Contents

Talk:1st United States Congress

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). U.S. Congress High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) event(s).

• This article is COMPLETE and meets the current standard for this series of articles.
• suggestions for future improvements:

1. supplemental Senate & House committees article
2. supplemental district maps article
3. narrative for major legislation
4. narrative for major events

stilltim 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for primary sources. I see that the order of succession is State/Treasury/War/A.G/Interior -- suggesting the official dates are differnt than those I listed. Official dates should be easy enough to locate. I just haven't as yet. And I think Territorial acqisitions, new states, and new cabinet offices are the kind of thing you had in mind as political events. BobCMU76 12:41 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm still seeking definitive answers for dates of establishing Executive Departments. The ones I found seem to fit the present context, but not that of the 25th Amendment. Continuity from the previous govt. might be the issue.

The source used for the table of members is from the official biography site of the House of Reps. I worry about changing, as opposed to disabiguating, the party affiliations, though I agree that Federalists and Republicans were not organized entities at the time. BobCMU76 07:19 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

That's true. If one really wanted to go over it, one should look at each of the individual biographies, which generally tell the party affiliations of various candidates in each Congress they were elected to (the automatic read-outs are supposed to do the same thing, but frequently don't.) Anyway, I think it's better now than it was, but it could still stand some going over. john 07:21 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

So, what you are telling me is, that the party affiliations of the official biography server of the congress are useless for the first congresses? So might it perhaps be better to omit this data for the early congresses? -- JeLuF 20:52 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the information is to be taken with a grain of salt. It can occasionally be wrong (for any Congress, especially for people who changed parties). if one wanted to, one could, however, look at the individual biographies of the individuals involved, which are more accurate. john 21:33 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Looking at the cnhanges you did, this seemed to be more than occasionally to me. -- JeLuF 21:44 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's particularly likely to be wrong in the early years, because often they write "Federalist" and "Republican" instead of "Pro-Administration" and "Anti-Administration". Once this change is made, I imagine that most of the party distinctions are accurate. Somebody ought to check them, of course. john 01:32 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Another issue has arise with Zoe's edit of the Party designation in early United States Congresses page. See the Talk page. BobCMU76 12:31 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

One can see here, the debates of the HofR from 1789, near the top of the rightward column, that a Mr. Lawrence is speaking. There is no Mr Lawrence listed on this page. JoshNarins 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is John Laurance, of New York's 2nd congressional district. A couple pages later in the debates, you'll find Mr. Madison referring to the "Gentleman from New York." Spelled differently, but that's who it is. —Markles 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I see it now. Just got there and was going to correct myself. Not particularly knowledgable concerning wikitiquette, should we just delete this whole Data Missing section? JoshNarins 21:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you found it. Let's keep this section for two reasons: (A) Some future reader may also ask about Mr. Lawrence/Laurance; and (II) Talk pages are never out-of-date.—Markles 00:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been "bold" and moved all member data into tables to see if that is what the consensus is for building these lists. Plain lists, as in other Congress' articles (see Fifty-second United States Congress) are much easier, and this article could easily be made that way.

Much as I would have liked to, I did not use the standard pro/anti administration colors, because they were simply too bright and put too much color on the page. Maybe there should be no color in these tables?

The senate counts are one off the official numbers, as I'm quite sure Richard Bassett was pro-administration and the bio guide indicator is a typo. Naturally, this makes the maps wrong too, but no one can see little Delaware. For count snapshots, I used the beginning of each session.

Markles, I'm sure you'll have plenty of comment before I get up in the AM, but I am looking forward to a friendly and productive discussion to settle the format (lists vs. tables) for these articles. I have no preference, just want a consistently applied decision for all articles, (nearly) all sections.

