The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the ''trias politica'' principle, is a model for the governance of a state. The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic as part of the unmodified Constitution of the Roman Republic. Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no one branch has more power than the other branches. The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. For similar reasons, the concept of separation of church and state has been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society.

Montesquieu's tripartite system

The term is ascribed to French Enlightenment political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu. Montesquieu described division of political power among an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. He based this model on the British constitutional system, in which he perceived a separation of powers among the monarch, Parliament, and the courts of law. Subsequent writers have noted that this was misleading, because the United Kingdom had a very closely connected legislature and executive, with further links to the judiciary (though combined with judicial independence).

Montesquieu did specify that "the independence of the judiciary has to be real, and not apparent merely". "The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of powers, independent and unchecked", and also considered it dangerous.

Comparison with fusion of powers

In democratic systems of governance, a continuum exists between ''presidential systems'' and ''parliamentary system'' of government. "Separation of powers" is a feature more inherent to presidential systems, whereas "fusion of powers" is characteristic of parliamentary ones. "Mixed systems" fall somewhere in between, usually near the midpoint; the most notable example of a mixed system is France's (current) Fifth Republic.

In fusion of powers, one government (invariably the elected legislature) is supreme, and the other estates are subservient to it. In separation of powers, each estate is largely (although not necessarily entirely) independent of the others. ''Independent'' in this context means either that selection of each estate happens independently of the other estates or at least that each estate is not beholden to any of the others for its continued existence.

Accordingly, in a fusion of powers system such as that of the United Kingdom, first described as such by Walter Bagehot, the people elect the legislature, which in turn "creates" the executive. As Professor Cheryl Saunders writes, "...the intermixture of institutions [in the UK] is such that it is almost impossible to describe it as a separation of powers." In a separation of powers, the national legislature does not select the person or persons of the executive; instead, the executive is chosen by other means (direct popular election, electoral college selection, etc.) In a parliamentary system, when the term of the legislature ends, so too may the tenure of the executive selected by that legislature. Although in a presidential system the executive's term may or may not coincide with the legislature's, their selection is technically independent of the legislature. However, when the executive's party controls the legislature, the executive often reaps the benefits of what is, in effect, a "fusion of powers". Such situations may thwart the constitutional goal or normal popular perception that the legislature is the more democratic branch or the one "closer to the people", reducing it to a virtual "consultative assembly", politically or procedurally unable—or unwilling—to hold the executive accountable in the event of blatant, even boldly admitted, "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The separation of powers is a doctrine which provides a separate authority, which makes it possible for the authorities to check each others checks and balances (Executive Authority Act 1936).

Various models

Constitutions with a high degree of separation of powers are found worldwide. The UK system is distinguished by a particular entwining of powers. In Italy the powers are completely separated, even if Council of Ministers need the vote of confidence from both chambers of Parliament, that's however formed by a wide number of members (almost 1,000). A number of Latin American countries have electoral branches of government.

Countries with little separation of power include New Zealand and Canada. Canada makes limited use of separation of powers in practice, although in theory it distinguishes between branches of government.

Complete separation-of-powers systems are almost always presidential, although theoretically this need not be the case. There are a few historical exceptions, such as the Directoire system of revolutionary France. Switzerland offers an example of non-Presidential separation of powers today: It is run by a seven-member executive branch, the Federal Council. However, some might argue that Switzerland does not have a strong separation of powers system, as the Federal Council is appointed by parliament (but not dependent on parliament), and the judiciary has no power of review.

Australia: three branches border|link=|60px

Australia does not maintain a strict separation between the legislative and executive branches of government—indeed, government ministers are required to be a member of parliament—but the federal judiciary strictly guards its independence from the other two branches. However, under influence from the American constitution, the Australian constitution does define the three branches of government separately, and this has been interpreted by the judiciary to induce an implicit separation of powers. State governments have a similar level of separation of power, but this is generally on the basis of convention, rather than constitution.

