|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
And GW getting pissy with a reporter is news why? All president in recent times have had interviews go this way, meaning questions are screened.
And if reporters ask questions that the presidents dont want to answer why shouldnt they get banned?
|
reconmike, I want to thank you for the challenge your last post gave to me.
I caught myself before I made the mistake of posting about the conflict between your post and the American tradition of a free press...a fourth [estate] branch of government that challenged elected officials....asked the questions that we want answers to but are nor in a position to ask.....
But instead, I opted to spend some time finding out if our founding fathers practiced what we've been told that they preached.
Now....I want you to know that I cannot disagree with your <b>"why shouldn't they get banned?"</b>...because I don't have an answer that doesn't seem to me...to be too naive, compared to what I have learned.
What I want to know from the press is reliable reporting of "inside information", as in this example:
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19649910/site/newsweek/
Friends in High Places
Inside Bush's decision to give Scooter Libby a pass.
Backstage: On the Libby matter, nobody doubted Cheney's stance
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
......Behind the scenes, Bush was intensely focused on the matter, <h3>say two White House advisers who were briefed on the deliberations, but who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters.</h3> Bush asked Fred Fielding, his discreet White House counsel, to collect information on the case. Fielding, anticipating the Libby issue would be on his plate, had been gathering material for some time, including key trial transcripts. Uncharacteristically, Bush himself delved into the details. He was especially keen to know if there was compelling evidence that might contradict the jury's verdict that Libby had lied to a federal grand jury about when—and from whom—he learned the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, wife of Iraq War critic Joe Wilson. But Fielding, one of the advisers tells NEWSWEEK, reluctantly concluded that the jury had reached a reasonable verdict: the evidence was strong that Libby testified falsely about his role in the leak.
The president was conflicted. He hated the idea that a loyal aide would serve time. Hanging over his deliberations was Cheney, who had said he was "very disappointed" with the jury's verdict. Cheney did not directly weigh in with Fielding, but nobody involved had any doubt where he stood. "I'm not sure Bush had a choice," says one of the advisers. "If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president." .....
|
My problem is...that when I get what I want from a news reporter, I am concerned about how he got the "access". There is a cost to be paid to an organization like the Bush white house in exchange for any exclusive information that it chooses to "give" to any reporter. Thus.... I suspect that Newsweek's Isikoff, if his story was reliable...... owes some white house slanted reporting...next time....or this reporting itself, was what the white house intended for us to know.....
So....what I really want is the kind of reporting that only "access" can obtain, but I want it reported by someone who has an adversarial relationship with power, and it follows....little or no access. I want my news from someone like Helen Thomas....she never flinched from or flattered power....and she tried to make up for being "closed out", by working hard:
Quote:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=9&gl=us
<center>CBS News
FACE THE NATION
Sunday, February 5, 2006 </center>
(Last Paragraph)
.....[Bob] SCHIEFFER: I have interviewed all the men who have served as president since
Richard Nixon, and when I interviewed President Bush the other day, people
asked what they always do, which was, `Who was your favorite interview?' They
were surprised, as they always are, and this is no reflection on any of them,
but I still have to say the one I remember most is my very first presidential
encounter. It was 1969, Nixon had just come to office, and I was a rookie
reporter in the CBS News Washington bureau.....
....I was
sent the very next Sunday morning to cover a White House reception for the
president's supporters.
It was such a minor affair that <h3>Helen Thomas of UPI and I were the only
reporters there.</h3> A receiving line was set up, and when no one told us we
couldn't, Helen and I just got in the line. Well, there was a story going
around that the president was bringing in some new advisers, and when it came
my turn to shake his hand, I said, `Mr. President, will these be outside
people or in-house advisers?' `Oh, no,' he said, `these will be outhouse
advisers.' Then he realized what he had said and added, `Well, you know what I
mean,' and he wandered off into the crowd....
|
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...mas/index.html
Glenn Greenwald
Thursday June 28, 2007 10:39 EST
Interview with Helen Thomas
Last Thursday, I <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/21/podhoretz/">wrote about</a> an acrimonious exchange at the White House press gaggle between Helen Thomas and Tony Snow regarding the number of Iraqis who have been killed during the war. Thomas relentlessly challenged the administration's tactic of labelling everyone killed in Iraq a "terrorist," and demanded to know how many Iraqi civilians had been killed during the four-year-and-counting war. Snow claimed he did not know the answer because the U.S does not "track" that information.
