Depot, which was created on the orders of George Washington in 1775. The Fishkill Supply Depot was the major logistical center for the Revolutionary War in the north. The depot was a military camp and storage yard which became the main provider of artillery and food for about 4,000 troops stationed in the area to prevent the British forces from passing New York City and capturing the Hudson Valley (the latter a major strategic goal of the British at the beginning of the American Revolutionary War). 70 acres (28 ha) of land surrounding the house were used for a large encampment of over 2,000 soldiers and many facilities such as an artillery park for repairing cannons, a blacksmith shop, barracks, a storehouse, and stables were set up.
Thousands of Continental troops, militia, and their families lived at the Depot complex until April 1783. Its position in the Hudson River Valley prevented enemy advances. The depot complex consisted of barracks for thousands of soldiers, officer housing, hospital, magazine, prison, parade grounds, blacksmith shops, stables and store houses. Established by General George Washington and serving at varying times as a headquarters and nexus point for General Israel Putnam, General Alexander McDougall, General Horatio Gates, Alexander Hamilton and General Lafayette, it played an essential role in the Continental Army's victory over British forces. The Depot provided logistic operations for all of George Washington's operations in the Hudson Valley during the war. According to retired Army colonel James Johnson, a 1969 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and a former West Point military history professor, the food, clothing and armaments the depot provided to Washington's soldiers helped them keep the redcoats from gaining control of the strategic Hudson Highlands.
It served as headquarters to General Israel Putnam and was visited by revolutionary leaders such as George Washington, the Marquis de Lafayette, Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, Alexander McDougall, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Inside the house, courts-martial were held in the home's parlor. Although under British surveillance, the Depot was never attacked, hundreds died there of wounds, hypothermia, dysentery, and smallpox. Periods of starvation were also endured by troops during the Depot's seven years of service. It is the largest burial ground of American Revolutionary War soldiers identified in the United States.
A walnut tree, which stood in front of the house until 1898 when it was toppled by a storm, served as a whipping tree for punishing soldiers. An iron claw which was attached to the tree for this purpose was recovered from the tree and is now on display in the house. The mock trial of Enoch Crosby, who had infiltrated a loyalist group and is considered as the first secret agent of the United States, was held in the building. The house is therefore the likely setting for James Fenimore Cooper's novel, "The Spy" which is based on Enoch Crosby's story. The Van Wyck house also served as the Quartermaster Department in charge of clothing the troops. In addition to its military functions, it also housed the printing press for the newspaper "New York Packet", which was relocated to the Van Wyck homestead from British-occupied New York City. Besides the newspaper, orders for the Army were also printed and the newspaper's publisher, Samuel Loudon, was appointed Postmaster for the State of New York with Fishkill becoming the official New York State Post Office.
After the Revolutionary War, the house was given back to the Van Wyck family and remained the family's home until the suicide of Sidney Van Wyck in 1882. Following the death of Sidney Van Wyck, two more families, the Hustis and the Snook families, owned the property. For a time, a tea room was operated in the house and was frequented by Eleanor Roosevelt when she was on her way to her estate in Hyde Park, New York.
Recent years.
With the construction of I-84 and its exit ramps in the immediate vicinity of the homestead, the Snook family donated the house and to the Fishkill Historical Society, which was founded in 1962 to preserve the house from demolition and has since continued to restore and to operate it as a museum. However, much of the Depot site was developed in the 1970s, causing the loss of many artifacts from the period.
The Van Wyck Homestead is the last remaining structure of the supply depot, which now contains a vast Continental Army Burial Complex. The to the east and west of the homestead, including the exit ramps from I-84, were added to the National Register of Historic Places as the Fishkill Depot Supply Site on January 21, 1974. In 2007, a team of archaeologists using ground penetrating radar discovered hundreds of graves at the southern end of the property. Friends of the Fishkill Supply Depot and United States Senator Charles Schumer are leading a project to save the site under the Battlefield Protection Act and to create a National Park on the site.
In 2016 developer Domenic Broccoli proposed taking eight acres of land to develop Continental Commons, an "18th century colonial village,".
Lance Ashworth, president of Friends of the Fishkill Supply Depot, asserted that this development would "destroy an authentic historical site for the sake of building a cheap replica." He noted that Broccoli told the town planning board he wants to include an International House of Pancakes location as part of the complex. A spokesperson for Broccoli responded that the IHOP would not be located on actual burial grounds. IHOP said that no plans for a restaurant at that location has been approved.
Archeological site.
Most of the area of the Fishkill Supply Depot was developed for the Dutchess Mall, which opened in 1974. During the construction of the mall and archaeological excavations on the site many artifacts, such as cannonballs, muskets, utensils, and uniform buttons have been unearthed and the Fishkill Historical Society holds about 10,000 pieces. It is also believed, that many soldiers of the Continental Army who died in battle or from smallpox are buried in the area, but the location of the burials remains unknown.
For that reason, the same year the mall opened the National Park Service, which oversees the National Register, separately added the south of I-84 and bisected by Route 9 to the Register as the Fishkill Supply Depot Site. Much of that land, particularly on the east of the home, remains undeveloped and unexcavated, awaiting future investigation.
References.
Notes
Sources


Louis Ellies Dupin

Louis Ellies du Pin, or Dupin (17 June 1657 – 6 June 1719) was a French ecclesiastical historian, who was responsible for the "Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques "
Childhood and education.
Dupin was born at Paris, coming from a noble family of Normandy. His mother, a Vitart, was the niece of Marie des Moulins, grandmother of the poet Jean Racine. When ten years old he entered the college of Harcourt, where he graduated M.A. in 1672. At the age of twenty Dupin accompanied Racine, who made a visit to Nicole for the purpose of becoming reconciled to the gentlemen of Port Royal. But, while not hostile to the Jansenists, Dupin's intellectual attraction was in another direction; he was the disciple of Jean Launoy, a learned critic and a Gallican. He became a pupil of the Sorbonne, and received the degree of B.D. in 1680 and that of D.D. in 1684.
"Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques".
About 1684 Dupin conceived the idea of his "Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques ", the first volume of which appeared in 1686. In it he treated simultaneously biography, literary criticism, and the history of dogma; in this he was a pioneer leaving far behind him all previous efforts, Catholic or Protestant, which were still under the influence of the Scholastic method. He was also the first to publish such a collection in a modern language. Unfortunately he was young and worked rapidly. In this way errors crept into his writings and his productions were violently attacked.
Mathieu Petit-Didier, a Benedictine monk, published an anonymous volume of "Remarques sur la bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques de M. Du Pin" (Paris, 1691), and this was followed by two other volumes to which the author's name was appended (Paris, 1692 and 1696). Dupin answered him in his fifth volume and Petit-Didier responded in the opening part of his second volume of "Remarques". Petit-Didier's observations often seem inspired by prejudices of his time. Thus Dupin had placed St. Macarius the Egyptian in the 4th century, to which indeed he rightly belongs. Having discovered Semipelagianism in this author's works, Petit-Didier concluded that Macarius should come after Pelagius and St. Augustine (II, 198). In reality similar ideas had been professed by many before St. Augustine's time.
A more formidable enemy appeared in Bossuet, who, during a public thesis at the Collège de Navarre in 1692, condemned Dupin's audacity. Dupin answered him and Bossuet appealed to the civil authority, denouncing Dupin to the Chancellor of France, Louis Boucherat and to Archbishop de Harlay of Paris. Bossuet simply enumerated the points in the "Bibliothèque" of which he disapproved. These concerned original sin, purgatory, the canonicity of the Sacred Scriptures, the eternity of hell's torments, the veneration of saints and of their relics, the adoration of the Cross, grace, the pope and the bishops, Lent, divorce, the celibacy of the clergy, tradition, the Eucharist, the theology of the Trinity, and the Council of Nicæa. He demanded a censure and a retractation.
Like Petit-Didier, Bossuet would not admit that any of the Greek or Latin Fathers differed from St. Augustine on the subject of grace, nor that this matter could be called subtle, delicate, and abstract. Between Dupin and Bossuet there was a still wider difference and Bossuet wrote, "The liberty M. Dupin takes of so harshly condemning the greatest men of the Church should, in general, not be tolerated". On the other hand, Bossuet strongly contended that heretics could not be too severely dealt with: "It is dangerous to call attention to passages that manifest the firmness of these people without also indicating wherein this firmness has been overrated: otherwise they are credited with a moral steadfastness which elicits sympathy and leads to their being excused". Dupin submitted, but was nevertheless condemned by the Archbishop of Paris (14 April 1696).
