Information

Congress publishes the Tory Act

Congress publishes the Tory Act


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

The Continental Congress publishes the “Tory Act” resolution on January 2, 1776, which describes how colonies should handle those Americans who remain loyal to the British and King George.

The act called on colonial committees to indoctrinate those “honest and well-meaning, but uninformed people” by enlightening them as to the “origin, nature and extent of the present controversy.” The Congress remained “fully persuaded that the more our right to the enjoyment of our ancient liberties and privileges is examined, the more just and necessary our present opposition to ministerial tyranny will appear.”

However, those “unworthy Americans,” who had “taken part with our oppressors” with the aim of gathering “ignominious rewards,” were left to the relevant bodies, some ominously named “councils of safety,” to decide their fate. Congress merely offered its “opinion” that dedicated Tories “ought to be disarmed, and the more dangerous among them either kept in safe custody, or bound with sufficient sureties to their good behavior.”

The lengths Congress and lesser colonial bodies would go to in order to repress Loyalists took a darker tone later in the act. Listing examples of the “execrable barbarity with which this unhappy war has been conducted on the part of our enemies,” Congress vowed to act “whenever retaliation may be necessary” although it might prove a “disagreeable task.”

In the face of such hostility, some Loyalists chose not to remain in the American colonies. During the war, between 60,000 and 70,000 free persons and 20,000 enslaved people abandoned the rebellious 13 colonies for other destinations within the British empire. The Revolution effectively created two countries: Patriots formed the new United States, while fleeing Loyalists populated Canada.

READ MORE: American Revolution History


Published Congressional Hearings

In 1947, aviation and film industry executive Howard Hughes testified before a hearing of the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. The hearings that followed were contentious, with the committee investigating Kaiser-Hughes Aircraft for receiving taxpayer dollars for aircraft that were never delivered, including the flying boat called the Hercules, also known as the Spruce-Goose. Hughes responded by accusing Committee Chairman Senator Brewster of singling out Kaiser-Hughes for scrutiny because Hughes declined to support Senator Brewster&rsquos Community Airline Bill and Hughes opposed a merger of Trans World Airlines with Pan-Am. If any of this sounds familiar, it is likely because this hearing was dramatized in the movie The Aviator and televised film clips from the hearing are currently available on YouTube.

Harris & Ewing. Howard Hughes speaking before the Press Club. Washington, D.C. Howard Hughes, speaking at the National Press Club today, before hundreds of government officials and representatives of foreign governments. Hughes today envisioned a future in aviation when giant flying boats, almost as large as modern ocean liners, will fly the Atlantic under conditions in which the element of luck will play no part, speaking at the luncheon in his honor, he described in detail the type of flying craft and equipment he believes the future will see but which is now nothing more than an aeronautical engineers dream. July 21, 1938. Harris & Ewing Collection. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

Using these hearings as an example, we hope to demonstrate how you can locate transcripts of committee hearings. As noted by the Government Publishing Office,

Congressional Research Service, &ldquo[p]rinted hearings&hellipoften are not published for months after the hearing, but are usually available for inspection in committee offices witness testimony is often available on-line.&rdquo Where to find these published hearings can sometimes be a challenge, and as such, we will go into the congressional committee hearing research process in greater detail below.

Please note that this LibGuide page focuses on published hearings. Transcripts for hearings which were initially not published, and which were later made available by the Congressional Information Service in microfiche and through online resources such as ProQuest is the subject of the "Unpublished Congressional Hearings" section of this guide.


Congress publishes the Tory Act - Jan 02, 1776 - HISTORY.com

TSgt Joe C.

The Continental Congress publishes the “Tory Act” resolution on this day in 1776, which describes how colonies should handle those Americans who remain loyal to the British and King George.

The act called on colonial committees to indoctrinate those “honest and well-meaning, but uninformed people” by enlightening them as to the “origin, nature and extent of the present controversy.” The Congress remained “fully persuaded that the more our right to the enjoyment of our ancient liberties and privileges is examined, the more just and necessary our present opposition to ministerial tyranny will appear.”

However, those “unworthy Americans,” who had “taken part with our oppressors” with the aim of gathering “ignominious rewards,” were left to the relevant bodies, some ominously named “councils of safety,” to decide their fate. Congress merely offered its “opinion” that dedicated Tories “ought to be disarmed, and the more dangerous among them either kept in safe custody, or bound with sufficient sureties to their good behavior.”

The lengths Congress and lesser colonial bodies would go to in order to repress Loyalists took a darker tone later in the act. Listing examples of the “execrable barbarity with which this unhappy war has been conducted on the part of our enemies,” Congress vowed to act “whenever retaliation may be necessary” although it might prove a “disagreeable task.”

In the face of such hostility, some Loyalists chose not to remain in the American colonies. During the war, between 60,000 and 70,000 free persons and 20,000 slaves abandoned the rebellious 13 colonies for other destinations within the British empire. The Revolution effectively created two countries: Patriots formed the new United States, while fleeing Loyalists populated Canada.


Whig and Tory

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Whig and Tory, members of two opposing political parties or factions in England, particularly during the 18th century. Originally “Whig” and “Tory” were terms of abuse introduced in 1679 during the heated struggle over the bill to exclude James, duke of York (afterward James II), from the succession. Whig—whatever its origin in Scottish Gaelic—was a term applied to horse thieves and, later, to Scottish Presbyterians it connoted nonconformity and rebellion and was applied to those who claimed the power of excluding the heir from the throne. Tory was an Irish term suggesting a papist outlaw and was applied to those who supported the hereditary right of James despite his Roman Catholic faith.