Belgium: complex modelborder|link=|60px

Belgium is currently a federated state that has imposed the trias politica on different governmental levels. The constitution of 1831 - which was considered one of the most liberal of its time - limited the powers of its monarch and imposed a rigorous system of separation of powers:

the legislative power was attributed to a bicameral parliament (the Chamber of Representatives and a Senate) elected with a representative general election system (one person one vote);

the executive power was attributed to the Council of Ministers, the ministers are appointed by the King;

the judicial power is in the hands of the courts, for which the government is responsible to provide the physical means to execute its role.

Ministers are usually chosen from the elected members of parliament, however they resign form their elected seat, also non-elected people can be nominated minister. Judges and some other people cannot run for elected office while they are nominated to certain positions (i.e. military). The 1830 constitution was liberal in the sense that it imposed a limitation on the Monarch's powers, installed 3 independent political powers (next to the military) and described a strict separation between the state and the institutions of the (Catholic) church

the Head of State is politically incompetent and requires executive approval by a minister for every of his actions, he nominates the ministers but he doesn't choose them, he signs and decrees the laws voted in parliament;

the head of state is commander in chief of the military (in title only), politically the military depends of the Minister of Defense and the chiefs of staff are responsible towards parliament and take their orders from the minister and the government;

certain functions are deemed incompatible and as such people have to resign from their function if they want to assume responsibilities in another function (i.e. military commanders have never been government ministers, not even during war-time)

Costa Rica: three branchesborder|link=|60px

As the aftermath of the 44-day civil war in 1948 (after former President and incumbent candidate Rafael Álgel Calderón Guardia tried to take power through fraud, by not recognising the results of the presidential election that he had lost), the question of which transformational model the Costa Rican State would follow was the main issue that confronted the victors. A Constituent Assembly was elected by popular vote to draw up a new constitution, enacted in 1949 and still in force. This document was an edit of the constitution of 1871, as the constituent assembly rejected more radical corporatist ideas proposed by the ruling Junta Fundadora de la Segunda República (which, although having come to power by military force, abolished the armed forces). Nonetheless, the new constitution increased centralization of power at the expense of municipalities and eliminated provincial government altogether, at the time it increased the powers of congress and the judiciary.

It established the three supreme powers as the legislature, executive, and judicial branches, but also created two other autonomous state organs that have equivalent power but not equivalent rank. The first is the Supreme Elections Tribunal (electoral branch) which controls elections and makes unique, unappealable decisions on their outcomes.

The second is the office of the Comptroller General (audit branch), an autonomous and independent organ nominally subordinate to the unicameral legislative assembly. All budgets of ministries and municipalities must pass through this agency, including the execution of budget items such as contracting for routine operations. The Comptroller also provides financial vigilance over government offices and office holders, and routinely brings actions to remove mayors for malfeasance, firmly establishing this organization as the fifth branch of the Republic.

European Union border|link=|60px

First, note that the European Union is a supranational polity, and is neither a country nor a federation; but as the EU wields political power, and is fully aware of its "democratic deficit", it attempts to comply with the principle of separation of powers. There are seven institutions of the European Union. In intergovernmental matters, most power is concentrated in the Council of the European Union – giving it the characteristics of a normal international organization. Here, all power at EU level is in one branch. In the latter there are four main actors. The European Commission acts as an independent executive which is appointed by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament; but the Commission also has a legislative role as the sole initiator of EU legislation. An early maxim was: "The Commission proposes and the Council disposes"; and although the EU's lawmaking procedure is now much more complicated, this simple maxim still holds some truth. As well as both executive and legislative functions, the Commission arguably exercises a third, quasi-judicial, function under Articles 81 & 82 (competition law ); although the ECJ remains the final arbiter. The European Parliament is one half of the legislative branch and is directly elected. The Council itself acts both as the second half of the legislative branch and also holds some executive functions (some of which are exercised by the related European Council in practice). The European Court of Justice acts as the independent judicial branch, interpreting EU law and treaties. The remaining institution, the European Court of Auditors, is an independent audit authority (due to the sensitive nature of fraud in the EU).

