text:
In 1964 the Library of Congress published the Index to the George Washington Papers to assist researchers of the microfilm collection. This introduction to the Index by Dorothy S. Eaton, Specialist in Early American History, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, describes the route the George Washington Papers travelled to arrive in the Library's collections.
Meanwhile the papers at the Commander- in-Chief's headquarters continued to grow in number, and each time the headquarters location changed they had to be packed, transported, then unpacked. It was one of the duties of the group of "sober, young, active, and well made" soldiers who formed the Commander-in-Chief's Guard to see to the safety of the manuscripts.4 No provision had been made for keeping the quickly multiplying mass in order, however, and Washington finally sought help on this problem from the President of Congress on April 4, 1781. He wrote that his papers, "which may be of equal public utility and private satisfaction" remained in loose sheets "in the rough manner in which they were first drawn,"and that their unarranged state exposed them to damage and loss and made their use inconvenient. He asked, therefore, for authority to employ a"Man of character" and a "set of Writers" to work steadily at a quiet place near his camp to arrange and register the manuscripts. The Congress promptly complied by a resolution of April 10,5 and Washington was able to appoint Lt. Col. Richard Varick of New York as his recording secretary on May 25.
The Commander-in-Chief's careful plan for the arrangement of his Revolutionary War papers was set down in a memorandum of instructions that accompanied the letter of appointment. This directed that the papers be grouped into six classes:
- A.l. All letters to Congress, Committees of Congress, the Board of War, Individual Members of Congress In their public Characters and american ministers Plenipotentiary at Foreign Courts...
B.2. All letters, orders, and Instructions to officers of the line, of the Staff, and all other Military Characters.
C.3. All Letters to Governors, Presidents and other Executives of States, Civil Magistrates and Citizens of every Denomination . .
D.4. Letters to foreign ministers, Foreign Officers, and subjects of Foreign Nations not in the immediate service of America
E.5. Letters to officers of every Denomination in the service of the Enemy, and to British subjects of every Character with the Enemy, or applying to go in to them.
F.6. Proceedings of Councils of War in the order of their dates.
A seventh class, "P," was established later, to consist of Washington's private letters. The General Orders were likewise recorded in a separate series by copyists in the Adjutant General's office. 6
Varick was instructed first to set up a chronological arrangement within each class and then to supervise the recording, in uniform "Books of Entries," by clerks who were sworn to be upon their honor and to be careful of the papers. The letters to Washington were to be similarly grouped, endorsed, filed in neat order, and stowed in"proper Boxes."
At the beginning of his project, Varick took with him from Washington's headquarters at New Windsor, N.Y., the papers dating from 1775 to 1778. After waiting for transportation for his precious "Charges," he travelled to nearby Poughkeepsie where he established his work shop in the home of Dr. Peter Tappan, "an honest Patriot" and a brother-in-law of Governor George Clinton. 7 By 1782, he and his copyists had covered the existing files and from then on they were able to deal with current documents, usually received in weekly shipments. Washington was sending Varick both public and private letters to handle as late as October 2,1783, and in a letter of that date he cautioned that these papers contained "sentiments upon undecided points" and that it was therefore more than ever necessary"that there should be the strictest guard over them, & the most perfect silence with respect to their contents." By the end of the year the work had come to an end, and on the first day of 1784 Washington thanked his recording secretary for the work he had done, writing that he was"fully convinced that neither the present age or posterity will consider the time & labour unprofitably spent."
The volumes of Varick transcripts which now compose most of Series 3 of the Washington Papers are the only reflection of Washington's own plan for the arrangement of his Revolutionary War correspondence. The drafts and letters he received during that period became disarranged and Varick's work on them can be seen only in the neat dockets they bear.
Looking forward to the time his papers would be transported to Mount Vernon, Washington ordered from Daniel Parker of New York, on June 18, 1783, "Six strong hair Trunks well clasped and with good Locks." He added that he would be glad to have on each trunk a brass or copper label containing his name and "the year of each." On November 9, when he no longer had real need to refer to the papers, they were packed in the trunks and loaded on wagons, and Bezaleel Howe, lieutenant of the New Hampshire line and a member of the Commander-in-Chief's Guard, was placed in charge of the escort that was to take them to Mount Vernon. "As you know." Washington wrote to Howe, "[the wagons] contain all my Papers, which are of immense value to me."Then the route Howe was to follow was given and he was cautioned not to cross the ferries if the wind was high or there was the least danger. In Philadelphia he was to deliver the bundle containing Washington's accounts as Commander-in-Chief to Robert Morris, Superintendent of Finance. Unfortunately, Howe's own account of expenses for the trip to Mount Vernon has not been located; it is not known exactly when he reached there with his cargo, which, even now after segments have been removed, composes more than half of the Library's Washington Papers.
In 1782, and again in 1783, the Reverend William Gordon had asked Washington's permission to use his papers for a history of the American Revolution. Each time this permission was denied-- until such time as the Continental Congress should open its records to historians. Washington explained in reply to the first request: "It appears to me impracticable for the best Historiographer living, to write a full & correct history of the present Revolution who has not free access to the Archives of Congress, those of Individual States, the Papers of the Commander in Chief, and Commanding Officers of separate departments. Mine --while the War continues -- I consider as a species of Public property, sacred in my hands." 8 Similar requests from others were received after Washington had retired to Mount Vernon. For John Bowie, whose request came through an old friend, Dr. James Craik, Washington offered to open his papers on public affairs for the period prior to his appointment to the command of the American army. 9
Perhaps it was due to such requests that he determined, but never found the time, to put all of his papers in order. Nevertheless it was probably during this period of retirement that he reviewed and amended the texts in his early letterbooks of 1755 and 1758, and employed Robert Lewis to transcribe them and other early drafts in the amended form. 10 If this was designed as a parallel to the Varick transcripts of his later papers, it came out a poor second; Lewis was not an accurate copyist, and in the process many of the unbound drafts were apparently discarded,
When Washington left Mount Vernon for New York City in April 1789 to assume his duties as first President of the United States, his papers for the previous years were left at the estate. A month after his inauguration Mathew Carey applied for permission to select from the papers documents relative to skirmishes, battles, and "interesting circumstances" of the Revolution. Washington replied on May 21 `that "all the papers in my possession, relative to the revolution, are packed up in trunks and boxes at Mount Vernon."
During the presidential years, Washington used paper with a distinctive watermark, which was manufactured for him by an unidentified paper maker. Examples have been located in three different weights, for ledgers or journals, letters, and press copies; each bears a watermark with the name GEORGE WASHINGTON enclosed in concentric circles. The largest circle measures 3-3/8 inches in diameter and is surmounted by the figure of a dove on an inverted "W." Many recipients' copies and almost all of the press copies of his letters for those years were written or reproduced on this paper. The President's correspondence with each of the Government departments- - State, Treasury, and War- - and with the Congress was transcribed in a separate series of letterbooks.
At the end of his term of office, Washington employed Tobias Lear and Bartholomew Dandridge, who had served as his secretaries, to separate from his papers those files which were intended for his successor in office, John Adams, and to pack and send the remainder to Mount Vernon. It was later discovered, as the result of a request from Attorney General Charles Lee, that two bundles containing original opinions of the Heads of Departments were still in the possession of the Secretary of State, who had borrowed and failed to return them. 11 He promptly made arrangements for their return.
Soon after he reached Mount Vernon, Washington wrote James McHenry that he planned to erect a building on the estate "for the accommodation & security of my Military Civil & private Papers which are voluminous, and may be interest[ing]." He then added, "yet I have not one [building] or scarcely anything else about me that does not require considerable repairs." 12 Apparently the many demands on his time and other more pressing repairs to existing buildings prevented him from carrying out this plan.13
He also hoped to sort and arrange his papers. When he employed Albin Rawlins of Hanover County, Va,, as a new assistant in February 1798, one of Rawlins' duties was "to copy and record letters and other Papers."14 Washington was able to make some headway on this self-imposed task during his leisure hours, as his letters for this period tell, but his appointment by President Adams as the commander-in-chief of a newly forming army in the summer of 1798, and the heavy correspondence this entailed, finally compelled him to abandon the task.