About that exchange, I wrote: "It is unnecessary to identify the reporter asking these questions because there is really only one White House correspondent who would." Several commenters suggested an interview with Thomas, and following up on those suggestions, I interviewed Thomas this morning regarding the state of modern journalism, the Bush administration and related issues.
Following is a verbatim transcript of that interview, edited solely for length:
GG: You have covered every President since John Kennedy. I wanted to ask if you could identify how the White House press corps has changed over time, if it has, and what differences are there in terms of how journalists cover presidents?
HT: Well, that's a big order. But I do think that in the good olden days, reporters were really straight reporters. I worked for a wire service, UPI, for 57 years, and I covered the White House for UPI from the 70s onto Bush, and then became a columnist. So I certainly know both sides.
As a wire service reporter, I played it straight, with the facts, which is absolutely required of a wire service reporter. But that doesn't mean I bowed out of the human race. I permitted myself to think, to care, to believe, but it didn't get in my copy.
I did think that tough questions were always very important. With Kennedy, we knew he enjoyed the banter with the press, and he had the first live televised news conferences. And it made a big difference in terms of really capturing the imagination of the public. It was the first time they really saw reporters in action, they saw a witty president that was able to dodge questions as deftly as anyone, and he had great eloquence. That was the first time the American people really became interested in presidential news conferences.
And then Johnson had a love-hate relationship with the press. He couldn't live without us, and yet at the same time, he thought we were hurting him every day. The words "credibility gap" were created in that era.
With Nixon, that is when news management and manipulation really began. Now, every president wants to put his best foot forward, and always be able to manage and manipulate news coverage.
All presidential candidates, especially, vow to run an open administration. But they step foot in the Oval Office and the Iron Curtain slams down. Suddenly, all information that I think belongs in the public domain becomes their private preserve.
The manipulation of the press has become greater and greater. This is the most secretive administration I have ever covered. And they're all secretive.
GG: Has the press corps that covers the White House played a role in why the White House is so manipulative and why they're able to get away with such secrecy?
HT: Very much so. Reporters, after Watergate, realized that we had let so much go by us. They got much tougher when President Ford took over. It wasn't animosity. It was anger that we hadn't asked the right questions. And the press became tougher.
But they really went soft after 9/11. Reporters, I'm assuming, did not want to be called unpatriotic and un-American when we were in a national crisis.
And I don't think the corporate heads exactly wanted anyone to rock the boat at that time.
But I kept asking questions about the validity of going to war against a country that had done nothing to us.....
|
<b>FYI: Nothing has changed in 230 years. Our founding fathers were harder on the press than contemporary politicians, and Jefferson actually created his own adoring, compliant newspaper, right before he was inaugurated. The government had moved from Philadelphia to DC, and he brought his favorite Newspaper editor/publisher and friend, Samuel Harrision Smith with him to DC. Franklin's grandson and Anti-Federalist Jefferson's prior sympathetic newspaper publisher (The Aurora) Benjamin Franklin Bach, had died of yellow fever after he was jailed because of 2nd US president John Adam's war against the adversarial newspaper editors who were critical of his plans for War with France:</b>
Quote:
http://hhh.gavilan.edu/lhalper/270A/...Devil4,20.html
The Sedition Act of 1798
Sedition Act of 1798 – a brief history of arrests, indictments, mistreatment
& abuse
4. 1798: The first test--The Alien and Sedition Acts and heroism in the defense of liberty, featuring Benjamin Franklin Bache, Margaret Markoe Bache, and William Duane
<h3>Mr. Bache has...celebrity in a certain way, for his Calumnies are to be exceeded only by his Impudence, and both stand unrivaled.--Geo. Washington, Sept. 1796....</h3>
......Benjamin Franklin Bache (pronounced "Beach") was Benjamin Franklin's beloved grandson. Franklin, who lost his four-year old son Francis (to smallpox, which made him ever after an advocate of newly-introduced vaccinations), brought his daughter's son B.F. Bache along with him to Europe in 1776 when Franklin went to negotiate for French aid, aid that many believe was the deciding factor in the US. victory over Britain. B.F. Bache was exposed early to excellent schooling, democratic ideals, and revolutionary politics. Though his grandfather originally considered training him as a politician, cynicism set in and instead he encouraged B.F. Bache to learn his own honest trade: printing. Thus in 1790, the year Franklin died, his twenty-year old grandson inherited the very presses, font slugs and shop that Benjamin Franklin had used to print the popular Poor Richard's Almanack. B.F. Bache started a newspaper named the Philadelphia Aurora. The paper came out six mornings a week, competing with two much more conservative afternoon papers. It traded gall, both personal and political, with them and with just about every powerful figure around. Because of the Franklin name, the family talent for writing and reasoning, and the concentration of lawmakers in Philadelphia, the Aurora was influential from the start. Soon it was the leading opposition newspaper in the country. And soon B.F. Bache was being called Young Lightening Rod, a reference to his ability to draw political fire and to his grandfather's famous electricity experiments.