Council of the European Union – legislative and executive

European Commission – executive, legislative and quasi-judicial

European Council – executive

European Court of Auditors – audit

European Court of Justice – judicial

European Parliament – legislative

France border|link=|60px

The government of France is divided up into 3 branches.

Executive. This includes the popularly elected president as well as the prime minister and cabinet.

Legislature. A bicameral legislature that includes the Senate (upper house) and the National Assembly (lower house).

Judiciary. This includes the judicial and administrative orders. It also includes a constitutional court.

Germany: three branches and six bodies border|link=|60px

The six main bodies enshrined in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany are:

Federal President (''Bundespräsident'') - executive

Federal Cabinet (''Bundesregierung'') - executive

Federal Diet (''Bundestag'') & Federal Council (''Bundesrat'') - legislative

Federal Assembly (''Bundesversammlung'') - presidential electoral college

Federal Constitutional Court (''Bundesverfassungsgericht'') - judiciary

The Bundesversammlung is primarily constituted of members of the Bundestag and in the same count by the Parliaments of the States (mostly called "Landtag") elected Electors.

Besides the constitutional court the judicial branch at the federal level is made up of five supreme courts — one for civil and criminal cases (''Bundesgerichtshof''), and one each for administrative, tax, labour, and social security issues. There are also state (''Länder / Bundesländer'') based courts beneath them, and a rarely used senate of the supreme courts.

Hong Kong: three branches border|link=|60px

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a largely autonomous Chinese territory established under the principle of one country, two systems. Hong Kong has three branches of government as codified in the Basic Law, which preserves the political setup of the British colonial era:

Government - executive

Legislative Council - legislature

Judiciary (Court of Final Appeal and other courts and tribunals) - judiciary

The Chief Executive, elected by a 800-member Election Committee, is both head of the region and head of government, and chairs the Executive Council which composes of unofficial members and government secretaries. The law courts exercise the power of judicial review of constitutionality of legislations and administrative actions, and emphasis the separation of powers in their rulings. The Chief Justice also stated this position in the ceremonial opening of the legal year. However, politically separation of powers is usually argued against, with the leaders of the People's Republic of China, the sovereign of Hong Kong, requesting publicly for the three branches to cooperate, and pro-Beijing politicians emphasising an "executive-led" system.

Hungary: four branches and six bodies border|link=|60px

The four independent branches of power in Hungary are: the parliament (legislative), the government (executive), the court system (judiciary) and the office of the public accuser (i.e. prosecutor general).

Parliament (Magyar Országgyűlés): elected every 4 years by the people in a highly complex, two-round voting system

Government (Magyar Kormány): installed and removed by 50%+1 basic majority vote of the parliament, 4 year terms

Supreme Court (Legfelsőbb Bíróság): Chief justice elected by qualified (2/3) majority of the parliament, no government oversight

Constitutional court (Alkotmánybíróság): members elected by qualified majority of the parliament for 8 years, this body nullifies laws and has no government oversight.

Chief public accuser (Legfőbb ügyész): elected by qualified majority of the parliament, 6 year terms, office budget fixed, no government oversight.

The President of the Republic (Köztársasági Elnök) is elected by qualified majority of the Hungarian parliament for 5 year terms (cannot be reelected more than once). He/she has ceremonial powers only, signs laws into power and commands the military in time of peace.

The independent pillar status of the Hungarian public accuser's office is a unique construction, loosely modeled on the system Portugal introduced after the 1974 victory of the Carnation Revolution. The public accuser (attorney general) body has became the fourth column of Hungarian democracy only in recent times: after communism fell in 1989, the office was made independent by a new clausule XI. of the Constitution. The change was meant to prevent abuse of state power, especially with regards to the use of false accusations against opposition politicians, who may be excluded from elections if locked in protracted or excessively severe court cases.