Dupin continued his "Bibliothèque", which was put on the "Index" long after his death (10 May 1757), though other works of his were condemned at an earlier date. He was also criticized by Richard Simon, though the two had similar views and employed similar methods so that when Bossuet was writing the "Défense de la Tradition et des Saints Pères" (which did not appear, however, until 1743), he included both in his invectives against the "haughty critics" who inclined to rabbinism and the errors of Socinus. Although Dupin spoke favourably of Arnauld and signed the "Cas de conscience", he was not a Jansenist. Rather, on these matters he shared the opinions of Launoy, who "had found a way to be at once both demi-Pelagian and Jansenist".
Exile and return.
Dupin was pre-eminently a Gallican. It was probably on this account that Louis XIV had him exiled to Châtellerault, on the occasion of the "Cas de conscience". Dupin retracted and returned, but his chair in the College of France was irretrievably lost. Later Dubois, who aspired to the cardinalate and sought therefore the favour of Rome, made similar accusations against Dupin.
In 1718 he entered into a correspondence with William Wake, archbishop of Canterbury, with a view to a union of the English and Gallican churches; being suspected of projecting a change in the dogmas of the church, his papers were seized in February 1719, but nothing incriminating was found. The same zeal for union induced him, during the residence of Peter the Great in France, and at that monarch's request, to draw up a plan for uniting the Greek and Roman churches. He died at Paris on 6 June 1719.
Etienne Jordan, a contemporary who saw him, said: in "the morning he would grow pale over books and in the afternoon over cards in the pleasant company of ladies. His library and adjoining apartment were marvellously well kept."
Works.
Du Pin was a voluminous author. Besides the "Nouvelle bibliothèque ecclésiastique" (58 vols. 8vo with tables), the "Remarques" by Petit-Didier, and the "Critique" by R. Simon reprinted in Holland (19 vols. 4to). It was translated into English and annotated by William Wotton in 13 vols. 1692-9. Dupin edited the works of Gerson (Paris, 1703), Optatus of Mileve (Paris, 1700), the Psalms with annotations (1691), and published "Notes sur le Pentateuque" (1701), an abridgment of "L'histoire de l'Eglise" (1712), "L'histoire profane" (1714–1716), "L'histoire d'Apollonius de Tyane" (1705, under the name of M. de Clairac), a "Traité de la puissance ecclésiastique et temporelle", a commentary on the Four Articles of the clergy of France (1707), the "Bibliothèque universelle des historiens" (1716), numerous works and articles on theology, reprints of former works, etc. Dupin was no pedant.


Herb Cornuelle

Herb Cornuelle (died 1996) was a businessman and activist in Hawaii, who was involved in the development of free market think tanks during the mid-twentieth century. With F. A. "Baldy" Harper, Cornuelle helped found the Foundation for Economic Education in New York in 1946, and later became head of the William Volker Fund (where he hired Murray Rothbard as an academic consultant). His siblings include libertarian author Richard Cornuelle.
Cornuelle came to Hawaii in 1942 as a Navy ensign and returned to Hawaii in 1953 as vice president of Hawaiian Pine, later the Dole Pineapple Company. Five years later, at age 38, he was elevated to president of the company. Cornuelle moved to Boston and led the United Fruit Company from 1963 until 1969, when he returned to Honolulu to head Dillingham Corp. He joined the Campbell Estate in 1982 as a trustee, retiring as board chairman in 1990. He also served as chairman of the Board of Regents at the University of Hawaii from March 1961 to June 1963, chairman of the East-West Center Board of Governors, and on the Cono Sur Board of Directors.
According to a popular story, Cornuelle helped set the tone of his leadership at Dillingham during a business flight to the Mainland. With other executives seated in first class, the 6-foot-4 Cornuelle made his way to the coach section to find a seat.


Velgeren

Velgeren ("The Voter") was a Norwegian newspaper, published in Gjøvik in Oppland county.
It started on 2 September 1904 under the name "Vælgeren", and was affiliated with the United Norwegian Workers' Association ("De forenede norske Arbeidersamfund"; in 1911 renamed as Labour Democrats) who had lost their organ "Oplændingen". Editor-in-chief was Hans Volckmar from 1904 to 1907, then Ivar Tveit.
From 1920 the newspaper supported both the Labour Democrats and the Liberal Party. The two parties cooperated closely on the political level as well. The newspaper modernized its name to "Velgeren" in 1925. Ivar Tveit left as editor in 1925, when the newspaper was essentially bankrupt; Aksel Hoel took over as editor from 1925 to 1936. Alf Rønning was editor from 1936 to 1940, Ludvig Thorsen from 1940 to 1942. Both Rønning and Thorsen were fired during the occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany, because they had been hostile to the Nazi occupiers.
From 15 May 1942 to 31 May 1944 the newspaper was published as "Oplendingen" under close scrutiny from the Norwegian Press Directorate, and with Ola Hjelt as editor.
After the Second World War, "Velgeren" resurfaced, with Rønning returning as editor and Thorsen as manager. After its last issue on 30 September 1965 it was merged with the Centre Party newspaper "Samhold". Alf Rønning was the political editor until 1973. Its name lived on in the constellation "Samhold/Velgeren" until 1984.


Magnus Halvorsen

Johan Magnus Halvorsen (10 June 1853 – 14 February 1922) was a Norwegian politician for the Moderate Liberal Party.
Biography.
Halvorsen was born at Ålesund in Møre og Romsdal, Norway. He was a merchant by profession. He started his business career as a sales representative at Vanylven in Sunnmøre. In 1874 he became a director at Selje forbruksforening in Nordfjord. He later worked as a representative for several factories and businesses in Bergen. In 1881, he established himself as a merchant in Trondheim with a fish wholesaler.
Halvorsen was a member of the city council of Trondheim 1895-1904 and again from 1910. He represented the city in the Norwegian Parliament 1898-1900 and 1903–12. He was Minister of Finance from 1907 to 1908 in cabinet of Prime Minister Jørgen Løvland.


Patriottentijd

The Patriottentijd (; ) was a period of political instability in the Dutch Republic between approximately 1780 and 1787. Its name derives from the Patriots ("Patriotten") faction who opposed the rule of the stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, and his supporters who were known as Orangists ("Orangisten")
In 1781 one of the leaders of the Patriots, Joan Derk van der Capellen tot den Pol anonymously published a pamphlet, entitled "Aan het Volk van Nederland" ("To the People of the Netherlands"), in which he advocated the formation of civic militias on the Swiss and American model to help restore the republican constitution. Such militias were subsequently organised in many localities and formed, together with Patriot political clubs, the core of the Patriot movement. From 1785 on, the Patriots managed to gain power in a number of Dutch cities, where they replaced the old system of co-option of "regenten" with a system of democratically elected representatives. This enabled them to replace the representatives of these cities in the States of several provinces, gaining Patriot majorities in the States of Holland, Groningen and Utrecht, and frequently also in the States General. This helped to emasculate the stadtholder's power as he was deprived of his command over a large part of the Dutch States Army. A low-key civil war ensued that resulted in a military stalemate, until in September–October 1787 the Patriots were defeated by a Prussian army and many were forced into exile.
Background.
Etymology.
The term "Patriot" (from Greek πατριώτης, "fellow countryman") had previously been used in the 17th century by anti-Orangists, but when French troops invaded the Republic in 1747, "Patriots" demanded the return of the Orange stadtholderate, which ended the Second Stadtholderless Period (1702–1747). From 1756 onward, however, Dutch States Party "regenten" once again began styling themselves "Patriots". The Orangist party did try to reappropriate the term, but it was forced on the defensive, which became apparent when it renamed one of its weekly magazines to "De Ouderwetse Nederlandsche Patriot" ("The Old-Fashioned Dutch Patriot"). Patriotism and anti-Orangism had become synonymous.
The Patriots can be divided into two separate groups: aristocrats and democrats. The "aristocratic Patriots" (also called "oudpatriotten" or "Old Patriots"), initially the strongest, can be viewed as oppositional "regenten", who either sought to enter the factions in power, or tried to realise the so-called "Loevesteinian" ideal of a republic without Orange; they came from the existing Dutch States Party. The "democratic Patriots" emerged later, and consisted mainly of non-regent members of the bourgeoisie, who strove to democratise the Republic.
