News
Entertainment
Science & Technology
Life
Culture & Art
Hobbies
News
Entertainment
Science & Technology
Culture & Art
Hobbies
History
To Make Democracy Live: The Legislative Legacy of Emmett Till | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
On April 29, 1955, the first Black Member of Congress elected from Michigan, Representative Charles Cole Diggs Jr., spoke to an outdoor audience of 12,000 in Mound Bayou, Mississippi, more than 800 miles south of his Detroit congressional district. In this all-Black town founded in 1887 by formerly enslaved African Americans, Diggs described his vision for change across the nation, holding onlookers “spellbound” in what the Chicago Defender called “a revival meeting about American democracy.”In his address, Diggs urged listeners to register to vote to destroy the system of segregation that divided the South and to engage in the hard work of building a representative democracy. He recognized “the present uneasy times and seemingly insurmountable odds,” but promised that “if we keep up the fight to make democracy live, we will get the justice espoused by the Almighty God and the Constitution of the United States.”By traveling to the South to speak to the citizens of Mound Bayou, Diggs continued a tradition that began in 1929, when Oscar Stanton De Priest, the first of three Black Representatives elected consecutively to the House from the First District of Illinois, visited several southern states. De Priest, Arthur Wergs Mitchell, and William Levi Dawson each represented a Chicago district with a Black-majority population and were eager to visit southern states to address Black audiences on the challenges facing African Americans across the nation.In August 1955, another Black resident of Chicago, 14-year-old Emmett Till, traveled south to visit relatives in Greenwood, Mississippi. After an alleged dispute with a White woman, Till was brutally murdered and his mutilated body was thrown in the nearby Tallahatchie River. The subsequent trial and acquittal of the two White men accused of this crime became a national and international story.On Capitol Hill, the lynching of Emmett Till quickly became central to the struggle to pass a civil rights bill in the 84th Congress (1955–1957), sparking a decade of legislative achievements on civil rights not seen since Reconstruction. In 1955, three Black Representatives served simultaneously in the House—Diggs, Dawson, and Adam Clayton Powell Jr. of New York—for the first time since 1891. Each was willing to turn their attention beyond the boundaries of their congressional district to embrace their larger national constituency of Black Americans everywhere—especially those living in the Jim Crow South.Chicago’s Representatives Head SouthThe dispute that led to the murder of Emmett Till occurred in a grocery store in Money, Mississippi. The town had been named for former Confederate soldier Hernando De Soto Money, who served on Capitol Hill in both the House and Senate for 14 nonconsecutive Congresses between 1875 and 1911. Hernando Money was one of many across the South who worked to implement the system of Jim Crow segregation at the state and local level, depriving Black citizens of their civil and political rights for decades.Systematically excluded from the ballot and under constant threat of violence, many southern African Americans migrated to northern states seeking a better life. In 1928, Oscar De Priest of Illinois, who had been born in Alabama and settled in Chicago, was elected to the House on the strength of Black voters in the city, many of whom had participated in the Great Migration.As the first Black Member of Congress in nearly three decades, De Priest embraced his role as the only elected Black official in the federal government. De Priest made periodic visits to his native South during his six years in office. “I’m in Washington to serve my race,” De Priest declared in Memphis, Tennessee, only months after taking office. In the summer of 1929, he visited Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, as well as stops in Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. “I am going to continue my tours through the South, notwithstanding threats I have received,” he said. “I’m going to try to teach the colored people their rights under the constitution.”In 1934, Democrat Arthur Mitchell defeated De Priest for Illinois’s First District seat. Mitchell also organized tours of the South to study the social and economic conditions of African-American communities. In 1939, he visited nine southern states, returning to Washington ready to inform the House of the need to “render the proper aid, and to give the proper recognition to a group of its citizens who have always been loyal in every sense of the word.”Mitchell’s successor, William Dawson, began his House career in the 1940s by backing bills to ban employment discrimination, lynching, and the poll tax. In 1949, Dawson became the first Black Member to chair a standing House committee and in the early 1950s he regularly visited the South. On May 2, 1952, Dawson addressed an outdoor meeting in Mound Bayou, Mississippi—the first time a sitting Black Member of Congress had visited Mississippi since the nineteenth century. Black schools closed for the day so students could be among the 7,000 in attendance for what residents called “Dawson Day.” The following year Dawson traveled to Birmingham, Alabama; Columbia, South Carolina; and Atlanta, Georgia; making the case for voter registration to combat Jim Crow at each stop.