By the late 1780s the fragile courtesy among the Founding Fathers was breaking down. Thomas Jefferson and both Benjamin Franklins found themselves on one side of a breech with George Washington and John Adams, the nation's first and second presidents, on the other. We know now that the elder Franklin was resented by both Washington and Adams, and that Adams in particular was jealous of Franklin's popularity and offended by his romantic dalliances and religious non-conformity. But there were political differences as well: Washington, Adams and the wealthy were Federalists tended to favor the British form of government with centralized power and a strong ruling figure, while Jefferson, the Franklins, and common laborers (the "Anti-Federalists) remained passionately on the side of representative democracy, and watched with approval most of the events in revolutionary France. Predictably, Federalists were far less interested in knowing how common people felt, and far less enthused about the rights to free speech and press.
From the start, B.F. Bache, supported by his wife Peggy, did not hesitate to print strong Anti-Federalist opinions. When Bache wrote about two congressmen insulting and spitting at each other on the floor of the House, the House responded in December 1791 with its first gag rule, forbidding reporters to publish any report on Congress until Congressmen could look it over. Bache ignored this (as did others), and continued to cover the spat, which escalated into scuffles with improvised weapons. For his honest reportage he was spitefully barred from the area where other reporters sat comfortably; Bache had to sit in the remote spectator's gallery. In 1795 Bache scooped everyone by publishing a secret treaty with England negotiated by John Jay; President Washington was frustrated because he'd wanted the treaty to be concealed until the Senate ratified it. The Aurora continued its criticisms of politicians with their "apish mimicry of Kingship" and when John Adams became President in 1796, the paper found much to ridicule in the frizzy haired, plump president ("His Rotundity") who wished to take the country on a "march to monarchy" complete with a state religion. Bache's tirades sent First Lady Abigail Adams, an important political force, into daily frenzies. Adams was friendly to Britain and hostile to France, and as the two countries were at war with one another, there was pressure on the United States to take a side. Adams used a bribery attempt by French officials and incomplete facts to inflame public opinion against France. In 1797 Bache was beaten for pointing out these inconsistencies--a shipbuilder who disliked Bache's abuse of John Adams came up from behind and starting punching, putting Bache to bed for two days (The perp was rewarded with a governmental appointment!) The Aurora called Adam's presidency a "reign of witches," but Adam's tactics worked: by 1798 so many citizens were convinced France was a threat that militias were formed and Congress passed legislation enabling Adams to fund and raise an army. Anyone daring to wear an ornamental cockade with the tricolors of France might be beaten on the street and left for dead by mobs wearing British black. Even worse from the Aurora's viewpoint were the Alien and Sedition Acts being debated in Congress:
·The Alien Act empowered the US president to arrest and deport foreigners considered "dangerous," while
·the Alien Enemies Act allowed the deportation of any natives of countries against which the US made war.....