Finally, the term "Patriottentijd" for the historical era is a historiographical invention of 19th-century Dutch historians, comparable to the terms "First Stadtholderless Period", "Second Stadtholderless Period", and "Fransche Tijd (French Era)" (for the era of the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland and the French First Empire, 1795–1813). Herman Theodoor Colenbrander for instance, used the term as the title of one of his main works: "De patriottentijd: hoofdzakelijk naar buitenlandsche bescheiden" (The Hague, 1897). The term was often used in a pejorative fashion, but lately has acquired a more positive connotation.
Perceived decline of the Dutch Republic.
After the halcyon days of the Dutch Golden Age of the first two-thirds of the 17th century, the Dutch economy entered a period of stagnation and "relative" decline. The absolute size of Dutch GNP remained constant, but the economy was overtaken by that of other European countries in the course of the 18th century. Besides, in a number of economic sectors, such as the fisheries and most industries that had sprung up in the early 17th century, an "absolute" decline occurred. The country's deindustrialization resulted in de-urbanization as artisans that had worked in the disappearing industries had to move to areas where work was still to be found. The shrinking industrial base was also concentrating in particular areas, to the detriment of other areas where certain industries (shipbuilding, textiles) had formerly been prominent. Remarkably for an era of rapid population growth in other European countries, the size of the Dutch population remained constant during the 18th century at around 1.9 million people, which (in view of the constant absolute size of the economy) resulted in a constant "per capita" income. But this was somewhat misleading as economic inequality markedly increased during the 18th century: the economy became dominated by a small group of very rich "rentiers", and the economy shifted to what we would now call a service economy, in which the commercial sector (always strong in the Netherlands) and the banking sector dominated. These shifts had a devastating effect for the people who experienced downward social mobility and ended up in the lower strata of Dutch society. But even those that were not affected by such downward mobility, and remained in the upper and middle classes, were affected by this perceived economic decline.
The economic decline worked through in the political sphere as after the Peace of Utrecht of 1713 the government of the Dutch Republic felt constrained to enter upon a policy of austerity as a consequence of the dire state of the Dutch public finances. Both the mercenary Dutch States Army and the Dutch navy suffered a large shrinkage in the following period, and consequently the Republic had to give up the pretense of being a European great power, in the military sense, with the diplomatic consequences that entailed. It became clear that the Republic had become a pawn in European power politics, depending on the good will of other countries such as France, Prussia and Great Britain. This decline in international diplomatic standing also contributed to the malaise that resulted from the perceived decline.
Growing disaffection with the political system.
The disaffection with the perceived state of the economy and diplomatic decline was paired with a growing disaffection with the political system of the Dutch Republic among middle-class Dutchmen. The Dutch "constitution" defined the Dutch Republic as a confederation of sovereign provinces with a republican character. Formally, power was supposed to flow upward, from the local governments (governments of select cities that possessed City Rights, and the aristocracy in rural areas) toward the provincial States, and eventually the States-General. Those local governments, however, though ostensibly representing "The People" according to the prevailing ideology, had in fact evolved into oligarchies dominated by a few families that in the cities at least were not formally part of the nobility, but were considered "patrician" in the classical sense. The members of the "regenten" class co-opted each other in the city "vroedschap", which elected the city magistrates and sent delegates to the regional and national States. This situation had come about gradually, as in medieval times corporate institutions, like the guilds and "schutterijen" had sometimes had at least nominating powers to the "vroedschappen", bestowing a certain amount of political power on members of the middle class (though calling this "democracy" would be an exaggeration).
The concentration of power in a more and more closed oligarchy frustrated the middle class, that saw its opportunities for political and social advancement blocked, also because the political patronage in regard to all kinds of petty offices was concentrated in the hands of the oligarchs, who favored their own political allies. Though offices were often venal and for sale, this fact was ironically less resented than the fact that those offices were not available on the same footing to everyone. Opening up the political system to the middle class had therefore been an objective of political reformers like the so-called "Doelisten" who in 1747 helped elevate the Frisian stadtholder William IV to stadtholder in all seven provinces, on a hereditary basis, with greatly expanded powers, in the hope that he would use those powers to promote the political influence of the would-be "democrats." That hope proved vain, also because of his untimely death in 1751, after which he was succeeded by his infant son William V, who was three years of age at the time. Power devolved upon regents, first the dowager Princess of Orange, and after her death in 1759, "de facto" Duke Louis Ernest of Brunswick-Lüneburg, who saw even less merit in "democratic" experiments. Duke Louis would retain a virtual guardianship in accordance with the so-called "Acte van Consulentschap" even after the young Prince had come of age. Meanwhile, the greatly expanded powers of the stadtholder consisted primarily in his right of appointment, or at least approval, of magistrates on the local and provincial level, which were enshrined in the so-called "regeringsreglementen" (Government Regulations) adopted by most provinces in 1747. These powers allowed him to overrule the elections by the local "vroedschappen" if the results did not comport with his wishes, and so bestowed great powers of political patronage on the local level on him (and the regents who ruled in place of the under-age William V before 1766). The end result was that the "States party" "regenten" that had ruled the country during the Second Stadtholderless Period were replaced by Orangist party men, who were ideologically opposed to popular influence, closing the door to "democratic" experiments. Though the "democrats" had been in the Orangist camp in 1747, they therefore soon came into an alliance of convenience with the disenfranchised "States party" "regenten".
The American imbroglio.
The American Declaration of Independence did not elicit enthusiasm from everyone in the Dutch Republic once it became known there in August 1776. The stadtholder wrote to the "griffier" of the States-General, Hendrik Fagel, that it was only "... the parody of the proclamation issued by our forefathers against king Philip II". But others were less scornful. Dutch merchants, especially in the Amsterdam Chamber of the moribund WIC, had long chafed against the restrictions the British Navigation Acts imposed on direct trade with the American colonies in revolt. The American Revolution opened new perspectives to unfettered trade, though for the moment primarily on the smuggling route via the WIC colony of Sint Eustatius. That entrepôt soon became an important export port for the supply of the American rebels with Dutch arms. The Amsterdam "regenten" were particularly interested in opening formal trade negotiations with the Continental Congress; secret diplomacy was soon embarked upon by the pensionaries of a number of mercantile cities, like Engelbert François van Berckel (Amsterdam) and Cornelis de Gijselaar (Dordrecht), behind the back of the stadtholder and the States-General. The French ambassador to the Republic, Vauguyon, arranged contacts with the American ambassador to the French court, Benjamin Franklin, in 1778, which in time led to the sending out of John Adams as American emissary to the Republic. In 1778, there also were secret negotiations between the Amsterdam banker Jean de Neufville and the American agent in Aachen, William Lee. The two concluded a secret agreement on a treaty of amity and commerce between the two Republics, the draft of which was discovered by the British when they intercepted ambassador-to-the-Netherlands-to-be Henry Laurens at sea. They used this as a "casus belli" for declaring the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War in December 1780 (together with the actions from Dutch territory by the American privateer John Paul Jones, and the planned Dutch accession to the First League of Armed Neutrality).
The war went disastrously for the Dutch, despite the fact that the Dutch fleet had been enlarged appreciably in the preceding years. but it was scarcely used by the Dutch, with the stadtholder, as Admiral-General, in supreme command. At the start of the war, a number of Dutch warships were surprised by ships of the Royal Navy, who according to the Dutch, sneaked up under a false flag, and when they had approached the unsuspecting Dutchmen (who were not yet aware of the start of the war), ran up their true colors and opened fire. The Dutch ships then struck their colors after firing a single broadside in reply "to satisfy honor." In this way individual ships, and even a complete squadron, were lost. The British blockaded the Dutch coast without much response from the Dutch fleet. There was one big battle between a Dutch squadron under rear-admiral Johan Zoutman and a British one under vice-admiral Sir Hyde Parker, which ended inconclusively, but on the whole the Dutch fleet remained in port, due to a state of "unreadiness," according to the Dutch commanders. This lack of activity caused great dissatisfaction among Dutch shippers who wanted convoy protection against the British, and also among the population at large, who felt humiliated by what many saw as "cowardice." The stadtholder was generally blamed. After a brief wave of euphoria due to Zoutman's heroics (which were duly exploited in the official propaganda), the navy again earned the disapproval of public opinion because of its inactivity. This only increased after the States-General in 1782 agreed with France on a naval alliance or "concert" that led to a planned joint action against Great Britain. To that end a Dutch fleet of ten ships of the line would in 1783 be sent to the French port of Brest to join the French fleet there. However, a direct order to set sail was disobeyed by the Dutch naval top with again the excuse of "unreadiness," but some officers, like vice-admiral Lodewijk van Bylandt, the intended leader of the expedition, let it be known that they did not want to cooperate with the French. This caused a scandal, known as the Brest Affair in which Pieter Paulus, the "fiscal" (prosecutor) of the Admiralty of Rotterdam was to lead an inquest, but this never resulted in a conviction. But the damage to the reputation of the Dutch navy and the stadtholder as its commander-in-chief in Dutch public opinion was appreciable, and this undermined the regime.