“A Lynching of the Statue of Liberty”Diggs’s visit to Mound Bayou, Mississippi, in the spring of 1955 to rally support for voting rights carried on the tradition of his predecessors. Diggs made his next trip to Mississippi just a few months later to accompany Emmett Till’s mother, Mamie Bradley, at the September trial of her son’s accused murderers, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam. As the sole federal official present in the Tallahatchie County courthouse in the town of Sumner, Diggs felt welcomed by the local Black community, who appreciated that he was “a representative in the Federal Government—one of their own—and he was on the scene with them.” He joined the NAACP in calling for a federal investigation of the crime, especially when the fate of the defendants was placed in the hands of an all-White jury. Because the defendants had been charged with state crimes, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene.During the trial, Diggs used his status as a Member of Congress to secure better seating arrangements for Black reporters in the courtroom, who were segregated from their White counterparts. Diggs also worked with Representative Dawson to assist the witnesses who agreed to testify against Bryant and Milam and were forced to flee Mississippi for their own safety. For his part, Dawson provided financial support behind the scenes. When Till’s mother wanted to bring her son’s body back to Chicago, Dawson intervened to halt Till’s burial in Mississippi and helped cover costs of transporting his remains.Both Diggs and Dawson attended the September 3 funeral in Chicago. Till’s mother decided to have an open casket so that the public could see the terrible violence inflicted on her son’s body. In September, images from the funeral were published in several Black-owned publications, including Jet magazine, the Chicago Defender, and The American Negro: A Magazine of Protest, which was edited and published by future Representative Gus Savage of Illinois, who held a Chicago House seat from 1981 to 1993.On September 23, the jury acquitted Milam and Bryant on all charges. The defense, led by attorney John W. Whitten—the cousin of Mississippi Representative Jamie Lloyd Whitten—asserted that the body found in the river was not Emmett Till. Diggs called the defense’s argument “strictly fictional and sheer nonsense,” and described the trial as “so filled with perjury, illegal and unethical practices of withholding evidence that undoubtedly a democratic nation could not imagine happening in its halls of justice.” The verdict inspired several weeks of protest in cities across the country.Representative Powell had been traveling in Africa and Europe during the trial. When he returned to the United States in October, the Harlem Representative noted that the events in Mississippi undermined the reputation of United States as the standard bearer of democracy around the world. According to Powell, Till’s murder was, in effect, “a lynching of the Statue of Liberty.”In October, two months after the House had adjourned in August, Powell appeared in Manhattan before a crowd of 20,000 to protest the verdict. He called for a boycott of everything “made in Mississippi,” hoping to punish the state with economic sanctions so long as it allowed lynchings to continue with impunity. Powell also demanded President Dwight D. Eisenhower call a special session of Congress to immediately take up civil rights legislation.Both Powell and Diggs threatened to challenge the right of Mississippi’s all-White delegation to their seats in the House, insisting they were only elected because of the exclusion of Black voters from the polls. Speaking at a rally in Detroit that October, Diggs denounced the verdict and the ongoing threat of violence facing African Americans, adding that he would push the House to pass civil rights legislation in the new year. “It is obvious that although I was elected from Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, I also represent every Negro in Mississippi,” Diggs said. Along with his House colleagues Dawson and Powell, Diggs noted that “we represent 15 million Negroes. We intend to do just that.”“A Year Loaded with Political Dynamite”When the House reconvened on January 3, 1956, the Chicago Tribune forecasted “a year loaded with political dynamite” on Capitol Hill. Republican Gordon Canfield of New Jersey, a longtime civil rights advocate in the House, was the first of several Members to introduce a federal antilynching bill following Till’s murder. Since January 20, 1900, when Representative George H. White of North Carolina introduced the first federal antilynching bill, several attempts had been made to enable the federal government to intervene without success.In January, Diggs spoke on the House Floor to urge his colleagues to empower the U.S. Attorney General to “intervene in those cases where individual states refuse to provide equal protection of the law to all citizens.” By March, 26 Representatives—including Diggs and Powell—described by one reporter as the bipartisan “House civil rights bloc” met to coordinate strategy. They appointed a delegation of six Members, led by Republican Hugh Doggett Scott Jr. of Pennsylvania and Democrat Edna Flannery Kelly of New York, to meet with the U.S. Department of Justice, House Judiciary Chair Emanuel Celler of New York, and Thomas Joseph Lane of Massachusetts, the chair of the Judiciary subcommittee on civil rights bills, to discuss how to pass legislation before the end of the session. By June, the