Jump to content

Talk:African Americans in the United States Congress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Menard vs. Rainey in intro

[edit]

John Willis Menard was the first African-American elected to Congress (although he was never seated due to an election dispute); whereas Joseph Rainey was the first African-American who was actually seated as a member.

Menard never took his seat. Arguably, that means that he was never a "member," so he was never "in" the Congress and did not "serve" in the Congress. That means that 121 African-Americans have served in Congress as of 2007. Accordingly, I will rewrite the intro to state this and separately reference the one member who was elected but not seated. (Of course, if someone can find a source that establishes that Menard somehow "served" in Congress despite the fact that he didn't take his seat, then please correct me.) Bry9000 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could the apparent contradiction regarding Revels and Rainey each being the first African-American member of Congress(paragraphs 3 and 4) be reconciled or further explained [I noted the use of the word 'directly' regarding Rainey]? I don't have the answer, only the questioning of an apparent contradiction.

67.8.162.0 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph

[edit]

I encourage anyone who can to improve the first sentence of the last paragraph. My attempt still isn't where I'd like it to be, but there's not much else I think we can do with it. Opusaug 14:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

This is an oddly POV piece. White Democratic Southern legislators from 1890 to 1908 wrote and passed disfranchising constitutions that utterly suppressed the black vote for more than 60 years, and also disfranchised many poor whites.

The Solid South meant white one-party Democrats for generations. They had seats in Congress based on total population of their states, but they had suppressed about half the vote by disfranchising most blacks and many whites.

Gerrymandering was never limited to late 20th c. Democrats or the courts. White Republican legislators have employed gerrymandering and worse to restrict political power of African Americans and Latinos. Why else would a majority black city like Atlanta not be able to elect African American candidates earlier than it did? Each party has used gerrymandering to its own ends. --Parkwells (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redistricting

[edit]

Redistricting happens after every census, if necessary, and is controlled by the parties in power at the state level. It's much more complex than suggested here. Not only were blacks disfranchised, but in states such as Alabama, where the rural-dominated legislature refused to redistrict its own seats from 1901 into the 1960s, the result was that by 1960, a minority of 25% of the state's population controlled the majority of the seats in both the houses of the state legislature. With that background, it took Federal court intervention in 1972 to come up with a plan in which districts approximate one man, one vote ideals. --Parkwells (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]
(copy malplaced comment) I think this is a useful list, but I have to point out that it already exists almost in complete form at African Americans in the United States Congress. I don't know if the proper form is to remove the info from there and put it here, in full (with style changes), or merge it from here into there. But there should not be duplicate, and possibly unsynchronized lists. LH (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is conceivable that it would be best to merge List of African American United States Senators here. I would prefer a separate list. I think the list should be split off. Maybe congress should be added in the same format for a separate list. I also prefer keeping my list separate because my content is properly sourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list is currently at FLC, although it looks like it won't have much success there. Also, Tony, could you refrain from the "my article" comments. It is appreciated that you created the article but nobody owns article on WP. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Era

[edit]

Why does this article in the Modern Era section refer to Edward W. Brooke as "a liberal Republican" but refers to Carol Moseley Braun and Barack Obama as simply being Democrats, and no party-affiliation is designated for Roland Burris.

Perhaps, if you are going to refer to Brooke as a "liberal" you should display some intellectual honesty by refering to the othrer three as Marxists.

If you have improvements to this or other articles, you are free to make them as long as you do it with a neutral point of view. But labeling a politician a "Marxist" is like calling someone a Nazi: it makes you sound hysterical and damages your own credibility. Bry9000 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling someone a Marxist (or similiar term) is identifying someone's economic politicies and is not at all like calling someone a Nazi. Please assume good faith. The poster appears to have been pointing out that on a 2D political spectrum, Marxism is "left" of "liberal", and this article skews the political spectrum in the US. --64.149.42.238 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, saying Marxist for nearly any current American politician does portray you as hysterical. If you think Obama has the same views as Trotsky, you demonstrate that you know almost nothing about either of them. That said, prior to 1970 or so, party affiliation did not really identify an American politician's political views, as each party had different views in different regions of the country. So, using the term "liberal Republican" for that era is justified. Today, the parties generally do neatly align with political views, so such a statement is not necessary. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:First Colored Senator and Representatives.jpg to appear as POTD

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:First Colored Senator and Representatives.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 28, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First American Colored Senator and Representatives
An 1872 lithograph depicting seven early African Americans in the United States Congress, (from left to right) Senator Hiram Revels and Representatives Benjamin Turner, Robert DeLarge, Josiah Walls, Jefferson Long, Joseph Rainey, and Robert Elliott. During the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War, some several hundred African-American officeholders were elected – all of whom were members of the Republican Party.Lithograph: Currier and Ives; Restoration: Adam Cuerden
Archive – More featured pictures...
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African Americans in the 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, 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) 16:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African Americans in the 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, 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) 23:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress&oldid=1199135452"