The stadtholder was not the only one reminded by the American Declaration of Independence of its Dutch equivalent of 1581. Many others saw an analogy between the American Revolution and the Dutch Revolt, and this helped engender much sympathy for the American cause in Dutch public opinion. When John Adams arrived in the Netherlands from Paris in 1780, in search of Dutch loans for the financing of the American struggle, he came armed with a long list of Dutch contacts. At first, however, it was an uphill struggle to interest the Dutch elite. Adams set to work to influence public opinion with the help of a number of those Dutch contacts which he enumerates in a letter to United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs Robert Livingstone of 4 September 1782. He mentions the Amsterdam lawyer Hendrik Calkoen, who was very interested in the American cause, and who posed thirty questions on the matter that Adams answered in a number of letters, that were later bundled and published as an influential pamphlet. Calkoen was keen to again emphasize the analogy between the Dutch and American struggles for independence. He also mentions the Luzac family that published the "Gazette de Leyde", an influential newspaper, whose publisher Jean Luzac supported the American cause by publicising the American constitutional debate. The "Gazette" was the first European newspaper to carry a translation of the Constitution of Massachusetts, principally authored by Adams, on 3 October 1780. In that context Adams also mentions the journalist Antoine Marie Cerisier and his periodical "le Politique hollandais". Another propagandist for the American cause, who drew inferences for the Dutch political situation, was the Overijssel maverick nobleman Joan Derk van der Capellen tot den Pol, who had the Declaration of Independence, and other American constitutional documents, translated into Dutch.
By these propagandistic activities the American and Dutch causes became intertwined in the public's mind as a model of "republican fraternity". Adams himself harped on this theme in the "Memorial" he presented to the States-General to obtain acceptance of his credentials as ambassador on 19 April 1781:
The immediate audience of the "Memorial" may have been sceptical, but elsewhere the document made a great impression.
The Patriot Revolt.
The pamphlet "To the People of the Netherlands".
In the night of 25 on 26 September 1781, the anonymous pamphlet "Aan het Volk van Nederland" ("To the People of the Netherlands") was distributed in a number of Dutch cities. It was later discovered that it had been written by Adams' friend Van der Capellen, and that its successful distribution had been organised by François Adriaan van der Kemp. Though the pamphlet was immediately proscribed as seditious by the authorities, it enjoyed a wide circulation.
"Seditious" it certainly was, as the pamphlet repeatedly exhorted the burghers of the Netherlands to arm themselves and take matters into their own hands. As was usual at the time, the pamphlet contained a romanticized overview of Dutch history, going back to the mythical ancestors of the Dutch people, the "Bataven", and taking the Middle Ages and the early history of the Republic in stride. But the perspective was decidedly anti-stadtholderian, and emphasized that the people are "the true proprietors, the lords and masters of the country", not the nobles and "regenten". The author likens the country to a great company, like the VOC, in which the administrators serve the shareholders. . The author then continues with a diatribe against the stadtholder: . Therefore:
These themes: the primacy of the people, whose servants the politicians are; the need to arm the people in units who elect their own officers; to elect commissioners who investigate government wrongdoing, as a parallel source of power next to the existing institutions; the need to protect the freedom of the press; would be repeated time after time in other Patriot pamphlets and the Patriot press in later years. But these ideas were rooted in a particular perspective on Dutch history, not in abstract philosophical ideas, taken from the French Enlightenment. It was a mixture of old and new ideas,
and attitudes to the Dutch constitution. But this mixture would diverge into two distinctive strands in the course of the next few years, until it would lead to an ideological split between the "aristocratic" and "democratic" Patriots.
Of course, "Aan het Volk van Nederland" was just one example of the many pamphlets, both Orangist and Patriot, that were published during the "Patriottentijd". But these one-off publications were soon joined by an innovation in the vernacular press. Before 1780 the "opinion newspapers," like the "Gazette de Leyde" and the "Politique Hollandais" were written in French, and generally only read by the elite. But in 1781 the Patriot Pieter 't Hoen started a periodical in Dutch in Utrecht, entitled "De Post van den Neder-Rhijn" (The Post of the Lower Rhine) that would become a combination of opinion weekly, tabloid, and scandal sheet, with a Patriot bias that attacked the stadtholder and the "aristocratic" Patriots with equal abandon. It was soon joined by an Amsterdam magazine with the same character, the "Politieke Kruijer" (Political Porter), edited by J.C. Hespe, and later by Wybo Fijnje's "Hollandsche Historische Courant" (Dutch Historical Journal) in Delft. All these periodicals enjoyed great popularity in middle-class circles, probably because they mixed serious political analysis with scurrilous libels of the political elite. The journalists and publishers were often prosecuted by their enraged victims, but fines and jail-time were part of the job in these times. As they had a national readership they helped Patriot politics go beyond the local confines they would normally have encountered. And their ideological consistency helped to bring about unity in especially the "democratic" wing of the Patriot movement.
The "exercitiegenootschappen".
Since the late Middle Ages cities in the Habsburg Netherlands had employed citizen militias for external defense (mostly against incursions from neighboring provinces), and to keep public order. These militias, called "schutterijen", played an important part in the early stages of the Dutch Revolt when they on their own successfully defended important cities against the Spanish troops of the Duke of Alba, which helped to give them an aura of heroism. In this early period the militia often formed a separate and independent center of power of the burghers who were its members, rivaling the "vroedschap" as the power center of the elite. This independence was symbolized by the fact that the "schutterij" usually elected its own officers. But starting in the early 17th century the militias lost their independence and became subservient to the regular city magistracy. They also became a part of the regular defense structure of the country, next to the States Army (though not part of that mercenary military formation). During the revolution of 1747 the "Doelisten" attempted to restore the independent role of the "schutterijen", but this attempt failed. By the early 1780s the militias were but a caricature of their proud predecessors, subservient to the city magistrates, who made officer commissions the preserve of the "regenten" class, and more like recreative societies than serious military formations. Many Patriots took this decline of the "schutterijen" as a synecdoche for the decline of the Republic, and the reform of the militias was seen as an important part of the necessary reform of the Republic. But as elsewhere the stadtholderian regime blocked such reform.
From 1783 onwards, the Patriots therefore started to form their own militias, parallel to the official "schutterijen", which they called by innocuous names like "exercitiegenootschappen" or "vrijcorpsen" (Free Corps) in order not to provoke the city governments. In contrast with the "schutterijen" these competing militias were open to members of all religious denominations; they elected their own officers; and they trained regularly in military drill ("exercitie") and the use of arms. The Patriots proposed to use the militias to promote the representation of their officers in official councils, and to defend the rights of free assembly and speech of the citizenry.
Depending on local political circumstances the Free corps sometimes remained a parallel military structure, and sometimes gradually took over the old "schutterij". An example of the latter was the city of Utrecht where under the direction of the "exercitiegenootschap" "Pro Patria et Libertate" (in which the student leader Quint Ondaatje played a prominent role) the "schutterij" was taken over by the Free Corps, while the old organisational structure with company names like "the Pikes" and "the Black Boys" was studiously retained (including the old flags and banners).