House Rules Committee had held a hearing on H.R. 627, which created a national commission to investigate civil rights violations and a new civil rights division within the Justice Department, as well as empowered the U.S. Attorney General to bring civil suits in federal courts to protect individual rights.Southern state delegations mobilized against these efforts. In remarks in the Congressional Record, Elijah Lewis Forrester of Georgia claimed that if the accused men had killed Till, “there was certainly great provocation.” He added that “murders in Chicago are daily occurrences,” yet there was not a call for federal intervention in Illinois.The Mississippi House delegation also defended their state and questioned the role of the federal government in the South. In June, Mississippi lawmakers testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where Representative Whitten backed the integrity of the Mississippi justice system and insisted that the body found in the river was not Emmett Till. Mississippi Representative John Bell Williams denounced the proposal to increase the power of the Justice Department in civil rights matters, which he said would create a federal “police state.” The Supreme Court, Williams said, was trying to “abort the Constitution and take over the prerogatives of the States.” Each Member of the Mississippi delegation joined a group of 83 House Members who signed a statement read into the Record denouncing the civil rights bill on July 13.On July 17, Diggs and Powell spoke on the House Floor to back the pending civil rights bill, demanding voting rights to fortify democracy in the South. Powell accepted that the bill was not perfect but emphasized that it “symbolizes the authority and willingness of the Federal Government to protect certain basic rights of the United States citizenship.” Diggs noted that jury duty was tied to voter registration, and no African Americans were on the jury during the Till murder trial. The bill passed the House on July 23, but the Senate did not take it up before the end of the session.The bipartisan group of legislators advocating for civil rights legislation found more success in the 85th Congress (1957–1959). In debates and committee hearings in the House and Senate, the Till case remained a key part of the push for civil rights legislation on Capitol Hill. The resulting Civil Rights Act of 1957 included the main provisions of the 1956 bill that passed the House, including the proposal to expand the role of the U.S. Attorney General in civil rights cases and the creation of both a civil rights division in the Department of Justice and a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.Although the law did not immediately reverse the system of Jim Crow segregation in the South, it was the first federal civil rights legislation passed since 1875. Within a decade the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 created a robust role for the federal government in protecting the civil and political rights of all Americans.More than half a century later, Black lawmakers who had grown up in the 1950s, including Representative John Lewis of Georgia, often reflected on the significance of the murder of Emmett Till. Inspired by his memory, they eventually secured the passage of a federal antilynching law—a legislative victory more than 120 years in the making.Sources: Congressional Record, House, 84th Cong., 2nd sess. (13 July 1956): 12760–12761; Congressional Record, House, 84th Cong., 2nd sess. (17 July 1956): 13176–13178, 13181–13182; Congressional Record, Extension of Remarks, 84th Cong., 2nd sess. (24 July 1956): A5819; H.R. 4004, 78th Cong. (1944); H.R. 228, 80th Cong. (1947); H.R. 230, 80th Cong. (1947); H.R. 383, 81st Cong. (1949); H.R. 7879, 84th Cong (1956); H.R. 627, 84th Cong. (1955); Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Poll Taxes, 78th Cong., 1st sess. (1943); Hearings before the House Committee on Rules, H.R. 627, 84th Cong., 2nd sess. (1956); Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Civil Rights Proposals, 84th Cong., 2nd sess. (1956); Devery S. Anderson, Emmett Till: The Murder That Shocked the World and Propelled the Civil Rights Movement (Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 2015); Christopher Manning, William L. Dawson and the Limits of Black Electoral Leadership (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2009); Wright Thompson, The Barn: The Secret History of a Murder in Mississippi (New York: Penguin Press, 2024); Afro-American (Baltimore, MD), 15 December 1934, 8 October 1955, 3 March 1956; Afro-American Red Star (Washington, DC), 31 January 2003; Atlanta Daily World, 6 November 1953, 17 November 1953, 3 May 1955; Baltimore Sun, 12 October 1955; Boston Globe, 25 September 1955; Call and Post (Cleveland, OH), 16 March 1939, 15 January 1955, 24 September 1955; Chicago Defender, 26 April 1952, 14 May 1955, 27 August 1955, 1 October 1955, 8 October 1955, 28 July 1956; Chicago Daily Tribune, 2 January 1956; Detroit Tribune, 1 October 1955; Journal and Guide (Norfolk, VA), 14 August 1937; Los Angeles Times, 24 July 1956; Memphis Triangle (TN), 27 July 1929; Michigan Chronicle (Detroit), 8 October 1955, 21 January 1956; New Journal and Guide (Norfolk, VA), 10 May 1952, 24 January 1953, 1 October 1955; New York Times, 12 October 1955, 13 July 1956, 28 August 2005; Pittsburgh Courier, 8 October 1955; Wall Street Journal, 15 March 1990; Washington Post, 16 July 1929, 12 January 1956, 3 November 2015; Washington Post Magazine, 27 February 2000.
