Talk:34th United States Congress

Untitled

• 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 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Party Balance

The current line is rather misleading, since it implies a coherence between an "Opposition" which actually consisted of northerners who were basically Republicans, and southerners who were basically, by the time Congress met, associated with the Know Nothings. In the senate, for instance, it would be more accurate to say there were 39 Democrats (including a couple of anti-Nebraska Democrats like Trumbull and Hamlin, the former of whom was actually elected by a coalition of Whigs and anti-Nebraska Democrats against the Douglas Democratic candidate James Shields; also including Judah Benjamin and James Pearce, who had switched over to the Democrats), 13 Republicans (all the northern oppositionists - Foster, Harlan, Fessenden, Sumner, Wilson, Hale, James Bell, Seward, Fish, Wade, Foot, Collamer, and Durkee), and 8 Americans/Know Nothings (Houston plus all the other southern oppositionists - Pratt, Clayton, Crittenden, Thompson, Geyer, John Bell, James Jones).

I don't know enough about the specifics of the House, where there are definitely several northern Know Nothings, but the basic balance ought to be around the same - most northern oppositionists and many northern "Americans" were by the time congress convened effectively Republicans; the rest should be considered "Americans" or Know Nothings, as should virtually all the southern Oppositionists. I'm not sure the precise balance in this case (most of the Massachusetts and New Hampshire "AMericans" were probably effectively Republicans; but at least some of the Pennsyvlania "Opposition" is probably actually Know Nothing - Henry Fuller of Pennsylvania was one of the Know Nothing candidates for speaker. The House isn't as bad as the Senate, though, since at least most of the southern anti-Democrats are correctly labeled as Know Nothings for the House. john k (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I support john k's recommendations for change above and below because (1) they are in the same spirit as the notes regarding the Independent Senators of the past decade caucusing with the Democrats, which was especially noteworthy when the numbers of Democratic and Republican Senators were tied at 49 apiece at the beginning of the 110th Congress, and (2) because the 34th Congress was during the period when the specified differences of political opinion led to civil war. HankW512 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Composition of the House

Okay, having looked over Holt's Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party, it would appear that the situation was a bit more complicated. The final (plurality) vote by which Banks was elected speaker was 103 to 100 for Aiken of South Carolina, the Democratic candidate. The other 31, who voted for other candidates, would have mostly been southern Know Nothings. There were 33 Southern Opposition/Know Nothing congressmen. Several of these likely voted for Aiken, but the majority would have been voting for other candidates. Most of these Southern oppositionists, it's worth noting, were Know Nothings, but perhaps not all. There were likely some Northern conservative Know Nothings and perhaps old line Whigs who weren't voting for Banks, either. I don't think the particular labels given by the Congressional Biographical Directory are especially useful, though, for distinguishing Know Nothings from old line Whigs (any congressman who switched over to the democrats by the 35th Congress, though, was likely an old line Whig, rather than a Know Nothing).

Now, of the northerners, that's 103 votes for Banks, virtually all of which, I think, came from northerners identified by the Biographical Directory as either "Opposition" or "American" (i.e. Know Nothing). The totals given by the Biographical Directory, however, do not match Holt's description. Holt says that of the 103, no less than 70 were northern Know Nothings. We only list 24 northern Know Nothings in the 34th Congress, so presumably there's a discrepancy here, especially given that almost certainly some northern Know Nothings were voting for other candidates than Banks (the pro-southern ones, specifically). In looking for additional Know Nothings, I'd suggest the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Indiana delegations as the most likely sources. If we add all of their "opposition" candidates to the Know Nothings, that adds another 30 Know Nothings, for a total of 54 - which is still not enough. There ought to be towards 80. We should note, though, that the Know Nothing movement can't really be described as a proper political party at this point. They were a pressure group which endorsed candidates, so that there were many congressmen who considered themselves both Know Nothings and Republicans, or both Know Nothings and Whigs. This was true until the organization of the American Party, which didn't really happen until 1856, after Congress assembled, and which organization led the majority of northern Know Nothings to abandon the movement due to the American Party's takeover by pro-southern elements.

At any rate, I think the key thing is that I need to look at Holt again, and more carefully, to try to figure out the situation more closely. My sense is that most of the midwestern states would have been sending pure, non-Know Nothing, Republicans to congress at this point, with the exception of Indiana. New York's delegation would largely have been elected as Whigs, as the Whig party only fell apart very late in New York, but by the time Congress assembled it would have been moribund. I'm not sure, though, how many were Know Nothings, how many were Republicans (note, again, not mutually exclusive), and how many considered themselves "old line Whigs."