At first in some cities the "vroedschap" encouraged this usurpation of the role of the "schutterij", because it helped to undermine the stadtholder's right to appoint the leadership of the militia (as in Alkmaar, Leiden and Dordrecht), which the "regenten" resented themselves. But this in itself was a threat to the established order, as the claim to revive the "schutterijen" was commingled with the principle of electing officers freely from the citizenry and the claim to restore their "proper" place in the hierarchy of civic institutions. Where a "regent" remained in charge of the "schutterij" he was suddenly supposed to represent his men in the "vroedschap" thereby cunningly reverting the old hierarchy. The Patriots made no secret of the political implications of their reform of the "schutterijen". In cities like Leiden, Zutphen and Utrecht the Free corps drew up petitions demanding recognition of the newly-constituted militias by the city governments, which was subsequently granted. In this early phase there was a happy cooperation between the Patriots and the anti-Orangist "regenten", because of their common interest in diminishing the powers of the stadtholder. In Holland province his advantage of exercising command of the Hague garrison of the States Army was offset by the power of the Free Corps in most cities, and the latter had the additional advantage of providing a defense against the usual Orangist weapon of threatened mob violence, because the middle-class Patriots feared the city paupers as much as the "regenten" did, and formed a common front against the poor. And not without reason, because in several cities, there were Orangist-inspired riots by members of the working class, like the riots in Rotterdam in 1783 and the Hague in 1784, led by the fish-monger "Kaat Mussel". On 3 April 1784 such a riot was bloodily suppressed by a Free-Corps company in Rotterdam, when a panicky officer ordered his men to open fire on the mob, which resulted in several people killed. Initially, the officer was blamed, but (due to the fact that more and more riots occurred) the States of Holland later exonerated the Free Corps and blamed the Orangist rioters.
The Free Corps were a local phenomenon, limited to the areas where the Patriot movement was strong, partly because the Patriot ideology for a very long time respected the confederal structure of the Dutch Republic. They remained "federal" democrats. But from the end of 1784 they started to organize on a national level. In December the first congress of representatives of a federation of Free Corps assembled in Utrecht. This was soon followed by the second congress on 25 February 1785, which commissioned the Leiden Free Corps to draft a manifesto. This manifesto was adopted during the third congress, again in Utrecht on 14 June 1785. It took the form of a solemn "Acte van Verbintenis ter verdediging der Republicainsche constitutie" (Act of Association for the defense of the Republican constitution, or "Act of Association" for short) in which the members of the Free Corps pledged to support each other against attempts at suppression by the civil authorities and against attacks by Orangist mobs. Also the Act for the first time established "Volksregering bij representatie" (People's government by representation) as the ultimate goal of the Free Corps movement. But this was only the first such manifesto.
The "Leids Ontwerp" (Leiden Draft), another important Patriot manifesto, was drawn up after the Leiden "exercitiegenootschap" was prohibited from performing its drill maneuvers on 23 July 1785 by the city government. In response a congress of the representatives of the Holland "exercitiegenootschappen" commissioned a group of members, among whom Wybo Fijnje, Pieter Vreede, and Rutger Jan Schimmelpenninck to write the manifesto along the lines of the draft they discussed in a meeting on 4 October 1785. This resulted in the publication of the manifesto, entitled "Ontwerp om de Republiek door eene heilzaame Vereeniging van Belangen van Regent en Burger van Binnen Gelukkig en van Buiten Gedugt te maaken", Leiden, aangenomen bij besluit van de Provinciale Vergadering van de Gewapende Corpsen in Holland, op 4 oktober 1785 te Leiden" (Design to make the Republic inwardly contented and outwardly feared by a salutary union of interests of Regent and Citizen, etc.) in which among other things the abolition of the right of approval of city-government appointments of the stadtholder was proposed, to be replaced by democratic elections.
Overturning the old order in Utrecht and Amsterdam.
Implementing the Patriot manifestos brought a fundamental rift between the "democratic" and "aristocratic" wings of the Patriot movement to light. Initially both saw a common interest and a basis for cooperation (as the Leiden Draft explicitly proposes). This was exemplified by the Utrecht example where in July 1783 the "vroedschap" acceded to the demand of the local Free Corps to be recognized as the new manifestation of the "schutterij" under the direction of an elected Burgher Defense Council. Both factions were opposed to the 1674 Government Regulation that gave extensive powers to the stadtholder to appoint city magistrates. This was a standing invitation to abuse. Nicolaas de Pesters, "schepen" of Utrecht, was infamous for his abuse of political patronage. The matter came to a head when in January 1783 a member of the Utrecht "vroedschap" (i.e. a "regent") proposed to disavow the appointment rights of the stadtholder, and in August 1783 a petition of members of the newly reconstituted "schutterij" urged the "vroedschap" to no longer brook such interference. Attempts to come to an understanding with the stadtholder in the Fall of 1783 failed, because the latter insisted on his "due rights." Then in January 1784 an occasion presented itself to test the stadtholder's resolve, when a vacancy in the "vroedschap" occurred. The "regenten" accepted the challenge and, studiously ignoring the stadtholder, appointed a moderate member of the "schutterij" to the vacant post.
But the honeymoon between the "democrats" and "aristocrats" did not last. On 23 April 1784 a draft of a new "constitution" for Utrecht province, to replace the 1674 Regulation, was published in the Utrecht Patriot newspaper "Utrechtse Courant", after the Utrecht States had imprudently invited all citizens to lodge their objections to the Regulations in early 1784. This draft of 117 articles proposed that henceforth the Utrecht city "vroedschap" was to be popularly elected under a form of census suffrage in indirect elections. This relatively moderate proposal directly attacked the co-option rights of the "regenten". Another objectionable proposal was the institution of an elected body of 16 burgher representatives to sit in permanent session to hear and address grievances of citizens against the city government. The "regenten" were not about to let go of their powers without a fight, but instead of getting into a direct confrontation with the democrats they at first tried to drown the proposal in red tape. The States drafted a far more conservative counter-proposal and tried to push this through by subterfuge. This elicited a strong response of the Utrecht "schutterij" in the form of a petition opposing that counter-draft. The "schutterij" also elected a group of 24 representatives (among whom Ondaatje), which called themselves the "Constituted," to conduct direct negotiations with the "vroedschap". The Constituted soon set themselves up as a rival power center to the "vroedschap", and started acting like the proposed Burgher Council from the draft-constitution.
The negotiations fruitlessly dragged on and in January 1785 six companies of the "schutterij" approached the Constituted to urge them to take more drastic steps. The irate "shooters" elected a new group of representatives, called the "Commissioned," to permanently ensure the zeal of the Constituted. The "vroedschap" grudgingly accepted the Constituted as permanent representatives of the "schutterij" on 21 February 1785, but made no further concessions. But then fate intervened, another member of the "vroedschap" died and the Constituted and Commissioned petitioned the "vroedschap" to fill the vacancy with someone sympathetic to their cause. The "vroedschap" then went out of its way to appoint someone the petitioners had already declared "unacceptable", one Jonathan Sichterman.
The train of events that then was set in motion could be considered a "paradigm" for revolutionary "journées" that would be followed in similar circumstances in Utrecht itself, and in other Dutch cities in the following two years. First the city government would commit some kind of "provocation" that would enrage the Free Corps members and other Patriots. The democrats would work themselves into a lather, whipped up by seditious pamphlets and speeches. Then they would march to the town hall and assemble, with their weapons, in the town square, which they would easily fill with their large numbers. The city fathers would be summoned to come to the town hall and would be more or less locked up in their meeting room. They would not be physically assaulted (even provided with food and drink), but the psychological pressure of the threatening crowd, and the threats that "it would be impossible to constrain them, if the demands were not met" would soon convince them to give in. But once everybody had returned home in triumph, the city fathers would regain their courage, and renege on their promises "as these had been forced under duress." And a new cycle would soon commence.
Something like this happened on 11–12 March 1785 in Utrecht, when agitators like Ondaatje whipped the crowd into a frenzy; the Utrecht city hall was surrounded by 2,000 angry Free Corps men and the Utrecht "vroedschap" reluctantly agreed to withdraw Sicherman's appointment after Ondaatje made clear that the Constituted would not be fobbed off. "We are not '48-ers," he declared, "but 85-ers, who understand our rights and liberties well enough, ... we are not "canaille"" referring to a similar event during the revolution of 1748, when the "Doelisten" had indeed been fobbed off by the then-stadtholder. But the reaction was swift: 17 members of the "vroedschap" resigned in protest, and soon a petition of notable citizens was sent to the States with a request to intervene. The States excoriated Ondaatje and his mob and manage to intimidate Ondaatje sufficiently to elicit a humble apology. On 23 March the 19 "vroedschap" members reoccupied their seats, and opened criminal proceedings against Ondaatje and other instigators of the events of 11 March. Sicherman could have his appointment back, but he declined; the council therefore left the vacancy unfilled.
