Talk:37th United States Congress

message: *This article is COMPLETE and meets the current standard for this series of articles.
*suggestions for future improvements:
#supplemental Senate & House committees article
#supplemental district maps article
#narrative for major legislation
#narrative for major events
stilltim 16:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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: 
:* expanding the Union Army and Navy 
::(Jeff Davis calls for 100,000, 75,000 arms are taken from US armories, and Lincoln calls for 75,000? Need scholarship here.)
:* the nation’s first Federal income tax. 
::(the whole question of funding the war effort : to wit, it's in the Revenue Act of 1861 http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml 
:* ending slavery in the District of Columbia. 
::(something Lincoln had proposed as a one-term Representative, compensation up to $300 per freedman) 
:*the first Freedman’s Bureau 
::(this is earlier than most summary accounts for the general reader; any connection between these and abolition committee influencing the rouge generals abolishing slavery in their command districts?) 
:* the first Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. 
::(the radical’s voice, one of Lincoln’s thorns, Blaine said it helped Northern strategy and went after inefficiency and corruption. I do remember tales of early Army contractor blankets passed off as woven which were felt. They melted in the first rain.) 
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: 
:* Abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, April 11, 1862. 
:* The Homestead Act, May 20, 1862 – which we already have.
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)
thread_title:  Major Legislation candidates 

message: 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.
:Mark E. Neely, Jr., is the McCabe-Greer Professor of Civil War History at The Pennsylvania State University since 1998. He won a Pulitzer Prize for History is 1992 for his “The Fate of Liberty”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of 37th in events and legislation. 

message: 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. 
:The March session was special since a President called for it (splendidly phrased by Buchanan to address national concerns, quoted in its entirety in the Globe online at Library of Congress. The July 4 session was special, not only because Lincoln called it before the calendar agreed to at adjournment, but because regular sessions did not usually start until December ... Washington heat in the summer ... 
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)
thread_title:  the first two sessions were special  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political Science is differ'nt 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Generations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  five-state dual representation  

message: 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. 
* Was the referenced 50% standard Lincoln's or that of the 37th Congress? Did Tennessee meet it, or not? 
* Did Congress pass legislation, a Joint Resolution, a floor vote from elections committee, or a ruling from the Chair? 
* Did the 37th or the 38th Congress act to deny previous TN, VA, LA seats only AFTER midterm Republican losses? 
* Was Congress side-stepping the issue of black suffrage by denying those three delegations? 
* Did the same rationale denying representatives then serve to deny elected TN and LA Electoral College votes in 1864? 
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)
thread_title:  Did 37th Congress set the 50% standard too high?  

message: 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)
replies: text: Lincoln issued preliminary proclamation in time to make it a feature of midterm election campaign, but did not risk another offensive (Fredericksburg) until after elections. Included Richmond descriptor to Peninsular Campaign for new readers, and linked good WP articles on Richmond and Washington 'during the Civil War'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Savannah is closed within two months of the capture of Fort Pulaski, nothing in, nothing out, per the National Park Service "Fort Pulaski NM Historical Handbook, No. 18" by Ralston B. Lattimore. Disambiguation posted on WP:Battle of Savannah. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major events - lots going on during a war. 