Washington died at Mount Vernon on December 14, 1799. In his will he bequeathed to his nephew Bushrod Washington, eldest son of his favorite brother John Augustine, "all the Papers in my possession, which relate to my Civel [sic] and Military Administration of the affairs of this Country. . . [and] also, such of my private Papers as are worth preserving." This nephew, who had been appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court the previous year, was also to receive the mansion house and a portion of the acreage of Mount Vernon after the death of Martha Washington.15
Tobias Lear, who had been a trusted friend and secretary for many years and who was at Mount Vernon when Washington died, was the first person to handle the papers. According to Lear's published journal, he spent Tuesday, December 24, 1799, "in looking over & arranging papers in the General's Study." 16 He had possession of them, presumably at Mount Vernon, for about 8 months after Washington's death.17 Perhaps during this period he removed and turned over to Martha Washington the correspondence she and her husband had exchanged; her granddaughter, Martha Parke Custis Peter, told Jared Sparks many years later that Mrs. Washington had burned all but two letters, which were saved by accident,"shortly after General Washington's death."18
Although Bushrod Washington thus did not take immediate possession of the papers- - and no evidence has been found to show that he actually removed them from Mount Vernon before Martha Washington's death--he must have started soon after his uncle's death to arrange for the preparation of a biography. He first approached Tobias Lear on December 26, 1799, and proposed that they write a biography of George Washington, in partnership; Lear would arrange the papers and do the preliminary work and Bushrod Washington assist in the later stages. This apparently did not lead to any formal agreement. There appeared in Philadelphia, in the True American for August 18, 1800, the following announcement printed over his signature: "Having at length engaged a gentleman of distinguished talents to assist in writing a History of the Life of the late General Washington, this work will be immediately commenced, and will be completed as expeditiously as the nature of such an undertaking will permit." 19
The "gentleman of distinguished talents" was John Marshall, then Secretary of State and soon to be appointed Chief Justice of the United States, who optimistically thought he could complete the biography in the winter following George Washington's death. Thomas Jefferson was among those who were worried lest it come out in time to influence the presidential election of 1804. 20 As it turned out, the first volume did not appear until 1805 and the fifth and final volume until 1807.21
While this biography was in preparation, and for many years thereafter, a large part of the Washington papers was in Richmond, where Marshall lived and worked on them. He did not require manuscripts for the first volume, an introduction which barely mentioned Washington. He received what appears to have been the first shipment of papers late in 1803 and reported this in a letter he wrote to his publisher, Caleb P. Wayne of Philadelphia, on December 23, 1803:"The trunks containing the papers relative to the civil administration have reached me only this week, & have not yet been opened." He added that he could not examine them until the following spring after he was relieved from circuit court duties and the session of the Supreme Court.22 By 1805, he had received more papers, because in the introduction to the first volume of the biography he stated that "with infinite labour" he had examined the "immensely voluminous" correspondence of the commander-in-chief during the war. Marshall probably never had some of the early papers; when the first volume of Jared Sparks' edition of Washington's writings reached him in 1834, he told Sparks that he had never before heard of Washington's boyhood "rules of civility." 23
Apparently groups of the Washington papers passed back and forth between Richmond and Mount Vernon not only while the biography was being prepared but later as well. Marshall first worked slowly on corrections he hoped to incorporate into a revised edition; then the two men worked, mainly between 1823 and 1825, on what was to be a three-volume selection of Washington's letters.24 Judging from Bushrod Washington's letters during this period, the larger part of the papers was with Marshall in Richmond. The latter finally returned "six trunks & a box" on board the schooner John on August 6,1823. He thought these contained "all the manuscript books & papers" in his possession,25 but actually he had many others until 1827. Evidently no precautions to care for the papers were taken in the long weeks Marshall was away from home during court sessions; Bushrod Washington, writing to James Madison in 1819, admitted that "the papers sent to the Chief Justice, and which are still in Richmond, have been extensively mutilated by rats and otherwise injured by damp as he not long since informed me." 26
In contrast, Judge Washington attempted to provide some care of the papers in his possession during those years. They were stored in his office, a separate building close to the mansion house at Mount Vernon, which had been occupied by the white servants in George Washington's time, and the building was covered by insurance. 27
Bushrod Washington received many calls for the letters of given individuals and many requests for autographs, while the papers were in his keeping, and he was generous to a fault in complying with the requests. In 1811, the Marquise de Lafayette told Judge Washington of the loss ofhis correspondence with George Washington "in the revolutionary storms of Europe." He asked that his letters, and copies of Washington's letters, be sent to him. The favor was granted. 28
Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, the widow of Alexander Hamilton, visited Mount Vernon for a fortnight in the summer of 1818 and asked to borrow certain letters her husband had written to George Washington of which she did not have copies. Judge Washington turned over to her those that he could find at Mount Vernon and asked John Marshall to "look amongst the letters in your possess[ion] for the balance & forward them." He later wrote apologetically to Mrs. Hamilton, when Marshall did not reply, that he thought it "highly probable that the C. J. got the papers into some disorder whilst he was preparing the material for the life. . . and now finds it a task of no ordinary difficulty to make a successful search through them for any particular papers which may be called for." 29 He was still promising James A. Hamilton in 1822 to send the other letters as soon as he received the remainder of the trunks from Richmond. 30 The list Mrs. Hamilton supplied has not been located, and so it is not known how many of Hamilton's letters were lent to her. There was some difficulty in getting them back; they were finally returned only in 1827 when they were urgently needed by Jared Sparks.31
James Madison, in looking over his papers in 1818, found that he had lost or failed to retain copies of a number of letters he had written to George Washington and asked Judge Washington's permission to "fill up the chasm" from the originals. "This may be done either by letting the papers be copied by some good penman among the clerks in Washington. . . or by forwarding through some safe channel, the originals to be copied here, in which case they shall be carefully returned." He added that he possessed all of the correspondence on the other side and would gladly furnish copies. Judge Washington first waited for a favorable change in the weather and the disappearance of a cold he had had for some time "to go into an outhouse where my papers are kept and to select those you want," and he was at last able, in the Spring of 1820, to send five original letters to Madison.32 He was sure that many more would be in Marshall's keeping in Richmond.
Of autograph seekers there were many. Christopher Hughes, diplomat son-in-law of Gen. Samuel Smith of Baltimore, Md., was one who benefited from Judge Washington's generosity. Hughes received in 1818, for forwarding to the Russian Minister at Stockholm, manuscript letters of John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay, and George Washington; 33 and for himself he received, in 1825, Washington's diary for 1797 34 and a gathering of Washington's autograph notes on a book on husbandry, which provided the diplomat with many a leaf to distribute among his friends.35
Hughes was a minor figure compared to the Reverend William B. Sprague. According to Lyman C. Draper, Sprague, who was graduated from Yale in 1815, spent the following year as an instructor at Woodlawn, in the family of Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis (a granddaughter of Martha Washington) and Lawrence Lewis (George Washington's nephew), and during this period obtained Bushrod Washington's permission "to take whatever letters he might choose from Gen. Washington' s voluminous correspondence, provided only that he would leave copies in their stead."
Draper added that, as a result, Sprague "came into possession of some 1,500 letters, many of which were included in the three sets of the Signers which he completed." 36 This story has been accepted by other writers, Justin Winsor among them, and it is a fact that Sprague wrote from Mount Vernon in 1816 to Jared Sparks, who had been an Exeter classmate, and sent him "a scrap of General Washington's handwriting." 37 Nevertheless, Sparks himself is authority for the statement that Sprague removed the manuscripts many years later, after they were in Sparks' hands--but, as he wrote, with Judge Washington's permission. 38
A part of Sprague's collection went to Simon Gratz and is now in the Gratz Collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, by whose permission the Library of Congress has obtained photostatic copies of many of the letters to Washington that strayed. These are filed by date in Series 4 of the Washington Papers and can be distinguished from original manuscripts because they are in negative form.
A request of a different type was directed to Judge Washington in 1824. Jared Sparks, then editor of the North American Review, wrote him on behalf of one of his former schoolmates at Exeter, Charles Folsom, who was interested in preparing an edition of George Washington's writings. The Judge did not offer to open the papers at Mount Vernon, and Folsom lost interest in the project. Sparks, on the other hand, started to assemble information on George Washington from official records and the papers of his contemporaries, and again wrote to Bushrod Washington on January 16, 1826, on his own behalf, incorporating in his letter a plan for an edition of the Washington writings. His friend, Judge Joseph Story, delivered this letter, but even under these auspices the result was disappointing; Story reported that John Marshall and Bushrod Washington had already prepared a three volume edition of Washington's letters and that the Judge did not incline to favor Sparks' project. Although the news was "somewhat of a damper" to Sparks' zeal, as hewrote Story in March 1826, he added that "all the important materials may be obtained from other quarters, though with great trouble, & my present impression is that I shall pursue the project. Washington's public letters and papers are the property of the nation." After a tour through the south that summer, Sparks again wrote to Judge Washington, offering to halve the profits of an edition (after deducting expenses) if he was allowed to examine the Washington papers. Chief Justice Marshall, as well as Judge Story, was now a force in swaying the decision; he advised his friend to accept the offer, and Judge Washington finally agreed, in January 1827. 39 Sparks recorded in his journal for January 17: "I am to have full access to the whole [of the papers], and publish such as I think proper... The papers are not to be taken from Mount Vernon, except some of them by his consent." On March 7, a contract was signed with John Marshall and Bushrod Washington forming one party, Jared Sparks the other. Exactly one-week later Sparks arrived at Mount Vernon to survey the papers, 40 and continued this survey for slightly more than 2 months. Bushrod Washington was away on circuit court service during the entire time and saw Sparks "for only an hour or two" after returning to Mount Vernon in May.41
In contrast to the amateur efforts of Marshall and Washington in handling and copying George Washington's papers, Sparks entered into the work with incredible energy. Within the 10 weeks he was at Mount Vernon he notified the Judge (April 3) that he had received from Marshall "General Washington's letters during the French War" and"a volume of letters for the year 1787," which Marshall had retained by accident, and asked Washington to have "Hamilton's and Lafayette's letters" returned; located, on April 17, nearly 50 original Lafayette letters "out of place" in loose parcels containing the volumes of General Orders, 42 and, on April 28, "some new and valuable papers. . . in a large chest in a garret"where it was "merely accidental" that he foundthem; 43 suggested to the Judge that, in addition the "Life and Writings" for which they had contracted, he also prepare a separate edition of letters addressed to Washington; 44 solicited James Madison's acquaintance by informing him, on April 12, that he had found about 70 Madison letters in the Washington papers;45 and prepared a long description of the papers for publication. 46
Sparks was amazed at the richness and the number of papers, and he soon realized that his primary task of preparing an edition of Washington's writings could not be accomplished at Mount Vernon, but that he would need copying assistance and a good library nearby. He therefore directed a long letter to Judge Washington on April 17, in which he stated the problems, asked for permission to take a large part of the papers to Boston, and elaborated his plans for their care.47 Hoping for approval- - he received it in a letter of April 29- - he then doubled his efforts to assemble and select the papers he would need. By May 18, he was able to write to Joseph Story that the papers he proposed to remove to Boston were "assorted and arranged. . . and with one hour's work more" would be packed. "Thus, Sir," he continued, "you see what a little perseverance on my part, and a good deal of kind assistance on yours have effected. I trust you will not be disappointed in the results at a future day."48
Actually Sparks finished packing the papers at Mount Vernon on May 22. They were in eight large boxes, six of which, filled with letterbooks and volumes of Varick transcripts, were shipped from Alexandria to Boston; the other two, which contained "the most valuable papers"--miscellaneous original papers, including a "free selection" of letters addressed to Washington- - Sparks carried with him. He made stops to do research in several locations in Maryland and in Philadelphia and New York, and reached Boston on June 10. Thepapers that had been shipped arrived safely a few days later.