A “Very Close Division of the Next House”: The Dramatic Majority Flip Heading into the 72nd Congress | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
On March 4, 1931, Speaker Nicholas Longworth of Ohio stood on the rostrum, gavel in hand, and adjourned the 71st Congress (1929–1931), ending what had been a remarkably volatile term. The Congress had started two years earlier, in April 1929, when President Herbert Hoover called lawmakers to Washington for a special session to address a painful recession in the country’s agricultural sector. Just six months later, the stock market collapsed, sparking what would quickly become the Great Depression.In November 1930, the midterm elections became a referendum on the country’s economic conditions when voters largely held incumbent Republican lawmakers responsible for the depression. The results were stark. In the 71st Congress, the GOP held 270 seats. In the 1930 midterms, Republicans lost dozens of races but kept their majority heading into the 72nd Congress (1931–1933) with the slimmest possible margin. Out of 435 seats in the House, Republicans had won 218, Democrats captured 216, and the Farmer-Labor Party from Minnesota, which planned to caucus with Democrats, earned one. For all intents and purposes, the House would be 218 to 217.The close party division looked even more precarious during the fall and winter when three lawmakers died between late November 1930 and early March 1931: New York Democrat John F. Quayle died from pneumonia on November 27, 1930. A month later, New York Representative David O’Connell died at a shoeshine stand in midtown Manhattan. And on March 1, 1931, Republican Representative Henry Allen Cooper of Wisconsin, the oldest Member of the House and—with 18 nonconsecutive terms in Congress—the longest serving, died of a heart attack at the age of 80 in his room at a Washington, DC, hotel.When Longworth addressed the House three days after Cooper’s death in the final minutes of the 71st Congress, he acknowledged the sudden uncertainty heading into the next term, which, per the standing practice at the time, was set to open in December that year, a full 13 months after the previous fall’s election. “Perhaps this is the last time I will address you from this rostrum,” Longworth said, eliciting nervous laughter from the chamber. “I do not mean to insinuate that I regard it as a probability, but I must admit it is a possibility. . . . It is only an All-Wise Providence who is going to determine which of the two great political parties will organize the next House of Representatives.”Longworth, however, would not be there to see which party organized the next House. He died a month later, on April 9, 1931, while vacationing in South Carolina. Longworth’s death, along with that of Quayle, O’Connell, and Cooper, was just the beginning. By the time the 72nd Congress opened in December 1931, a total of 14 Members-elect had died. The special elections to fill their vacancies before the new term opened would upend the House majority.The Loss of the SpeakerThe 1930 midterm elections occurred a year after the stock market crashed in October 1929, sending the U.S. economy into a tailspin. Americans lost billions in personal wealth. Businesses across the country failed, plunging millions of people out of work. On top of the financial crisis, the passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff of 1930, which had raised fees on imports, exacerbated the economic hardship. Meanwhile, the continued enforcement of Prohibition, banning the sale of alcohol, grew increasingly unpopular. The combination of those forces led to significant electoral headwinds for House Republicans. The loss of 52 Republican seats heading into the 72nd Congress—and the resulting one seat GOP majority—left legislative plans tenuous. But the sudden deaths of multiple Members after the election—including Speaker Longworth—ushered in a period of remarkable uncertainty.While the deaths of Quayle and O’Connell did not alter the balance of power—both lawmakers represented safe Democratic seats—Cooper’s death posed a much more serious problem for Republicans intent on keeping their majority. Worried members of the Wisconsin delegation told reporters that replacing Cooper would be “titanic.” Wisconsin Republicans hinted that if large numbers of candidates entered the Republican primaries to succeed the late lawmaker, they could split the vote and enable a Democrat to win the seat.As Members returned home after the 71st Congress adjourned, the House suffered an additional blow. On March 16, Democrat James Aswell of Louisiana, the ranking member on the House Committee on Agriculture, died from heart disease. Louisiana was a Democratic stronghold, however, and Aswell was soon replaced by a fellow Democrat, John Overton, in a special election two months later in May.But when Speaker Longworth died suddenly from pneumonia while visiting Aiken, South Carolina, the House was thrown for a loss. The nation grieved as Longworth’s body was transported to Ohio by train. Democratic Leader John Nance Garner of Texas, who hobnobbed and sparred with Longworth for decades, told reporters, “I have lost one of the best friends of a lifetime, the country a good citizen, and the congress a most valued legislator.” President Hoover, who went to Ohio to attend the funeral service, recalled Longworth’s “happy character, his sterling honesty, his