To prevent the Hungarian accuser's office from neglecting its duties, natural human private persons can submit investigation requests, called "pótmagánvád" directly to the courts, if the accusers' office refuses to do its job. Courts will decide if the allegations have merit and order police to act in lieu of the accuser's office if warranted. In its decision No.42/2005 the Hungarian constitutional court declared that the government does not enjoy such privilege and the state is powerless to further pursue cases if the public accuser refuses to do so.

India: three branches border|link=|60px

Parliament = Legislative

Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments & Civil Service = Executive

Supreme Court = Judicial

The democratic system in India also offers a clear separation of powers. India follows a parliamentary system of government. The Judiciary branch is fairly independent of the other two branches. Executive powers are vested with the President who is assisted by the Cabinet Secretary and other Secretaries. All three branches have "checks and balances" over each other to maintain the balance of power. Executive branch is under the President of India, Vice-President of India and Cabinet Secretary (India).

Republic of China: five branchesborder|link=|60px

According to Sun Yat-sen's idea of "separation of the five powers", the government of the Republic of China has five branches:

Executive Yuan - led by the premier but in actuality it is the president who sets policy - executive

Legislative Yuan - unicameral - legislature

Judicial Yuan - its Constitutional Court (highest) and Supreme Court have different jurisdictions - judiciary

Control Yuan - audit branch

Examination Yuan - civil service personnel management and human resources

The president and vice president as well as the defunct National Assembly are constitutionally not part of the above five branches. Before being abolished in 2005, the National Assembly was a constitutional convention and electoral college for the president and vice president. Its constitutional amending powers were passed to the legislative yuan and its electoral powers were passed to the electorate.

The relationship between the executive and legislative branches are poorly defined. An example of the problems this causes is the near complete political paralysis that results when the president, who has neither the power to veto nor the ability to dissolve the legislature and call new elections, cannot negotiate with the legislature when his party is in the minority. The examination and control yuans are marginal branches; their leaders as well as the leaders of the executive and judicial yuans are appointed by the president and confirmed by the legislative yuan. The legislature is the only branch that chooses its own leadership. The vice president has practically no responsibilities.

United Kingdom: three branches border|link=|60px

Parliament - legislature

Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments & Civil Service - executive

Courts - judiciary

Although the doctrine of separation of power plays a role in the United Kingdom's constitutional doctrine, the UK constitution is often described as having "a weak separation of powers" A. V. Dicey, despite its constitution being the one to which Montesquieu originally referred. For example, in the United Kingdom, the executive forms a subset of the legislature, as did—to a lesser extent—the judiciary until the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister, the Chief Executive, sits as a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, either as a peer in the House of Lords or as an elected member of the House of Commons (by convention, and as a result of the supremacy of the Lower House, the Prime Minister now sits in the House of Commons) and can effectively be removed from office by a simple majority vote. Furthermore, while the courts in the United Kingdom are undoubtedly amongst the most independent in the world, the Law Lords, who were the final arbiters of judicial disputes in the UK, until recently sat simultaneously in the House of Lords, the upper house of the legislature, although this arrangement ceased in 2009 when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom came into existence. Furthermore, because of the existence of Parliamentary sovereignty, while the theory of separation of powers may be studied there, a system such as that of the UK is more accurately described as a "fusion of powers".

The development of the British constitution, which is not a codified document, is based on this fusion in the person of the Monarch, who has a formal role to play in the legislature (Parliament, which is where legal and political sovereignty lies, is the Crown-in-Parliament, and is summoned and dissolved by the Sovereign who must give his or her Royal Assent to all Bills so that they become Acts), the executive (the Sovereign appoints all ministers of His/Her Majesty's Government, who govern in the name of the Crown) and the judiciary (the Sovereign, as the fount of justice, appoints all senior judges, and all public prosecutions are brought in his or her name).