The Glorious Revolution (1688–89) greatly modified the division in principle between the two parties, for it had been a joint achievement. Thereafter most Tories accepted something of the Whig doctrines of limited constitutional monarchy rather than divine-right absolutism. Under Queen Anne, the Tories represented the resistance, mainly by the country gentry, to religious toleration and foreign entanglements. Toryism became identified with Anglicanism and the squirearchy and Whiggism with the aristocratic, landowning families and the financial interests of the wealthy middle classes.

The death of Anne in 1714, the manner in which George I came to the throne as a nominee of the Whigs, and the flight (1715) of the Tory leader Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, to France conspired to destroy the political power of the Tories as a party.

For nearly 50 years thereafter, rule was by aristocratic groups and connections, regarding themselves as Whigs by sentiment and tradition. The die-hard Tories were discredited as Jacobites, seeking the restoration of the Stuart heirs to the throne, though about 100 country gentlemen, regarding themselves as Tories, remained members of the House of Commons throughout the years of the Whig hegemony. As individuals and at the level of local politics, administration, and influence, such “Tories” remained of considerable importance.

The reign of George III (1760–1820) brought a shift of meanings to the two words. No Whig Party as such existed at the time, only a series of aristocratic groups and family connections operating in Parliament through patronage and influence. Nor was there a Tory Party, only Tory sentiment, tradition, and temperament surviving among certain families and social groups. The so-called King’s Friends, from whom George III preferred to draw his ministers (especially under Lord North [afterward 2nd earl of Guilford], 1770–82), came from both traditions and from neither. Real party alignments began to take shape only after 1784, when profound political issues that deeply stirred public opinion were arising, such as the controversy over the American Revolution.

After 1784 William Pitt the Younger emerged as the leader of a new Tory Party, which broadly represented the interests of the country gentry, the merchant classes, and official administerial groups. In opposition, a revived Whig Party, led by Charles James Fox, came to represent the interests of religious dissenters, industrialists, and others who sought electoral, parliamentary, and philanthropic reforms.

The French Revolution and the wars against France soon further complicated the division between parties. A large section of the more moderate Whigs deserted Fox and supported Pitt. After 1815 and a period of party confusion, there eventually emerged the conservatism of Sir Robert Peel and Benjamin Disraeli, earl of Beaconsfield, and the liberalism of Lord John Russell and William Ewart Gladstone, with the party labels of Conservative and Liberal assumed by each faction, respectively. Although the label Tory has continued to be used to designate the Conservative Party, Whig has ceased to have much political meaning.


Congress publishes the Tory Act - HISTORY

THE TORY ACT Published by Order of the Continental Congress, Philadelphia, Jan. 2, 1776.

Whereas it has been represented to this Congress, that divers honest and well meaning, but uninformed people in these colonies, have by the art and address of ministerial agents, been deceived and drawn into erroneous opinions, respecting the American cause, and the probable issue of the present contest.

Resolved, That it be recommended to the several Committees, and other friends to American liberty in the said colonies, to treat all such persons with kindness and attention, to consider them as the inhabitants of a country determined to be free, and to view their errors as proceeding rather from want of information, than want of virtue or public spirit, to explain to them the origin, nature and extent of the present controversy, to acquaint them with the fate of the numerous petitions presented to his Majesty, as well by Assemblies as by Congresses for reconciliation and redress of grievances, and that the last from this Congress, humbly requesting the single favour of being heard, like all the others has proved unsuccessful to unfold to them the various arts of administration to ensnare and enslave us, and the manner in which we have been cruelly driven to defend by arms those very rights, liberties and estates which we and our forefathers had so long enjoyed unmolested in the reigns of his present Majesty's predecessors. And it is hereby recommended to all Conventions and Assemblies in these colonies liberally to distribute among the people the Proceedings of this and the former Congress, the late speeches of the great patriots in both houses of parliament relative to American grievances, and such other pamphlets and papers as tend to elucidate the merits of the American cause. The Congress being fully persuaded that the more our right to the enjoyment of our antient liberties and privileges is examined, the more just and necessary our present opposition to ministerial tyranny will appear.

And with respect to all such unworthy Americans, as regardless of their duty to their creator, their country, and their posterity, have taken part with our oppressors, and influenced by the hope or possession of ignominious rewards, strive to recommend themselves to the bounty of administration by misrepresenting and traducing the conduct and principles of the friends of American liberty, and opposing every measure formed for its preservation and security.

Resolved, That it be recommended to the different Assemblies, Conventions, and Committees or Councils of Safety in the United Colonies, by the most speedy and effectual measures to frustrate the mischievous machinations, and restrain the wicked practices of these men. And it is the opinion of this Congress that they ought to be disarmed, and the more dangerous among them either kept in safe custody, or bound with sufficient sureties to their good behaviour.

And in order that the said Assemblies, Conventions, Committees or Councils of Safety may be enabled with greater ease and facility to carry this Resolution into execution, Resolved, That they be authorised to call to their aid whatever Continental troops stationed in or near their respective colonies, may be conveniently spared from their more immediate duty and the commanding officers of such troops are hereby directed to afford the said Assemblies, Conventions, Committees or Councils of Safety, all such assistance in executing this resolution as they may require, and which, consistent with the good of the service, may be supplied.

Resolved, That all detachments of Continental troops which may be ordered on the business in the aforegoing resolution mentioned, be, while so employed, under the direction and controul of the Assemblies Conventions, Committees, or Councils of Safety aforesaid.

Resolved, That it be recommended to all the United Colonies to aid each other (on request from their respective Assemblies Conventions Committees or Councils of Safety, and County Committees) on every emergency, and to cultivate, cherish and increase the present happy and necessary union, by a continual interchange of mutual good offices.

