![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
stilltim 16:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I know better than to rely on 1880s memoirs of the Civil War period. But I do think that they can offer lines of inquiry. Stumbling through the Library of Congress pages (they are getting better; early days had several different uncoordinated contractors with narrow scopes) I found James G. Blaine’s 1884 snippet http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page12_text.html . So with some temerity, I report his “important legislation” items for the 37th Congress:
The Clerk’s webpage http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/highlights.html lists two pieces of legislation as especially noteworthy in the context of the entire history of Congress:
So I would go with abolishing slavery in DC. Are there any other scholarly sources to support Blaine’s other legislation suggestions? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I think I misunderstood the intent of the Discussion header from 'stilltim' calling for a supplemental Congressional District maps article. Can the earlier section be recast into an annotated bibliography for readers?
Readers can find each state’s Congressional Districts in
Election histories and some district descriptions listing constituent counties can be found at United States House of Representatives elections, 1860.
Also, when I find it, the old Congressional Directories have steet maps of the boarding houses and hotels on Capitol Hill along with an index to where each member was residing during the session. Does that fit in the 37th Congress somewhere under some category? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
per StillTim above, the narrative is taken primarily from a chapter in a collection of essays edited by Julian E. Zelizer, "The American Congress: the building of democracy", 2004, 765pp. The chapter on the Civil War congresses was written by Mark Neely.
Between Neely and Bassett, I think I have the first two special sessions sorted out. The Congressional Globe confirms the legislators meeting and addressing the topics as represented by the two sources.
so "special" still can be confusing relative to the meeting sessions versus enactment sessions, versus composition of the sessions, versus calendar resolutions and presidential calls. It just makes the pursuit more interesting. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I expanded "Congress as election machinery" from two interesting political science surveys of Congress from the First Congress to the close of the twentieth century.
Stephen C. Erikson on incumbency (Cato Journal, 1995) and John W. Swain on turnover (American Politics Research, 2000). Both use the Party Era/System/Period categories which Kenneth Martis uses. Both systemmatically apply each of their criteria and each of their methodology cross almost two-hundred years of Membership and Congresses.
Spikes and valleys in these kinds of long term graphics seem to me to be a more useful way to suggest avenues for historic inquiry ... an alternative to the time tested sifting through documents which fall to hand, this suggests aggressively pursuing sources to explain the anomalies manifest in the data ... these are not always novel, they can be confirming: we see turnover spikes in Swain's work associated with the Civil War, Reconstruction and the Populist protests, for instance.
I look for this outside corroberation ever since learning that both Allied and German newspapers wrote of battles that were not, and did not report battles that were. Since after every major battle, both sidees had to quickly bury tens of thousands nearby the site, outside confirmation of WWI battles could be made by a survey of German and Allied burial reports. The burial reports of the two sides corresponded, even when the newspapers of each side did not. Anthropological surveys and soundings of burial reports confirmed their accuracy. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
"Strauss and Howe" as historical reference is ably described in the Wikipedia article on them. This is another comprehensive source surveying an aspect of each Congress, in this case, the age cohorts and the characteristics of their beliefs, thought, families, life styles, and action. In the box summary page of each generation, there is "period of political leadership" noting the years of each plurality in the House, Senate, and majority of the Supreme Court. A list of the Presidents from that generation follows. Each write-up includes historically important figures, including politicians and political movements. In appendix B, Table 3 lists the National leadership share, principally Congress, 1775-1989, by generation. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 19:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
For the 37th Congress, most narratives I've seen make a nod in the general direction to those leaving Congress for the secessionist movement, with an example or two, and expulsions as in the case of Senator R.M.T. Hunter of Virginia (did he think he could hold dual office in both US and CS Congresses?!???)
I thought it worthwhile to include those included in our narrative introduction.
During the 37th Congress, Lincoln declared in the Emancipation Proclamation that several places were not in rebellion, including Virginia tidewater (three of nine remaining seats after WV's three), Louisiana (three of four) and Tennessee (all eight).
I have not found the rationale Congress used in the 38th Congress to strip representation from those presidentially declared not in rebellion less than four months before; all three states changed numbers of representatives following the 1860 Census ... did the Radical Republicans suggest that no members would be seated until loyal state legislatures met to redraw Congressional District boundaries?
Any help? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 17:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
On the subject of representation seated in Congress, I would like to develop an addition to the article. Here is the line of inquiry.
In the preliminary Sep 1862 Emancipation Proclamation, the standard for representation in Congress seems to be of half the votes of 1860. Tennessee was not 'in rebellion' as of January 1 proclamation, but still out of the 38th Congress March 4. Virginia (Alexandria) and Louisiana (New Orleans) got partial delegations in the 37th, none in the 38th.
The Confederate Congress let their Tennessee, Virginia and Lousiana men (Kentucky and Missouri, too) stay on for the duration, independent of any elections among the people there.