Even before he reached his destination, Sparks decided that he should have all of the letters addressed to Washington, and he wrote to Judge Washington about them on June 4. The latter left in his papers a memorandum that "On the 13th June 1827... I put on board the schooner Alexandria for Boston a large box containing the residue of the letters to Genl Washington."49 Sparks notified the Judge on August 14 that the papers had arrived, and that he had insured them in the Judge's name for $10,000. A further group was taken from Mount Vernon by Sparks when he visited there on February 27, 1828; these consisted of Washington's private journals and diaries.50
The letters to Washington were in loose bundles, filed alphabetically by the names of the writers, when they came into Sparks' hands.51 Within a few weeks after he had received them, he assembled the John Marshall letters and sent them by stagecoach to Judge Story, then in Salem, to assist him in an article he was writing for the North American Review, "I do not suppose it would be advisable to quote any of them in form," Sparks wrote, "but the facts may be used freely without reference the source whence they come." He asked Story to preserve them with great care; he held them only in trust.52 He also assembled and packed James Madison's letters, late in 1827, and entrusted the parcel to Col. Samuel A. Storrow of Culpeper, Va.,who was visiting in Boston, for delivery to Madison. Although Madison promptly had copies made of those missing from his files, he held the originals to hand to Sparks during a visit the latter made to Montpelier in April 1830. 53
In March 1828, Sparks sailed for Europe to examine and copy material he needed for the several writing and editorial projects he had undertaken. Before he left, he had the Washington papers "put up In chests, and deposited in the safety vault of an insurance office." One maywonder whether he first removed some autographs from them. In the preceding months he had collected Washington autograph letters from Timothy Pickering and James A, Hamilton and had tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain examples from James Madison; these he proposed to distribute to public libraries and other institutions in Europe, where he felt that they would be preserved with care and to "much better purpose than in the hands of individuals." 54
Soon after Sparks returned to Boston in 1829, he started to examine the Washington papers in detail, and he soon sought, and received, Bushrod Washington's permission to rearrange the letters addressed to George Washington in a chronological order.55 The work of rearrangement was accomplished in the early months of 1830 by the Reverend Doctor Thaddeus M. Harris, in Dorchester, and, after the letters had been bound (in 107 volumes),Dr. Harris was asked to index them. 56
On November 26, 1829, before Jared Sparks had made any substantial progress toward his edition of the Washington writings, Judge Bushrod Washington died. In his will, "All the papers and letter books" and many of the printed books which had been devised to him by General Washington were bequeathed to his nephew George Corbin Washington, a lawyer, agriculturalist, and Member of Congress from Maryland. Some time in the following spring the new owner of the papers moved those that had remained in his uncle's possession from Mount Vernon to his office in Georgetown, D.C.57
Sparks continued his work on the edition, first in Boston, and then, when the time came to begin sending manuscript to the printer, in Cambridge.58 His principal advisers were Samuel A Eliot, a friend who gave much needed financial assistance, and Charles Folsom (the friend in whose behalf Sparks had originally written to Judge Washington),who saw the work through the press. It is unnecessary to refer here to Sparks' editorial practices, about which so much has been written, except to point out that even his longtime friend Joseph story feared that "antiquarians and devout admirers of Washington" would object to the changes of wording that were made "merely to express the thought more appropriately." 59
Officers of the Government had from time to time been allowed to consult the Washington papers- - mainly the military returns- - at Mount Vernon, and they continued with greater frequency to seek this privilege from George Corbin Washington. Finally, on December 10, 1833, Secretary of State Louis McLane wrote to Washington that he was "desirous of rendering as complete as possible the Archives of the United States" and asked if the latter would consent to deposit the papers in the Department of State. In Washington's reply, on January 3, he first emphasized the extent and importance of the papers, then agreed to transfer his title to all but those papers which were"of a private nature, or which it would be obviously improper to make public" for a sum that would be mutually satisfactory. He referred to Sparks' publication, which he understood-- too optimistically- - was then nearly through the press, and agreed that delivery of the papers could be made "as soon as practicable, after the publication above alluded to." 60 The Secretary sought an appropriation from Congress the following month.
The question was referred to the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; the committee, through Edward Everett, was furnished with a description of the papers by Jared Sparks; and a bill to enable the Secretary of State to purchase "the manuscript papers and a portion of the printed books of General George Washington," for $25,000, was taken up by the House on June 26, 1834. `In the course of debate on the bill, Representative Job Pierson of New York moved to raise the purchase price to $35,000, and he was supported by Representative Richard Henry Wilde of Georgia, who pointed out that the Washington papers contained the only surviving copies of lists of all officers of the American Army who held their commissions at the time the Army was disbanded. Duplicate copies had been destroyed when the War Office was burned in 1800, and by reference to the lists in the Washington papers, the Government had already "saved to itself a large proportion of the money asked for these manuscripts." The amendment was nevertheless defeated; the bill as submitted was passed by the House on June 28 and was approved by the Senate on June 30, 1834. 61
The papers covered by the bill were turned over to the Department of State in several steps. Early in the summer of 1834, George Corbin Washington delivered the public papers that were then in his possession.62 These consisted largely of the military returns which the Government had found so valuable and drafts of Washington's own letters. During a visit to Cambridge in August, he received 10 volumes of Army returns from Jared Sparks and promptly turned them over to the Department. In November, Sparks himself sent "several first drafts of Washington's Letters, which belong to the collection already in the Dept. of State" and urged that one of them (Washington's famous reply to Col. Lewis Nicola), being "curious," should be carefully preserved. 63 In April of the following year Colonel Washington found a few manuscripts relating to public transactions among the "3 or 4 bundles" of private papers he had retained, and he sent these to the Secretary of State. 64
That officer was obliged to wait for the rest. Sparks had letterbooks, Varick transcripts, and the long series of original letters addressed to Washington at his home in Cambridge when the bill for purchase was approved, and there he sought to keep them until he had finished his work. Only 5 of the 12 volumes of his edition of Washington's writings had been published. By relying on the terms of the contract he had made with Bushrod Washington and John Marshall in 1827 and supported by letters Joseph Story and Edward Everett wrote on his behalf to the Secretary of State, Sparks was able to win a stay in the transfer. A contract between the Department of State and Colonel Washington on August 22, 1834, provided that the remainder of the papers would be handed over not later than the close of the next session of Congress (March 3, 1835). One-fifth of the purchase price was withheld until the transfer was completed. Apparently a further delay was won later, for it was not until October 11, 1836, that Colonel Washington could turn over 188 volumes and a bundle of lists of appointments and claim that he had finally fulfilled the terms of the contract. He had delivered "every paper and manuscript" devised to him by Judge Washington "in any wise connected with Genl. Washington's public life from 1754 to 1799." He had gone to Boston to bring the final segment with him by steamboat and railroad so that they could be given greater security.65
The Department of State, meanwhile, had employed Peter Force- - then at the beginning of his work of compiling material for the American Archives--to examine and arrange the unbound papers that were part of the first segment received from George Corbin Washington. By September 23, 1834, Force was able to inform the Secretary of State that these papers, mainly military returns, had been arranged as nearly as possible by subject and, within each class, in chronological order. They were ready to be bound in 37 volumes. He added that he had also found a number of letters addressed to Washington, which probably belonged to the bound volumes then in Sparks' possession; these he had laid aside for later attention. There were, in addition, several bundles of papers that related "to the present government," which he could, if so instructed, "put up with those of the Revolution."66 No further instructions to him have been located.
After receipt of the last segment from Colonel Washington in 1836, the Department proceeded to examine its holdings and check them for completeness against the volumes of Sparks' edition of Washington's writings. Certain papers, presumably missing, were reported by the Department's William A. Weaver to the Secretary of State in mid- 1838, and the latter got in touch with Colonel Washington. The list included the third volume in the series of orderly books; 67 the early journals and papers from Washington's boyhood to 1754; two volumes of his letters and invoices, 1758-75; and several hundred original letters which had been removed from the bound volumes and copies substituted.68
Colonel Washington, in reply,69 reminded Secretary John Forsyth that he had expressly reserved from the deposit papers "of a private nature, or which it would be obviously improper to make public." Those he had retained were of this character and were contained "in a small drawer."He had withheld "the correspondence between Genl. Washington and John Nicholson [sic], in relation to an anonymous letter addressed to the former over the signature of John Langhorne,"because he considered that it deeply implicated the conduct of "a distinguished individual of that time," and he had not been aware that Sparks had published any portion of it. (He submitted this correspondence for inspection by the Secretary, to be retained or returned as that officer deemed proper.) Washington considered that Sparks' use of and publicity given to certain of the private papers did not affect his rights in the few papers he had expressly reserved. As to the orderly book, it had been reported missing while the papers were owned by Bushrod Washington; and he was not aware that any original papers had been taken from the bound volumes except those described by Sparks, in a letter of which he enclosed a copy, as having been removed by Dr. Sprague with Judge Washington's permission.70
Finally, in 1849, the Department of State, with Colonel Washington's approval, proposed that the Government buy the remaining papers in his possession. A clause providing for their purchase, for $20,000, was inserted into the general appropriation bill, which was approved on March 3,1849. 71
While the Washington papers were in the custody of the Department of State they were used by various persons from time to time. William A. Weaver transcribed the first two volumes of general orders for Peter Force in 1838.72 In mid-century, John Church Hamilton examined the papers while he was preparing his seven volume edition of The Works of Alexander Hamilton and six-volume History of the Republic, and he is credited with having transferred to the Hamilton papers, which were also in the Department at that time, the recipient's copies of certain letters Hamilton had written to Washington.73 Historians who were allowed access to the papers later in the century included Moncure D. Conway and Worthington C. Ford. 74
Much more extensive use was contemplated. President Grover Cleveland, on April 12, 1888, transmitted to Congress and commended for favorable attention a letter of April 10 from Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard, in which a plan for publishing all of the important collections of historical manuscripts then deposited in the Department of State was outlined. Accompanying the outline were a copy of a circular letter Bayard had sent to and the replies he had received from some 40 historians and public figures, who heartily endorsed the plan. As a sample of what was proposed, Bayard also sent printed texts of all the Washington papers dated from June 15 to August 4, 1775; letters and memoranda by and addressed to Washington were included as were all papers they had enclosed, and the various versions of a given communication were cited. The first footnote is followed by the initials "W. C. F."--evidently Worthington C. Ford had been asked to edit the specimen pages.75 The following year saw the publication of the first volumes of Ford's edition of The Writings of George Washington.