And whereas the execrable barbarity with which this unhappy war has been conducted on the part of our enemies, such as burning our defenseless towns and villages, exposing their inhabitants, without regard to sex or age, to all the miseries which loss of property, the rigour of the season, and inhuman devastation can inflict, exciting domestic insurrections and murders, bribing the Savages to desolate our frontiers, and casting such of us, as the fortune of war has put into their power, into gaols there to languish in irons and want compelling the inhabitants of Boston, in violation of the treaty, to remain confined within the town, exposed to the insolence of the soldiery, and other enormities, as the mention of which decency and humanity will forever blush, may justly provoke the inhabitants of these colonies to retaliation.

Resolved, That it be recommended to them to continue mindful that humanity ought to distinguish the brave, that cruelty should find no admission among a free people, and to take care that no page in the annals of America be stained by a recital of any action which justice or christianity may condemn, and to rest assured that whenever retaliation may be necessary or tend to their security, this Congress will undertake the disagreeable task.

Resolved, That the Assemblies, Conventions, or Committees or Councils of safety be requested forthwith to transmit to this Congress copies of all the petitions, memorials, and remonstrances which have been by their respective Colonies presented to the Throne, or either house of Parliament, since the year 1762, and that they also inform this Congress whether any and what answers were given to them.


The Continental Congress passes the Tory Act, 1776

The Continental Congress publishes the “Tory Act” resolution on January 2nd 1776, which describes how colonies should handle those Americans who remain loyal to the British and King George.
The act called on colonial committees to indoctrinate those “honest and well-meaning, but uninformed people” by enlightening them as to the “origin, nature and extent of the present controversy.” The Congress remained “fully persuaded that the more our right to the enjoyment of our ancient liberties and privileges is examined, the more just and necessary our present opposition to ministerial tyranny will appear.”

However, those “unworthy Americans,” who had “taken part with our oppressors” with the aim of gathering “ignominious rewards,” were left to the relevant bodies, some ominously named “councils of safety,” to decide their fate. Congress merely offered its “opinion” that dedicated Tories “ought to be disarmed, and the more dangerous among them either kept in safe custody, or bound with sufficient sureties to their good behavior.”

The lengths Congress and lesser colonial bodies would go to in order to repress Loyalists took a darker tone later in the act. Listing examples of the “execrable barbarity with which this unhappy war has been conducted on the part of our enemies,” Congress vowed to act “whenever retaliation may be necessary” although it might prove a “disagreeable task.”

In the face of such hostility, some Loyalists chose not to remain in the American colonies. During the war, between 60,000 and 70,000 free persons and 20,000 slaves abandoned the rebellious 13 colonies for other destinations within the British empire. The Revolution effectively created two countries: Patriots formed the new United States, while fleeing Loyalists populated Canada.


Congress publishes the Tory Act - HISTORY

Hector is a charming, outgoing, very active, six-year-old Hispanic child who lives with his family and attends his neighborhood school in Arizona.

Early in 1st grade, Hector participated in a new behavioral program to address his sudden mood swings and frequent arguments and fights – both during class and on the playground. His teacher taught Hector specific social skills to improve his competence in such areas as answering questions, controlling his anger, and getting along with others. While working in a small cooperative group with three other students, Hector was able to observe firsthand other children who behaved properly at school.

By the end of 1st grade, Hector’s behavior had changed dramatically. Hector was appropriately engaged and worked hard to complete his academic assignments each day. His behavior on the playground improved as well. Rather than respond impetuously, Hector kept his temper and played cooperatively with the other children. No longer viewed as a disruptive student, Hector, and his family, now looks forward to a bright future with realistic hopes for continued success and high achievement in 2nd grade and beyond.

Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), in 1975, to support states and localities in protecting the rights of, meeting the individual needs of, and improving the results for Hector and other infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their families. This landmark law, whose 25th Anniversary we celebrate this year, is currently enacted as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 1997.

In the 25 years since the passage of Public Law 94-142, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. Before IDEA, many children like Hector were denied access to education and opportunities to learn. For example, in 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or mentally retarded.

Today, early intervention programs and services are provided to almost 200,000 eligible infants and toddlers and their families, while nearly 6 million children and youth receive special education and related services to meet their individual needs. Other accomplishments directly attributable to IDEA include educating more children in their neighborhood schools, rather than in separate schools and institutions, and contributing to improvements in the rate of high school graduation, post-secondary school enrollment, and post-school employment for youth with disabilities who have benefited from IDEA. (See side bar: Examples of IDEA Accomplishments.)

Examples of IDEA Accomplishments

  • The majority of children with disabilities are now being educated in their neighborhood schools in regular classrooms with their non-disabled peers.
  • High school graduation rates and employment rates among youth with disabilities have increased dramatically. For example, graduation rates increased by 14 percent from 1984 to 1997. Today, post-school employment rates for youth served under IDEA are twice those of older adults with similar disabilities who did not have the benefit of IDEA.
  • Post-secondary enrollments among individuals with disabilities receiving IDEA services have also sharply increased. For example, the percentage of college freshmen reporting disabilities has more than tripled since 1978.

The promising future of Hector and other children with disabilities and their families stands in sharp contrast to conditions before IDEA. These last 25 years have witnessed significant changes as the nation has moved from paying little or no attention to the special needs of individuals with disabilities, to merely accommodating these individuals’ basic needs, and eventually to providing programs and services for all children with disabilities and their families.