message: Contribution moved from User:GoldRingChip's talk page:
:Under Major Events the article is biased. It states "the people" of particular states voted for secession. The ELECTORATE would be accurate whereas "the people" is highly inaccurate. Blacks were people and were excluded from voting of course. Claiming "the people" were for secession disregards history. For instance in Tennessee the first vote was AGAINST secession, but no mention is made of this. The second vote succeeded because the secessionists had enough time to corrupt the vote, scare off pro-Union voters & because a change probably did occur with a small tilt towards secession.
:I am unable to make the change from "people" to "electorate". Could you?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.60.7 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the point is well taken, since the EXCLUSION of a large part of the people, reduces the white population to "the electorate". Although in a current election only let's say 40% of the population vote, the other 60% are tacitly concurring with the result, because they chose not to vote. Or would one contend that the blacks were not part of "the people" at the time of this Congress? I'd rather finish this discussion before reverting back and forth... Kraxler (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In political contexts, "the people" does not mean every person. Even where every person is allowed to vote, the results attributed to "the people" do not represent everyone's views (viz., those who lost the referendum). Saying that the people decided a thing is standard English for announcing the results of an election that was put to the people, regardless of voter turnout, breadth of the electorate, etc. Saying that the electorate did this or that is not standard English. The arguments for using "the electorate" rather than "the people" seem to suggest that standard English is incorrect and ought to be changed. Perhaps these arguments are sound. But Wikipedia is not the place to introduce politically-motivated alterations to the language, regardless of how good those alterations would be. Instead, we should go with what is now the most idiomatic usage until the scholarly consensus has become to avoid speaking of "the people" in these contexts. RJC TalkContribs 16:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is still beside the point. I already admitted your idiomatic use of "the people" (see above), but you do not consider the historical context. You mix up voter turnout (people who do not vote, but tacitly and explicitly concur with the result) with the forcible exclusion of a large part (perhaps the majority) of the people who openly rioted against the decision of the minority. I think in this context, if "electorate" seems to be "unidiomatic", one would rather say "Tennessee ratified a Secession Ordinance" using the name of the State, not "the people". At the appropriate place one could explain further. That the State seceded is a fact, that "the people" were for it, is contested by the above anonymous user. I think there is a guideline that says "Avoid controversial content" or some such. The question is whether this can be considered controversial. Kraxler (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "Virginia/Tennessee approved its Ordinance of Secession by popular referendum"? That parallels the other statement and retains the fact that these states put the issue to a vote (rather than held a convention, as did the other states). It also does not use words that serve no purpose other than to weaken the connection between the outcome and the will of the people. (Incidentally, the article on Tennessee in the American Civil War does not mention massive voter fraud, so we shouldn't tip-toe around the issue because an IP wants to mitigate Tennessee's role in the Confederate cause. Violence, fraud, and oh yes a small change in opinion is how the IP wants Tennessee's vote represented, rather than the way it is usually represented: the federal government's willingness to use force changed Tennessee's mind about staying within the Union. The reason the first referendum is not mentioned is because it was taken during the 36th Congress, but the IP wants it mentioned here to further set Tennessee's vote "in context.") RJC TalkContribs 16:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "approved (or ratified) its Ordinance of Secession by popular referendum" sounds good to me. Much better than the possibly misleading "the people". To go deeper into explanations in this article is certainly out of scope. Thank you, RJC. Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "people" vs the "electorate" 

message: :- Copy edit for neutrality: four more states delegations see members withdraw, as alternative assertions about states is not admitted by the 37th Congress. 
:- Links for reader assistance are found in three various WP sources: for Virginia, the restored government of Virginia; for Tennessee, a section in the Andrew Johnson article; for Louisiana, from the "[state] in the American Civil War" series article. 
:- As the withdrawal of members where rebellion occurs merits inclusion in the article's "major events", so -- in the context of the 37th Congress -- members who REMAIN from delegations where the Confederacy recognizes membership in THEIR Congress is of some interest and import for the course of the rebellion and efforts by the 37th Congress to suppress it. 
:- In the copy-edit just made, Missouri and Kentucky delegations are mentioned as notes -- leaving aside a more detailed representation in this summary of the continuance of Missouri's entire delegation in the face of secessionist challenge at arms in the southeast and southwest of the state, -- and the continuance of Kentucky's entire delegation which did not admit organized rebellion internally, but tries neutrality before declaring itself Union. -- I am not sure how to fairly represent these two additional major developments in the 37th Congress -- though Lincoln said to lose Kentucky was to lose the entire issue [of sustaining the Union]. 
:- Still undetermined on my part -- should ad hoc secessionist conventions which do no follow any regular procedure from either the U.S. or the C.S. Congress merit the label, "Secession Convention", or should it read, "Secessionist Convention", especially since in terms of the 37th Congress, there were no secessions, only secessionists. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events - southern states' delegations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Subsection titled "secession" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error at House of Representatives section 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131613143100/http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp to http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131613143100/http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp to http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Independent Democrats