|
Quote:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=6&gl=us
By Gordon T. Belt
First Amendment Center library manager
Introduction
In 1798 the Alien and Sedition Acts were signed into law by President John Adams in response to
fears of an impending war with France. These acts, consisting of four laws passed by the
Federalist-controlled Congress, increased the residency requirement for American citizenship
from five to 14 years, authorized the president to imprison or deport aliens considered
"dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" and restricted speech critical of the
government. While the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and Adams, argued that these
laws were passed to protect the United States from foreign invaders and propagandists,
Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, saw the Alien and
Sedition Acts as a direct threat to individual liberty and the First Amendment by a tyrannical
government.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were fiercely debated in the press, which was overtly partisan at the
time. Many editors of Democratic-Republican-sponsored newspapers vehemently opposed the
new laws, in particular the Sedition Act, which made speaking openly against the government a
crime of libel punishable by fine and even prison time. Federalists sought to quell dissent by
prosecuting those who violated the Sedition Act to the fullest extent of the law.
Accounts vary about the number of arrests and indictments that occurred as a result of the
passage of the Sedition Act of 1798. Most scholars cite 25 arrests and at least 17 verifiable
indictments – 14 under the Sedition Act and three under common law. Ten indictments went to
trial, all resulting in convictions.
1
Because these laws were designed to silence and weaken the
Democratic-Republican Party, most of the victims of the sedition prosecutions were Democratic-
Republican journalists who openly criticized Adams’ presidency and the Federalists.
2
All but one
of the indicted individuals – James Callender, from Thomas Jefferson’s home state of Virginia –
were from the Federalist-dominated New England and Middle Atlantic states.
3
Symbolically
enough, Callender’s sentence ended on March 3, 1801, the day the Sedition Act expired.....
Benjamin Franklin Bache
As editor of the General Advertiser in Philadelphia, also known as the Aurora, Benjamin Franklin
Bache supported Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party and was the main target of
Federalists and the Sedition Act. Federalists sent “committees of surveillance” to spy on Bache.
12
The Aurora was threatened with strict postal controls and advertisers were intimidated in an effort
to force the newspaper to cease publication.
13
Bache and his wife, Peggy, six months pregnant
with her fourth child, received death threats
14
and their home was vandalized by an angry
drunken mob who Bache claimed had dined with President Adams the same day.
15
In 1798, when political passions ran highest, Bache was physically assaulted twice, first by Abel
Humphreys, son of a shipbuilder, while visiting a Philadelphia shipyard,
16
and later that year
when John Ward Fenno, son of the editor of the chief Federalist broadside, the Gazette of the
United States, attacked Bache for accusing his father of being a British agent.
17
Fenno bit
Bache’s knuckle, but Bache pinned Fenno to the wall and beat him over the head with a cane
until spectators succeeded in separating the two.
18
Even before the Sedition Act became law,
Bache called the legislation an “unconstitutional exercise of power”
19
and suffered dearly for his
opinions. Bache was arrested under common law on June 26, 1798 and charged with “libeling the
President & the Executive Government, in a manner tending to excite sedition, and opposition to
the laws, by sundry publications and republications.”
20
However, before Bache could be brought
to trial, he died of yellow fever on Sept. 10, 1798.
William Duane
William Duane, Benjamin Franklin Bache's successor at the Aurora, was arrested under the
Sedition Act for his support of the Democratic-Republican Party and for his criticism of the
Federalists in the election campaign of 1800.
Born in America in 1760 to an Irish couple who had recently immigrated to America, Duane found
that his heritage became political fodder for his opponents. In an effort to suppress the Aurora,
Federalists challenged Duane’s citizenship and attempted to have him deported. On July 24,
1799, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering wrote to President John Adams saying that Duane
“pretends he is an American citizen, saying that he was born in Vermont, but was when a child,
taken back with his parents to Ireland, where he was educated.” Pickering claimed that since
Duane left America before the Revolution and returned only recently, he was actually a British
subject who might be banished from the United States under terms of the Alien Act.
33
Duane was arrested and charged with “deliberately procuring an assembly of people with the
determination of subverting the government of the United States” after soliciting signatures on a
petition to repeal the Alien Friends Act, one of the three laws collectively known as the Alien
Acts.
34
After only 30 minutes of deliberation, a jury acquitted Duane of all charges. A month later,
30 members of Philadelphia’s volunteer cavalry dragged Duane from the Aurora’s office and beat
and whipped him until he was unconscious.