Conditions Before IDEA

Before the enactment of Public Law 94-142, the fate of many individuals with disabilities was likely to be dim. Too many individuals lived in state institutions for persons with mental retardation or mental illness. In 1967, for example, state institutions were homes for almost 200,000 persons with significant disabilities. Many of these restrictive settings provided only minimal food, clothing, and shelter. Too often, persons with disabilities, such as Allan, were merely accommodated rather than assessed, educated, and rehabilitated. (See side bar: Allan’s Story.)

Allan’s Story

Allan was left as an infant on the steps of an institution for persons with mental retardation in the late 1940s. By age 35, he had become blind and was frequently observed sitting in a corner of the room, slapping his heavily callused face as he rocked back and forth humming to himself.

In the late 1970s, Allan was assessed properly for the first time. To the dismay of his examiners, he was found to be of average intelligence further review of his records revealed that by observing fellow residents of the institution, he had learned self-injurious behavior that caused his total loss of vision.

Although the institution then began a special program to teach Allan to be more independent, a major portion of his life was lost because of a lack of appropriate assessments and effective interventions.

Unfortunately, Allan’s history was repeated in the life experiences of tens of thousands of individuals with disabilities who lacked support from IDEA. Inaccurate tests led to inappropriately labeling and ineffectively educating most children with disabilities. Providing appropriate education to youngsters from diverse cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds was especially challenging. Further, most families were not afforded the opportunity to be involved in planning or placement decisions regarding their child, and resources were not available to enable children with significant disabilities to live at home and receive an education at neighborhood schools in their community.

Initial Federal Response

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal government, with the strong support and advocacy of family associations, such as The ARC, began to develop and validate practices for children with disabilities and their families. These practices, in turn, laid the foundation for implementing effective programs and services of early intervention and special education in states and localities across the country.

There are numerous illustrations of key early Federal legislation that supported improved programs and services. Notable examples include the Training of Professional Personnel Act of 1959 (PL 86-158), which helped train leaders to educate children with mental retardation the Captioned Films Acts of 1958 (PL 85-905), the training provisions for teachers of students with mental retardation (PL 85-926), and 1961 (PL 87-715), which supported the production and distribution of accessible films and the Teachers of the Deaf Act of 1961 (PL 87-276), which trained instructional personnel for children who were deaf or hard of hearing. PL 88-164 expanded previous specific training programs to include training across all disability areas. In addition, in 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (PL 89-10) and the State Schools Act (PL 89-313) provided states with direct grant assistance to help educate children with disabilities. Finally, the Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act of 1968 (PL 90-538) and the Economic Opportunities Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-424) authorized support for, respectively, exemplary early childhood programs and increased Head Start enrollment for young children with disabilities. These and other critical Federal laws began to open doors of opportunity for children with disabilities and their families. (See side bar: Key Milestones.)

Key Milestones

By 1968, the Federal government had supported:

  • Training for more than 30,000 special education teachers and related specialists
  • Captioned films viewed by more than 3 million persons who were deaf and
  • Education for children with disabilities in preschools and in elementary, secondary, and state-operated schools across the country.

Landmark court decisions further advanced increased educational opportunities for children with disabilities. For example, the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth (1971) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) established the responsibility of states and localities to educate children with disabilities. Thus, the right of every child with a disability to be educated is grounded in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Public Law 94-142

Public Law 94-142 guaranteed a free, appropriate public education to each child with a disability in every state and locality across the country.

The four purposes of the law articulated a compelling national mission to improve access to education for children with disabilities. (See side bar: Four Purposes of PL 94-142.) Changes implicit in the law included efforts to improve how children with disabilities were identified and educated, to evaluate the success of these efforts, and to provide due process protections for children and families. In addition, the law authorized financial incentives to enable states and localities to comply with Public Law 94-142.

Four Purposes of PL 94-142

  • "to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them…a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs"
  • "to assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents…are protected"
  • "to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities"
  • "to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities"

Source: Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975

Public Law 94-142 was a response to Congressional concern for two groups of children: the more than 1 million children with disabilities who were excluded entirely from the education system and the children with disabilities who had only limited access "to the education system and were therefore denied an appropriate education. This latter group comprised more than half of all children with disabilities who were living in the United States at that time. These issues of improved access became guiding principles for further advances in educating children with disabilities over the last quarter of the 20th Century.

First 25 Years of Progress

To achieve our national goals for access to education for all children with disabilities, a number of special issues and special populations have required Federal attention. These national concerns are reflected in a number of key amendments to the Education for the Handicapped Act (EHA) and IDEA between 1975 and 1997.

The 1980s saw a national concern for young children with disabilities and their families. While Public Law 94-142 mandated programs and services for children 3 to 21 years that were consistent with state law, the 1986 Amendments (PL 99-457) to EHA mandated that states provide programs and services from birth.

Through such sustained Federal leadership, the United States today is the world leader in early intervention and preschool programs for infants, toddlers, and preschool children with disabilities. These programs prepare young children with disabilities to meet the academic and social challenges that lie ahead of them, both while in school and in later life. (See side bar: Examples of Early Childhood Accomplishments.)

Examples of Early Childhood Accomplishments

IDEA has supported the development, validation, and widespread use of:

  • State-of-the-art models of appropriate programs and services for young children with disabilities (birth – five years) and their families
  • Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) to identify and meet the unique needs of each infant and toddler with a disability and his or her family
  • Effective assessment and teaching practices and related instructional materials for young children and their families
  • National network of professionals dedicated to improving early intervention and preschool education at the state and local levels and
  • Collaborating with other Federal, state and local agencies to avoid duplication of efforts in providing early intervention and preschool education.

