Speech of Hon. James H. Hammond, of South Carolina, on the relation of states; delivered in the Senate of the United States, May 21, 1860

The speech is a response by Hon. James H. Hammond as to whether or not the territorial governments established by Congress have the power to define and declare what shall be and what shall not be property within the territorial boundaries. The speech goes on to discuss colonists who went to newly purchased territory and claimed land as their own. He argues whether or not these people have sovereignty of the land over the government.

Speech of Hon. John Lowndes McLaurin, of South Carolina, in the Senate of the United States, Monday, December 9, 1901

This speech is to address the statement that Mr. McLaurin has been excluded from the caucuses of his party and thus that he will be without assignment on any committee. He goes on to explain his exclusion and defend his views that led to his exclusion.

Speech of Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, on the slavery question. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 4, 1850

The speech addresses the question, how can the union be preserved? He goes on to explain the threats to the union and give suggestions for how the threats can be handled.

Stable standard essential for prosperity. Speech in the Senate of the United States, February 4, 1878

This speech was given when the United States Senate was considering a bill to authorize the free coinage of the standard silver dollar and to restore its legal tender character. Mr. Bayard argues against the bill in this speech. He is interrupted during his speech multiple times and questioned about his points.

Liberalization of Labor Relations in Germany and the United States: A firm-centered comparison of cross-national labor organizing at Amazon and Volkswagen

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2015

The resilience of democratic institutions in Britain, Australia and the United States under conditions of total war

To what extent are democratic institutions resilient when nation states mobilise for war? Normative and empirical political theorists have long argued that wars strengthen the executive and threaten constitutional politics. In modern democracies, national assemblies are supposed to hold the executive to account by demanding explanations for events and policies; and by scrutinising, reviewing and, if necessary, revising legislative proposals intended to be binding on the host society or policies that have been implemented already. This article examines the extent to which the British and Australian parliaments and the United States Congress held their wartime executives to account during World War II. The research finds that under conditions approaching those of total war, these democratic institutions not only continued to exist, but also proved to be resilient in representing public concerns and holding their executives to account, however imperfectly and notwithstanding delegating huge powers. In consequence, executives—more so British and Australian ministers than President Roosevelt—were required to be placatory as institutional and political tensions within national assemblies and between assemblies and executives continued, and assemblies often asserted themselves. In short, even under the most onerous wartime conditions, democratic politics mattered and democratic institutions were resilient.

Should the U.S. adapt to the world? The first debate on american exceptionalism and its impact on the founding of the United States

This paper aims at putting into perspective the recent, post 9/11 debate on the United States‘ alleged exceptionalism and its impact on the definition of American foreign policy. It reminds the readers that the United States was born as a result of a similar debate, at a time when a crucial choice for its future was to be made. Indeed, the Founding Fathers discarded the revolutionary idea that America was altogether different from other (European) nations and, as such, could succeed in saving republicanism and concentrate on domestic affairs. As Gordon Wood and Harvey Mansfield have shown, the 1787 version of republicanism stood as a departure from its earlier version, and such a change was necessary to the creation of a full-fledged federation, therefore paving the way to the current powerful Federal Republic. The early failure of the exceptionalist creed did not cause its disappearance, as the contemporary form of exceptionalism demonstrates, but created conditions that made an enduring and powerful influence very difficult.

Leverage instability and persistence: Evidence from the United States and Europe

We find that leverage behavior both in level and time-series variation is very similar between the United States and Europe throughout the 1990-2013 period. Leverage regimes are simultaneously unstable and persistent for both regions. We define instability as the extent to which firms largely deviate from their long-term leverage mean, while persistence as the extent to which today’s leverage influences its future levels. We then show that this simultaneous evidence imply a mean-reversion behavior of leverage and discuss some of its implications for future research on this field.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

An Address of members of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, to their constituents, on the subject of the war with Great Britain. --

Signed by George Sullivan and thirty-three other Federalist members.

Captain Lewis Warrington and others : memorial of Lewis Warrington, Captain in the U.S. Navy, (in behalf of himself and the officers and crew of the U.S. sloop-of-war Peacock); praying that the one half of the proceeds of the Epervier and goods which went into the officers and crew of said vessel, it having been decreed to them by the United States court as captors. April 26, 1848.--

Caption title.

The claim of Amasa Stetson, of Massachusetts, on the United States, for money advanced, in fulfilling the orders of the Government while discharging the duties of Commissary General of Purchases, in time of the late war with Great Britain ; and for services rendered. --

Claim relating to the War of 1812.

A compressed view of the points to be discussed, in treating with the United States of America : with an appendix /

Appendix: On the conduct of the government of United States towards the Indian tribes: p.[129]-139.