35
For his acerbic writings and influence in the
Democratic-Republican party, the Federalists made Duane a chief target of persecution. Between
1798 and 1801, he was indicted under the federal Sedition Act and tried in a state court for “riot
and assault.” He was prosecuted and forced into hiding for breaching the legislative privileges of
the U.S. Senate, sued several times for libel, and brutally beaten by a gang of Federalist soldiers,
among other troubles.
36
79
James Thomson Callender
Described literally and figuratively as the most venomous of the Democratic-Republican
journalists, James Thomson Callender was a Scotsman who had been expelled from England in
1792 for publishing The Political Progress of Great Britain, a work highly critical of the British
government.
80
When he arrived in the United States he turned his attention to prominent
Federalists. Callender is perhaps best known for exposing an affair between Alexander Hamilton
and Mrs. Maria Reynolds in 1797 and, five years later, accusing Thomas Jefferson of having an
affair with his slave Sally Hemings.
81
(Callender, originally a supporter of Jefferson, turned
against him after he was denied a position as postmaster in Jefferson’s administration.) His trial
for sedition, however, has come to be regarded as the most important of all the cases brought
under the Sedition Act of 1798.
82
As the Alien and Sedition Acts were making their way through Congress, Callender feared that he
would soon become the target of attack. To avoid the Alien Act, he became a naturalized
citizen.
83
When his friend and colleague Benjamin Franklin Bache was arrested the day before
President Adams signed the Sedition Act into law, a Federalist paper in Philadelphia announced
that “Envoy Callender left this city on a tour to the westward – destination unknown.”
84
He fled to
Virginia, where he refrained from writing for several months for fear of his safety. But as the
Sedition Act grew increasingly unpopular, Callender decided to resume his political writings. In
1799 he joined the staff of the South’s leading Democratic-Republican newspaper, the Richmond
Examiner, where he renewed his criticism of the Adams administration.
85
While working for the
Examiner, Callender compiled material for his best-known pamphlet, The Prospect before Us, an
electioneering booklet advocating the elevation of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency.
86
In it,
Callender described the administration of John Adams as “one continued tempest of malignant
passions. As President he has never opened his lips, or lifted his pen without threatening and
scolding; the grand object of his administration has been to exasperate the rage of contending
parties, to calumniate and destroy every man who differs from his opinions.”
87
Callender accused
Adams of contriving “a French war, an American navy, a large standing army, an additional load
of taxes, and all the other symptoms and consequences of debt and despotism.” He concluded by
offering a choice: “between Adams, war and beggary, and Jefferson, peace and competency.”
88
After a Federalist informant sent Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase a copy of The Prospect
before Us, Callender was promptly arrested and indicted under the Sedition Act.
89
In his defense,
Callender’s lawyers argued that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, but Justice Chase
disagreed, reaffirming his decision in the prosecution of Thomas Cooper, sentencing Callender to
nine months in jail and a $200 fine.
90
Imprisonment, however, did not temper Callender’s opinions
of the Federalist government. While in jail, Callender wrote the second volume of The Prospect
before Us, and intensified his verbal assault on Adams. He described Adams as a “repulsive
pedant, a gross hypocrite, and an unprincipled oppressor.”
“He is,” Callender continued, “one of the most egregious fools upon the continent.”
91
Callender
also attacked Justice Chase, calling him “the most detestable and detested rascal in the state of
Maryland.”
92
When Chase wrote Callender in reply that he planned to beat him after his release
from prison, Callender vowed, “[I]n case of attack, I’ll shoot him.”
93
Though their duel was never
consummated, Callender ultimately had the last laugh when his sentence ended on March 3,
1801, the day the Sedition Act expired.
94
- 7 -
......David Frothingham and Ann Greenleaf
The New York Argus newspaper was the leading Democratic-Republican journal in New York
City. Established and edited by Thomas Greenleaf, who like his Democratic-Republican
counterpart Benjamin Bache of the Philadelphia Aurora died of yellow fever in 1798, the Argus
became a target of the Federalists when on Nov. 6, 1799, the paper under the leadership of
Greenleaf’s widow, Mrs. Ann Greenleaf, reprinted an article that had appeared in several
Democratic-Republican journals. The article featured an extract from a Philadelphia letter
charging that Alexander Hamilton planned to purchase the Philadelphia Aurora in an effort to
suppress it.