At the other end of the childhood age continuum, IDEA has supported the preparation of students for vocational success through new and improved transition programs. The 1983 Amendments to EHA (PL 98-199), the 1990 Amendments to EHA (PL 101-476), which changed the name to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the IDEA Amendments of 1997 (PL 105-17) supported initiatives for transition services from high school to adult living. Because of these mandates, each student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) must include transition plans or procedures for identifying appropriate employment and other postschool adult living objectives for the student referring the student to appropriate community agencies and linking the student to available community resources, including job placement and other follow-up services. The IEP must also specifically designate who is responsible for each transition activity. Finally, the 1997 Amendments to IDEA specified that transition planning should begin at age 14.

The nation has also been concerned, over the last 25 years, with expanding the opportunities for educating children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. For example, in the early 1980s, IDEA supported several Severely Handicapped Institutes to develop and validate effective approaches for integrating children with significant disabilities with their non-disabled family members at home and their non-disabled classmates at school. Such model projects as the Badger School Program, in Madison, Wisconsin, demonstrated an effective system to teach such children the skills they needed to lead independent and productive lives. Through such efforts, today, millions of children with significant disabilities are attending their neighborhood schools and learning the life skills they will need for full, active participation in integrated activities with their family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

IDEA has supported the provision of culturally relevant instruction for diverse learners in mainstreamed environments. Throughout the 1980s, IDEA-supported Minority Handicapped Research Institutes documented that culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities make, at best, limited progress in school programs that employ "watered-down" instruction in segregated environments. Building on and extending the work of these institutes, IDEA has supported the development and validation of culturally relevant assessment and intervention practices. (See side bar: Culturally Relevant Instructional Principles.) For example, the Juniper Garden Project at the University of Kansas has demonstrated instructional practices, such as classwide peer tutoring and cooperative learning, that help African American students, English language learners, and other diverse students become more actively involved in their academic assignments. As Hector’s story illustrates, increased academic engagement leads, in turn, to improved learning and higher achievement.

Culturally Relevant Instructional Principles

  • Link assessments of student progress directly to the instructional curricula rather than to abstract norms for standardized tests.
  • Examine not only the individual child but also his or her instructional environment, using direct observational data.
  • Create classroom environments that reflect different cultural heritages and accommodate different styles of communication and learning.
  • Develop and implement family-friendly practices to establish collaborative partnerships with parents and other caregivers, including those who do not speak English.

From the beginning of special education legislation, families of children with disabilities have been considered important partners in meeting the needs of children with disabilities. IDEA includes key principles to guide families and professionals to work together to enhance the educational opportunities for their children. IDEA requires active parent participation throughout the educational process including the development of the child’s Individualized Educational Program. In addition, IDEA 1997 mandates that schools report progress to parents of children with disabilities as frequently as they report to parents of non-disabled children. The overall goal is to maintain an equal and respectful partnership between schools and families.

Finally, IDEA has continued the long-standing Federal commitment to provide an adequate supply of qualified teachers. Today, hundreds of thousands of professionals specializing in early childhood and special education are being trained with IDEA support. These professionals include early intervention staff, classroom teachers, therapists, counselors, psychologists, program administrators, and other professionals who will work with future generations of children with disabilities and their families.

Over the last 25 years, IDEA has supported states and localities in meeting their identified challenges for personnel preparation. For example, IDEA supported local communities that were developing and implementing early childhood programs schools serving students with low-incidence disabilities, such as children who are blind or deaf or children with autism or traumatic brain injury and schools in rural or large urban areas, where financial and other resources are often scarce.

IDEA has supported projects that demonstrate how states and localities can successfully meet challenges to staff recruitment and retention. For example, the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NEC*TAS), located at the University of North Carolina, helps build national commitment and capacity for hiring qualified early intervention staff and providing family-centered, community-based, coordinated, interagency services for young children with disabilities and their families across the country. Similarly, Vermont’s personnel preparation program helps prepare teachers to meet the needs of students with low-incidence disabilities in rural public schools and other community settings. These and other IDEA-supported projects around the country are innovative models that other states and localities should consider replicating as part of their own programs of personnel preparation.

Charting the Next 25 Years of Progress

The next 25 years of the 21st century provide an opportunity to ensure that educational improvements for all children include infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Whereas Public Law 94-142 issued a national challenge to ensure access to education for all children with disabilities, the 1997 Amendments to IDEA articulated a new challenge to improve results for these children and their families.

To meet this challenge, IDEA must build on its previous support for equality of access and continue to expand and strengthen its support for quality programs and services. Improving educational results for children with disabilities requires a continued focus on the full implementation of IDEA to ensure that each student’s educational placement and services are determined on an individual basis, according to the unique needs of each child, and are provided in the least restrictive environment. The focus must be on teaching and learning that use individualized approaches to accessing the general education curriculum and that support learning and high achievement for all.

We know, after 25 years, that there is no easy or quick fix to the challenges of educating children with disabilities. However, we also know that IDEA has been a primary catalyst for the progress we have witnessed. Because of Federal leadership, the people of the United States better appreciate the fact that each citizen, including individuals with disabilities, has a right to participate and contribute meaningfully to society. With continued Federal-state-local partnerships, the nation will similarly demonstrate that improving educational results for children with disabilities and their families is critical to empowering all citizens to maximize their employment, self-sufficiency, and independence in every state and locality across the country. Further, our nation’s ability to compete successfully in the global community depends on the inclusion of all citizens. We cannot afford to leave anyone out of our efforts.


How and what amount members of Congress should be paid has always been a debated issue. America’s Founding Fathers believed that since congressmen would typically be well-off anyway, they should serve for free, out of a sense of duty. Under the Articles of Confederation, if U.S. congressmen were paid at all, they were paid by the states they represented. The state legislatures adjusted their congressmen’s pay and could even suspend it completely if they became dissatisfied with them.