courage in public questions.”Longworth, a bon vivant who was just 61 years old when he died, had first won election to Congress in 1902. He lost re-election in 1912 but recaptured his seat in 1914 and served until his death. His final race in 1930 had been a nailbiter: Longworth, who usually won re-election by 10 points or more, defeated his Democratic opponent that year with just 51 percent of the vote. Many wondered if Republicans would be able to hold the seat in 1931 amid worsening economic conditions. For the Wall Street Journal, Longworth’s death raised the probability that a “very close division of the next House . . . may be altered in a special election.”Summertime SadnessBy mid-May 1931, party divisions in the House remained breathtakingly close: 216 Republicans, 216 Democrats, and one Minnesota Farmer-Laborer. That the House had lost five lawmakers between late November 1930 and early April 1931 was difficult enough. But over the next six months, the House would mourn the deaths of nine more Members-elect: four Democrats and five Republicans.On May 26, 1931, Democratic Representative-elect Matthew O’Malley of New York passed away. O’Malley had just won the special election to replace one of the deceased Members-elect, John Quayle. Then, three days later, Democrat Charles A. Mooney of Ohio died.July, however, was perhaps the cruelest month of all. In a little more than three weeks, the House lost Pennsylvania Republican and House Judiciary Committee chairman George S. Graham; Democrat Charles G. Edwards of Georgia; Republican Bird J. Vincent of Michigan; and Democrat Samuel C. Major of Missouri.By midsummer 1931, the House GOP had lost its longest-serving Member in Cooper, its beloved Speaker in Longworth, and a powerful committee leader in Graham. A simple majority required 218 votes, but the deaths of so many Members-elect in such a short amount of time meant the party division by August stood at 214 Republicans, 212 Democrats, and one Farmer-Laborer.Special ElectionsBy late summer, states began holding special elections to fill the House’s many vacancies. On September 9, 1931, Georgia Democrat Homer Parker won election unopposed to replace Democrat Charles Edwards. Three weeks later, Democrat Robert Johnson of Missouri was elected to replace Democrat Samuel Major. And on October 13, Republican Thomas Amlie of Wisconsin won election to Cooper’s former seat. Amlie’s victory meant the party division in the House at mid-autumn stood at 215 Republicans, 214 Democrats, and one Farmer-Laborer.In the span of four days in late October 1931, however, the House was plunged into uncertainty again. On October 18, Republican Ernest Robinson Ackerman of New Jersey died, followed by Republican Fletcher Hale of New Hampshire on October 22. There was such urgency to protect the slim GOP majority in the House, that New Jersey’s Republican governor called the state legislature into session to move the special election for Ackerman’s seat from January 1932 to December 1, 1931, just a week before the 72nd Congress was set to open.New Jersey’s gambit aside, many observers saw the special elections on November 3 as likely to determine the fate of the House majority for the 72nd Congress. It had been two years since the onset of the Great Depression, and on the eve of the special elections the Associated Press observed that, given high voter dissatisfaction with the Hoover administration, “tomorrow’s results will inevitably be interpreted as an expression of the public attitude toward the President.”On Election Day, voters initially seemed ready to uphold the existing party division in the House. In New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio Democratic candidates filled Democratic vacancies, and Republican candidates filled Republican vacancies, including that of former Republican Speaker Longworth.But in Michigan, Democrats picked up their first seat when Michael James Hart, who opposed Prohibition, cruised to victory with 55 percent of the vote, replacing Republican Bird Vincent. In a sign that the electoral landscape had started to shift, Hart’s victory was the first time a Democrat had won the central Michigan district in 32 years. “Democrats viewed the result as a protest against Republican policies,” the Associated Press reported on the Michigan race. “Republicans, still stunned, either blamed their defeat on economic conditions or a failure of the National Committee to take a more active part in the campaign.” By the end of the day on November 3, Democrats headed into the 72nd Congress with 217 seats. Republicans had 215 seats, the Farmer-Labor Party had one, and two seats remained vacant.On November 6, 1931, however, chaos struck again when Republican Representative Harry McLeary Wurzbach of Texas died in San Antonio. To fill the seat before the 72nd Congress, Texas officials scheduled a special election just two weeks later on November 24. After the short campaign, voters elected Democrat Richard Kleberg with 47 percent of the vote in a four-way race. Kleberg’s victory gave Democrats 218 seats heading into the 72nd Congress—an outright majority.All eyes then turned to the upcoming special elections in New Jersey and New Hampshire where economic concerns dominated the campaign. In New Jersey, especially, the New York Times observed that “the Democratic campaigners have held to one issue: That the Hoover Republican Administration, by refusing to face