History Of Congress Research Articles

Cooperative Clean Energy

The last decade has seen significant attention and debate among academics, policymakers, and the broader public about how to accelerate the “clean energy transition” in the United States. Legal academics have made valuable contributions to the literature in this field, developing a rich body of scholarship on a broad range of legal, policy, economic, and technological aspects of the clean energy transition. But this scholarship has for the most part ignored the role of rural electric cooperatives, which serve 15% of U.S. electricity consumers. This scholarship gap has important implications. Rural electric cooperatives, first created by local communities in the United States in the early part of the twentieth century to electrify rural America, now exclusively serve over half of the U.S. landmass. As such, these cooperatives are positioned to be key players in building land-intensive renewable energy resources and expanding the electric grid. And while cooperatives today own and operate fewer coal-fired power plants than they have in decades past, as not-for-profit entities, the drivers for cooperatives to retire existing carbon-intensive power plants and build new clean energy are fundamentally different than the drivers for other actors in the electricity sector shaped by profit motives. Understanding these differences is critical to avoid leaving rural America with billions of dollars of stranded assets that struggle to compete against low-cost clean energy. In this Article, we draw on the structure and foundational principles underlying the cooperative form itself to offer a framework for rural electric cooperatives to thrive in the clean energy transition. Notably, the proposals we develop in this Article do not primarily rely on imposing new federal or state clean energy mandates on cooperatives, as has been the focus of the limited legal scholarship that exists to date. The long history of Congress and state legislatures allowing cooperatives to “self-regulate” makes exclusive reliance on such mandates a limited solution at best. Instead, we draw on the seven “Cooperative Principles” that govern all cooperatives—open and voluntary membership; democratic member control; members’ economic participation; autonomy and independence; education, training, and information; cooperation among cooperatives; and concern for community. Emphasis on these principles allows cooperatives to engage in the clean energy transition in a way that builds on their history and foundational principles as self-help organizations controlled by their members. Such an approach also recognizes the foundational role of member control within cooperatives, which has the potential to inform broader calls for increasing democratic accountability and racial and gender equity within the clean energy transition.

Divided Government and Significant Legislation: A History of Congress from 1789 to 2010

This article presents and analyzes the most comprehensive database to date of significant acts of Congress—from 1789 to 2010—to test whether divided party control of government affects the number of important acts Congress passes. We find that unified control corresponds with one additional significant act passed per Congress in the nineteenth century and four additional such acts in the twentieth century. However, party control of government cannot explain the broad historical trends in the rate at which Congress passes significant legislation. Nixon in 1969 was far more successful with a Democratic Congress than was McKinley in 1897 with a Republican one.

Party, process, and political change in Congress: v.2: Further new perspectives on the history of Congress

Party, process, and political change in Congress: v.2: Further new perspectives on the history of Congress

Establishing Congress: Congress, the Removal to Washington, D.C., and the Election of 1800 (review)

Establishing Congress: Congress, the Removal to Washington, D.C., and the Election of 1800. By Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon, eds. (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2005. Pp. x, 225. Cloth, $44.95.)Establishing Congress is the fourth volume in the History of Congress, 1789-1801 Series, edited by Kenneth R. Bowling of the Documentary History of the First Federal Congress Project, and Donard R. Kennon, chief historian of the United States Capitol Historical Society. The contributors include documentary editors, political scientists, and historians, as well as an archivist and a librarian.In the least original essay in the volume, Cal Jillson portrays the presidential contest of 1800 as a struggle between two conflicting visions for America. According to Jillson, Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson's positive view of human nature led him to stand for an agricultural republic of yeoman farmers where government remained democratic and close to the people. Federalist Alexander Hamilton, harboring a more pessimistic view of human nature, preferred an urban industrial nation ordered from above by a strong federal government dominated by an energetic chief executive. John H. Aldrich sees the election of 1800 as being truly revolutionary precisely because it marked the first transfer of power from one party to an opposing one. Aldrich analyzes electoral procedures to demonstrate how very partisan the campaign was. For the first time, electors were bound to vote for either Federalists (John Adams and Charles C. Pinckney) or Republicans (Jefferson and Aaron Burr). In each state, moreover, partisan legislatures promoted their preferred candidates by choosing either winner-take-all or district-by-district voting and either popular or state legislative selection of electors. William C. diGiacomantonio addresses the aftermath of the election, when the lame-duck Federalists passed the Organic Act of 1801. Like the much more famous Judiciary Act of 1801, the Organic Act represented a last-ditch Federalist attempt to leave a permanent imprint on the federal government. The act implemented the hitherto unexercised enumerated Congressional power of exclusive jurisdiction over the federal district. Federalists pushed the measure through at the eleventh hour, fearing the Republicans would not so empower the federal government.In the only entry focused on the federal government's removal from Philadelphia to Washington in 1800, Elaine C. Everly and Howard H. Wehmann, unlike previous historians, look not to Congress's 1802 report on removal, in which partisan Republicans unfairly blasted the Federalists for corruption. Instead, Everly and Wehmann mine hitherto neglected Executive Department documents from the removal itself.C.M. Harris contends that as secretary of state and later as president, Jefferson subtly and indirectly imposed his republican ideals on the design of the U.S. Capitol. For example, Jefferson quietly substituted the name Capitol (barkening back to the principal building of the Roman Republic) in place of Congress Hall in Peter Charles L'Enfant's city plan. Jefferson also opposed entombing George Washington under the rotunda, and sought to make the House of Representatives chamber into a Newtonian Temple where legislators would be influenced by the Enlightenment's laws of nature.Rubil Morales-Vazquez examines the long campaign to build a monument to George Washington in the city that bears his name. …