By the time the first U.S. Congress under the Constitution convened in 1789, members of both the House and Senate were paid $6 for each day there were actually in session, which was then rarely more than five months a year.

The $6 per-day rate remained the same until the Compensation Act of 1816 raised it to a flat $1,500 a year. However, faced with public outrage, Congress repealed the law in 1817. Not until 1855 did members of Congress return to being paid an annual salary, then $3,000 per year with no benefits.  


Introduction

The Judiciary Act of 1789, officially titled "An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States," was signed into law by President George Washington on September 24, 1789. Article III of the Constitution established a Supreme Court, but left to Congress the authority to create lower federal courts as needed. Principally authored by Senator Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system and created the position of attorney general. Although amended throughout the years by Congress, the basic outline of the federal court system established by the First Congress remains largely intact today.


Ben Franklin’s Tory Bastard

On April 12, 1782, a force of Loyalist irregulars took Joshua Huddy, a Patriot militiaman, from custody aboard a British warship, rowed him to a desolate New Jersey beach and lynched him. Pinned to his body was a note: “We the Reffugee’s [ Grief Long beheld the cruel Murders of our Brethren…have made use of Capt. Huddy sic] having with as the first Object…to Hang Man for Man.”

The note ended, “Up Goes Huddy for Philip White”—a murderous equation conceived by William Franklin, renegade son of Benjamin Franklin.

Huddy belonged to the Association for Retaliation, a group of Patriot vigilantes who fought not British regulars but American Loyalists— labeled “Tories” by the Patriots. White was a self-proclaimed Loyalist Refugee in a paramilitary force led by Franklin. A ruthless guerrilla civil war—inspired more by vengeance than by ideology—was raging as the Revolutionary War neared its finish. On the very day Huddy was hanged by order of William Franklin, Ben Franklin was in Paris holding preliminary negotiations with a British official to end the war. The lynching of Huddy—a sad though relatively minor act—was to have international repercussions and threaten the peace talks.

By April 1782, six months after the British surrender at Yorktown, there was little military action between American and British forces north of Virginia. But guerrilla raids and skirmishes still bloodied what combatants called the “neutral ground,” a swath of northeastern New Jersey that lay between the British army stronghold in New York City and the Continental Army in the Hudson Highlands. Neither force fought to take the neutral ground. The fighting was primarily between foes like Huddy and White.

Huddy had not killed White. White was a Tory prisoner slain weeks earlier under suspicious circumstances by his Patriot captors. But Huddy had boasted of lynching another Tory, and for Franklin that was enough of a crime for him to order Huddy hanged. Joshua “Jack” Huddy had fought Tories on land and at sea. In August 1780 he was commissioned captain of Black Snake, a privateer gunboat that preyed on ships supplying the British troops in New York. A month later while he was ashore, the Black Brigade, a band of Tories led by a former slave known as Colonel Tye, trapped him in his home, torched it and captured him. Huddy escaped his captors that time. In 1782 he took command of the blockhouse at Toms River, a Patriot stronghold built to protect the local salt works.

On March 24, 1782, Tory raiders attacked the blockhouse. After seven defenders fell dead or mortally wounded, Huddy surrendered. The raiders then burned down the blockhouse, the salt works and the entire village. Their captors took Huddy and 16 other prisoners—four of them wounded—to British army prisons in New York.

William Franklin had negotiated an extraordinary agreement with General Sir Henry Clinton, commander of British forces in North America. Clinton gave the Board of Associated Loyalists—Franklin’s innocuously named guerrilla force —the right to hold prisoners rather than hand them over to the British.

Franklin ordered Huddy placed in the custody of Captain Richard Lippincott of a Tory regiment under Franklin’s control. Lippincott took Huddy from the prison to a British warship off Sandy Hook. A few days later Lippincott and a party of Associators, as Franklin’s guerrillas were called, returned to the warship and ordered a British naval officer to hand over Huddy. Franklin’s instructions to Lippincott were supposed to be secret, but the British officer later said he knew Lippincott was taking Huddy off to be hanged, for he saw a paper that contained the words “Up Goes Huddy.”

Lippincott and his men put Huddy in their boat and rowed to a bleak stretch of shore near Sandy Hook. The Tory captain walked his Patriot prisoner to a makeshift gallows, put a noose around his neck, pointed to a barrel under the gallows, gave him a piece of foolscap and advised him to write his will. Using the barrelhead as a desk, Huddy scrawled his will on the foolscap, adding a note on the back that read, “The will of Captain Joshua Huddy, made and executed the same day the Refugees murdered him, April 12th, 1782.” He then shook hands with Lippincott and climbed atop the barrel. A black Tory—likely an ex-slave given freedom for going over to the British—kicked the barrel from beneath Huddy’s feet. A few minutes later someone attached the “Up Goes Huddy” note, and Lippincott led his men away.

William Franklin’s odyssey from pampered son to merciless Tory began in Philadelphia, Pa., where he was born in either 1730 or 1731 to an unidentified “Mother not in good Circumstances.” The acknowledged father was Benjamin Franklin. He and his common-law wife, Deborah Read Franklin, raised the boy, whom his father called Billy. The elder Franklin doted on his son, taking him on various overseas trips, supervising his education and arranging for him to become a teenage officer in the Pennsylvania Militia. Ben said William grew so “fond of military Life” that his father wondered if he would ever return to civilian life. But he did, choosing the law and becoming, in the words of a friend of his father, a young man of “good sense and Gentlemanly Behaviour.” He was present during his father’s famed kite experiment with electricity.

