News
Entertainment
Science & Technology
Life
Culture & Art
Hobbies
News
Entertainment
Science & Technology
Culture & Art
Hobbies
Discover Latest #Reform News, Articles and Videos with Contenting
Tackling the US prison system The US prison system has long been an issue of concern for many Americans. Despite the US having only 5% of the world’s population, it is home to 25% of the world’s prisoners. The US prison population has grown exponentially in recent years and this has been largely attributed to the ‘War on Drugs’, which has seen the introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. This has resulted in a large number of non-violent offenders being incarcerated for lengthy periods of time. There have been a number of initiatives to address this issue, such as the bipartisan First Step Act which was signed into law in 2018. The Act seeks to reduce the number of federal prisoners, reform sentencing guidelines and expand rehabilitation programs. There is also growing support for the decriminalization of certain drugs such as marijuana. These measures are a step in the right direction, however much more needs to be done to reform the US prison system.
The 1890 Police Census–Digitized — NYC Department of Records & Information Services
The Municipal Archives recently completed digitizing the 1890 Police Census. Supported by a generous grant from the Peck-Stackpoole Foundation, project staff reformatted all 894 extant volumes of the collection to provide access (113 volumes are missing from the collection). They re-housed the volum
The Daring 19th-Century Reformers Who Sought to End Prostitution by Offering Financial and Emotional Support to Urban Sex Workers | Smithsonian
Led entirely by women, the American Female Moral Reform Society gave material aid to those in need and pushed for men to be held accountable for frequenting brothels
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.
Objection Day | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
During the 33rd Congress (1853–1855), a Texas man named Joseph Clymer launched what would become a quarter-century effort to petition Congress for financial redress after the U.S. Army broke the terms of a multiyear shipping contract he had signed with the government. A few years earlier in 1851, Clymer had won a bid to transport military supplies from Fort Leavenworth on the Kansas-Missouri border to locations in Texas and New Mexico. Clymer subcontracted part of the job with another shipping outfit, and the Army agreed to pay Clymer and his associates at least $112,908 over two years to move goods and supplies by wagon train during the spring and summer of 1851 and 1852. After successfully making the deliveries in 1851, Clymer received notice from the Army in March 1852 that he would not be required to ship any goods at all that year. By then, Clymer had already prepared 30 wagons and hired three dozen teamsters and hundreds of work animals to transport the goods and materials that the Army had stipulated in his contract. Clymer protested the decision and noted that without the freight “he would lose much, and be put to great stress.”In 1854, Clymer’s case went before an auditor at the U.S. Treasury Department who determined that Clymer had been “greatly damaged, and a heavy loser” after the Army reneged on its contract. Another Treasury official agreed with the auditor’s conclusion and outlined the next steps: “Mr. Clymer, sustained damage and injury by the non-fulfilment of contract on the part of the government, and that in such a case Congress alone can afford redress.”On Friday, February 23, 1855, the House Committee on Military Affairs reported Clymer’s petition seeking that redress as House Joint Resolution 59, “for the relief of Joseph Clymer,” a private bill that dealt solely with his claim; private bills are different from public bills, which concern the country’s general citizenry. The committee, which supported Clymer’s claim, reported the bill with a requirement “authorizing the accounting officers of the treasury to settle the claim upon the principles of equity and justice.” The House placed it on the calendar for the next day’s debate, but the chamber adjourned for lack of a quorum and lawmakers never considered it.Clymer’s petition had been the victim of unlucky timing in 1855. But as a private bill, it faced long odds from the start because it was also subject to a requirement in the legislative calendar called “objection day,” during which opposition from just one lawmaker would kill a bill. From the time the House created objection day in 1839 until Members ended it four decades later, the House had effectively created a legislative veto over private bills. In an institution where the majority would eventually be able to exercise almost unchecked power, House Rules for a time governed the private calendar under the tyranny of the smallest possible minority: one. Clymer’s bill lingered in Congress, off and on, for more than a quarter century. Objection day had not killed his petition in 1855, but it nearly did 26 years later, when, in 1881, timing was finally on Clymer’s side.Private BillsBy the time the House considered Clymer’s petition in 1855, much of the legislation Congress passed came in the form of private bills. In the 33rd Congress, when Clymer first requested help from Congress, lawmakers approved almost twice as many private bills (352) as public bills (188). Before the creation of America’s social safety net in the twentieth century, private