Anyway, this warrants closer investigation. john k (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

@John K: I have just come across this article from February 1856, which may help. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 07:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Composition of the Senate

This can perhaps be more closely illuminated. To go through the Opposition one by one:

• Lafayette Foster a former Whig, having been elected in Connecticut, a state the Know Nothings dominated, in 1854, should likely be considered a Republican and a Know Nothing, but I'm not certain of that. still considered himself a Whig in February 1856.
• John Clayton, a former Whig from Delaware, and a very senior politician, had long been friendly to nativism and apparently led the whole Delaware Whig Party into the Know Nothing movement in 1854. Definitely a Know Nothing.
• Joseph Comegys, who replaced Clayton, likewise
• Robert Toombs, though he had basically abandoned the Whigs in 1850 to form the "Union Party" in Georgia, but did not yet consider himself a Democrat in December 1855 - although he would switch in 1856 and support Buchanan for president. I'm having trouble tracking down exactly when he formally became a Democrat - it might have been before December 1855.
• Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, was an anti-Nebraska Democrat, elected by a coalition of Whigs (whose candidate, Abraham Lincoln, had withdrawn and urged his supporters to vote for Trumbull) and anti-Nebraska Democrats. He hadn't fully joined the Republicans at this point, but he wasn't really in good with the mainstream Democrats, either, having defeated Douglas's crony James Shields to be elected.
• James Harlan, of Iowa, would have been a pure Republican/Free Soiler. Not much Know Nothingism in Iowa.
• John Thompson, of Kentucky, a former Whig, was, I believe, a Know Nothing, but I can't check that out.
• John Crittenden, of Kentucky, like Clayton a very prominent Whig, and Clay's chief Kentucky lieutenant back in the day, was also a Know Nothing, although his support of nativism was much weaker than Clayton's. (American National Biography describes him as a half-hearted Know Nothing)
• Judah Benjamin, of Louisiana, is in a similar place to Toombs. He probably still considered himself a Whig at this point, but was to all intents and purposes a Democrat, and would support Buchanan in 1856.
• Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, was, like Trumbull, an anti-Nebraska Democrat, and he would formally break with the Democrats in 1856 and support Frémont for president
• William Pitt Fessenden, of Maine, a former Whig, should at this point probably be considered a Republican. Fessenden was a very conservative Republican, and attended a February 1856 meeting with other Whig politicians to discuss the possibility of a Whig National Convention that year. But he already called himself a Republican at this point. Something of a judgment call on whether he's a Whig or a Republican.
• James Pearce of Maryland was another conservative anti-Know Nothing Whig who was about to defect to the Democrats and support Buchanan in 1856. Not sure how he should be described. Probably as a Whig. Definitely as a Whig. Attended the same meeting with Fessenden, Foster, and others in February.
• Thomas Pratt of Maryland seems to have been in an identical situation with Pearce - he supported Buchanan in 1856.
• Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was an ex-Conscience Whig Free Soiler who had been elected in 1851 by a Free Soil/Democratic coalition. Should be considered a Republican
• Henry Wilson of Massachusetts was also an ex-Conscience Whig Free Soiler, who had just been elected in 1854 by the Know Nothing legislature, having joined the Know Nothings. Probably should be considered both a Republican and a Know Nothing.
• Henry Geyer of Missouri was an old Whig. I've no idea where he stood in 1856, and whether he supported Buchanan or Fillmore. Most likely Buchanan.
• John Hale, an anti-slavery Democrat who had joined the Free Soilers, seems to have been elected by a Know Nothing legislature, without having joined the Know Nothings himself. Should certainly be considered a Republican, uncertain about Know Nothing connections.
• James Bell, a former Whig, was the Whig candidate for governor of New Hampshire in 1853, 1854, and 1855 (the last time opposing a Know Nothing, who won). Should probably be considered a Republican, although possibly still a Whig.
• William H. Seward, the long time leader of the Whigs of New York, appears to have joined the Republicans "in late 1855", suggesting he should be considered a Republican at this point. He was certainly no Know Nothing, having always opposed nativism.
• His colleague Hamilton Fish, however, had not joined him, and still considered himself a Whig at the time congress assembled. He did, however, end up reluctantly supporting Frémont in 1856. Should probably still be considered a Whig. Definitely still a Whig
• Benjamin F. Wade, an old anti-slavery Whig, was, with Salmon P. Chase, one of the founders of the Republican Party in Ohio. Should be considered a Republican
• John Bell, of Tennessee, seems to have been a reluctant Know Nothing, or else a reluctant non-Know Nothing Whig who nonetheless supported Fillmore in 1856. Bell was not a Know Nothing, actually, I think, but a Whig who eventually supported Fillmore after he was nominated as a Whig.
• His colleague, James Jones, another old Whig, I believe ended up supporting Buchanan in 1856, so probably not a Know Nothing. Probably counts as a Whig
• Sam Houston, of Texas, an ex-Democrat, had joined the Know Nothings without complication
• Solomon Foot of Vermont was a Republican, and anti-Know Nothing a Whig, attended the meeting with other Whigs in February.
• I'm less clear on Jacob Collamer, but my sense is that Know Nothingism was not big in Vermont. Another Whig who attended the aforementioned meeting.
• Charles Durkee of Wisconsin would definitely be a Republican (the Republican name originated in Wisconsin)