William accompanied Benjamin to London in 1757, aiding him in his work as a lobbyist for the Pennsylvania Assembly. Sometime around 1759 William fathered an illegitimate son, William Temple Franklin. The boy’s mother, like his grandmother, was never identified, but his middle name suggests he was conceived while his father was studying at London’s Middle Temple court of law. Temple, as Ben Franklin always called him, was placed in a foster home, his upkeep and education paid for by his grandfather.

William, handsome and charming, rose high enough in British society to join his father at the 1761 coronation of George III. A year later Ben Franklin sailed home, leaving behind his son and grandson. William was busy advancing his career and wooing wealthy heiress Elizabeth Downes. Four days after their September 1762 wedding, King George made a surprising announcement: He tapped William Franklin as royal governor of New Jersey. After a stormy winter passage across the Atlantic, William and Elizabeth arrived in Governor Franklin’s colony in February 1763.

Owing to land disputes dating back to the 1670s, by the time William Franklin assumed his new post, New Jersey was divided into two provinces: East Jersey, whose capital was Perth Amboy, a seaport across from Staten Island and West Jersey, whose capital was Burlington, near Philadelphia. The colonial legislature met in Perth Amboy, but the new governor chose to live in Burlington. For a time William, employing the social and political skills he learned from his father, managed to span the divide.

“All is Peace and Quietness, & likely to remain so,” Franklin reported in 1765 to William Legge, Lord Dartmouth, first lord of trade and later secretary of state for the American colonies. But his prediction did not come true. That same year the Sons of Liberty led numerous New Jersey protests against the Stamp Act. Franklin eased the crisis by ordering the hated stamps be kept aboard the ship delivering them from London, and he had the political wisdom to join in the celebration when the Stamp Act was repealed.

But when the tea tax uproar swept the colonies in 1770 and inspired a boycott, he showed his opposition by hold ing tea gatherings in the governor’s house. At one of the teas 9-year-old Susan Boudinot became famous for accepting a cup of tea, curtsying—and then emptying the cup out a window to show her support of the boycott. Her act symbolized the revolutionary fervor Franklin could neither escape nor ultimately control.

In 1774, when the First Continental Congress assembled in nearby Philadelphia, Franklin moved New Jersey’s seat of government from Burlington to Perth Amboy. He took up residence in the palatial Proprietary House, named after the Board of Proprietors, rich and influential landowners who became his most important supporters. The move distanced William from Philadelphia’s rumbles for independence, but Perth Amboy had its own homegrown rebels.

In January 1775 Franklin told Lord Dartmouth there were “no more than one or two among the Principal Officers of Government to whom I can now speak confidentially on public Affairs.” Three months later, after news of the Battles of Lexington and Concord reached New Jersey, he still clung to the hope that reason would prevail over revolution.

Then came the news that his father, accompanied by Temple, was in Philadelphia. The elder Franklin, who had returned to London in 1764 as a lobbyist, sailed home just in time to become the senior statesman of the American Revolution. As William entered Philadelphia to meet his father, he saw a city whose men were girding for war against the king. Rebel militiamen seemed to be everywhere, their “Uniforms and Regimentals as thick as Bees.” And, he realized, he and his father were drifting into their own conflict.

Joseph Galloway, Ben Franklin’s longtime Philadelphia friend, had just resigned from the Continental Congress after it rejected his proposal to create a colonial parliament but keep the colonies under royal rule. Ben was now as far apart from his friend as he was from his son. Yet Galloway, who had been William Franklin’s first tutor in the study of law, believed he could bring father and son together. He arranged for them to meet at Trevose Manor, Galloway’s sumptuous home some 20 miles north of Philadelphia.

The meeting did little more than dramatize the rift between Benjamin and William, who by then was a royal governor without an official legislature. New Jersey lawmaking was in the hands of a rebel Provincial Congress. Happily, however, there was another reunion: William met

Temple for the first time and invited him to New Jersey for the summer. Temple returned in the fall to his grandfather and schooling in Philadelphia. Temple and his father began corresponding with each other. Soon, though, William Franklin’s letter writing would abruptly cease.

Franklin’s attorney general was Cortlandt Skinner, a member of one of the state’s wealthiest families. Early in 1776, after learning the New Jersey Provincial Congress was about to order his arrest, Skinner fled to a Royal Navy warship in New York Harbor. Unlike other royal governors who made the same choice, Franklin remained defiantly in his governor’s mansion.

When the Provincial Congress declared him “an enemy to the liberties of this country,” Franklin protested using arguments both legal and vituperative. But the Continental Congress confirmed an order for his arrest and put Franklin in the custody of Connecticut Governor Jonathan Trumbull, who had sided with the Patriots. Franklin’s first day of captivity happened to be America’s first Fourth of July.

Franklin partisans claimed he was placed in a notorious underground prison in Simsbury, Conn., whose cells were carved into the shafts of a former copper mine. Many Tories were jailed there, including some personally sent by General George Washington, but Franklin was not one of them. He was placed under house arrest and treated well.

Elizabeth Franklin remained at Proprietary House, a virtual prisoner, cut off from any correspondence with William. Her only comfort was Temple, allowed by Benjamin to spend the summer with his stepmother. In September, instead of returning to Philadelphia and school, Temple asked permission to visit his father in Connecticut. Benjamin refused the meeting, fearing William would turn Temple into a Tory. Around that time Congress called on the elder Franklin to negotiate an alliance with France, and when Ben sailed for Paris, he took his teenage grandson with him as his private secretary.