Was Tennessee unable to meet the US standard, including the Union soldier vote? Was that part of choosing Andrew Johnson, who as US Senator would be out of office? Was it why Lincoln proposed 10% of 1860 voting for readmission, never passed by Congress?
With 10%,'reconstructed' Louisiana might vote black suffrage. Lincoln's speech on this very subject steeled John Wilkes Booth to declare "that is the last speech he will ever make" ...
Along this line of inquiry into the US - CS dual representation, does anyone have any reading suggestions? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Some would count Texas seceded at the popular referendum, February 23. Nevertheless, in an Article about the 37th Congress, an account should be made of the men certified, seated and attending. The detail is further down in the article, Texas Senators, Louis T. Wigfall (D), served until March 23, 1861, vacant thereafter. But John Hemphill (senator) (D), served to July 11, 1861, until expelled by Congress. His seat went vacant thereafter. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 04:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I kept all previous events and references, and used the convention of linking major events to other WP articles. Added developments altering the strategic balance by water: blockade and riverine. Habeas corpus and conscription are of considerabe interest, so both Davis and Lincoln's actions are noted with citations. Both were supported by their respective Congresses. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
.
Contribution moved from User:GoldRingChip's talk page:
The subsection titled "secession" is renamed "rebellion" to conform with contemporaneous terminology used in the United States Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
An error at the #House of Representatives section, the citation notes that, "Once source reports no Virginians in this Congress, (Parsons 1986, Greenwood Publishing Group) while another source recognizes five (Martis). Parsons is reported to reference the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress on page 165. However my edition of 1913 on page 224 includes them.
Additonally, articles can be found currently online in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress for the following Virginia delegation in the 37th Congress 1861-1863 elected under the Restored Virginia Government: U.S. Senator Waitman T. Willey, U.S. Senator John S. Carlile, and Representatives William G. Brown, Jacob B. Blair, Kellian V. Whaley, Charles H. Upton, from Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, who served almost a year1861-1862 before Congress determined he was not entitled to his seat on being appointed consul to Switzerland, replaced by elected Lewis McKenzie, and Joseph E. Segar, though Segar alone from the Eastern Shore was not seated.
Without objection, I will correct the error. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 37th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In the "House of Representatives" table in the "Party summary" section, "Independent Democratic" is listed as having 56 seats at the end of the previous Congress, far more than the regular Democratic Party. But then on the next row, the regular Democratic Party is listed as having 44 seats. Are these number accurate? Orser67 ( talk) 03:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
stilltim 16:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I know better than to rely on 1880s memoirs of the Civil War period. But I do think that they can offer lines of inquiry. Stumbling through the Library of Congress pages (they are getting better; early days had several different uncoordinated contractors with narrow scopes) I found James G. Blaine’s 1884 snippet http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page12_text.html . So with some temerity, I report his “important legislation” items for the 37th Congress:
The Clerk’s webpage http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/highlights.html lists two pieces of legislation as especially noteworthy in the context of the entire history of Congress:
So I would go with abolishing slavery in DC. Are there any other scholarly sources to support Blaine’s other legislation suggestions? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I think I misunderstood the intent of the Discussion header from 'stilltim' calling for a supplemental Congressional District maps article. Can the earlier section be recast into an annotated bibliography for readers?
Readers can find each state’s Congressional Districts in
Election histories and some district descriptions listing constituent counties can be found at United States House of Representatives elections, 1860.
Also, when I find it, the old Congressional Directories have steet maps of the boarding houses and hotels on Capitol Hill along with an index to where each member was residing during the session. Does that fit in the 37th Congress somewhere under some category? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
per StillTim above, the narrative is taken primarily from a chapter in a collection of essays edited by Julian E. Zelizer, "The American Congress: the building of democracy", 2004, 765pp. The chapter on the Civil War congresses was written by Mark Neely.
Between Neely and Bassett, I think I have the first two special sessions sorted out. The Congressional Globe confirms the legislators meeting and addressing the topics as represented by the two sources.
so "special" still can be confusing relative to the meeting sessions versus enactment sessions, versus composition of the sessions, versus calendar resolutions and presidential calls. It just makes the pursuit more interesting. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I expanded "Congress as election machinery" from two interesting political science surveys of Congress from the First Congress to the close of the twentieth century.
Stephen C. Erikson on incumbency (Cato Journal, 1995) and John W. Swain on turnover (American Politics Research, 2000). Both use the Party Era/System/Period categories which Kenneth Martis uses. Both systemmatically apply each of their criteria and each of their methodology cross almost two-hundred years of Membership and Congresses.
Spikes and valleys in these kinds of long term graphics seem to me to be a more useful way to suggest avenues for historic inquiry ... an alternative to the time tested sifting through documents which fall to hand, this suggests aggressively pursuing sources to explain the anomalies manifest in the data ... these are not always novel, they can be confirming: we see turnover spikes in Swain's work associated with the Civil War, Reconstruction and the Populist protests, for instance.