The British legal systems are based on common law traditions which require:

Police or regulators cannot initiate complaints under criminal law but can only investigate (prosecution is mostly reserved for the Crown Prosecution Service), which prevents selective enforcement, e.g. the 'fishing expedition' which is often specifically forbidden.

Prosecutors cannot withhold evidence from attorneys for the defendant; to do so results in mistrial or dismissal. Accordingly, their relation to police is no advantage.

Defendants convicted can appeal, but only fresh and compelling evidence not available at trial can be introduced, restricting the power of the court of appeal to the process of law applied.

United States: three branches border|link=|60px

In the United States Constitution, Article 1 Section I gives Congress only those "legislative powers herein granted" and proceeds to list those permissible actions in Article I Section 8, while Section 9 lists actions that are prohibited for Congress. The vesting clause in Article II places no limits on the Executive branch, simply stating that, "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The Supreme Court holds "The judicial Power" according to Article III, and it established the implication of Judicial review in Marbury vs Madison. The federal government refers to the branches as "branches of government", while some systems use "government" to describe the executive. The Executive branch has attempted to claim power arguing for separation of powers to include being the Commander in Chief of a standing army since the Civil war, executive orders, emergency powers and security classifications since WWII, national security, signing statements, and the scope of the unitary executive.

Checks and balances

To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the "opulent minority" from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances", the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances allow for a system based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Legislative (Congress)	Executive (President)	Judicial (Supreme Court)
Passes bills; has broad taxing and spending power; controls the federal budget; has power to borrow money on the credit of the United States (may be vetoed by President, but vetoes may be overridden with a two-thirds vote of both houses) Has sole power to declare war. Oversees, investigates, and makes the rules for the government and its officers. Defines by law the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in cases not specified by the Constitution Ratification of treaties signed by the President and gives advice and consent to presidential appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts (Senate only) Has sole power of impeachment (House of Representatives) and trial of impeachments (Senate); can remove federal executive and judicial officers from office for high crimes and misdemeanors	Has all the Executive Power Is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces Preserves, protects and defends the Constitution. Faithfully executes the laws of the Country. Executes the instructions of Congress. May veto bills passed by Congress (but the veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses) Executes the spending authorized by Congress. Executes the instructions of Congress when it declares war or makes rules for the military. Declares states of emergency and publishes regulations and executive orders. Makes executive agreements (does not require ratification) and signs treaties (ratification requiring by two-thirds of the Senate) Makes appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts with the advice and consent of the Senate. Has power to make temporary appointment during the recess of the Senate Has the power to Grant "Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."	Determines which laws Congress intended to apply to any given case Exercises judicial review, reviewing the constitutionality of laws Determines how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes Determines how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners Determines how a law acts to compel testimony and the production of evidence Determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. (The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.) Federal judges serve for life

See also

Absolute power

Balance of power (federalism)

Power sharing

Constitution of the Roman Republic

Constitutionalism

Constitutional economics

Corruption Perceptions Index - Parliamentary systems are, in general, perceived as less corrupt than other systems

Fifth power

Fusion of powers

Independence of the judiciary

Judicial activism

Legal reform

Mixed government

[[Portal:Politics|List

of democracy and elections-related topics]]

Pith and substance

Reserve power - powers exercisable by the head of state without the approval of another branch of the government

Rule of Law

Rule According to Higher Law

Separation of duties

Signing statement

Unitary executive theory

References

Further reading

Peter Barenboim, ''Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers'' (2005) ISBN 5-94381-123-0, Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578

Biancamaria Fontana (ed.), ''The Invention of the Modern Republic'' (2007) ISBN 9780521033763

W. B. Gwyn, ''The Meaning of the Separation of Powers'' (1965) (no ISBN)

Bernard Manin, ''Principles of Representative Government'' (1995; English version 1997) ISBN 0521452589 (hbk), ISBN 0521458919 (pbk)

José María Maravall and Adam Przeworski (eds), ''Democracy and the Rule of Law'' (2003) ISBN 0521825598 (hbk), ISBN 0521532663 (pbk)

Paul A. Rahe, ''Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty'' (2009) ISBN 9780300141252 (hbk), ISBN 9780300168082 (pbk)

Iain Stewart, "Men of Class: Aristotle, Montesquieu and Dicey on 'Separation of Powers' and 'The Rule of Law'" (2004)

Iain Stewart, "Montesquieu in England: his 'Notes on England', with Commentary and Translation" (2002).

