Wading Knee Deep in Words,Words, Words": Senatorial Rhetoric in the Johnson and Clinton Impeachment Trials

A probit analysis of National Election Studies data finds that unlike earlier midterm elections, Republican mobilization significantly increased the vote for Republicans from Republicans in 1994, as Democratic mobilization did for and among Democrats in 1998. In these elections, mobilization asymmetrically increased perceptions of party differences, party preferences, and party loyalty in voting. In 2002, both Republican and Democratic mobilization efforts affected vote choice, significantly increasing support from independents.     

Evaluating the Clinton Impeachment: Judicial,International, and Institutional Perspectives

Bowling, Kenneth R., and Donald R. Kennon, eds. The House and Senate in the 1790s: Petitioning, Lobbying, and Institutional Development. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2002. Pp. x, 348. $44.95 hardbound.Ackerman, Bruce, ed. Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. Pp. xii, 240. $26.95 hardbound.Kotlowski, Dean J. Nixon's Civil Rights: Politics, Principle, and Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Pp. xi, 404. $35.00 hardbound.DiClerico, Robert E, and James W. Davis. Choosing our Choices: Debating the Presidential Nominating Process. Lanham, MD: Rowman &; Littlefield Publishers, 2000. Pp. ix, 136. $16.95 softbound.Knott, Stephen F. Alexander Hamilton &; the Persistence of Myth. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2002. Pp. x, 336. $34.95 hardbound.     

The Tolsdorff Trials in Traunstein: Public and Judicial Attitudes to the Wehrmacht in the Federal Republic, 1954-60

This article uses the prosecution of former GeneralleutnantTheodor Tolsdorff before the Landgericht Traunstein on threeseparate occasions (June 1954, September 1958 and May/June 1960)as a means of examining both press and judicial attitudes towardsthe Wehrmacht in the Federal Republic from 1954 to 1960. Whatis most surprising about the case is that, while the press reactionsto the first hearing in June 1954 were uniformly critical ofthe guilty verdict, the first retrial in September 1958 provokedattacks on the accused in newspapers, and the abandonment ofthe case under the provisions of the Amnesty Law provoked intensecriticism of the court. The reasons for the differing reactionsin June 1954 and September 1958 are not only to be sought inthe fact that the 1958 verdict came shortly after the closeof the Ulmer Einsatzgruppenprozeβ, but rather in the upsurgein anti-militarism which occurred between September 1954 andFebruary 1955 and the effects on public opinion of the 1957Schörner trial in Munich. When examined against the backgroundof the 1957 Schörner trial and the 1959 Manteuffel trial,the Tolsdorff case indicates not only that attitudes towardsthe Wehrmacht became much more critical during the second halfof the 1950s, but also that these three ‘generals’trials' were part of a broader pattern of proceedings for ‘crimesof the final period’ which played an important psychologicalpart in paving the way for a more honest confrontation withthe mass murder committed during the Third Reich.     

The Federal Budget: Policy,Process, and Politics

Fiorina, Morris. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan, 1992. Pp. xi, 138. $13.00 Paperback.

Jacobson, Gary C. The Electoral Origins of Divided Government: Competition' in U.S. House Elections, 1946-1988. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990. Pp. xvi, 152. $15.95.

Mayhew, David R. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946-1990. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Pp. viii, 228. $25.00 Hardback.     

Trials,Blunders and Profits: The Changing Contexts of Currencies in Sierra Leone

The work presented here is in the form of a case study that connects currencies with merchants in Sierra Leone from the early fragmentary British presence in 1787 to wide-scale colonisation late in the century. Through accounts from archival research, it traces particularly early examples of monetary instabilities prior to formal colonial rule as well as the first attempts made by the British to regulate indigenous currency systems and standardise them into a homogeneous currency system. Through a monetary perspective, the article shows that colonial authorities did not succeed in having full control over the currencies nor did local ways of using them determine their circulation but merchants, who were responsible for shipping specie to the region, also had a degree of control over the circulation of currencies. As such, the article provides very interesting—and complex—cases that emerged from the interfaces in situ among indigenous populations, merchant companies, international traders, settler communities and British colonial officials.     

The Devil Burns Gold There: The Heritage of Nazi Germany Crimes in Death Valley,Chojnice, Poland

International Journal of Historical Archaeology - This paper is about Death Valley – a site of mass killings orchestrated by Nazi Germany that took place on the outskirts of Chojnice during...     

‘The Manager in Distress’: Reaction to the Impeachment of Henry Dundas, 1805–7

Impeachments have long since ceased to be a feature of British politics. Much scholarly attention has been given to past impeachments, particularly the unsuccessful prosecution of Warren Hastings. Little consideration, however, has been given to the last such case, the impeachment of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, from 1805 to 1807. The Melville scandal held the interest of the country until the middle of 1806, when it was diverted by naval battles. Although generally neglected by historians of the period, the Melville affair was a significant event in the course of then‐contemporary British politics, and of wider society. Examination of the reactions to the attempted impeachment can illuminate a number of developing themes and concerns within both elite circles and in the wider political nation. These include dislike of patronage and the Pittite ‘system’, anti‐Scottish bias, and advocacy of financial and parliamentary reform. Moreover, it helped to revive the radical movement both in parliament and out of doors. While the affair may not have been as significant as the later Mrs Clarke and Queen Caroline scandals, the reactions to it were generally comparable. In fact, reactions to the attempted impeachment presaged reactions to these later events. The issues and passions stirred forth by the proceedings will be shown to have significantly contributed to the revival of a dynamic national political atmosphere which itself enabled and fuelled those reactions.     

The Fall of Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk and the Revival of Impeachment in the Parliament of 1621

The revival of impeachment in 1621 has tended to be viewed exclusively through the prism of parliament. However, this article, which builds on the work of Professor Allen Horstman, suggests that a key factor in impeachment's revival was the dismissal of Lord Treasurer Suffolk for corruption in 1618. Suffolk's removal caused widespread disquiet, since it was assumed that senior officials held office for life. In order to silence these criticisms it proved necessary for the king not only to put Suffolk on trial but also to justify by precedent the lord treasurer's removal. This latter task was performed by the former lord chief justice, Sir Edward Coke, himself not long disgraced, whose researches in the medieval parliamentary record revealed the following year that errant crown ministers had hitherto been held to account by means of impeachment. Coke subsequently put this discovery to good effect when parliament met in 1621. Against the backdrop of mounting criticism against his hated rival, the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon, Coke revealed the existence of impeachment to the house of commons, whose attention was then focused on finding a way to punish the monopolists, Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Michell. In so doing, Coke not only aided the lower House, which had been struggling since 1610 to find a way of punishing non‐members, but also sought to settle an old score.