1995-1996 Budget Battle

With the current news, it seemed appropriate to post on the 1995 government shutdown from the Clinton administration. This site from CNN gives a timeline, with news articles linked, to the entire battle. I'll let you explore to find what interests you. I did open one article to find Ohio's current government, then a representative, being quoted, which interested me, being in Ohio.

Here's Clinton's shutdown address:
Good afternoon. Today, as of noon, almost half of the federal government employees are idle. The government is partially shutting down because Congress has failed to pass the straightforward legislation necessary to keep the government running without imposing sharp hikes in Medicare premiums and deep cuts in education and the environment.

It is particularly unfortunate that the Republican Congress has brought us to this juncture because, after all, we share a central goal -- balancing the federal budget. We must lift the burden of debt that threatens the future of our children and grandchildren, and we must free-up money so that the private sector can invest, create jobs, and our economy can continue its healthy growth.

Since I took office, we have cut the federal deficit nearly in half. It is important that the people of the United States know that the United States now has proportionately the lowest government budget deficit of any large industrial nation. We have eliminated 200,000 positions from the federal bureaucracy since I took office. Our federal government is now the smallest percentage of the civilian work force it has been since 1933, before the New Deal. We have made enormous progress, and now we must finish the job.

Let me be clear -- we must balance the budget. I proposed to Congress a balanced budget, but Congress refused to enact it. Congress has even refused to give me the line-item veto to help me achieve further deficit reduction. But we must balance this budget without resorting to their priorities, without their unwise cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, in education and the environment.

Five months ago I proposed my balanced budget plan. It balances the budget in the right way. It cuts hundreds of wasteful and outdated programs, but it upholds our fundamental values -- to provide opportunity, to respect our obligations to our parents and our children, to strengthen families and to strengthen America -- because it preserves Medicare and Medicaid, it invests in education and technology, it protects the environment, and it gives the tax cuts to working families for child rearing and for education. Unfortunately, Republican leaders in Washington have put ideology ahead of common sense and shared values in their pursuit of a budget plan.

We can balance the budget without doing what they seek to do. We can balance the budget without the deep cuts in education, without the deep cuts in the environment, without letting Medicare wither on the vine, without imposing tax increases on the hardest-pressed working families in America. I am fighting for a balanced budget that is good for America and consistent with our values. If they'll give me the tools, I'll balance the budget.

I vetoed the spending bill sent to me by Congress last night because America can never accept under pressure what it would not accept in free and open debate. I strongly believe their budget plan is bad for America. I believe it will undermine opportunity, make it harder for families to do the work that they have to do, weaken our obligations to our parents and our children, and make our country more divided. So I will continue to fight for the right kind of balanced budget.

Remember, the Republicans are following a very explicit strategy announced last April by Speaker Gingrich, to use the threat of a government shutdown to force America to accept their cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, to accept their cuts in education and technology and the environment.

Yesterday they sent me legislation that said -- we will only keep the government going, and we will only let it pay its debts if and only if we accept their cuts in Medicare, their cuts in education, their cuts in the environment, and their repeal of 25 years of bipartisan commitments to protect the environment and public health.

On behalf of the American people, I said no. If America has to close down access to education, to a clean environment, to affordable health care, to keep our government open, then the price is too high.

My message to Congress is simple -- you say you want to balance the budget, so let's say yes to balancing the budget, but let us together say no to these deep and unwise cuts in education, technology, the environment, Medicare and Medicaid. Let's say no to raising taxes on the hardest- pressed working families in America. These things are not necessary to balancing the budget. Yes to balancing the budget, no to the cuts.

I know the loss of government service will cause disruption in the lives of millions of Americans. We will do our very best to minimize this hardship. But there is, after all, a simple solution to the problem. All Congress has to do is to pass a straightforward bill to let government perform its duties and pay its debts. Then we can get back to work and resolve our differences over the budget in an open, honest, and straightforward manner.

Before I conclude, I'd like to say a word to the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who will be affected by this partial shutdown.