Between 1889 and 1892 the Congress appropriated $14,000 for the restoration, mounting, and binding of manuscripts in the Department. The first to be treated were the Continental Congress papers. These were followed by the papers of Madison, Monroe, and Washington. 76 Before this time, and perhaps many years before, some 800 manuscripts--drafts or retained copies of Washington letters as well as letters addressed to him, mainly by Government officers while he was President--had lost their identity as Washington papers and had become part of the miscellaneous letters series in the Department's records. It may be that these manuscripts were in the bundles which Peter Force set aside in 1834 for later attention.77 The Department had also extracted from the Washington papers and other groups of Presidential papers in its keeping and had formed into a separate bound series the correspondence exchanged between the Presidents and the Commissioners of the District of Columbia.78
In November 1894, in accordance with Acts of Congress of 1892 and 1894, the Department transferred to the Record and Pension Office of the War Department all the military records in its custody, including the "Army returns" that Washington had used in camp and retained in his papers79 and that Peter Force had arranged in 1834. Although the original manuscripts no longer form a unit in the records of the War Department, individual items can be traced to the Washington papers by reference to the transcripts of the series, which were made for Peter Force and acquired by the Library of Congress when it purchased the Force library in 1867.
Under authority of an Act of Congress of February 25, 1903, and following an Executive Order of March 9, 1903, the Department of State transferred the papers of George Washington to the Library of Congress on June 29, 1904. Three letterbooks were retained; these contain a record of Washington's correspondence with the Department.80
Some of the many manuscripts that became separated over the years from the main body of Washington papers have already been noted. It may be well at this point to refer to others of the kind. There is evidence that certain private papers of Washington were distributed among members of the Washington family, who later gave them away or sold them. There must have been considerable pressure brought to bear on these owners by autograph seekers. In 1857, George Washington Parke Custis sent John Pickett of Warrenton, Va., a "Relic" taken from the accounts George Washington had kept of the estates of Custis' father and grandfather. He wrote: "I am now cutting up fragments from old letters & accounts, some of 1760, . . to supply the call for Any thing that bears the impress of his venerated hand, One of my correspondents says send me only the dot of an I or the cross of a t, made by his hand, & I will be content. 81 Mrs. John Washington of Mount Vernon gave Washington's diary for 1762 to James K. Paulding; now owned by his descendants, it is on deposit in the Library of Congress. In the last quarter of the 19th century a number of Washington papers were sold at auction by members of the family and eventually became part of large private collections or the holdings of historical societies and libraries. 82
Among these papers, press copies of 236 Washington letters (June 1792-December 1799) and an original notebook kept by Washington in 1757 were purchased by the New York Public Library in 1895 and 1919, respectively.83 In addition to Washington papers in its Gratz collection, the Historical Society of Pennsylvania has a household account book for 1793-97 and Washington's pocket diary for 1796, and the Detroit Public Library has his diary for 1789-90; the Henry E. Huntington Library has a survey field book, a "pocket-day-book," and a number of letters addressed to Washington; the Lloyd W. Smith Collection, now in the Morristown National Historical Park, includes Washington's Ledgers "C" and "G," accounts of the Mount Vernon mansion house and other farms for 1797-99, and numerous other Washington papers. Finally, the Library of Congress acquired with the Peter Force library, in 1867, Washington's diary for 1787; his letterbook for 1775-76 (now volume 9 of Series 2 of the Washington Papers); the volume of General Orders for 1778, which is mentioned earlier; and a number of letters addressed to Washington. 84 A portion of the letterpress copies now in Series 4 was received with the Joseph Meredith Toner Collection between 1882 and 1896.
To this nucleus were added the main body of Washington papers acquired in 1904, the series of applications for office during Washington's administration, transferred by the Department of State in 1909, and, in the same year, from the Treasury Department, Washington's accounts and vouchers for the Revolutionary War period. The papers were kept in the arrangement in which they were received until about 1920, and during the interval the Library published guides to the papers dated prior to June 1775 and to the papers that had been included in classes A and B of the Varick arrangement. 85
The drafts, press copies, the contents of two letter and invoice books, memoranda, and vouchers were combined with the letters and documents addressed or referred to Washington in one chronologically arranged series in about 1920.This is the basis for the present Series 4 of the Washington Papers, although in their recent reorganization the vouchers and the reconstituted letter and invoice books have become part of series 5.
In the late 1920's and 1930's, the Library intensified its longtime effort to assemble photocopies of Washington manuscripts in other institutions and in private hands in order to supplement the Washington Papers, and cooperated closely with John C. Fitzpatrick, the editor for the United States George Washington Bicentennial Commission of the Writings of George Washington From the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, which was published by authority of Congress, in 39 volumes, between 1931 and 1944.The supplementary photocopy material acquired during those years does not appear on the microfilm but may be consulted in the Library's Manuscript Division. As part of the Library's program to ensure the safety of its most valuable manuscripts during World War II, certain miscellaneous volumes of The Washington Papers were given special protection in the city of Washington while the bulk was sent to the Alderman Library of the University of Virginia for storage. The papers were brought together again in 1944, when the material which had been evacuated from Washington was returned under the direction of Alvin W. Kremer, then Keeper of the Collections.
The Washington Papers, which now number 64, 786, were studied and the arrangement perfected during the period 1960-63. A microfilm that reproduces them in this arrangement was released in 1964. A description of the Washington papers appears in the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections, 1962, published by the Library of Congress in 1964.
- Series 1. Exercise Books and Diaries. 1741-99. 43 volumes,
- Subseries A. Exercise books. 1741-47/8. 3 volumes. One volume of "Form of Writing," containing transcripts by Washington and "Rules of Civility." Two volumes of school copybooks.
- Subseries B. Diaries. 1748-99. 36 volumes. Washington's record of his activities, weather observations, and memoranda on agriculture and other subjects. Chronologically arranged.
- Subseries C. Surveys. 1749-52. 4 volumes. Notes and records of surveys and land entries. Chronologically arranged.
- Series 2. Letterbooks. 1754-99. 41 volumes. Mainly copies of Washington's correspondence. Chronologically arranged within groups with some overlapping dates. Volumes 1-24. General correspondence, 1754-97. Volumes 25-27. Congress, 1789-97. Volumes 28-30. The Department of State, 1789-96. Volumes 31-34. The Department of the Treasury, 1789-96. Volumes 35-37. The Department of War, 1789-96. Volumes 38-40. Civic, fraternal, and religious groups, 1789-97. Volume 41. "Journal of the Proceedings of the President, 1793-1797."
- Series 3. Varick Transcripts. 1775-83. 44 volumes. Transcripts of Washington's Revolutionary War correspondence in the following subseries, each chronologically arranged:
- Subseries A. Continental Congress. 7 volumes.
- Subseries B. Continental and State military personnel. 16 volumes.
- Subseries C. Civil officials and citizens. 5 volumes.
- Subseries D. Foreign officers and subjects of foreign nations. 2 volumes.
- Subseries E. Enemy officers and British subjects. 1 volume.
- Subseries F. Continental Army Council proceedings. 3 volumes.
- Subseries G. General Orders. 7 volumes.
- Subseries H. (Originally P) Personal correspondence. 3 volumes.
- Series 4. General Correspondence. 1697-1799. 298 volumes. Letters sent and received by Washington, drafts of letters, military returns, and other documents. Chronologically arranged and alphabetized, within the day, by names of correspondents.
- Series 5. Financial Papers. 1750-96. 34 containers. Accounts and financial records of Mount Vernon, Colonial Virginia militia, Washington's Revolutionary War expenses, and Society of the Cincinnati travelling expenses. Chronologically arranged.
- Series 6. Military Papers. 1755-98. 26 containers. Chronologically arranged within three subseries.
- Subseries A. 1755-83. 8 containers. Mainly orderly books and other military records relating to the Colonial Virginia militia and the Revolutionary Army, including records of enemy deserters and Continental Army officers' commissions.
- Subseries B. Captured British orderly books. 1777-78. 8 volumes.
- Subseries C. Miscellaneous military records. 1769-98. 12 containers. Sundry records relating to the Revolutionary War and later period, including account books, 1777-79, of the Quarter master of Yorktown, proceedings of a trial held by the British in New York, 1782, and records compiled by several unknown soldiers.