Alec Stone Sweet, ''Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe'' (2000) ISBN 978-0-19-829730-7

M. J. C. Vile, ''Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers'' (1967, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998) Second edition. ISBN 0865971749 (hbk), ISBN 0865971757 (pbk)

External links

Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers

Arbitrary Government Described and the Government of the Massachusetts Vindicated from that Aspersion (1644)

Category:Constitutional law Category:Philosophy of law Category:Separation of powers Category:Political science terms

ace:Trias politica af:Trias politica ar:فصل السلطات an:División de Poders ast:Separtación de poderes zh-min-nan:Hun-koân be:Падзяленне ўлады be-x-old:Падзяленьне ўлады bg:Разделение на властите ca:Separació de poders cs:Dělba moci da:Magtadskillelse de:Gewaltenteilung et:Võimude lahusus el:Διάκριση των εξουσιών es:Separación de poderes eo:Disigo de povoj fa:اصل تفکیک قوا fr:Séparation des pouvoirs ko:권력 분립 hr:Dioba vlasti id:Pemisahan kekuasaan is:Skipting ríkisvaldsins it:Separazione dei poteri he:הפרדת הרשויות jv:Pamisahan kakuwasan sw:Mgawanyo wa madaraka la:Trias politica lv:Valsts varas dalīšana lt:Valdžių padalijimo principas hu:Hatalmi ágak szétválasztása mk:Поделба на власта ml:അധികാര പൃഥക്കരണം ms:Pembahagian kuasa nl:Trias politica ja:権力分立 no:Maktfordelingsprinsippet nn:Maktfordelingsprinsippet oc:Separacion dels poders nds:Scheden vun de Mächt pl:Trójpodział władzy pt:Teoria da separação dos poderes ro:Separarea puterilor qu:Kimsantin atiy ru:Разделение властей simple:Separation of powers sk:Deľba moci sl:Ločitev oblasti sr:Подјела власти sh:Podjela vlasti fi:Vallan kolmijako-oppi sv:Maktdelningsprincipen ta:அதிகாரங்களைப் பிரித்துவைத்தல் th:การแบ่งแยกอำนาจ tr:Kuvvetler ayrılığı uk:Розділення влади vi:Tam quyền phân lập war:Pagbulagbulag han gahom yi:רעגירונגס מאכט אבטייל zh:權力分立

Name	David Barton
Jr/sr	United States Senator
State	Missouri
Term start	August 10, 1821
Term end	March 4, 1831
Predecessor	''(none)''
Successor1	Alexander Buckner
Birth date	December 14, 1783
Birth place	Greeneville, North Carolina(now Tennessee)
Death date	September 28, 1837
Death place	Boonville, Missouri
Party	Democratic-Republican }}

David Barton (December 14, 1783 September 28, 1837) was one of the first U.S. senators from Missouri, serving 1821–1831.

Barton was born near Greeneville, Tennessee, then part of North Carolina. He was a major political presence in early Missouri, serving as president of the state's constitutional convention, speaker of the Missouri territorial House of Representatives, and as one of its first pair of U.S. Senators. Barton County, Missouri is named for him.

He was the brother of Joshua Barton, the first Missouri Secretary of State. David opposed the reappointment of William Rector to the Office of Surveyor General for Missouri, Illinois and Arkansas, saying that Rector was using his relatives for surveying positions and paying them too much while Rector was surveying the Louisiana Purchase. Joshua published the charges in the ''St. Louis Republican'' under the signature of "Philo." Rector's brother Thomas Rector challenged Joshua to a duel in 1823 on Bloody Island (Mississippi River) and killed Joshua. President James Madison did not reappoint Rector.