I know, as your fellow citizens know, that the people who are affected by this shutdown are public servants. They're the people who process our Social Security applications, help our veterans apply for benefits, care for the national parks that are our natural heritage. They conduct the medical research that saves people's lives. They are important to America, and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. I will do everything I can to see that they receive back pay and that their families do not suffer because of this.

But it is my solemn responsibility to stand against a budget plan that is bad for America and to stand up for a balanced budget that is good for America. And that is exactly what I intend to do.

Thank you very much.

White House Biographies?

Ever think the White House biographies are a bit "white washed?" Well, you are not alone. This article quotes several historians who critique these biographies:
Doris Kearns Goodwin has read a lot of upbeat material about American presidents, but some of the entries on the White House website were so sunny that they reminded her of the happy talk at Boston Red Sox games.

So what are some of the critiques of these biographies?
George W. Bush's entry, for example, makes no reference to Hurricane Katrina or the economic collapse of 2008, but does find room for the names of his dogs. Ronald Reagan's biography does not mention the Iran-Contra scandal, which made headlines during his second term. Gerald Ford's 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon is noted in a few words, with nothing about the fierce criticism it received. Vietnam is included on Lyndon Johnson's page but not his fateful decision to send ground troops.

Thomas Jefferson is introduced as a "powerful advocate of liberty" who "inherited some 5,000 acres of land," but is not identified as an owner of slaves. Andrew Jackson's page says virtually nothing about his advocacy of slavery or harsh treatment of American Indians. The life of William Henry Harrison, a military commander who became the ninth president, is narrated as a valiant crusade against Indians.

The biographies were also critiqued for political incorrectness (example: using the word Negroes), leaving out essential information (example: nothing on the election of 2000 in Bush's entry), or overly personal versus political entries.

The White House did not comment on the white, but a spokesperson said it would be looked into. The biographies were originally written in 1964 and meant, in the words of Jackie Kennedy,"to provide a brief, popular historical sketch to accompany the images of the official White House portraits and meant to enhance the public's enjoyment of their White House tour."

A quote by Eric Foner is a good way to sum this up:
One would have to think about the purpose of the White House biographies. If the purpose is simply to instill admiration for all American presidents, it's working. If the purpose is to give citizens a realistic sense of the presidents, it's not working.

Thanks to Greg, at History Buff Wannabe for the link.

Museum Detectives

So I posted yesterday on figuring out the provenance, so thought I'd follow up with this story about how the staff at Montpelier tracked down a missing painting. [I picked pieces out of this story, for the full one see the link.]
Our curatorial team first saw Pan – Youths & Nymphs listed in the anonymous document “Oil Paintings at Montpellier” (circa 1836-44). Next, the team found an 1846 newspaper article that describes the work hanging over a mantel in Dolley Madison’s Lafayette Square house in Washington, D.C. The article called it “a very old painting representing a group of maidens surprised by Pan while playing in a grove.”²

Then the trail went cold. We knew John Payne Todd (Dolley’s son) held a sale of her property nearly two years after her 1849 death. A newspaper account following the sale noted at least one of the “large works” remained unsold. Could Pan – Youths & Nymphs be one of these paintings? If so, where did it go?

To pick up the trail, Dr. Lance Humphries, Montpelier’s early American art collections expert began investigating James C. McGuire, a Washington, D.C. auctioneer and art collector. McGuire handled both Dolley Madison and John Payne Todd’s estate sales. Dolley and “Payne” were probably indebted to McGuire. Dr. Humphries suggested some of McGuire’s descendants might have owned some of the Madison paintings that didn’t sell.

Next, Dr. Humphries traced the painting’s subsequent chain of owners and descendants of the last known purchaser. The painting stayed in the purchaser’s family for two more generations. During that time the family learned the painting was the work of Dutch master Gerrit Van Honthorst (1592-1656).

Ironically, the painting had been in the Charlottesville, Va. area— about 30 miles away from Montpelier— for years! In the 1980s it had even been on loan to the Bayly Art Museum at the University of Virginia. In 2004, the painting was sold through Sotheby’s in Amsterdam – half a world away – and bought by a resident there. The sale happened just before Montpelier caught up to the painting.