- Series 7. Applications. 1789-96. 32 volumes. Applications for office during the administrations of Washington. Arranged alphabetically by names of applicants. A list is attached.
- Series 8. Miscellaneous Papers, ca. 1775-99. 16 containers. Rough chronological arrangement within groups.
- Subseries A. Recipients' copies of some Washington letters. 1 container.
- Subseries B. Certificates of Washington's degrees and honors. 2 containers.
- Subseries C. Surveys. 1 container.
- Subseries D. Notes, extracts, and forms. 12 containers.


text:
MP3 + VIDEO: Eva Alordiah – Feed The Faith
Eva Alordiah – Feed The Faith: In a one Minute verse, Eva Alordiah gives the Listener a new sense of Life through her very simple yet Powerful words. FEED THE FAITH is one of the many tracks to be released from Eva's camp in 2017 as she continues to promote her Album 1960 and prepares for the release of her new Mixtape. (Prod. by 2JO)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Is a government turf war over immigration detention putting transgender lives at risk?
May 07 2012 8:42 AM EST
November 17 2015 5:28 AM EST
By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
Is a government turf war over immigration detention putting transgender lives at risk?
A FEW DAYS AFTER CHRISTMAS LAST YEAR, Ruby Corado, a longtime transgender activist in Washington, D.C., received a telephone call while watching late-night TV. The number on her iPhone was from Rappahannock Regional Jail, about an hour's drive south of the nation's capital in Stafford, Va. Rappahannock is one of more than 200 facilities nationwide that contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to house those awaiting a judge's decision on whether they can remain in the United States or will be deported back to their home country. On any given day, about 32,000 people are held in detention, many for violating immigration law -- a civil, not criminal, offense.
Weak and distraught, the transgender woman calling Corado at 11 p.m from Rappahannock was one of them. Her name was Kripcia, and she had been held for eight months in what ICE calls "administrative segregation" -- solitary confinement, in nonbureaucratic terms. A native of El Salvador, she was arrested in early 2011 for failure to pay a cab fare.
Kripcia had spent a minimum 22 hours per day in a tiny cell with little access to recreation or other people. This was not because she had defied any jail rules: It was for her own good, for her safety, she was told by officers. Kripcia's cell was located in a special unit of the jail usually reserved for male sex offenders. She was told that it would be easier for guards to watch over her in this smaller area.
Corado had taken these calls before from the jail. A relentless activist with a reassuring voice, she's the sort of person you'd speed-dial in the heat of any emergency. With Kripcia deteriorating in isolation, Corado had hired an immigration lawyer to take on the case, a luxury in a system where 84% of detainees have no legal representation. As a result, Kripcia was supposed to be out of detention by Christmas. But the holiday came and went, and she was still at Rappahannock.
Ruby, I just want to die. I'm going crazy, Kripcia told Corado on the phone that evening. But if I have to die, I want to go back to my country. I can't die in here.
Promise me you're not going to think those thoughts, Corado replied. Come on, work with me on this. Promise me. Just give it one more day.
"It's hard, you know? What do I really tell these people in detention?" Corado said through tears during a recent conversation at Casa Ruby, her soon-to-open Latino LGBT community center near Howard University. "Segregation is inhuman. And how they're treated, how they're abused? It's inexcusable. Even if they've done something wrong, you want the best for these people. But I've never seen a case of a transgender detainee who was actually treated like a human being."
Immigration detention is not supposed to be a form of punishment. While ICE, a division within the sprawling Department of Homeland Security, detains murderers, drug dealers, and other felons who pose significant security risks, they also hold asylum seekers fleeing desperate conditions in their home countries as well as the elderly, people who are in failing health, and family members of U.S. citizens. (Another group, unaccompanied minors who enter the U.S. without an adult relative, fall under the authority of a separate federal agency, the Department of Health and Human Services.)
Even as the Obama administration has dramatically expanded the use of detention as it pursues a record number of deportations, it also has sought to overhaul the facilities that house detainees and, in doing so, to change public perception -- all of this in the absence of promised comprehensive immigration reform. For instance, ICE recently unveiled a new, privately run, civil detention facility in Karnes County, Texas, southeast of San Antonio, that has less of a penitentiary feel. It boasts better access to medical care and, as the White House touted this spring, provides detainees "more access to services, recreation, and natural light." Republicans in turn derided the administration's attempt to improve conditions in a House Judiciary Committee meeting officially titled "Holiday on ICE."
ICE officials stressed that this initiative is no mere public relations stunt and issued an overhaul of detention standards in March. All detainees deserve dignity, the agency maintains, and that includes transgender detainees, who are among the most vulnerable individuals in the system. The latest ICE standards specifically address issues affecting trans detainees, calling for greater access to hormone therapy, a reduction in the use of administrative segregation, and perhaps most crucial, zero tolerance of sexual assault. Hundreds of sexual abuse allegations have been leveled by detainees in the past several years, according to documents obtained last year by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The problem, Corado and immigration advocates say, is that ICE detention standards aren't legally binding. Homeland Security, bluntly described by one advocate as "a paramilitary organization," has insisted on this.
The law that Homeland Security has resisted is known as the Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA. Faced with an inexcusable epidemic of rape in the U.S. prison system, Congress passed the bill on a bipartisan basis in 2003, and President George W. Bush signed it into law. PREA mandates consistent standards throughout the nation's prisons and jails for addressing sexual assault, and provides for anonymous reporting of complaints as well as outside investigations to ensure they are appropriately addressed. A lack of transparency is fertile soil for sexual abuse behind bars, on the part of both inmates and the staff who watch over them, lawmakers concluded.
Nearly a decade later, the Justice Department is still finalizing regulations for PREA, and in informal legal opinions, it has advised that immigration detention facilities should be subject to the law. But to the ire of some administration officials, Homeland Security has been recalcitrant, insisting that its own internal standards and oversight on immigration detention facilities should be the final word.
To address the jurisdictional impasse, the White House called a high-level meeting in early March between officials under Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, multiple sources told The Advocate. It was the latest in a series of meetings DHS requested to assert its authority over detention standards. One administration official with knowledge of the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that the White House official who called the meeting, Cass Sunstein of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, discarded Justice's legal opinion and indicated that the administration would allow DHS to issue its own standards.
This didn't go over well with several in attendance. The Justice Department representatives were "blindsided by the lengths to which DHS went to oppose DOJ's interpretation of PREA" as applied to immigration detention facilities, the official said. What's more, "We were surprised that the White House even went along with DHS," the official said. "To think that they are going to issue internal standards that are in any way comparable to what DOJ has promulgated is highly unlikely. ... These [detainees] need and deserve the highest protections that we can offer them. And I have no reason to believe they are being protected to the extent that they could be."
The Justice Department is expected to release its final PREA rules in the coming weeks, to be published in the Federal Register. "Of course, they won't be 'final,' because thereafter DHS will have to issue its own," the official said. "Note that DOJ is already two years late in issuing standards. So what's another year or two for [DHS], right?"
A White House spokesman declined comment on the PREA rules, as they have yet to be released. (A White House official later confirmed that the meeting took place, but disputed the "characterization" of it and did not elaborate further.)
Beyond this interagency squabble lie serious concerns for detainees from a range of officials and advocacy groups. In January, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), one of four openly gay members of Congress, joined Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) in calling for an investigation of abuse claims in ICE detention facilities (Polis believes that PREA should apply to immigration detention facilities, a spokesman said). Last summer United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez charged that ICE had violated provisions of the U.N.'s Convention Against Torture regarding the alleged abuse of more than a dozen gay and transgender detainees held in California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and other states, as detailed by a 2011 complaint from the advocacy group National Immigrant Justice Center.
Among the more chilling details in the complaint is the story of a transgender woman, referred to in redacted documents only as "B," who was held at the Santa Ana City Jail in Orange County, Calif. "B" was violently forced to perform oral sex on a male detainee while riding in a van en route to an immigration court hearing in 2010. The detention guards detailed in the complaint were often ignorant of the needs of transgender detainees -- or simply showed contempt for their very existence. Following the U.N. pressure, ICE responded in a statement that a Homeland Security civil rights office would investigate, though officials declined to discuss the ongoing inquiry. "This is a widespread problem," said Jane Zurnamer, the National Immigrant Justice Center's director of policy. "If ICE can't protect these vulnerable people, they shouldn't be allowed to detain them."
But Andrew Lorenzen-Strait is convinced that ICE can do so, both safely and humanely. An attorney with a background in immigration and child advocacy issues, Lorenzen-Strait joined ICE in 2008 as a senior adviser on detention issues. He was tapped in February to become the agency's first public advocate in a newly created office with 30 staffers nationwide. Lorenzen-Strait is gay and married.
Some critics derided his new office as another example of PR masquerading as actual reform, but Lorenzen-Strait strongly contested this. "The public advocate office is not window dressing. It's a legitimate position that has teeth," he said during a recent interview in his office at ICE headquarters, a few blocks from the National Mall. "We want to make sure that detention is only used to make sure individuals comply with immigration proceedings and to mitigate flight risk. When you're in detention, there should be no degradation. We do have effective oversight to make sure that people don't languish, because they shouldn't."
LGBT issues became a key concern for ICE as President Obama took office. Nearly everyone with expertise on the matter agrees that the current administration better understands the needs of transgender detainees than its predecessors. Under George W. Bush, detention conditions for transgender individuals were severely inadequate in terms of protection and medical care. At least one transgender woman, and possibly two, died in detention during that time.