But the democrats were back in August and again in September with demonstrations following the established paradigm. Eventually, end December 1785, things came to a head when in a final demonstration of Free Corps strength the "vroedschap" was forced to capitulate. On 20 December they promised to adopt a democratic city constitution within three months. And indeed, on 20 March 1786, while the Free Corps again occupied the central square in silent menace, while a blizzard blew, the "vroedschap" allowed several of its members to formally abjure the old Government Regulation. On 2 August 1786 an elected Burgher College was installed as the new city council.
In the Spring of 1787 similar events took place in Amsterdam. The political situation in that city had long been very different than in Utrecht. The Amsterdam "regenten" belonged to the old States-Party faction and were as such opposed to the stadtholder long before the Patriot movement started to rear its head. Its pensionary, Engelbert François van Berckel, together with the pensionaries of Dordrecht (Cornelis de Gijselaar) and of Haarlem (Adriaan van Zeebergh) formed an anti-stadtholderian triumvirate in the States of Holland during the days of the war with Great Britain. But this was all based on the interests of Amsterdam as a mercantile city. The Amsterdam "regenten" were in no mood for "democratic" experiments that would undermine their privileges. The more the democrats gained influence in other cities, the more the Amsterdam "regenten" drew closer to their Orangist enemies, and the stadtholder's regime. Van Berckel lost the initiative to Orangist "regenten" like Joachim Rendorp, and Willem Gerrit Dedel Salomonsz, who formed an Orangist minority within the Amsterdam "vroedschap". Amsterdam had a large Free Corps, consisting of 55 companies, but the old "schutterij", under Orangist command, was still a rival armed force. Besides, the Patriots did not have a monopoly on mob violence, as the workers in the Amsterdam shipbuilding industry, the so-called "Bijltjes" ("Ax-men"), were a strongly pro-Orange political force in the city. Patriot political clubs were rivaled by Orangist political clubs. In sum, the political forces were more evenly balanced than in other cities. And this paralyzed the Amsterdam "vroedschap" in the Spring of 1787. Things came to a head in February 1787 when a group of Free-Corps officers, led by a Colonel Isaac van Goudoever forced entry to the council chamber in protest against an anti-Patriot move Dedel had engineered. Only the intervention of Hendrik Daniëlsz Hooft, a venerable burgemeester prevented a fracas. On 3 April Goudoever returned at the head of 102 officers to demand that henceforth Amsterdam would only be represented by its pensionaries Van Berckel and Visscher (who were both trusted by the Patriots) in the States of Holland. Dedel replied with an attempt to come to an arrangement with the stadtholder in which Amsterdam would align itself with the stadtholderian regime in exchange for concessions by the stadtholder on the point of his right of appointment (which the States-Party "regenten" had always opposed), and his help with mobilizing the "Bijltjes". This conspiracy failed due to the obduracy of the stadtholder, but on 20 April 1787 an incendiary pamphlet, entitled "Het Verraad Ontdekt" ("The Treason Discovered"), made it public, and this incensed the Patriots. That night the city was abuzz with fervid Patriot activity. The Burgher Defense Council, which commanded the Free Corps, organised a petition (the "Act of Qualification") which was signed by 16,000 people, and the next day the Dam Square before the city hall was thronged with thousands of guild members, Patriot citizens and armed militiamen. The Amsterdam council was once more locked in chambers, not expected to emerge without a positive decision, and on the initiative of Hooft the "vroedschap" was purged of the members whose dismissal had been demanded in the Act of Qualification. Amsterdam had belatedly joined the Patriot coalition. The rioting of the "Bijltjes" on 30 May 1787 did not change this.
Other cities in Holland that had been holding out, like Rotterdam, where Pieter Paulus finally managed a purge of the "vroedschap", and several cities, like Delft, Dordrecht, Alkmaar, Hoorn, and Monnikendam were helped along by the "Flying Legion", a corps of 300 Free Corps members, and 200 horses, led by Adam Gerard Mappa, threatening violence. Delft's "liberation" gave the Patriots command of the largest arsenal in Holland province in the Summer of 1787.
A creeping civil war.
Many historians would deny that the political upheavals in the Dutch Republic during the years 1785, 1786 and 1787 amounted to a civil war. It is true that compared to the French revolution the Patriot revolution was singularly bloodless and that widespread military maneuvering remained the exception. But there actually were military actions by regular forces on both sides, aimed at deciding the issue by military means, and blood was spilled in battle. To understand how this came about, it is important first to understand the way the forces on both sides were distributed in the seven provinces and the Generality Lands. The States Army, commanded by the stadtholder, was a mercenary army, paid for by the several provinces according to a formula for apportionment, called the "repartitie". Holland paid for more than half of the troops, and it was known which regiments belonged to its "repartitie", though this had no consequences for the operational command, as the army was an institution of the Republic as a whole. The troops were in peacetime usually divided over a number of garrisons in different parts of the country. These garrisons played an important role in local politics, as the officers were Orangists to a man, and the troops in the whole felt a strong allegiance to the stadtholder. The garrison cities, like Nijmegen in Gelderland, The Hague in Holland, and 'sHertogenbosch in "States Brabant" were strongpoints of Orangist influence, even though the surrounding provinces might tend to favor the Patriots. So even without explicitly threatening military violence, the army played an important role in local politics.
Before 1784 the States army was the only official standing army in the Republic, but during the so-called Kettle War, a minor military conflict with the Austrian emperor and sovereign of the Austrian Netherlands, Joseph II, the States of Holland lost confidence in the States army under the wavering command of the stadtholder, and decided to raise a separate military formation of brigade strength, outside the States army, under the command of the Rhinegrave of Salm, an officer in the States army, for its own account. This so-called "Legion of Salm" was not subject to the stadtholder as Captain-General of the States army. After the crisis passed, the States of Holland decided to abolish it, as an austerity measure, but several Holland cities, Amsterdam among them, decided to take over the financing for their own account, so that from 1785 on the Legion continued in being as a military unit that was not part of the official military command structure, and also not part of the Free Corps federation, because the members of the Legion were mercenaries, just like the soldiers of the army. The Legion did not play a role, until the Rhinegrave in September 1786 became commander-in-chief of all forces of the province of Holland, including the States army troops under the Holland "repartitie", and later also the Free Corps in the provinces of Holland and Utrecht.
The events that gave rise to this development were the following. In September 1785, after a number of riots between Patriots and Orangists in The Hague during the Summer of that year, the States of Holland (by then with a slender majority of cities tending toward the Patriot side) decided to deprive the stadtholder of his command of the strong Hague garrison of the States army (though this was only formalized in July 1786). On 15 September 1785 he therefore decided to leave the city and to repair to the Het Loo Palace in Gelderland with his family. Around the same time things had come to a head in Utrecht city and part of the States of Utrecht decided to move to the city of Amersfoort, causing a schism in the States, as the representatives of the city of Utrecht and several other cities remained in Utrecht city. The Amersfoort States subsequently asked the stadtholder to put a garrison of States army troops in Amersfoort and Zeist, which was done in September 1785 with a cavalry division from the Nijmegen garrison.
This remained the status quo until in May 1786 the "vroedschappen" of the Gelderland cities of Hattem and Elburg refused to seat a number of Orangist candidates in defiance of the stadtholder's right of appointment, and with help of Patriot Free Corps of Kampen, Overijssel, Zwolle and Zutphen started to fortify the cities under the command of the young firebrand Patriot Herman Willem Daendels, a Hattem native. The pro-Orangist States of Gelderland then asked the stadtholder to lend a hand in suppressing this "insurrection" and on 4 September a task-force of the Nijmegen garrison duly marched to Hattem and entered that city over light opposition the next day. The troops were allowed to loot the two small cities and desecrate the local churches. Stadtholder William V is said to have exclaimed on the news of the success of the operation: "Have they be hanged? Hell and Damnation. Why not hang the Satan's children?".