I look for this outside corroberation ever since learning that both Allied and German newspapers wrote of battles that were not, and did not report battles that were. Since after every major battle, both sidees had to quickly bury tens of thousands nearby the site, outside confirmation of WWI battles could be made by a survey of German and Allied burial reports. The burial reports of the two sides corresponded, even when the newspapers of each side did not. Anthropological surveys and soundings of burial reports confirmed their accuracy. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
"Strauss and Howe" as historical reference is ably described in the Wikipedia article on them. This is another comprehensive source surveying an aspect of each Congress, in this case, the age cohorts and the characteristics of their beliefs, thought, families, life styles, and action. In the box summary page of each generation, there is "period of political leadership" noting the years of each plurality in the House, Senate, and majority of the Supreme Court. A list of the Presidents from that generation follows. Each write-up includes historically important figures, including politicians and political movements. In appendix B, Table 3 lists the National leadership share, principally Congress, 1775-1989, by generation. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 19:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
For the 37th Congress, most narratives I've seen make a nod in the general direction to those leaving Congress for the secessionist movement, with an example or two, and expulsions as in the case of Senator R.M.T. Hunter of Virginia (did he think he could hold dual office in both US and CS Congresses?!???)
I thought it worthwhile to include those included in our narrative introduction.
During the 37th Congress, Lincoln declared in the Emancipation Proclamation that several places were not in rebellion, including Virginia tidewater (three of nine remaining seats after WV's three), Louisiana (three of four) and Tennessee (all eight).
I have not found the rationale Congress used in the 38th Congress to strip representation from those presidentially declared not in rebellion less than four months before; all three states changed numbers of representatives following the 1860 Census ... did the Radical Republicans suggest that no members would be seated until loyal state legislatures met to redraw Congressional District boundaries?
Any help? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 17:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
On the subject of representation seated in Congress, I would like to develop an addition to the article. Here is the line of inquiry.
In the preliminary Sep 1862 Emancipation Proclamation, the standard for representation in Congress seems to be of half the votes of 1860. Tennessee was not 'in rebellion' as of January 1 proclamation, but still out of the 38th Congress March 4. Virginia (Alexandria) and Louisiana (New Orleans) got partial delegations in the 37th, none in the 38th.
The Confederate Congress let their Tennessee, Virginia and Lousiana men (Kentucky and Missouri, too) stay on for the duration, independent of any elections among the people there.
Was Tennessee unable to meet the US standard, including the Union soldier vote? Was that part of choosing Andrew Johnson, who as US Senator would be out of office? Was it why Lincoln proposed 10% of 1860 voting for readmission, never passed by Congress?
With 10%,'reconstructed' Louisiana might vote black suffrage. Lincoln's speech on this very subject steeled John Wilkes Booth to declare "that is the last speech he will ever make" ...
Along this line of inquiry into the US - CS dual representation, does anyone have any reading suggestions? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Some would count Texas seceded at the popular referendum, February 23. Nevertheless, in an Article about the 37th Congress, an account should be made of the men certified, seated and attending. The detail is further down in the article, Texas Senators, Louis T. Wigfall (D), served until March 23, 1861, vacant thereafter. But John Hemphill (senator) (D), served to July 11, 1861, until expelled by Congress. His seat went vacant thereafter. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 04:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I kept all previous events and references, and used the convention of linking major events to other WP articles. Added developments altering the strategic balance by water: blockade and riverine. Habeas corpus and conscription are of considerabe interest, so both Davis and Lincoln's actions are noted with citations. Both were supported by their respective Congresses. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
.
Contribution moved from User:GoldRingChip's talk page:
The subsection titled "secession" is renamed "rebellion" to conform with contemporaneous terminology used in the United States Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
An error at the #House of Representatives section, the citation notes that, "Once source reports no Virginians in this Congress, (Parsons 1986, Greenwood Publishing Group) while another source recognizes five (Martis). Parsons is reported to reference the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress on page 165. However my edition of 1913 on page 224 includes them.
Additonally, articles can be found currently online in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress for the following Virginia delegation in the 37th Congress 1861-1863 elected under the Restored Virginia Government: U.S. Senator Waitman T. Willey, U.S. Senator John S. Carlile, and Representatives William G. Brown, Jacob B. Blair, Kellian V. Whaley, Charles H. Upton, from Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, who served almost a year1861-1862 before Congress determined he was not entitled to his seat on being appointed consul to Switzerland, replaced by elected Lewis McKenzie, and Joseph E. Segar, though Segar alone from the Eastern Shore was not seated.
Without objection, I will correct the error. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 37th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In the "House of Representatives" table in the "Party summary" section, "Independent Democratic" is listed as having 56 seats at the end of the previous Congress, far more than the regular Democratic Party. But then on the next row, the regular Democratic Party is listed as having 44 seats. Are these number accurate? Orser67 ( talk) 03:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)