In formulating the new detention standards, ICE worked with stakeholder groups including the National Immigrant Justice Center, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and Immigration Equality. Over two years, the groups made progress on several key issues. One was a commitment to better hormone therapy access. Despite conservative backlash against ICE, that recommended policy is a no-brainer, Lorenzen-Strait said. "If a transgender individual was taking hormone therapy before they were in custody, it's a medical need, and that's what should be driving the decision, not anything else," he said. "Prudent minds can and should agree here."
Meanwhile, administrative segregation shouldn't be considered the default option for transgender detainees who have done nothing to warrant solitary confinement. "Because there's a tendency to believe that a transgender detainee may feel further victimization, there's been a presumption of segregation," Lorenzen-Strait said. "We put out a policy that says 'no' to that presumption. We look at a totality of circumstances, and ask whether a detainee could be housed in the general population with effective monitoring."
Following the National Immigrant Justice Center complaint, ICE created a dedicated protective custody unit for transgender and gay detainees in the Santa Ana City Jail. Lorenzen-Strait dispatched a team member last month to review the facility, and reported that detainees "feel more welcome, and there's a greater understanding of their needs," he said.
Talia Inlender, an immigration attorney who works often with detainees at the jail, had a more mixed review. "Although there have been important improvements for gay and transgender immigration detainees in Santa Ana, problems persist," she said. "Delays in medical care and complaints of mistreatment remain. Having robust and enforceable detention standards for medical care and legal rights would be a big step forward, and detaining fewer gay and transgender people in these facilities would be an even bigger step."
Lorenzen-Strait declined to discuss specific policy decisions regarding PREA but was adamant that his office had laid the groundwork for effective response to sexual assaults. "We believe that there's no daylight between PREA and our sexual assault standard, which had robust input from the NGO [nongovernmental organization] community. We have a strong, layered approach to compliance, and we're going to take sexual assault seriously."
The timeline for implementing such standards in the nation's detention facilities is an ambitious one. Lorenzen-Strait said that the detention centers operated by ICE will adopt the regulations by June. Privately run facilities, such as the new Karnes County center near San Antonio, are expected to implement the standards by July, he said, with a goal of all facilities holding detainees becoming compliant by year's end.
Advocates as well as some administration officials are dubious about ICE's ability to do so. This is not to say that Lorenzen-Strait isn't well regarded among advocates interviewed for this article. His office's commitment to the well-being of LGBT detainees wasn't questioned in multiple interviews. But the new standards will require extensive contract renegotiations with large, private contractors, such as Corrections Corporation of America and Geo Group, which runs Karnes County. "There's no obligation for any of the contract facilities to modify these contracts," said Chris Daley, deputy executive director of Just Detention International. "And it's not at all clear that facilities, particularly county jails, are going to do this at the request of DHS."
Even if they did so, local jails would be burdened with implementing two sets of standards: those mandated by the Justice Department for inmates, and those put forth by DHS for immigration detainees.
"The standards seem like pie in the sky at this point," said Rosalba Davis, a former staff attorney for Immigration Equality who is now in private practice. "Each detention center operates like its own fiefdom and doesn't feel bound by the national standards. I hope this changes, though. I hope the detention centers start realizing that treating detainees humanely and with dignity is not difficult."
Dulce (left) and Ruby Corado
At Immigration Equality, Rosalba Davis had navigated many of those fiefdoms, including Rappahannock. Last year she worked with a transgender woman named Dulce from Guanajuato, Mexico, who originally fled to the U.S. in the 1990s following a sexual assault. Dulce has the effervescence of an Almodovar film actress, yet is shy when speaking about her time in detention. She had been transferred to Rappahannock following an arrest for shoplifting shoes at a Kmart. Upon arrival, Dulce was put into an isolation cell (el hoyo, or "the hole") for six days with nothing but a pair of sheets and a thin, wet mattress thrown onto the floor. "I remember asking a female sergeant, 'Why did you put me here, in the hole? It's the place for punishment. What did I do?'" Dulce recalled. "She told me they didn't know where else they could put me."
Dulce was transferred to the same area where Kripcia had been held, the one designated for male sex offenders. She waited four months before her first court appearance and eventually spent eight months at the facility. CAIR Coalition, a local immigrant advocacy group, found out about Dulce's case, which was soon taken up by Davis. "When I found out that Dulce was being held with sex offenders, I was not sure what to do about it," she said. "It all seemed so backwards to me."
Dulce had little interaction with her fellow detainees, but some conversations she did have scared her, as she recounted to the court last year. "I have not felt safe here and several detainees have made harassing comments," she wrote. "When New York State passed gay marriage in July [2011], we were watching the TV coverage and one of the detainees said that he wanted to be like Franco and make them all 'disappear.' He was telling me he wanted to kill all the gay people, including me. I try to ignore these comments and keep the peace but sometimes I feel unsafe and scared here."
The officer handling Dulce's case seemed perpetually confused about her particular circumstances, according to Davis. "Over the course of my representation, he had very little patience," Davis said of the ICE officer and his handling of Dulce's requests, which included hormone therapy and a chaplain visit after Dulce learned that her mother had died (both were denied). "He even hung up on me once when I challenged his decision to continue to detain her after the immigration court granted her relief."
The legal relief that eventually got Dulce out of ICE detention is known as "withholding of removal," and allows an individual to remain in the country, to obtain a work permit, and to pursue an education, which Dulce is now doing. But Ruby Corado, who has helped Dulce find a place to live in Washington since she was released, likens the impermanent legal classification to "life support."
"It can be taken away very easily," Corado said. "Immigration can just pull the plug on you and deport you anytime they want to. There's really no protection."
Absent safe facilities for transgender individuals, advocates have called for alternatives to detention in appropriate cases. Research shows that putting trans detainees on ankle bracelet monitoring results in significant savings for the government -- $14 per day compared to $100 or more a day for the cost of detention, according to Homeland Security's own figures.
"Nobody should be subjected to these kinds of abuses, and people need to hear these stories," said Harper Jean Tobin, director of policy for the National Center for Transgender Equality. "I think there has been an increasing meanness in our country toward people who are undocumented. Unfortunately, that's certainly had an effect on the progress we have and haven't made in securing better treatment in detention."
Because of Corado's efforts, Kripcia has since been released but has not yet been granted withholding of removal. She now volunteers with Corado's organization and awaits a court decision on whether she can remain in the country.
Andrew Harmon is the Washington Correspondent for The Advocate. Twitter: @andrew_harmon
For more information on this issue, see below the short documentary Transgression, produced by Daniel Rotman, Morgan Hargrave, Toni Marzal, and TJ Barber.
Want more breaking equality news & trending entertainment stories?
Check out our NEW 24/7 streaming service: the Advocate Channel!
Download the Advocate Channel App for your mobile phone and your favorite streaming device!


text:
Your cart is empty
Say hello to my little friend… It's the Scarface slot machine that brings in all your favourite themes from the Al Pacino movie that helped make him a star.
If you want to hit the big time then a few spins on the reels of the Scarface online slot game is the perfect place to start your criminal empire. This machine plunges you straight into the world of Tony Montana, where you get a chance to stake your claim to the regency of the American underworld.
- Video slot presentation with 5 reels, 3 rows and 20 fixed pay-lines
- Stacked wilds available to help you make winning combinations
- Bonus games triggered by hitting full stacks of wilds on middle reels
- Win symbols based on the Scarface movie's main characters
- Nudge wilds give you the chance to respin the reels
- Feature round gives 15 spins at 3x multiplier with re-trigger chance
- Second screen game sees you shooting enemies in a showdown
- €30,000 top prize on a single line bet
- Max jackpot available of €219,375
- Return to player rated at 96.8%
How to Play
Scarface is a 5 reel video slot with 20 fixed bet lines.
The COIN VALUE button allows you to select your coin size ranging between 1p and 50p.
Use the BET LEVEL to select between 1 and 10 coins to be assigned to each of the game's 20 pay-lines.
The MAX BET function starts a game at the highest BET LEVEL available with the game's current COIN SIZE.
Start your game with the SPIN button. When all the symbols stop in place, any winning combinations are evaluated and bonuses are triggered.
The AUTOPLAY function automatically spins the reels for a set number of games.
Bonus Rounds
Nudge SpinsHit a full stacked wild on reel 2. All wild symbols are changed into nudge wilds, which drop the reel by one position whilst the remaining reels respin until all the nudge wilds are out of view.
Free SpinsLand a full stacked wild on reel 4. This gives you 15 free spins with all prizes paid out at 3x the normal bet level.
Bonus GameThe second screen game is triggered when you hit a full stacked wild on reel 3. This takes you into a recreation of the mansion shootout at the end of the Scarface movie. Throw grenades and shoot enemies to win prizes.


text:
- Home
- About
- History of St. Joseph
- Patee House Museum
Patee House Museum
When John Patee opened his luxurious four-story brick hotel in 1858, he knew it was an innovation for its time, but little did he suspect that 134 years later it would still be attracting visitors from across the United States.
Patee built it as a hotel, a role that was not to be because of its location more than a mile from downtown St. Joseph. Yet it was a hotel three times, a girl's college twice, and finally a shirt factory for more than 80 years.
History of Patee House
Patee House is a National Historical Landmark for having served as headquarters for the Pony Express in 1860. It was here that Pony Express operators Russell, Majors and Waddell had their main office, and it was at Patee House where Pony Express riders stayed.
During the Civil War, the Union Army took over the hotel, and Patee, who was backing the Confederacy, decided to sell the building in a nation-wide lottery. When 100 tickets came back unsold on April 28, 1865, Patee bought them himself and won back his own hotel.
It was called World's Hotel in 1882, when outlaw Jesse James was shot and killed a block up the street. The next day, the family stayed at the hotel while it served as the center of the investigation of Jesse's death.