the facts of the depression and by vacillating in taking steps toward recovery, was responsible for the severity of the depression.” Having already secured control of the chamber for the next session, Democrats padded their margin when Percy Hamilton Stewart was elected on December 1 to fill the New Jersey seat previously held by Ackerman. Democrats had 219 seats when the Congress opened but they would soon have 220. In early January, Democrats flipped a fourth GOP seat when New Hampshire Democrat William N. Rogers was elected to replace Republican Fletcher Hale who had died in October.The 72nd CongressThe 72nd Congress convened on December 7, 1931, having undergone a stunning upheaval during the previous year. From November 1930 to November 1931, 14 Members-elect died before they could take their seats: seven Democrats (Representatives-elect Quayle, O’Connell, Aswell, O’Malley, Mooney, Edwards, and Major) and seven Republicans (Representatives-elect Cooper, Longworth, Graham, Vincent, Ackerman, Hale, and Wurzbach). In the special elections that followed, Democrats flipped three Republican seats to capture the House in an unprecedented majority change before anyone had even taken the oath of office for the 72nd Congress.Small though the Democratic majority was, it was enough to ensure the election of Democratic Leader John Nance Garner of Texas as Speaker and install the party’s committee chairs across the House—including Representative Mary Teresa Norton of New Jersey, who became the first Democratic woman, and only the second woman ever, to chair a House committee when she wielded the gavel of the Committee on the District of Columbia. After the House elected its officers and debated the rules on Opening Day of the 72nd Congress, it approved a series of resolutions expressing its “profound sorrow” at the deaths of their former colleagues. Just before 2:30 p.m., Democratic Leader Henry Thomas Rainey of Illinois moved to adjourn “as a further mark of respect to our deceased Members.”The Twentieth AmendmentFor more than 130 years, lawmakers had complained that the 13-month interregnum between an election and the opening of a new Congress was problematic. In times of crisis—during the Civil War, for instance—Presidents were forced to call Congress into session months ahead of schedule to address critical issues. The longstanding requirement that new legislative terms open in December also meant that lawmakers had just three months in which to legislate during the second session before the Congress ended in March. For those Members who had lost re-election, however, it meant they had three months in which to continue working as “lame ducks”—debating bills and passing laws after having lost the support of their constituents.That quirk of America’s legislative calendar did not last for much longer following the chaotic and uncertain period between November 1930 and December 1931. Legislation to set the start date of a new Congress in early January of each odd year—just weeks after the national elections—had been debated on Capitol Hill since the early 1920s. It passed both chambers during the 72nd Congress, was ratified by the states in early 1933, and went into effect as the Twentieth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution two years later.On January 3, 1935, the 74th Congress (1935–1937) convened only eight weeks after Election Day. Although the narrow window between the election and Opening Day made the transition smoother, the House could not fully escape the sands of time: Representative-elect Frederick Landis of Indiana had died on November 15 leaving one vacancy. But for one House Officer, at least, the focus at the start of the new term was about renewal as much as it was about loss. “We are erecting today a new milestone in the annals of the political history of this Nation,” the House Clerk announced before overseeing the election of the Speaker to start the new term. “This is the first time in 146 years that an old Congress dies and a new one is born on the 3rd day of January.”Sources: Congressional Record, House, 71st Cong., 3rd sess. (4 March 1931): 7395; Congressional Record, House, 72nd Cong., 1st sess. (7 December 1931): 15; Congressional Record, House, 74th Cong., 1st sess. (3 January 1935): 9; Atlanta Constitution, 10 April 1931; Boston Globe (daily), 10 April, 3 November, 5 November 1931; Chicago Daily Tribune, 10 April 1931; New York Times, 6 July 1930, 1 March, 2 March, 5 March, 10 April, 27 May, 20 October, 23 October, 4 November, 7 November, 14 November, 25 November, 29 November 1931; Wall Street Journal, 4 November 1930, 10 April 1931; Washington Post, 4 November, 14 November 1931; Michael Barone, Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan (New York: Free Press, 1990); Michael J. Dubin, United States Congressional Elections, 1788–1997, The Official Results (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, 1998); David M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1932–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); Donald A. Ritchie, Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007); Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, “Election Statistics, 1920 to Present”; Office of the Historian, U.S. House of Representatives, “Party Divisions of the House of Representatives, 1789 to Present”; Office of the Historian, U.S. House of Representatives, “The Twentieth Amendment.”