Not to be denied, Dr. Humphries found the new owner. The Madison connection fascinated the owner so much that he generously allowed Montpelier to photograph the work to make a reproduction. He also loaned it to Montpelier to exhibit in the Grills Gallery. The following year, the support of The Joseph and Robert Cornell Memorial Foundation, Mr. and Mrs. Rob C. Labadie, and other generous private donors allowed Montpelier to purchase the original!

Washington's Apron?

This is a fun series from the National Museum of American History's Blog - it looks at a possible donation of a Masonic apron supposedly belonging to George Washington - but is it really?
Curators here at the National Museum of American History are regularly offered objects associated with famous celebrities or historical figures from America’s past. There is an obligation on our part to do what we can to confirm the connections to important persons before we consider acquiring such donations. From the standpoint of American history, they don’t come much bigger than George Washington and recently the Museum was offered the chance to acquire a true rarity – a Masonic apron that was said to belong to the First President. The first question –- was this fact or fiction?

This apron had no real provenance, but there was enough to raise the possibility:

It is well established that George Washington was a member of the Freemasons, a fraternal society that had reached America from Great Britain by the 1720’s. He became a member of Fredericksburg Lodge No. 4 in 1753 at the age of 20, and would serve as the master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in 1788. Five years later, while serving as President, he led the Masonic ceremony to lay the cornerstone of the new United States Capitol. As a Mason, he would have owned at least one apron, perhaps more. These aprons are worn at Masonic meetings, called lodges, as well as at public ceremonies and serve to identify the wearer as a member of the fraternity, a link to the leather work aprons worn by stone masons of the Middle Ages.

The apron itself had no documentation to support the claim, only the donor’s family traditions. But this was no mere family legend that could be shrugged off as wishful thinking. The donor was a descendant of Thomas Hammond, a veteran of the Revolution and had married Washington’s niece, Mildred. This raised a real possibility that apron could well be Washington’s own.

So the first step was checking out the apron:

As there was no documentary evidence to support the donor’s family tradition that George Washington had once owned it, the key would be in dating the apron. Place it between 1752 (the year he became a Freemason) and 1799 (the year of his death) and there would be at least a possibility the apron could have been Washington’s. There was doubt about this, even at first glance, but as curators inspected the apron more closely, a firm date remained elusive.

Textile curators and conservators immediately determined that the apron was made of silk. Silk Masonic aprons do exist before 1800, but they became far more common in the 19th century. Curators specializing in printing history pointed out that the design was printed on the silk rather than painted or drawn. This technique, called intaglio, involves printing with ink on an engraved plate or roller. Intaglio printing was indeed practiced in the late 18th century, but is more widespread after 1800, especially in Masonic aprons.

Then comes more in depth examination:

Helena Wright and Joan Boudreau, curators with the museum’s print collections, confirmed that the design was a product of intaglio printing. Textile curator Kathy Dirks took tiny fiber samples from several areas in order to analyze the apron’s construction. She examined each sample under the microscope and noted the following:

• The body of the apron was a satin weave silk, known to be a good surface for textile prints.
• The light blue ribbon border was of plain weave “slight” silk. This was a common material used in both the 18th and 19th centuries.
• The sewing thread used throughout the piece was two ply silk. This type of thread was used for sewing silk fabrics throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

Still nothing conclusive but there was one part of the apron left to examine—the backing fabric. It appeared to be original, with no areas of patching or replacement. When Kathy examined the sample fibers, the final piece of the puzzle fell into place. The backing fabric was all cotton weave, common to the 19th century. An 18th century backing would most likely be a linen-cotton blend or an all linen weave. More importantly, the backing fabric was machine woven. This put the date of manufacture no earlier than 1815. We had our answer. When Thomas Hammond purchased Washington’s Masonic apron in 1802, it wasn’t this one.

So it's not Washington's, but it is still a beautifully printed and preserved apron, dating to around 1820.