- Patee Hotel 1858 to 1865
- Patee Female College 1865 to 1868
- Patee Hotel (again) 1869 to 1872
- St. Joseph Female College 1875 to 1880
- World's Hotel and Epileptic Sanitarium 1881 to 1883
- R.L. McDonald Factory 1885 to 1933
- Sun Garment Factory 1933 to 1953
- H.D. Lee Company 1953 to 1957
- Vacant 1957 to 1963
- Patee House Museum 1965 to present
The two things St. Joseph is known for, the start of the Pony Express and the end of Jesse James, were both directly associated with Patee House.
What Patee House is Today
Today, Patee House is a museum of communications and transportation. Visitors can stroll down the Streets of Old St. Joseph, view the dentist office of Dr. Walter Cronkite, father of the television news commentator, or operate the toy carousel and Ferris wheel in the antique toy shop.
They can climb on board the 1860 Hannibal and St. Joseph locomotive and railway mail car invented to speed the mail on the Pony Express. Or walk past the 1870 Union Star depot to the Buffalo Saloon where they can sip sarsaparilla and munch popcorn while listening to stirring marches on the saloons' Nickelodeon.
On the second floor, ladies are fascinated by more than 2,000 antique perfume bottles. For the men, there's a 1920s style service station complete with a Model T Ford, plus antique cars, trucks, fire trucks and a 1921 race car. There's also:
- Antique telephones and radios
- A wagon-maker's blacksmith shop
- Antique furniture
- Sleighs and buggies
- The gallows from the Buchanan County jail
In the museum Blue Room, the George Warfel Westerners on Wood art collection features more than 40 life-sized portraits of famous westerners including Jesse and Frank James.
Learn More
Visit the Patee House Museum website.


text:
What I'm Wearing
* Vintage patchwork leather jacket… I found this at a thrift shop when I was about 19. It's a favorite, and I love that it's sort of falling apart and has a very "worn" look. I think it's late 70's.
* Pink maxi skirt is a DIY actually… from my early 20's. It was a vintage maxi dress but was too short, so I made it into a skirt. Much like this maxi skirt diy.
* Vintage rhinestone necklaces layered. Kenneth Jay Lane cocktail ring
* Vintage sunglasses.
* Sequined envelope clutch was from a random little shop that's out of business now.
* Jean Michel-Cazabat -> Leigh buckle boots… from GILT.
* Title: lyrics from Lionel Richie ~ All night long.
I caught a glimpse of Sarah Jessica Parker at the amfAR NY Gala a few days ago and thought, well I can recreate that look with what's in my closet… so I did. I love that she added the leather jacket so on the red carpet it looked edgy but once inside, with the jacket removed, was much more of a formal ensemble. I think she looked beautiful. I modified the look, obviously, but it's a fun little outfit to wear.
Happy Monday!


text:
My account Webmistress Melissa..........
I just logged in and it looks I'm sharing my account with someone else called
Katie287. I can go to her account even.
My name is startaurus if it comes up Katie287.
I never changed my name.
Please help Webmistress Melissa.
It looks like my account was hacked.
Hi Startaurus!
Thank you for letting me know and I'm really sorry about this! I'm going to forward this to our programmers right away!!
We're working on securing the site and getting rid of the spam! Thank you so much for sticking with us! We promise we'll get it under control!
Hey, I also have this happen to me.
When I go into my account, I can also get into Adhedgebype's account.
I can still get all of my stuff as well.
Thanks :)
Hi Fyrebox! I forwarded your account name to our programmers to look into, too. Thanks so much for letting us know! We're working on making this site way more secure and better for you all!
Many thanks,


text:
An Anti-Ugliness League
There is plenty to be said for the newest movement in Germany. To form a League to raise the standard of human looks is but to apply to a very important field that principle of cooperation which has worked so well elsewhere. Nothing will strike posterity as more absurd than the way movement after movement is started in England to preserve or beautify buildings or places that are only seen at rare intervals, while nothing whatever is done to improve the faces which everybody sits opposite in tramcars and omnibuses or passes in procession in the street.
For town dwellers the face of England is a human face endlessly repeated, and we shall do well to watch the new League in Germany and to regard with eager expectancy each slight improvement it brings about in the national face and figure over there. It is an old and deep-rooted belief that ugliness and sin go hand in hand, and that the beautiful face goes with the beautiful nature. Remembering this, we may find the motive power behind the new League in Germany in a recent announcement by the Berlin police of their next step in the war against crime.
Hitherto they have broadcast finger prints, but that is boring work and the patterns on fingers rarely give much aesthetic satisfaction. They seldom suggest a new and successful wallpaper and the fun of tracing their unique differences soon palls. So the Berlin police are going to broadcast faces, and they have a double inducement to raise the standard of the German face. If a nation can be produced whose most hardened criminals are good to look at, the policeman who spends his days scrutinizing countenances, broadcasting them and measuring them, will live his life amid beautiful surroundings, which is well known to be worth a large salary in itself. A more beautiful nation will enjoy a cheaper police force.
What is more, it will need fewer policemen, for it is the teaching of psychology, which the Germans at any rate are not likely to disobey, that the way to gain a good character is to behave cold-bloodedly as if you had it. Men of noble mien, such as the League will aim at producing, will find their lower natures overcome by their fine faces and will cease first to do wrong and then to wish to do it.
Germany does not stand alone in organizing for good looks, for there has been talk in Italy of providing free plastic surgery at the state's expense for those who think that alterations would improve their prospects in business or marriage. Nothing has yet been said about how many signature of neighbours, hotel proprietors and the like, will be needed to bring about compulsory alterations in the interests of the locality where an ugly person resides, but the highly controversial question will soon arise who is fix the norm of beauty and lay down the German, or Italian, or English face.
Aesthetics generally lead to blows from lack of fixed standards, and the best solution will probably be a strict adherence to the standards of antiquity. The arms of the Venus de Milo are still being fished for in the Aegean, and if they are found it will be a great help. The future in this, as in other matters, must be built upon the past, and it will only be by starting with the ship-launching features of Helen of Troy as the type that we shall learn to build the two-thousand-ship face of the future.
The Times, Saturday, 6 April 1929, p. 11


text:
Rangers supporters have their wish after chief executive Charles Green announced the Glasgow club will not accept their ticket allocation for February's William Hill Scottish Cup clash at Dundee United.
Rangers were drawn to play at Tannadice in the fifth round, with supporters' groups immediately calling for a stay-away protest for the first match away to Clydesdale Bank Premier League opposition since they were relaunched as a new company and denied entry to the SPL.
In a statement, Green said: "Rangers Football Club will not be taking its allocation of tickets for the forthcoming Scottish Cup match against Dundee United at Tannadice. This is a unanimous decision by the board, senior management and staff at Ibrox."
He added: "Everyone at this club is dismayed at the actions of certain SPL clubs, which were actively engaged in trying to harm Rangers when we were in a perilous situation and we are acutely aware of their attitude to us."
Rangers, who were knocked out of the competition by United twice in the three years before they were consigned to liquidation, have fallen to Second Division Queen of the South and Inverness in the other cup competitions this season, but did beat Motherwell 2-0 in the Scottish Communities League Cup.
United earlier refused to comment on reports of a possible fans' boycott, with some Rangers fans believing Stephen Thompson, the chairman at Tannadice, was an influential figure in their demotion to the Irn-Bru Third Division. It is understood United have a board meeting on Wednesday with the issue on the agenda.
Green added: "Not all clubs who voted against Rangers returning to the SPL fall into that category and indeed we made Motherwell very welcome when we played them at Ibrox in the League Cup competition recently.
"However, feelings remain very raw and it should be no surprise that we as a club feel this way. It is unsurprising too that there has been a reaction from our supporters to this particular fixture
"The last thing we as a club want to do is to compromise security arrangements for any match. I therefore appeal to all fans not to travel to this match and to Dundee United not to sell tickets to Rangers supporters.
"Our only regret is that this turn of events will not assist Ally McCoist and the team in what will be a very difficult fixture. We should make clear that the club, the manager and the players all look forward to a situation where Rangers fans attend every match to support the team. The fans are our greatest asset."


text: I am a practising advocate, mediator and notary. I have completed my mediation training from Mediation & Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC), Supreme Court of India. I have more than 8 years of experience in court annexed mediation at High Court of Kerala and District Court, Ernakulam and prefer using facilitative approach in mediations. I am also an accredited arbitrator from International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi.