Meanwhile, William broke the rules of his parole, making clandestine contact with local Tories in Connecticut and others in New Jersey and New York. Congress punished him by confining him to a cell in Litchfield he later described as “a most noisome filthy Room.” There he received news his wife had fled to New York and died of what he later insisted was a broken heart. Plunged into depression and hoping his own life would soon end, Franklin was mercifully transferred to a private house. He remained there until October 1778, when he was exchanged for a ranking Patriot civilian captured during a battle a year before. Franklin headed straight for New York City and offered his services to General Clinton, who a few months before had assumed command of British forces in North America.

From the outset of the conflict New York, Britain’s American citadel, had drawn thousands of Tories, who called themselves “Refugees” to advertise their woeful status. Disorganized and despairing, they became William Franklin’s new constituency. Within weeks of his arrival in the city he had established the Refugee Club, which met in a tavern and plotted a new era for the embittered Loyalists.

The first public notice of Franklin’s organization came in a Dec. 30, 1780, newspaper article announcing the Associated Loyalists had been established “for embodying and employing such of his Majesty’s faithful subjects in North America, as may be willing to associate under their direction, for the purpose of annoying the sea-coasts of the revolted Provinces and distressing their trade, either in cooperation with his Majesty’s land and sea forces, or by making diversions in their favor, when they are carrying on operations in other parts.”

The 10-man board of directors, headed by Franklin and approved by Clinton, included Josiah Martin, the former royal governor of North Carolina, and George Leonard, a former Tory volunteer during the Battle of Lexington. In a short time more than 400 Loyalists became Associators. Franklin had regained his status as a Loyalist leader, though Clinton viewed him as a reckless agitator at a time when the war was winding down. Then came the outpouring of American outrage at the hanging of Huddy by a Franklin minion.

Even the Presbyterian minister who preached at Huddy’s funeral demanded retribution. George Washington, who called the hanging an “instance of Barbarity,” wrote to Clinton, warning that a British prisoner would be executed if Clinton did not turn over Lippincott. Clinton stalled by ordering that Lippincott be court-martialed for murder. Washington responded by directing that a British officer of similar rank to Huddy be selected by lot from prisoners of war and sent to the Continental Army encampment in Chatham, N.J.

Thirteen captive British officers in Pennsylvania were selected to draw a piece of paper from a hat. Twelve papers were blank. Captain Charles Asgill of the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards drew the paper with “unfortunate” written on it. He was the 20-year-old son of Sir Charles Asgill, a former lord mayor of London. Not only was Asgill from a prominent family and a famed regiment, but also, as a prisoner from the siege of Yorktown, he had a special protected status under an article of the surrender agreement.

Court-martial testimony from Lippincott and others revealed that Franklin had secretly ordered the hanging. In a scene sketched from the testimony, Lippincott appears before Franklin and members of the associated board before removing Huddy from the warship. Lippincott takes a paper from his pocket and shows it to Franklin, saying, “This is the paper we mean to take down with us.” Another official, peering over Franklin’s shoulder, interjects: “We have nothing to do with that paper. Captain Lippincott, keep your papers to yourself.” That paper, Lippincott testified, was “the very Label that was to be placed upon Huddy’s Breast.”

While the court-martial proceeded, General Sir Guy Carleton replaced Clinton as commander of British forces in North America, and Clinton sailed for home. Condemning “unauthorized acts of violence,” Carleton disbanded Franklin’s Board of Associated Loyalists, but he could do nothing about the court-martial.

Franklin was secretly readying to sail for London when the court announced its verdict: Lippincott, it concluded, convinced “it was his duty to obey the orders of the Board of Directors of Associated Loyalists,” had not committed murder. The court therefore acquitted him.

The verdict stunned Washington. He knew he had to make good on his threat of retaliation, which, he wrote, “has distressed me exceedingly.” Then came an unexpected reprieve for both Asgill and Washington. Asgill’s mother had written a pleading letter to Charles Gravier, the count of Vergennes and French foreign minister, asking him to intercede. Vergennes sent his own plea to Washington, along with the mother’s letter. Washington, touched by the display of maternal love and eager to please the French, submitted the appeal to Congress, which in turn compelled Washington to free Asgill.

Due to the long time it took for letters to travel, Asgill was not released until November 1782. By then William Franklin had fled to exile in London, and in Paris a peace commission had negotiated a preliminary treaty. One of the commission members was Ben Franklin Temple Franklin served as its secretary.

Benjamin Franklin wrote a codicil to his will, disinheriting William except for an ironic bequest: a worthless piece of land in Nova Scotia, the destination of several thousand Tories who left the United States after the revolution. By the time Ben left France in 1785, he was a great-grandfather. Temple had just recorded the birth of his son with a diary note: “B a B of a B,” leaving readers to assume he meant “born a bastard of a bastard.”

William Franklin spent the rest of his life vainly seeking a rich reward for his service as a militant Loyalist and died in London in 1813. Lippincott joined the Tory exodus to Canada and was awarded 3,000 acres of for his military service. He settled in York (now Toronto), received half-pay for 43 years and died in 1826 at the age of 81. A street in Toronto bears his name.

Thomas B. Allen is the author of Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War. For further reading he recommends William Franklin: Son of a Patriot, Servant of a King, by Sheila L. SkempA Great Improvisation: Franklin, France and the Birth of America, by Stacy Schiff and the website http://co.monmouth .nj.us/page.aspx?Id=1800, which contains “documents created during, or immediately after, the life of Joshua Huddy.”

Originally published in the January 2014 issue of Military History. To subscribe, click here.



Comments:

  1. Delmore

    It is not intended

  2. Nishakar

    Not to tell it is more.

  3. Kigis

    bravo, the excellent message

  4. Jerrico

    Balin, wow ... :(



Write a message