The "Hattem and Elburg events" electrified the Patriot opposition. Pensionary de Gijselaar (calling the stadtholder "a new Alva") demanded in the States of Holland that the stadtholder would be deprived of his command as Captain-General of the States army (which only the States General could do), and in any case take the troops on the Holland "repartitie" out of the States army. When this was done this deprived the stadtholder of more than half of his troops, effectively denying him the military means to decide the political conflict. Holland also made a pact with the Utrecht States and the Overijssel cities (the Overijssel States were hopelessly divided) to form a so-called "Cordon" to defend these provinces against military depredations of the rump-States army. The overall command of this Cordon was given to a military commission, headquartered in Woerden, while the Holland troops were put under the command of the Rhinegrave of Salm. Another important political development was that the Amsterdam "regenten" (still not purged of the Orangist minority) formally adhered to the Act of Association that the Free Corps had promulgated in the Summer of 1785.
In Utrecht city the Patriots feared an attack from the Amersfoort and Zeist troops, and started to fortify the city against a siege. The defenders received reinforcements from Holland and other Patriot strongholds, so that by the Spring of 1787 they numbered 6,000. When the Utrecht Defense Council learned that the States army had sent a task-force to occupy the hamlet of Vreeswijk near a strategically important sluice (useful to defensively inundate the surrounding countryside) they decided to force a confrontation. On 9 May 1787 the Patriot force under the command of the Utrecht "vroedschap" member Jean Antoine d'Averhoult attacked the States-army force in the Battle of Jutphaas, and despite several people killed, routed the mercenaries. Though this was only a skirmish, the Patriot propaganda made hay of the victory and the officer killed received a state funeral.
Foreign interference.
The Patriot Revolt did not take place in a diplomatic vacuum. The Dutch Republic had from its inception been a battlefield of Great Power diplomacy in which the Holland "regenten" (lately in the guise of the States Party) had been sympathetic to France, and the Orangists usually favored England and later Great Britain. Since the days of the 1688 invasion of England followed by the 1689 naval treaty with England, the Dutch had been in nominal alliance with the British, and the diplomatic relations with France had been cool since the end of the War of the Spanish Succession and the latest French invasion in 1747, but they had markedly improved during the era of the American Revolutionary War, when the Dutch at first profited from their "neutral-flag" trade of contraband goods with the French and Americans, and later were the victims of British aggression in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, that had so recently ended. Franco-Dutch relations became even better when France offered its good offices, both to obtain the 1784 treaty of Paris with Great Britain that ended the war, and subsequently to obtain peace with emperor Joseph II, that ended the "Kettle War" with the Treaty of Fontainebleau. Shortly after that, special envoy Gerard Brantsen, a moderate Patriot, crowned this with the treaty of amity and commerce with France of October 1785.
One person who observed this thaw in Franco-Dutch diplomatic relations with great alarm was the new British ambassador to The Hague, accredited since 1784, Sir James Harris. Harris had a tendency to see French conspiracies everywhere, and in the Dutch case he may have been right. Because the French saw the discomfiture of the Dutch stadtholder with great pleasure, although their enthusiasm was limited to the advance of their old friends, the Amsterdam States Party "regenten"; they were far less enthusiastic about the democratic designs of the other wing of the Patriot party. With the support of the Cabinet of William Pitt the Younger Harris set about to reclaim the Republic for British influence, and he did not always limit himself to diplomatic means. One important task was to shore up the morale of the dispirited stadtholder after his departure from The Hague in September 1785. William at that time had two options: either to give in to the Patriot demands and accept some kind of compromise as to the Government Regulations, or to hold on to his "due rights" at any cost. The latter was his favorite option (he was wont to quote the maxim "Aut Caesar, aut nihil") and Harris, in concert with William's wife Wilhelmina of Prussia, encouraged him to take this option. But Harris did far more: he was supplied with ample funds from the British Secret Service fund and he used that money to buy influence left and right, beginning with a generous pension-with-strings-attached of £4,000 "per annum" for the stadtholder himself. Ably assisted by "confidential agents", of which baron Hendrik August van Kinckel is the best known, he used these funds to subsidize the establishment of Orangist Free Corps in provinces like Zeeland and Friesland where the Orangists were in the majority, which were used to intimidate the Patriot minorities in these provinces. He tried to lure the conservative "regenten" in Amsterdam away from their anti-Orangist stance with promises of trade concessions by Britain, and promises of concessions from the stadtholder that would safeguard their own privileges, but avoid any "democratic" experiments.
But Harris' most important ploy was an attempt to engineer an alliance with Prussia that would thwart the "French designs". This would kill two birds with one stone: it would keep the stadtholder in power, and it would renew the Anglo-Prussian alliance that had briefly existed during the Seven Years' War. To that end he visited the aging king Frederick the Great of Prussia, Wilhelmina's uncle, in August 1785 in Berlin. But Frederick was loath to endanger good relations with France, and refused to take the bait. "The pear is not ripe," the old king remarked cryptically.
Instead Prussia in concert with France attempted to mediate between the warring parties in the Republic. To that end both countries sent mediators, the ambassadors Vérac and Thulemeyer, who repeatedly attempted to bring the moderates to compromise. For instance, in 1785 they proposed that the stadtholder would cede his military powers to a council, with the Princess, the pensionaries, and the leaders of both the Orangist and "aristocratic" Patriot factions as members (only the democrats would be excluded). But William refused to budge on his "due rights" and without that the Patriots would not budge either.
In 1786 a Prussian minister, Johann von Goertz, came to The Hague with a proposal that might even be acceptable to the democrats, but Harris easily convinced William, already in great spirits after the events of Hattem and Elburg, that this would amount to a "capitulation" and the stadtholder appended conditions that were unacceptable to the Patriots. In other words, Harris was a constant obstacle to any attempts at a peaceful solution.
In any case, Frederick the Great died in August 1786, and was succeeded by his nephew (Wilhelmina's elder brother) Frederick William II of Prussia. Though the new king was not keen to go to war with France, he was less determined to avoid such a development than the old king, and from then on Harris' designs to let the Prussians do the fighting on behalf of Great Britain stood a better chance. And the French game of egging on the Patriots on the one hand, and keeping them in check on the other, became more risky. The French opposite number of von Goertz, the marquis de Rayneval, understood this, and also that a victory of the democrats in the Republic would be against French interests; France became less and less enthusiastic about favoring the Patriots.
Harris meanwhile went on with his policy of confrontation, that stood a better chance of success as also the French foreign minister Vergennes died in February 1787. With both Frederick the Great and Vergennes out of the way it was far more likely that France would allow a Prussian military intervention without a major European conflagration. Between 13 and 18 May 1787 (so shortly after the Battle of Jutphaas) a conference of Orangist notables was held in Nijmegen to decide on a strategy of confrontation. Harris stood ready with a subsidy of £70,000, ostensibly as a loan to the Orangist States of Gelderland), but in reality as a slush fund to finance Orangist Free Corps, to be used in street rioting, and to buy the favors of the vacillating Overijssel cities to leave the Patriot camp. A kind of "de facto" "declaration of war" (the "Declaratoir") was reluctantly signed by the stadtholder on 26 May 1787.
Then, completely unexpected, an event happened that played into Harris' hands. Harris had convinced Princess Wilhelmina that the Orangist forces in The Hague had become strong enough that it might be possible to wrest that city from the hands of the Patriots. Audacious where her husband was irresolute, she decided to make an appearance in The Hague to bring matters to a boil. To that end she planned a trip with a small entourage, but without an armed escort, from Nijmegen to The Hague by way of a route close to the Patriot stronghold of Gouda on 28 June 1787. Fresh horses had been ordered for her carriages at several stops underway, thereby advertising her planned route. To make certain that the Patriots would be aware of what was afoot, several Orangist agents "let slip" to everyone that would be interested, that the Princess was about to pass by. It was therefore no surprise that she was intercepted by a patrol of the Gouda Free Corps near the Goejanverwellesluis in the hamlet of Bonrepas. The Princess was not harmed and she was soon allowed to return to Nijmegen, but the fact that her captors had been impolite (one of them sat unbidden at her dinner table, which was a serious breach of etiquette; another stood with a drawn sabre in her presence) caused great consternation and outrage. Especially her brother the Prussian king now lost his patience with the Patriots, and the Dutch in general, and demanded in a first ultimatum to the States General the immediate reinstatement of the Princess in The Hague, and the exemplary punishment of the culprits of the "Lèse-majesté". The States of Holland were less than impressed and urged that the ultimatum would be huffily ignored.