KENNETH R. BOWLING and DONALD R. KENNON, editors. Establishing Congress: The Removal to Washington, D.C., and the Election of 1800. (Perspectives on the History of Congress, 1789-1801.) Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press for the United States Capitol Historical Society. 2005. Pp. x, 225. $44.95

KENNETH R. BOWLING and DONALD R. KENNON, editors. Establishing Congress: The Removal to Washington, D.C., and the Election of 1800. (Perspectives on the History of Congress, 1789-1801.) Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press for the United States Capitol Historical Society. 2005. Pp. x, 225. $44.95

Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Edited by David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2002) 576 pp. $75.00 cloth $29.95 paper

<i>Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress</i>. Edited by David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2002) 576 pp. $75.00 cloth $29.95 paper

Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Edited by David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. 576p. $70.00 cloth, $29.95 paper

Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Edited by David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. 576p. 29.95 paper - Volume 1 Issue 3

Party, process, and political change in Congress: new perspectives on the history of Congress

Party, process, and political change in Congress: new perspectives on the history of Congress

Inventing Congress: Origins and Establishment of the First Federal Congress

On March 4, 1789, New York City's church bells pealed, cannons fired, and flags snapped in the wind to celebrate the date set for the opening of the First Federal Congress. In many ways the establishment of Congress marked the culmination of the American Revolution as the ship of state was launched from the foundation of the legislative system outlined in Article I of the Constitution. Inventing Congress presents the latest scholarship on the interrelated intellectual, institutional, cultural, and political antecedents of the formation of the First Federal Congress. The first section covers the origins of the body, ranging in discussion from the question of how the founders' understanding of classical Greek and Roman republican precedent shaped their thinking, to the political lessons learned during the Continental and Confederation Congresses. The second section concerns itself with the establishment of the First Federal Congress, examining several heretofore little-treated aspects of the most important Congress in history, including its relationship to the press, morality, the arts and sciences, and economic philosophy. Inventing Congress represents the papers from the first two conferences sponsored by the United States Capitol Historical Society in its series, Perspectives on the History of Congress, 1789-1801.