I still plan to add supplementary articles for "State Delegations," "Political Parties," and "Membership Chnages." and they will be in the list format. stilltim 03:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops! I already jumped the gun on the 2nd Congress before I saw what you wrote here. Sorry!! I don't care for membership tables in these articles because they clutter up an already-busy article. How do you know Bassett was pro-admin? I'd rely on the bioguide (albeit an imperfect guide) because I avoid original research. —Markles 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me...I will build members in the list format and drop the tables. Regarding Bassett, the bio-guide actually says both if you look at the detail. Every other source on Bassett calls him a Federalist and a "strong" supporter of the federal government. For example see [1]. It's a typo in the bio guide. I will be updating Bassett's bio and will document this better there. stilltim 01:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the House of Representatives table is kind of screwed up, not just at June 1, 1790 (which comes after June 16!), but in the number of vacancies. Because NC ratified the US Constitution on November 21, 1789, the number of vacancies in the House went up to five, and in the Senate to two. The House was at 34-25 at that time; it went to 34-26 (4 vacant) on March 19, 1790 when Hugh Williamson (NC2) was sworn in; 34-27 (3 vacant) on March 24 when John Ashe (NC1) was sworn in; 34-28 (2 vacant) on April 6 when Timothy Bloodworth (NC3) was sworn in; and 35-28 (1 vacant) when John Steele (NC4) was sworn in. Rhode Island ratified the US Constitution on May 29, which raised the both the House and the Senate vacancies to two; then Theodorick Bland (VA9) dies, bringing the House vacancies to 3. The Senate vacancies are both filled on June 7, then John Sevier (NC5) is sworn in, which brings the House vacancies down to 2. And so on and so forth. This is such a radical change from the current version, however, that I don't want to just charge in and edit; it should be agreed upon first. Mcglk (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you Make the changes, and let's see the difference.—Markles 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see a related discussion at Talk:General ticket#General ticket vs. Plural district vs. At-large.—Markles 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted recent edits that "simplified' by removing redundant links to districts and parties. It is useful to have the party links next to each name, because a reader may want to surf there, or simply hover his cursor over the abbreviation to see what party it is. For example, Andrew Stewart (AM) - the party is relatively unknown, but the reader can immediately find out what it is. For lessor-known parties, it may be difficult to find the first they stop talking occurrence of that link in the article. The second reason for reversion is that there are 110 ordinal congress articles, and consistency is desirable. Many 1000s of hours have been spent by editors developing these articles and formatting them for the readers' benefit. Any mass changes ought to be discussed in advance, and changes will be agreed upon by consensus. Anyone interested in working on these - I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress and participate in discussions there.--Appraiser (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I was the one who had altered the standard format.) I did not remove all but the first occurrences of links; I left one in each state's section. Such sections are quite small, so it is not difficult to find the links. My edits followed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), particularly the section "Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?". I will, however, not change it back, pending further discussion. Ardric47 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One link per party per state might make sense, but since the changes required would be so extensive, let's make proposals and reach consensus upfront. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take a look at the Georgia House members listing in this article? There is a discrepancy between the district numbers assigned to each representative compared to United States congressional delegations from Georgia, List of United States Representatives from Georgia, and Georgia's 1st congressional district which lists Abraham Baldwin as coming from the first district. I'm inclined to think that this main article is the correct one, since it is primarily based off of the Ken Martis atlas of congressional districts. I am in possession of another source on U.S. congressional districts by Stanley B. Parsons et al that places Baldwin in the 3rd district and Mathews in the 2nd, based on sources that place Baldwin as residing in Richmond County (3rd district) and Mathews in Wilkes County (2nd district). Parson's based his district boundaries off the Acts of the State of Georgia Dec. 8, 1790.

Could someone with access to the Martis atlas or other sources take a to confirm the correct order?Dcmacnut (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the 1st United States Congress meet in a different building than Federal Hall?—Markles 13:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, text is labeled as 10th Confederation Congress, but links to Congress of the Confederation. Attempts to change the former to the latter end up with a link going to Second Continental Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.64.65 (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Which should it go to? Right now, it links to Congress of the Confederation, which I thought was the right place to be.—GoldRingChip 13:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]