Now the French played a dangerous game. Vergennes' successor Montmorin gave the impression that France would support the Patriots in case of Prussian military intervention and that to this end a military camp was being prepared in Givet, on an invasion route through the independent Prince-Bishopric of Liège, obviating the necessity of entering the Austrian Netherlands. This turned out to be a bluff, and once this became clear to the Prussians and Harris, nothing prevented an invasion of the Republic. But the Patriots, informed of the French intervention plans by yet another French envoy Jean-François de Bourgoing believed in the Givet camp till it was too late, and it steeped them in their resistance to the Prussian demands. An invasion force of around 26,000 Prussian troops under the command of the duke of Brunswick (a nephew of William's old mentor) entered the Republic on 13 September 1787, after a final ultimatum was again left unanswered.
Despite all the martiality of the Free Corps their resistance proved to be negligible. The armed camp of Utrecht, where the Rhinegrave of Salm had personally assumed command a few months earlier, was evacuated without a fight, after Salm on 14 September convinced the Military Commission in Woerden that it was a rat trap, about to be encircled by two Prussian pincers, and that it was strategically necessary to retreat to Amsterdam. This earned the Rhinegrave the enduring opprobrium of the Patriots and all Dutch historians, but he was probably right. The retreat proved, however, a death blow to Patriot morale. Though the Patriots indeed made a stand around Amsterdam (without Salm, however, who was replaced by a French officer, Jean Baptiste Ternant). The Prussians attacked on 1 October and the city capitulated on the 10th, after the French had intimated that no assistance would be forthcoming.
Aftermath.
The stadtholder returned to The Hague on 20 September 1787 at the head of the States-army troops that had marched together with the triumphant Prussian army. A purge of the States of Holland and the States General, both institutions who had their seat in The Hague, started immediately. The immediate result was that Mappa, who was in charge of the fortress town of Naarden was ordered by the reconstituted States of Holland to surrender it to the Prussians, which he, in a remarkable show of obedience to legitimacy, did on 27 September.
Even before the return of the stadtholder the Holland "ridderschap" had taken the initiative to have the States repeal all legislation of the preceding years with a "Patriot" imprint. The "Orange Restoration" proceeded apace. Everywhere the Patriot members of the local "vroedschappen" and city magistracies were purged. The Grand Pensionary of Holland Pieter van Bleiswijk (who had chosen the Patriot side in 1785) was replaced by his Zeeland colleague Laurens Pieter van de Spiegel in November 1787. On the instruction of Princess Wilhelmina and ambassador Harris he started criminal proceedings against a number of Patriot leaders on a list Wilhelmina thoughtfully provided, like Robert Jasper van der Capellen, two "burgemeesters", and two Elburg ministers, who were all sentenced to death "in absentia". Daendels and Ondaatje were sentenced to perpetual banishment, as were a number of other Patriot leaders. A limited Amnesty was declared in November 1787, but the "extra-judicial" persecution of Patriots was more effective anyway: in Gouda 200 houses were looted by the Orangist mob; in 'sHertogenbosch 829; in Utrecht the bill ran to 1 million guilders.
More than 40,000 Patriots (including women and children) fled abroad to Antwerp and Brussels in the Austrian Netherlands, and from there to towns in French Flanders (in those days still Flemish speaking), like Saint-Omer and Dunkirk, where they were hospitably received by the French government, at the request of Van der Capellen tot den Marsch, who wrote a memorandum to King Louis asking for financial support of the refugees. The king indeed provided funding for such financial relief, which was administered by the Frisian Patriots Court Lambertus van Beyma as Commissioner, and Johan Valckenaer, as his secretary. They represented the "aristocrat" and "democrat" wings of the Frisian Patriots, respectively, however, and soon fell out over the disbursements. This led to a schism in the Patriot community in France. The followers of Valckenaer eventually came out on top, as they won the support of the French comptroller-general Charles Claude Guillaume Lambert, who was enraged by Beyma's venality. The two factions, "Valckenisten" and "Beymanisten" went at it hammer and tongs, and formed competing clubs that became embroiled in internal French politics during the French Revolution. Valckenaer became involved in the Batavian Legion that fell afoul of the Jacobins, who distrusted foreigners. But eventually the Dutch Patriots got back in the good graces of the French government after the Thermidorian Reaction and Dutch volunteers formed part of the French army that invaded the Dutch Republic in late 1794. Daendels and Jan Willem de Winter even became "générals de brigade".
Other Patriots eventually migrated to the United States, like Mappa, who established a type foundry in New York City, that soon went bankrupt, however. He later became the agent of the Holland Land Company, a vehicle for land speculation founded by a number of Amsterdam Patriot financiers in 1789, in Trenton, NJ, where he was joined by François Adriaan van der Kemp, the distributor of Van der Capellen's pamphlet.
The Patriot Revolt, its causes and its denouement in the Prussian intervention were of great interest to the Founding Fathers. This is illustrated by Federalist Paper No. 20, written by James Madison and published under the pseudonym "Publius" on 11 December 1787 in the context of the debate about the United States Constitution, more particularly about the defects of the Articles of Confederation and similar constitutions. After a perspicacious description and analysis of the constitution of the Dutch Republic the paper continues:
In other words, an example to avoid. The Paper explicitly refers to the Prussian intervention, but apparently the news of its success had not yet reached the U.S. by the time of the paper's publication, as the wording leaves the hope open that the Patriots will prevail:
In the Dutch Republic, meanwhile, Harris did his best to insure that such an outcome would not come about; that there would not be a repeat of the Patriot Revolt; and that the stadtholderian regime would remain on top in perpetuity. To that end he initiated a network of diplomatic treaties that would anchor the regime, beginning with a treaty between Great Britain and the Dutch Republic, signed on 15 April 1788 by Van de Spieghel in London. It guaranteed the stadtholderate to the House of Orange-Nassau in perpetuity and formed a defensive alliance between the two countries. On the same date, at the same hour, a similar treaty was signed between Prussia and the Republic in Berlin. To complete the triangle, Harris managed to bring about a treaty between Great Britain and Prussia during a visit of the Prussian king to his sister at "Het Loo" on 12/13 June 1788, again guaranteeing the stadtholderian constitution, and renewing the Anglo-Prussian military alliance. This led to the Triple Alliance that was signed on 13 August 1788 between all three countries. Meanwhile, on 10 July 1788 the States General had passed the Act of Guarantee that became a formal part of the Constitution of the Dutch Republic. In this case "perpetuity" only lasted seven years. One of the first actions of the
Provisional Representatives of the People of Holland during the Batavian Revolution of 1795, that founded the Batavian Republic, was its repeal and ritual burning on 16 February 1795. The stadtholder had already fled to Great Britain with his family. He would never return.


Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (The Leadership Conference), formerly called the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, is an umbrella group of American civil rights interest groups.
Organizational history.
The Leadership Conference was founded in 1950 by leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement: Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters founder A. Philip Randolph, NAACP executive secretary Roy Wilkins, National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council leader Arnold Aronson, and United Auto Workers president, Walter Reuther. Rather than staging sit-in protests or marches in the streets, the organization worked directly to pass laws with Congress protecting rights for everyone.
Leadership and organizational structure.
The Leadership Conference is currently led by Vanita Gupta who took the helm in 2017 upon the retirement of Wade Henderson who had served as President and CEO of both The Leadership Conference and The Leadership Conference Education Fund (see below) since 2010. Previously, Karen McGill Lawson was Executive Vice President and COO of both organizations; and Nancy M. Zirkin was Executive Vice President for Policy of both organizations. Dorothy Height, who had been Chairperson of the Leadership Conference's Executive Committee, died on April 20, 2010; as of June 25, 2010, her replacement as chair had not yet been named.
As of June 2010, the Leadership Conference website reported that the organization had "more than 200" member organizations. The site described the organization's mission as "promot[ing] and protect[ing] the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States . . . [t]hrough advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies . . . ."
According to the organization's website, "The Leadership Conference is a 501(c)(4) organization that engages in legislative advocacy. It ... has coordinated national lobbying efforts on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957."
The Leadership Conference Education Fund, described by the Leadership Conference website as "the education and research arm of The Leadership Conference," was founded in 1969. It was previously known as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund.
According to the Leadership Conference website, the Education Fund "builds public will for federal policies that promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. The Education Fund's campaigns empower and mobilize advocates around the country to push for progressive change in the United States."
The Education Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization, which means that contributions are tax-deductible.
Issues.
The Leadership Conference focuses on democracy, justice, inclusion and opportunity. The organization scores members of Congress based on their votes for civil rights issues.