126
The day the Argus reprinted this story, Hamilton called it to the attention of the
attorney general of New York, Cadwallader D. Colden, and urged him to prosecute Mrs.
Greenleaf and the paper’s foreman, David Frothingham, for seditious libel.
Frothingham was arrested on Nov. 9, 1799, and placed on bail pending a trial.
127
On Nov. 21,
Frothingham was tried before a New York court under the state’s common-law doctrine of libel.
As New York’s constitution contained no guarantee of freedom of speech or of the press until
1821, Frothingham’s conviction of libel at the state level was far more likely.
128
Frothingham
pleaded not guilty to the indictment, which charged him with publishing a libel designed “to injure
the name and reputation of General Hamilton, to expose him to public hatred and contempt, and
to cause it to be believed that he was opposed to the Republican Government of the United
States.”
129
On Dec. 3, Frothingham was sentenced to four months of imprisonment and fined
$100. He was to remain in jail until the fine was paid. Moreover, he would not be released until he
posted a $2,000 bond as a guarantee of his good behavior for two years after his sentence
expired.
130
Frothingham’s prosecution was part of a twofold effort by the Federalists to suppress the Argus.
Mrs. Greenleaf was also indicted for sedition in 1799 and over the next two years became the
subject of a relentless legal assault by the Federalists, forcing her to sell the Argus and its rural
companion paper, the Patriotic Register.
131
Her sedition trial was set for April 1800, but by then
Mrs. Greenleaf no longer owned the Argus and could not repeat her paper’s attacks on the
Federalist administration. In a letter to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, New York District
Attorney Richard Harison urged Pickering to drop the sedition charges. Pickering laid Harison’s
letter before President Adams, who agreed to drop the prosecution against Mrs. Greenleaf....
|
Quote:
http://www.americanforeignrelations....lligencer.html
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER
Although the National Intelligencer began as a party newspaper, the talents, principles, and government connections of its editors soon helped it to develop into one of the nation's most influential periodicals, a position it maintained for much of its early history. <b>In the summer of 1800 Thomas Jefferson and Albert Gallatin encouraged the Philadelphia printer Samuel Harrison Smith to follow the federal government to Washington to start a Republican newspaper.</b> Smith, a strong Jefferson supporter, readily complied, and on 31 October 1800 the first issue of the tri-weekly National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser appeared.
After Jefferson's 4 March 1801 inauguration, Smith and his wife, Margaret Bayard Smith, became members of the Republican government social circle, dining with the president and members of the cabinet and Congress. Smith's political and social access to Congress and the administration led to profitable contracts for government printing as well as insights into the views of the president and the department heads. The National Intelligencer was soon known as the "court paper" of the Jefferson administration. Smith supported administration policies but avoided the strident tone of many of his contemporaries, striving for a moderate and balanced presentation of domestic and international affairs. Because of this evenhanded approach, the National Intelligencer's detailed reports of congressional debates and executive activity quickly became source material for editors across the country.
After Jefferson's retirement to Monticello in 1809, Smith left publishing for finance, selling the Intelligencer in 1810 to his employee Joseph Gales, Jr. Two years later Gales entered into a partnership agreement with his brother-in-law, William Seaton. Gales and Seaton continued Smith's policy of high-minded editorial comment combined with detailed reports of congressional happenings and maintained amiable relations with the Madison and Monroe administrations. Because of the Intelligencer's support for President James Madison and the War of 1812, the British destroyed the newspaper's offices on 25 August 1814 during the invasion of Washington, dealing a severe blow to the partners' finances. To improve their still unstable financial situation, they began publication in 1825 of the Register of Congressional Debates, a detailed compilation in book form of the debates of each congressional session. Gales and Seaton's support for the Bank of the United States, to which they were deeply indebted, and for Henry Clay's "American System" led to estrangement from Andrew Jackson and his supporters.
After Jackson's election to the presidency in 1828 they no longer enjoyed close relationships with the administration and received far fewer government contracts. ....
|
Last edited by host; 07-10-2007 at 10:19 PM..
|