Recent Artifacts Online, Spring 2025 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
See what’s fresh for spring with newly donated and newly digitized objects in the House Collection. Over the years, hundreds of people collected congressional treasures and gave them to the House of Representatives. Take a look at a few standouts.Visitors’ Gallery PassThis pass, donated by Daniel P. Smith, gave 10 days’ worth of access to the Visitor’s Gallery in the House. Albert Pearson of Ohio signed it in late July 1894 for aspiring lawyer Custer Snyder. Snyder saw debates on the federal budget, pensions for disabled military veterans, and West Coast shipping ports, among other legislative actions.Plant for More Beautiful Cities Postage StampIn 1969, the U.S. Postal Service released a set of four colorful stamps on the theme of beautifying America. Arranged in a perforated block, the six-cent stamps included illustrations of cheerful flowers and cherry blossoms brightening up parks, streets, and highways. One stamp in the set, donated by Janice and Harris Strizever, “Plant for More Beautiful Cities,” foregrounds pink azaleas and yellow-tinged white tulips. The flowers garner so much attention that the viewer could almost miss the Capitol Building in the background.Hastings Keith Lapel PinCampaign slogan alliteration beats strong in the hearts of many politicians, and Hastings Keith was no exception. This lapel pin, given to the House Collection by Will Plaster, urged the voters to “Keep Keith” in Congress. The Massachusetts native was born in Brockton and represented the district there for 14 years.Visitor’s Gallery PassRepresentative Wells Goodykoontz, who represented a West Virginia district from 1919 to 1923, issued this House Gallery pass, a contribution to the House Collection from Joe Shoemaker, to visitor Warren Bailey in 1919. For much of the early 20th century, gallery passes were decorated with steel engravings and produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. In addition to conveying the information necessary to gain admittance to the House Gallery, the passes include a female personification of Liberty, who gestures toward the House Mace, which she holds by her side. Behind the visitor information, a shield covered in stars and stripes, bracketed by laurel and oak branches, is printed in a lighter shade of gray.William Lacy Clay Jr. Baseball CardThe Congressional Baseball Game’s first trading cards arrived in 1972. In the 21st century, the tradition is still going strong. This William Lacy Clay card from 2011, part of a complete set provided by donor Joe Foley, follows the time-honored tradition of showing the player’s allegiance to a local team, in this case the St. Louis Cardinals.Want something more artful? We have new portraits, too:For additional new paintings, photographs, and objects on Collections Search, check out other Recent Artifacts Online blogs.
Edition for Educators—Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Since the First Congress opened in 1789, more than 11,000 people have served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Most served capably for a few terms and returned to their communities. But some lawmakers have left towering legacies and are remembered for their legislative prowess, path-breaking careers, and bold personalities. These Members of Congress, including powerful Speakers of the House, strong-willed legislators, trailblazing Representatives, and policy specialists, qualify as “Giants of the House.”As a volunteer nurse and advocate for veterans across the country during and after World War I, Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts won election to the House following the death of her husband, Representative John Jacob Rogers, in 1925 and went on to serve for 35 years in Congress. During her record-setting tenure, Rogers helped shape America’s role in World War II, provided a path for women in military service, and expanded the responsibilities of the federal government to care for veterans and their families.This month’s Edition for Educators highlights the pathbreaking career of Representative Edith Nourse Rogers, one of the longest-tenured women in Congress.The “Widow’s Mandate”HIGHLIGHT—Representative Edith Nourse Rogers of MassachusettsRepresentative Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts, a renowned advocate for veterans and one of the longest-serving women in House history, was born in Saco, Maine, on March 19, 1881. Following an early career advising and assisting Congressmen and Presidents, she won a special election to succeed her husband, John Jacob Rogers of Massachusetts, following his death in 1925.HISTORICAL DATA—Women Members with Military ServiceThe experience Edith Nourse Rogers gained serving as a nurse during World War I shaped her congressional career and her deep respect for American veterans. Although she was not an official member of America’s armed services as a volunteer nurse, Rogers helped set the stage for women to join and serve in the nation’s armed forces.ESSAY—Widows and Familial ConnectionsMore often than not, the first generation of women in Congress gained experience in public affairs as political confidantes and campaign surrogates for the Congressmen to whom they were married or otherwise related. Ironically, it was personal tragedy rather than a shared interest in reform that provided political entrée for most early women in Congress. Beginning with Representative Mae Nolan of California in 1923, eight of the women who served in Congress between 1917 and 1934 were widows who succeeded their late husbands. None had held previous political office. But in these cases—in which special elections were called quickly to fill the vacancies, leaving little time for campaigning—party leaders believed in the value of having the same familiar last name on