Talk:History of the United States Senate

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.

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

	United States portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Frank L. Smith was elected by the people of Illinois to serve as their senator in 1927. The Senate voted to not allow him to take his seat. Why? Did this happen ever again/before? Ydorb 22:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

To partially answer my own question. See the Frank L. Smith article. Others have also been denied, William Vare, Rush D. Holt, Sr., James Shields, Albert Gallatin. Ydorb June 30, 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. One of these days i'm going to finish the article and write the post-WWII history of the Senate. Dinopup 1 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

This sentence is in the article: "In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%." What does that even mean? Couldn't each Senator theoretically be elected by 1 voter, making the % much smaller? Or is there some sort of minimum votes required that I don't know about? I wasn't sure if there's some appropriate tag I can place after this sentence in the article since it seems to be fabricated. Error9900 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War

The article jumps from the Antebellum to the Gilded Age. Readers, like myself, would be well served with some info on how the Senate spent the 1860s. Awg1010 (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Written 18th century quote from James Wilson reference is 2004 Harper's Magazine article?

"Convention delegate James Wilson wrote "Our Constituents, had they voted as their representatives did, would have stood as 2/3 against equality, and 1/3 only in favor of it" (Harpers Magazine, May 2004, 36)." So, this is the earliest, most reliable source for this quote? I doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.24.204 (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the United States Senate. 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/20121101145605/http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm to http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

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).

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) 11:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

number of senators missing

Stanley Matthews (Supreme Court justice) says he was confirmed 24 to 23 but says nothing about the total number of senators in 1881 and why the total was an odd number. Even more surprising is that even this article has no info on this topic. --Espoo (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have an external URL for the History of the United States Senate

Does anybody have a URL for the History of the United States Senate, because this article certainly does not provide either a history of the U.S. Senate or a URL to an outside source that might have one? Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Historical Overview of the US Senate on Government site

FYI, it should be noted that the U.S. Senate, itself, does not provide a historical overview of the Senate, but instead has a lot of interesting historical trivia on their website, and anecdotal examples (although seemingly arbitrary) that are included with a purported chronology that doesn't even include key events. I had hoped to include a U.S. Senate link under Official Senate Histories, but it doesn't appear that they have one that we can use. That being said, after wasting 2 hours on their website searching, it would benefit Wikipedia if we can develop either a full history or a list of salient events that shaped the Senate into its current form... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]