text:
West End Whingers
March 2, 2010
Link to actual article Paint Never Dries The Whingers could think of many reasons not to see Love Never Dies, the long-awaited (although by whom is unclear) sequel to The Phantom of the Opera. Phil was impressed with the spectacle of the original when he saw its first preview a zillion years ago but when he when revisited it with Phantom virgin* Andrew years later he was shocked by how, well, tedious it actually is. On the plus side if you really must do a follow-up then a storyline set in Coney Island sounds just up the Whingers' alleys. Just think of the visual possibilities! The Whingers' inner juries were definitely going to examine all the evidence before deciding whether or not another crime against musical theatre had been committed. Phil even admitted to being quite excited about going. But word-of-mouth from die-hard Phantom wasn't encouraging: there are 53 pages (and still counting) of largely negative comment on the WhatsOnStage forum, largely from Phantom fans. If they didn't like it what chance would the Whingers have? Still, there obviously IS a demand from the press at least because the nice people at Peter Thompson Associates who are handling PR for the show wrote a very nice email back to the Whingers to say that "due to the extremely high demand and a strictly limited ticket allocation we will not be able to provide you with press tickets for this show". How cruelly dashed on the rocks of pecking orders were our dreams of endless first nights, unlimited free drink and casual hob-nobbing with celebrities at after-show parties. Bet Biggins got an invite. So anyway, it was down to the Whingers to fork out their own money like the ordinary theatre-goers they once were, and are apparently again, for £37.50 EACH in the UPPER (oh, the shame of it) Circle of the Adelphi. So let us examine the case for and against Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber's latest opus. For: The title. Hacking the Bond movie producers off, one imagines, ALW has come up with a title that gets both love and death into it. We can just see Ms Broccoli taking a thick marker pen and crossing it off her list of potential titles, wishing she'd got in there first. On the other hand, what does it mean? Nothing. Of course love dies. Of course it does. What bollocks. But no, this is a "For". Good title. Good title. Against: Merchadising. Andrew's first words on entering the Adelphi Theatre were "Let's go and look at the merchandising". The Whingers love having a look at a show's merchandise. Where was it? Nowhere. Not a mug nor a pinny in sight! We don't buy it ourselves of course, but it's comforting to know that it's there if we ever change our minds. Very disappointing. For: The Prologue. Those very words bring back happy memories of Frankie Howerd squeezing them through pursed lips in Up Pompeii!Sadly there is no Frankie here but the opening scene looked rather spookily lovely with some marvellous forced perspective, some clever use of old bedsheets and held no little promise. Against: It was a bit gloomy. So was the next scene and the one after that. In fact the whole thing was gloomy. Andrew's advice to people with contact lenses: take eye-drops and a high beam torch. For: Forbidden Broadway summed it up brilliantly with their song about projected scenery. You don't really feel as though you're seeing your money up on stage, which here frequently looks a bit empty. No Phantom of the Opera here. But both Whingers confessed to finding the projections dynamic, depth-filled, impressive and indeed just about the best thing in an otherwise disappointing (and gloomy) design. Against: The book. OK, Coney Island a great idea, but it took four people – Lord ALW, Glen Slater, Frederick Forsyth, and Ben Elton(who apparently "unlocked the story") to come up with it. That makes a contribution of one plot point each by our reckoning. Sometimes it didn't really make sense, or was that because we couldn't hear a lot of the lyrics? If Raoul is a drunken gambler doesn't that rather pull the rug out from under those who loved the original and went away thinking it had a happy ending? Ben Elton should have thrown away his key. For: The scene in the Phantom's Aerie at the top of what looks like Blackpool Tower and which is dressed with freakish oddities such as a Medusa like singing chandelier and a half woman-half skeleton walking a hostess trolley (the Whingers really liked that), all played out to an appalling rock-ish music score. It's the most fabulous overwrought mess currently on view on the West End stage and Wicked is still running apparently! The Aerie's design over-wrings the worst excesses of Art Nouveau to produce the bastard child of sexual congress between a peacock and an owl in a Notting Hill antiques shop. Against: The Phantoms's sidekicks, Fleck, Squelch and Gangle (or is it Guangle? – the programme** can't really decide) weren't established as characters at all. Fleck looked like she'd stumbled in from a ritzy production of The Rocky Horror Show. If only she'd done the time-warp again. With Biggins. We may be wrong but we imagined that they were supposed to be freaks. There was a lot of talk of Coney Island freaks but not one bearded lady, not one midget, not two Siamese twins. What kind of Freak Show was this? The Whingers would have been demanding their money back. For: Raoul's line to Christine (Sierra Boggess) as she bangs out a few bars of the dreadful title song, "Must you make that racket?". At last, Lord Webber has got a sense of humour. But why were the Whingers the only ones who laughed? Against: The Phantom's lyric "Time keeps moving on" had Phil looking at his watch. Was the Phantom sure? Surely it had stopped. For: Poor Ramin Karimloo (as the Phantom) has a terrific set of lungs. Very impressive singing. Even if when he whips off his mask Phil was reminded of Frasier's Niles Crane. For: Poor Liz Robertson as Madame Giry, channelling Mrs Danvers. Against: The climax to the end of act one involves Madame Giry throwing a jacket down a stair well. As climaxes go, it's not really up there with the bit in the film of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang when the car goes off the cliff before anyone knows it can fly. If it hadn't been such an eagerly anticipated event the Whigers would have thrown their towels in the stairwell after the jacket and departed to the nearest pub. For: The bar scene at the beginning of Act 2. The combination of projection and scenery actually looks quite good and Raoul's drunken scene with the Phantom actually had bit of the tension which was sadly lacking elsewhere. But then lines like "one more drink sir" and "another drink" were playing to the Whingers in their Aerie seats. Against: The big moments. The first appearance of the Phantom, his first meeting with Christine, the Phantom's unmasking. All thrown away. Christine's surprise suggested that the Phantom had bought a new pair of trousers since she last saw him rather than the fact that a disfigured kidnapper she thought was dead was in her bedroom. For: Phil had another laugh at the interminably drawn out finale where little Gustave slips his fingers in the Phantom's disfigurement. Phil made a mental note that it's a while since he's handled a bowling ball and must book a ten-pin bowling lane soon. Against: What a shameful waste of talent. Director Jack O'Brien did such a brilliant job on Hairspray, choreographer Jerry Mitchellsimilarly on the same show and with his direction and choreography of Legally Blonde. There's hardly any choreography in LND, but you can't blame them for accepting an offer to leap aboard an ALW cash cow, even if the udders appear to be somewhat dried up and the milk very much on the turn. For: The very helpful expositionary snippets of dialogue – "I say that not just as your mother but as your producer" and "They say she's still pitch-perfect but it's like the flame went out or something". And the monologue – "That boy! His music! He plays like me!". We would have been lost without them. Against: Sung-through shows in general and this one in particular. The Whingers want fun and LND is sooo po-faced. The Whingers only laughed at things which weren't meant to be funny. Note to selves: best stick to shows like Legally Blonde. For: The bit where Christine performs her big number (can't remember what it was called or how it went) while the Phantom and Raoul watch from either Wing and the whole thing revolved. Andrew knew it reminded him of something but couldn't quite put his finger on it… Against: The music. Obviously one doesn't go to an ALW in search of tunes but this one is particularly devoid of anything that might become hummable after repeated viewing. Even the heavy-handed repetitious leitmotif from Phantom began to seem desirable to the Whingers after half an hour. Andrew did enjoy one moment when he recognised the first four notes of the the very beginning of the Star Trek theme but by this time his mind – desperate for melody – may simply have been playing tricks on him.
For: Poor Joseph Millson (as Raoul) for mustering all his dignity and gamely going on and not pulling a sickie every night. We would have. Against: Did we mention the po-facedness of it all? Just wait until you see the attempts at the "lighter" numbers involving squeaky chorines led by poor Summer Strallen. Shocking. There's an attempt to make life a bit interesting for the audience at one stage with a quick-change routine which hopefully will be competent by opening night. In the meantime, here's what a quick change routine looks like: Verdict: Dull. Like watching paint dry, and as we all know, paint never dries***.
Footnotes * That's as in "new to Phantom" rather than "phantom virginity" a la "phantom pregnancy". Although actually… ** Against: The programme is a bit on the sloppy side. Gangle/Guangle isn't the only mistake: director Jack O'Brien's CV lists him as artistic director of the Old Globe Theatre in Sandiago rather than San Diego. You can get quite a lot of proof-reading done when you've nothing to distract you and Phil spotted oodles of mistakes during Love Never Dies. *** Yes, alright paint DOES dry eventually but love does die too so we're quits with ALW. ---end--- |


text:
Table of Contents
Welcome to 164.11% as a decimal. In this post you can find everything about 164.11 percent as a decimal, including the calculation.
If you have been wondering what is 164.11% in decimal form, or if you have been looking for how to change 164.11% to decimal, then you are definitively right here. 🙂
Read on to learn all about the conversion.
164.11 Percent as a Decimal
164.11%, 164.11 pct and 164.11 percent all mean 164.11 by the hundred. 164.11 percent as a decimal equals:
164.11 percent as a decimal = 1.6411
The math is explained right below, and in case you are also interested in 164.11% as a fraction – we have that as well.
You can find it (and many more calculations) utilizing our menu search box.
As a side note: Similar conversions include, for example:
Convert 164.11% to Decimal
In this section we are going to show you how to convert 164.11% to decimal using the two methods discussed in full detail on our home page:
Remove the percent sign, then divide 164.11 by 100:
164.11% → 164.11 → 164.11/100 = 1.6411
Remove the percent symbol, next shift the decimal point two places to the left:
164.11% → 164.11 → 16.411 → 1.6411
It stands to reason that the second approach of obtaining 164.11 % as a decimal has the advantage that it can be done without a calculator, so we advise you to memorize that procedure.
If you would like to change a percentage different from 164.11% to decimal form, then make use of our calculator above: Simply insert your value without %; the math is done automatically.
Ahead you can find some of the related questions, how to get in touch if something needs clarification, and finally the summary of our article written to answer what is 164.11% as a decimal.
164.11% in Decimal Form
You have reached the concluding part of 164.11% as a decimal. Visitors of this article often enter these frequently asked question in the search engine of their choice:
164.11 percent = 1.6411 decimal.
You write the percentage as 1.6411 in decimal notation.
In decimal form, 164.11 percent equals 1.6411.
Taking into account our information, you should be able to answer these FAQs without problems.
However, if you think that something is missing, or if you like to ask something related, use the comment form below, or send us an email with the subject line 164.11 percent in decimal form.
This image is the summary of our content:
If "164.11 percent to decimal" has been helpful to you, then bookmark us, and don't forget to hit the share buttons to let your friends know about our website.
Last, but not least, make sure to our absolutely free PWA app (see menu or sidebar)!
Thanks for visiting 164.11 pct as a decimal.
– Article written by Mark