the ballot. Several of these women, however, shared much more than a last name with their predecessors: they were among their husbands’ most trusted political advisers, particularly Edith Nourse Rogers and Florence Kahn of California.This essay from the first chapter of Women in Congress discusses the “widow’s mandate,” as it was popularly coined, as well as the expectations political party structures had for women lawmakers and the ways in which women Members like Rogers set their own course as both leaders and legislators.Representative Rogers of MassachusettsPEOPLE PROFILE—Edith Nourse Rogers of MassachusettsDuring her 35-year House career, one of the longest tenures of any woman in American history, Rogers authored legislation that had far-reaching effects on American servicemen and women. Initially relegated to middling committee assignments, Rogers gradually rose within the ranks of the Republican Party. In 1933, she earned a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee and began to address the rise of fascism in Italy and Nazi Germany. As isolationism gripped her party, Rogers voted against the Neutrality Act of 1937 and cosponsored legislation to assist Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. Congresswoman Rogers’s crowning legislative achievements came during World War II and in the immediate postwar years, including the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps Act and the GI Bill of Rights.ESSAY—Onto the National Stage: Congresswomen in an Age of Crisis, 1935–1954 This second chapter from Women in Congress covers the tumultuous two decades that encompassed the Great Depression, World War II, and the start of the Cold War. Women participated in America’s survival, recovery, and ascent to world power in important and unprecedented ways; they became shapers of the welfare state, workers during wartime, and members of the military. Like their male counterparts, women in Congress legislated to provide economic relief to their constituents, debated the merits of government intervention to help the economy, argued about America’s role in world affairs, and grappled with challenges and opportunities during wartime. As a ranking member and later chair of committees that worked on veterans’ legislation, Rogers held a central role in the nation’s response to World War II and its aftermath.RECORD—Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps BillBefore serving in Congress, Representative Edith Nourse Rogers worked overseas during World War I inspecting field hospitals. In Europe, she saw women who served on a contractual or voluntary basis who received no legal protection or medical care for their essential contributions. When she served in Congress many years later, her experience as a field nurse influenced the legislation Rogers sponsored, including the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps bill. When the bill became law in 1942, it formalized the indispensable role women played in the military during wartime and compensated them for their service and in the event of injury or illness.PathbreakerBLOG—“The Most Gallant Lady from Massachusetts”The portrait of Edith Nourse Rogers as chair of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs was unveiled on July 27, 1950. The artwork had been commissioned by the Massachusetts American Legion, and it still hangs in the Veterans’ Affairs Committee rooms in the Cannon House Office Building. The portrait shows Rogers as she appeared in the later part of her 35-year career—white-haired and dignified, set in a vague, dark, impressionistic space. It closely resembles artist Howard Chandler Christy’s other portraits of House Members, which include two Speakers of the House and two other committee chairs. Contrary to the business-as-usual depiction in her portrait, Rogers was exceptional in many ways. She was only the second woman—after her colleague Mary Norton of New Jersey—to have a portrait commemorating her time leading a committee hung in the House. By the time the portrait was painted, Rogers had served in Congress for a quarter of a century, chalking up major victories on behalf of veterans and military personnel.HISTORICAL DATA—Women with 25 Years or More House Service For more than half a century, Edith Nourse Rogers held the record as the longest-serving woman in Congress. Though her record has since been eclipsed, Rogers’s career remains among the lengthiest tenures for any woman in the U.S. House of Representatives. This chart provides a list of all women who have served in the U.S. House of Representatives for at least 25 years.BLOG—“You Start It and You Like the Work, and You Just Keep On”“The first 30 years are the hardest,” Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts said of her more than three decades in the U.S. House of Representatives. The former Red Cross volunteer nurse compared her tenure in Congress to “taking care of the sick. You start it and you like the work, and you just keep on.” In an institution where long service often yields greater power, many long-tenured Members became some of the House’s most famous and influential people. With her 35 years in office, Rogers is among a select few—less than three percent of all lawmakers—to have served so long in the House.Additional ResourcesThe primary research collection for Edith Nourse Rogers’s congressional career can be found at Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, in the Schlesinger Library. Additional material, including letters to constituents, is available through the Massachusetts Historical Society.This is part of a series of blog posts for educators highlighting the resources available on History, Art & Archives of the U.S. House of Representatives. For lesson plans, fact sheets, glossaries, and other materials for the classroom, see the website's Education section.