This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana all had representation in the 37th congress, in those areas that were controlled by Union forces; were these truly all vacant for the 38th congress, or is this an oversight? --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I mean before reconstruction. The 37th congress had representatives from Northern Virginia, parts of Tennessee, and New Orleans, because these had either been captured early on or never lost. But this article says all seats for the 38th were vacant. Unless you mean those areas as well. The whole thing was complicated. --Golbez (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think more clarity is needed about the difference. From what I can tell from looking at the names, my sense is that the Unconditional Unionists were effectively Republicans by another name, whereas the "Unionists" (sans unconditional) were more of a third force. Unconditional Unionists like Henry Winter Davis, for instance, and B. Gratz Brown, were essentially Republicans. From what I can tell, most of the (Non-Unconditional) Unionists like Garrett Davis and Reverdy Johnson, on the other hand, were old Whigs who were in the process of becoming Democrats. But more clarity from reliable sources would be helpful. Obviously, the Congressional Biographical Directory won't provide any such clarity. john k (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Per earlier discussion, correspondence with the Office of the Historian, U.S. House of Representatives, History@mail.house.gov, confirms that a section of Jefferson's Manual explains the terms of service for House Members prior to the 20th amendment. Members’ terms of service began on March 4 and ended on March 3. Hinds’ Precedents lists the precedent cases that established the rule. Electronic copies of the House Precedents are found here: About precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives. It seems to me that any other answer is WP:OR original research, and that Wikipedia Congressional pages should conform to the official U.S. Government sources on the subject. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
While I agree with you that March 3 is the correct end date, I wonder why "any other answer is WP:OR original research"? Why is one research OK but the other is WP:OR? Maybe I need to learn more about WP:OR. —GoldRingChip11:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Because rejecting modern House of Representatives historians, Jefferson's Manual, Hind's Precedents and the Congressional Biographical Directory that use March 3 and substituting the end date of March 4 requires a) literally original research sorting through particular exceptions session by session, from primary documents without supporting scholarly research, or b) unsourced POV analyzing a body representing the sovereign people dismissing what the actors in the time said, despite exceptions, and instead, making an argument that the clock convention in the modern railroad and airline time zones using midnight to divide the days must govern time orientation retroactively for all time regardless of the interest of the people whose representatives agree to continue meeting into the hours of March 4.
Democracy is not subverted by meeting a few hours beyond March 3 midnight, no laws need to be unmade among those passed after that schedule, it is not a deadline as history shows. There have been no untoward Long Parliament of decades long abuse without resort to the suffrages of the people. The exceptions were made before the advent of round-the-year sessions. All of the exceptions as I remember were in Congresses at presidential midterms. It is almost as though there is a cohort of editors those punctilious concerns over timing would support Jefferson's refusal to call up Virginia's militia to face the oncoming invasion of Virginia due to his one year's term as governor running out the day of the arriving news. I do not believe that Jefferson was a coward -- though note in contrast that little Jimmy Madison rode out to the battle of Bladensburg -- but the interests of the sovereign people do sometimes warrant action by their public servants beyond strict observance of the clock, and legislative matters may be among those times. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 38th 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, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
