Replies

Many did, but it tended to depend on the political leanings of a given state and whether they were one party or not. Some early Senators served a long time, such as William King of Alabama, who served for all but 4 years from 1819 to 1852, interrupting only to accept an Ambassadorship and in the latter year when he was elected Vice President. John Tyler Morgan, also of Alabama, served uninterrupted from 1877 until his death in 1907.

In Northern Whig or Republican states, you had people like Vermont’s Justin Morrill, who after serving 12 years in the House, went on to serve another almost 32 years in the Senate uninterrupted (from 1855 until almost 1899).

Even in border states like Missouri, you had Democrat Thomas Hart Benton serve from 1821 until 1851 (he might’ve lasted longer had the Whigs not ousted him in that latter year). Henry Clay served on 5 separate occasions as Kentucky Senator between 1807 to 1852 in between his time in the House.

Mind you, these aren’t typical, but there were more than a few people who served 2 terms or more. The difference in the earlier days (and I tend to mean pre-Civil War) is that many Senators would abide by the wishes of the legislature. If the Senator could not or would not obey their will (or if the body switched parties), they would often dutifully step aside and allow someone who would follow their wishes. Resignations were relatively frequent.

However, many would also cling to the entirety 6-year term regardless (post-Civil War). Situations such as Black Mississippi Republican Blanche Bruce who was elected 2 years prior to the state’s so-called Democrat “Redemption”, and he essentially had to spend the last 4 years of his term in Washington, as it was no longer safe for him to return to the state (ironically, his junior Senator seatmate, the Democrat Lucius Q.C. Lamar, had more than some passing sympathy for his situation). Bruce would later have to rely on the patronage of GOP administrations for a job.

I tend to oppose repeal of the 17th, because it would immediately make it impossible for a number of states to ever elect Republicans again (although conversely in this past election, Democrats Ben Nelson of FL; Donnelly of IN; Stabenow of MI; McCaskill of MO; Tester of MT; Heitkamp of ND; Brown of OH; Casey of PA; Kaine of VA & Baldwin of WI ALL would never have been able to win with the legislature electing them, with the Maine open seat, Brown of MA and Heller of NV would’ve lost on the GOP side). Of course, with the number of winnable seats the GOP blew this time, that can make a powerful argument for the 17th repealers.

I’ve made the argument that even if we swept all those seats above, there wouldn’t be many strident pro-Constitutional types getting elected. The Dem membership in those one party states would be just as horrid and untouchable, while the GOP ones would be full of establishment flunkies and Rovian puppets. As an example, Texas would not have elected Ted Cruz, but the odious RINO liberal Lt Governor David Dewhurst, as he would’ve used his $$ and power to coerce the legislators into supporting him (and if he couldn’t have gotten enough GOP votes, he would’ve scared Democrats into voting for him to stop that “right winger” Cruz). As it was, Dewhurst did precisely that in strong-arming legislators and others to do his bidding to stop Cruz in the runoff.

It’s that latter example of why I can’t support repeal of the 17th.

>> However, many would also cling to the entirety 6-year term regardless (post-Civil War). Situations such as Black Mississippi Republican Blanche Bruce who was elected 2 years prior to the state’s so-called Democrat “Redemption”, and he essentially had to spend the last 4 years of his term in Washington, as it was no longer safe for him to return to the state (ironically, his junior Senator seatmate, the Democrat Lucius Q.C. Lamar, had more than some passing sympathy for his situation). Bruce would later have to rely on the patronage of GOP administrations for a job. <<

I've never read details on what it was like for the first black Representatives and Senators in Congress, but given that they were appointed to southern seats during reconstruction, I always assumed the situation was similar to what you wrote. Hiram Revels, for example, was appointed to Jefferson Davis' old Senate seat in Mississippi, basically to give the middle finger to supporters of the confederacy. I doubt it would have been safe for him to return to Mississippi during his Senate term. If it weren't under those circumstances though, I think most of the citizens of Mississippi and the other reconstruction states would have been pleasantly surprised by the new black Congressmen, most of them turned out to be excellent public officials and voices for reconciliation in the south. It's interesting to note, however, that South Carolina's Joseph Rainey stayed in Congress until 1879, though reconstruction ended in 1876. He must have been very popular with his constituents to continue to be re-elected even after reconstruction.

Good post on an old thread. Before direct election (or at least before the Civil War), Senators could leave Congress and go into the cabinet with an understanding that their state legislatures would give them their jobs back when they wanted them.

The argument in favor was that men like Webster and Clay were too talented and valuable to waste. The argument against is that the practice made Washington too much of an "old boys" club and made it too hard to ever displace the men in power.

If you think it's good to be able to remove established politicians by popular vote, you might not want the old system back, especially since it's questionable whether by 1913 Senators really were still representing state interests, as opposed to large corporations and other pressure groups.

The reason the Senate went along with the 17th Amendment is that unelected bodies were losing legitimacy and power in the early 20th century -- Britain's House of Lords most spectacularly. The appointed Senate in Canada likewise isn't (so far as I know) that powerful. The reproach of "who elected you" was always available to critics.

For the Senate to stay important, Senators would have to shift to direct election. This also eventually had the effect of making the directly elected Senators think of themselves as potential presidents in a way that Senators chosen under the old system didn't.

Was Romney a poor candidate? Sure, but the alternatives weren't any better. He wasn't the worst of candidates, but coming close and blowing it is bound to produce more frustration among supporters than trailing all the way and losing by a large margin.