Neither Separate nor Equal: Congress in the 1790s

Neither Separate nor Equal: Congress in 1790s. Edited by Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon. (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2000. Illustrations. Pp. xi, 344. $44.95.) This volume, second in series Perspectives on History of Congress, 1789-1801, contains essays first presented at United States Capitol Historical Society conferences in 1995 and 1996. work, which is divided into three sections, offers findings of heterogeneous group of independent, public, and academic scholars, including several editors of documentary history or papers projects. volume's title is somewhat misleading. Neither Separate nor Equal: Congress in 1790s provides diverse fare and is not as tightly focused as its title suggests. Kenneth R. Bowling and Anne Coxe Toogood offer essays on The Physical and Social Context. Discussing late 1790 into March 1791, Bowling shows that Philadelphians, in futile effort to retain capitol, labored to erase their city's image as culturally stodgy. Utilizing decidedly top-down approach, Bowling documents expansion of Philadelphia's genteel amusements. Toogood, whose praise of Philadelphia's social reforms smacks of boosterism, also emphasizes that Philadelphians wanted their city to remain nation's capitol. With impressive detail, some dealing with less powerful elements of society, she describes State House Square as the epicenter of cultural ferment and federal (37). Four authors provide instructive miniature biographies in The Social and Political Lives of Members in Philadelphia. John D. Gordan III demonstrates that Egbert Benson, who served in Congress from 1789 to 1793 but is hardly remembered (63) today, based his political actions, including accommodation to slavery, on unyielding commitment to establishing and supporting an invigorated national government (87). Mary A. Giunta considers those who opposed powerful national government. Investigating Congressman William Branch Giles's work on the front line of political battle(139) in 1790s, she stresses that this Virginian was a leader of opposition (154) who strove to promote South's sectional interests and protect states' rights by advocating strict construction of Constitution. As she assesses growing political animosity between Federalists and Republicans, Giunta emphasizes the defining debates on Jay Treaty (144). Elizabeth Miles Nuxoll shows that, in his 1789-1795 Senate career, Robert Morris championed issues and nationalism that had marked his tenure as superintendent of finance. She also devotes considerable effort to challenging-and successfully so-Gordon Wood's depiction of Morris as having turned his back on pursuit of wealth in effort to become republican aristocrat. William C. diGiacomantonio studies Sarah Thatcher, 1787-1792, as Congressional Wife at Home on Maine frontier. He rightly maintains that letters between members of Congress and their spouses are vital sources for understanding interpersonal arrangements that, in Sarah's case, supposedly made her a congressional partner in every sense worthy of term (180). Unfortunately, only extant letters Sarah and George Thatcher exchanged are those he sent; therefore, Sarah's thoughts, when they appear, come through filter of George's responses. To deal with problem, diGiacomantonio makes extensive use of other sources, especially Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's classic, A Midwife's Tale: Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812 (1990), to reconstruct inferentially Sarah's life at home (164). result is essay that, though informative, is bothersomely characterized by repeated use of might have or may have. …

Introduction to Roundtable

The claim that contemporary historical scholarship has ignored the twentieth-century U.S. Congress is a great understatement. During the past two decades, most social and cultural historians minimized the study of government institutions, policy makers, and policies. They characterized these aspects of American history as elitist, irrelevant, and even illegitimate (Leff 1995; Leuchtenburg 1986).The ultimate villain in this scholarly narrative was Congress, considered to be an insulated haven for white male elites who sub-vert the democratic process in favor of vested interest groups.When Congress appeared in a few academic books, it was treated as an archaic institution that functions as either a road block or a rubber stamp to proposals that emanate from the executive branch or from mass social movements.Those interested in the modern history of Congress can turn only to the work of journalists such as John Jacobs (1995) and Richard Cohen (1999) who rely on political biography in attempts to understand the institution’s past.

First Steps Toward a History of Congress

First Steps Toward a History of Congress

Party Leadership Change in the United States House of Representatives

Long periods of one-party domination, increased average tenure in office for Representatives, and the institutionalization of patterns of succession to the Speakership, have all contributed to a tendency toward leadership stability in the 20th-century House of Representatives. The election of Sam Rayburn (D., Texas) and John McCormack (D., Mass.) to the offices of Speaker and Majority Leader in 1940, of Joseph Martin (R., Mass.) to the office of Minority Leader in 1939, and of Leslie Arends (R., Ill.) to the position of Republican Whip in 1943, mark the beginnings of the longest tenures in these four positions for any incumbents in the history of Congress. When changes in top leadership occur—as with the overthrow of Minority Leader Charles A. Halleck by Republican Representative Gerald R. Ford, Jr., in 1965, or the succession of Majority Leader McCormack to the office of the Speaker in 1962 following the death of Rayburn—the consequences are considerable. In the case of revolt, individual careers are made and broken. The organization and policy orientations of a congressional party may be extensively altered. While orderly succession has less dramatic impact, it too has a significant effect on “who gets what, when and how.” Some members move closer to the seats of power and others fall out of favor. Key committee assignments, and hence the development of entire legislative careers, are likely to ride or fall on the outcomes.

Is Congress So Bad?

Essay| March 01 1936 Is Congress So Bad? Ernest Sutherland Bates* Ernest Sutherland Bates* *Mr. Bates’s history of Congress, entitled Our Billion-Dollar Debating Society, will be published by Harpers in the Spring. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Current History (1936) 43 (6): 595–600. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1936.43.6.595 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Ernest Sutherland Bates*; Is Congress So Bad?. Current History 1 March 1936; 43 (6): 595–600. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1936.43.6.595 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentCurrent History Search This content is only available via PDF. © 1936 by The Regents of the University of California1936 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.