Barton switched parties three times in his political life. He was first elected as a Democratic-Republican; he then switched to an Adams Democrat for his re-election in 1825. When he ran for the Senate again in 1830 he switched to being an Anti-Jacksonian candidate. He was a member of the Missouri State Senate in 1834-1835.

References

External links

{{U.S. Senator box | state=Missouri | class=3 | before=None | after=Alexander Buckner | alongside=Thomas H. Benton | years=1821–1831}}

Category:1783 births Category:1837 deaths Category:People from Greene County, Tennessee Category:Missouri State Senators Category:United States Senators from Missouri Category:Missouri Democratic-Republicans Category:Missouri National Republicans Category:Democratic-Republican Party United States Senators Category:National Republican Party United States Senators

de:David Barton sv:David Barton

Captain Henry Ross (1829 - 5 December 1854) was a Canadian gold miner at Ballarat, Victoria, Australia, and was known on the goldfields as the 'bridegroom' of the miners flag, the Southern Cross, the Eureka Flag. Henry Ross was born in Toronto, Upper Canada, and probably arrived at Melbourne on ''the Magnolia'', in November 1852, along with Charles Doudiet and three other Canadians.

There is no evidence of who exactly designed the Eureka Flag, but it was Ross who took the design to three women - Anastasia Withers, Anne Duke and Anastasia Hayes - to ask them to sew it and have it ready in time for the meeting taking place at Bakery Hill at 2.00pm on Wednesday the 29 November 1854.

At Bakery Hill on 30 November 1854 Captain Ross unfurled the Southern Cross and led the march from Bakery Hill to Eureka Stockade, behind him followed about 1,000 diggers, some armed with rifles, many only armed with picks and shovels. Captain Ross was given the command of a division of miners by a meeting of the 7 captains of the rebellion who met at Eureka that afternoon to organise the defence of Eureka.

Later that afternoon Captain Ross raised the flag on the temporary flagpole that had been erected at Bakery Hill. Sword in hand, his division gathered at the foot of the flagstaff, the sun going down behind them. Peter Lalor jumped onto a stump and asked those around him to take an oath to the Southern Cross. He pointed his right hand towards the Southern Cross and delivered the diggers oath.

:''"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties"''

The miners shouted 'Amen' and then marched back to the Eureka Stockade and hoisted the Southern Cross on a makeshift flagpole at the centre of their camp.

When the first shots rang out at daybreak on Sunday the 3 December 1854, Captain Henry Ross took up his position at the foot of the flagpole. He was mortally wounded during the early phase of the battle and lay dying at the foot of the Southern Cross when trooper King scaled the flagpole and tore the flag down. By some accounts Ross was shot 10 or 15 minutes after he surrendered. Fellow Canadian (Charles) Alphonse Doudiet, who painted earlier Eureka events, recorded that he was among those who carried the Stockade leader to the nearby Star Hotel, and remained with him until he died "in great pain" at 2 am on 5 December 1854. Duncan Clark, from the same regiment as Ross, had been out scouting and returned in time to assist his leader to the hotel.

Some 260 mourners followed the funeral procession of Ross to the Ballarat Cemetery. He was eulogised as ''one of the best loved men of those who fell''. The young Canadian digger, Henry Ross, was buried at the bottom of a mass grave at the Old Ballarat cemetery, while his beloved Southern Cross is displayed for all to see at the Ballarat Art Gallery that stands on the site of the soldiers encampment.

See also

Eureka Flag

Eureka Stockade

References

Henry Ross - Defending Victoria Website

Category:1829 births Category:1854 deaths Category:Australian people of Canadian descent Category:People from Ballarat Category:People from Toronto