Totally a mess, clearly. Harlan, Fessenden, Sumner, James Bell, Seward, Wade, Foot, Collamer, and Durkee are unproblematically Republicans. That's 9. Clayton (and Comegys), Thompson, Crittenden, John Bell, and Houston seem to have been fairly unproblematically Know Nothings. That's 5. Foster, Wilson, and Hale should likely be considered both Republicans and Know Nothings, although the Republican association was obviously longer lasting. Fish was the last of the northern anti-Know Nothing Whigs, seemingly. Pearce, Pratt, and Jones were anti-Know Nothing Southern Whigs, while Benjamin and Toombs had gone a long way towards becoming Democrats already, especially Toombs, but were not quite Democrats yet. Geyer, I'd guess, was somewhere on this continuum, although I don't know enough about him to place him on it - likely he should go with Pearce, et al. And, finally, Trumbull and Hamlin were anti-Nebraska Democrats, with Hamlin on the verge of abandoning the party, and Trumbull having been elected in opposition to the majority of his own party in the Illinois legislature. I'll try to look up Holt to check into this more closely, but I'd say the balance should be described as follows:

36 Democrats (not including Trumbull, Hamlin, or Toombs) 12 Republicans (including Foster, Wilson, and Hale, none of whom were particularly Know Nothings) 6 Southern Anti-Know Nothing Whigs (Toombs, although he perhaps is sui generis, Jones, probably Geyer, Pearce, Pratt, Benjamin) 5 Know Nothings (Clayton, Thompson, Crittenden, Bell, Houston) 2 Anti-Nebraska Democrats (Trumbull and Hamlin) 1 Northern Whig (Fish)

My sense is that, in terms of presidential preference in 1856, all the Democrats, plus the 6 Anti-Know Nothings Whigs (with possible exception of Geyer), plus perhaps Trumbull, supported Buchanan. The five Know Nothings supported Fillmore. The 12 Republicans, Hamlin, and Fish supported Frémont. Anyway, I'll check into it again, but a more nuanced list would, I think, be useful.

It would, of course, be great to do this for the House, as well, but also exceedingly difficult. john k (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Further research leads to further shifts...largely based on Nevins, Ordeal of the Union. See strikethroughs and bolds in my above discussion. New balance: 36 Democrats when Congress meets (including Toombs, not including Hamlin or Trumbull, not including Gwin who was not re-elected to Congress until January 1857); 11 Whigs (5 Northern, including Fessenden, Foster, Fish, and the two Vermont senators; six southern - the two Tennessee senators, the two Maryland senators, Geyer, and, dubiously, Benjamin); 8 Republicans (the two Massachusetts senators, the two New Hampshire senators, Seward, Wade, Harlan, and Durkee); 4 Know Nothings (the two Kentucky senators, Clayton, and Houston), and 2 Anti-Nebraska Democrats (Trumbull and Hamlin).

In terms of who they would support in the presidential election in 1856, all 36 Democrats, plus Jones, Pearce, Pratt, Geyer, and Benjamin, would support Buchanan. The 8 Republicans, plus Fessenden, Foster, Fish, Hamlin, Trumbull, and the two Vermont senators, would support Frémont. The four Know Nothings, plus Bell, would support Fillmore. So, by the end of the Congress, the partisan balance would be, essentially, 43 Democrats (including Gwin, who returned in January 1857; and Martin Bates of Delaware, who replaced Clayton, who had died), 15 Republicans, and 4 Americans (Houston, the two Kentuckians, and Bell). john k (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Child, Jr., of New York

I suggest that the entry for the 7th CD of NY be changed from "Thomas Child, Jr. (O)" to "vacant (See note in the Changes in Membership section below.)" Then in the House of Representatives Changes section a row should be added between the 1st and 2nd rows with "New York 7th" in the District column, "Vacant" in both the Vacator and Successor columns, and "Although Thomas Child, Jr. was elected to the 34th Congress, he never qualified and never attended a session due to illness. However, the House voted on March 3, 1857 to give Mr. Child a salary payment as if he had served from August 18, 1856 to March 3, 1857." in the Reason for Change column.

HankW512 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be correct. Child Jr was entitled to the seat and could have taken it any time. It was "de facto" vacant, but not "de jure". However, I agree it should be noted somewhere in the list. Kraxler (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 34th 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/20060601025644/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Colour of the map of senators (please note, this can apply to all 34 congresses) Having looked at the map of senators, showing the membership of them at the opening of the congress, I personally think that it is weird that for all of them (regardless of the parties shown) it is either red or blue. While I am totally aware that this is likely for consistency between all 117 congresses (where it is mostly between the democrats and the republicans) , I think that it doesn't make sense for parties to be represented by colours which they were not usually represented by (eg, yellow for the whig party or green for the democratic-republican party). Do you agree with the idea that colours used for senate (and presumably some house maps) should be coloured by party, rather than always in red and blue.