bills were the primary way everyday Americans sought help from their government. Private bills often came in the form of relief bills—money that Congress appropriated on a case-by-case basis for widows, wounded veterans, people experiencing hardship, or those like Clymer who had claims against the government. While many Members saw petitions and private bills as an extension of their constituent services, others saw them, in the words of one nineteenth century Georgia congressman, as “mediated robberies” of the federal purse.In 1810, lawmakers began blocking out time in the legislative calendar for the consideration of private bills when the House met in the Committee of the Whole. That year, on the motion of Representative Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky, the House reserved Fridays for debate on “reports and bills originating from petition,” giving private bills priority over all other matters in the House’s schedule that day. Sixteen years later, in 1826, as the demands on lawmakers grew, the House approved a new rule submitted by William Leigh Brent of Louisiana, that reserved both Fridays and Saturdays “for the consideration of private bills and private business, in preference to any other.”In early 1839, the House changed its rules again, creating what became known as “objection day.” The House reserved the first and fourth Fridays each month for the private calendar and stipulated that on those days “the calendar of private bills shall be called over, and the bills to the passage of which no objection shall then be made, shall be first considered and disposed of.” Bills that were objected to, however, were sent to the back of the private calendar, buried under a mountain of other legislation.“Vigilance” and “Long Delayed Justice”It’s not clear when the term objection day gained traction, but it is first mentioned in the Congressional Globe on Friday, June 2, 1848—“‘objection day,’ on which bills could be passed that were unobjectionable,” noted the editors of the Globe. Thirty years later, in 1877, the Boston Daily Globe newspaper highlighted perhaps the truer nature of the term. On December 7, the House went into the Committee of the Whole. “As this was what is known as ‘objection day,’ nearly all of the bills on the calendar were objected to.”For at least one reporter, objection day had both costs and benefits. On occasions when the Committee of the Whole cleared a large number of bills on objection day, consideration was “necessarily loose and imperfect,” wrote a New York Tribune correspondent in January 1849 after witnessing the proceedings in the House. “Great reliance must be placed on the vigilance and rectitude of the Committee reporting the bills.” But the author was confident that “seven eights” of the bills on the private calendar “were right, and that much long delayed justice was secured, much undeserved suffering relieved” during objection day proceedings.Reporting on a subsequent objection day, the Tribune was surprised that more private bills “were objected to than allowed to pass, there being a number of particularly hard cases on the Calendar.” The author suspected that some bills that deserved to pass ended up failing but ultimately concluded that objection day was “remarkably well done.” Most of the measures that succeeded “were grants of small pensions to men who lost their health or limbs in the public service, to widows of deceased Revolutionary soldiers, &c. &c.”Deserving though these cases may have been, the Tribune observed that there was always “some Member . . . with a sour stomach” who would object on Fridays and Saturdays, dashing the hopes of a downtrodden petitioner in the process. There were always Members “who grudge the days devoted to” the private calendar and vote to adjourn as soon as possible; always Members “who seem to detest most heartily the lobby influences with which these bills surround Congress and distract the attention of its Members.” The cumulative effect meant that “very dubious claims go through with a rush” one day, while “fair and just” claims get smothered the next day.“I am inclined to think there are a great many unjust claims presented before the Government,” Representative Alexander Stephens of Georgia said during consideration of a House Rules change in December 1852, “but I think there are a great many just ones which have been sleeping here for a half century, perhaps longer.” For Stephens—who would go on to serve as Confederate vice president during the Civil War—the problem wasn’t the type of private legislation the House considered, it was objection day itself. “That is a useless day,” he said. “No discussion is allowed. A claim is taken up, the Clerk reads a long report to the House until he is horse, to which perhaps not more than fifteen Members of the House are listening. Then someone says ‘I object!’ and thus ends the matter for that day.”For many years, Cave Johnson of Tennessee reportedly made it regular practice to oppose legislation on the private calendar, protecting “Uncle Sam’s strong box with the fidelity of a dog and the snarling combativeness of a genuine Cerberus,” the Louisville Daily Courier remembered in 1855, a decade after Johnson left the House. With the Tennessean gone, the role of chief objector fell to John Letcher of Virginia. Letcher “honestly” believed, the Daily Courier said, that “every man who seeks redress at the hands of Congress, or asks to be paid what he (the claimant) considers a just demand upon the government, is a dishonest man; not to say a rascal, and has a deliberate design to defraud the treasury.”Because objection day allowed just one Member to determine the fate of a bill, some observers found the practice, well, objectionable. In 1854, an editorial published under the penname “Jefferson,” critiqued the legislative mechanism as it existed in the House Rules, highlighting objection day as the most egregious example of the how “the rules work most onerously.” Under objection day, “Jefferson” observed, the good faith recommendation of a House committee to approve a private claim could be struck down by one lawmaker without a good faith debate on the floor. “The veto power is conferred by the constitution upon the President of the United States alone, but by the Rules of the House of Representatives each member can exercise this power as effectually as the President.” Some of the claims came from “widows and children imploring justice for years,” the author observed, and deserved to be considered. “An objection on the part of a single member should not be sufficient to defeat a just claim. The character of the country is involved in this matter.”In 1860, the House made a final adjustment to the objection day rule, giving bills that had already been objected to another chance at passage. On March 16 that year, the House approved an amendment that raised the number of objections required to effectively kill a private bill from one to five.The House ended objection day with a major overhaul of the rules in 1880 that, among other reforms, sought to better standardize the House Calendar. In a last-minute attempt to salvage objection day, Harry White of Pennsylvania offered an amendment to keep it on the books. Joseph Blackburn of Kentucky quickly snuffed out his effort. “What reason is there for continuing a practice which allows any bill on the Private Calendar to be passed over because of a single objection, when if by chance or luck it comes upon the next Friday it is not amenable to that objection at all?” he asked. “I would rather have the judgement of one of the standing committees of this House as to the merit or equity of a matter specially committed to it than to have the single unsupported opinion of any member on this floor.” White’s amendment to keep objection day was voted down overwhelmingly.Clymer’s PaydayA year later, in 1881, the House once again resurrected Joseph Clymer’s $18,325 claim against the government for lost revenue after the Army broke its shipping contract with him in 1852. Clymer’s bill had come up so often and been around for so long that in 1878 the House Claims Committee wrote that it was “most remarkable that a claim with so many recognitions of its justice should have been so long delayed of payment.” But some Members remained unwilling to approve Clymer’s claim, and Philip Hayes of Illinois rose to object when it was put to a vote. “It seems to me that bill ought not to be passed,” Hayes said. “If this claim has been running for twenty-five years, I think if there was any justice in it it would have been settled long ago. I wish to ask the Chair whether, under our new rules, there is an objection day, and if this be objection day?”“Under the present rules there is no objection day,” the presiding officer replied.Two other Members rose to defend Clymer’s claim, pointing out that it had already passed the Senate on two separate occasions but always failed in the House “for want of time.” Unable to wield veto power without the authority of objection day, Hayes lost the argument. The private bill compensating Clymer for $18,325 finally became law on March 2, 1881.Sources: House Journal, 11th Cong., 2nd sess. (22 January 1810): 189; House Journal, 19th Cong., 1st sess. (26 January 1826): 197; House Journal, 25th Cong., 3rd sess. (25 January 1839): 374; House Journal, Appendix, Standing Rules and Orders, 37th Cong., 3rd sess. (1863): 639; Annals of Congress, House, 11th Cong., 2nd sess. (19 January 1810): 1247; Annals of Congress, House, 11th Cong., 2nd sess. (22 January 1810): 1253; Congressional Globe, House, 25th Cong., 3rd sess. (25 January 1839): 446; Congressional Globe, House, 46th Cong., 2nd sess. (2 June 1848): 810; Congressional Record, House, 32nd Cong., 2nd sess. (20 December 1852): 98; Congressional Record, House, 46th Cong., 2nd sess. (24 February 1880): 1089; Congressional Record, House, 46th Cong., 3rd sess. (14 January 1881): 635; House Committee on Military Affairs, Joseph Clymer, To Accompany Joint Resolution No. 59, 33rd. Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110 (1855); House Committee on Claims, Joseph Clymer, 45th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 425 (1878); An Act for the Relief of Joseph Clymer, of Texas, 21 Stat. 637 (1881); Boston Daily Globe, 8 December 1877; Louisville Daily Courier, 12 January 1855; National Intelligencer, 11 January 1854; New York Tribune, 29 January 1848, 5 February 1849, 12 February 1849, 28 December 1858; Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. 10, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1876); Richard S. Beth, “Private Bills: Procedure in the House,” 21 October 2004, Report 98-628, Congressional Research Service; Joseph Cooper and Cheryl D. Young, “Bill Introduction in the Nineteenth Century: A Study of Institutional Change,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, no. 1 (Feb., 1989): 67–105; George B. Galloway, History of the House of Representatives, ed. Sindey Wise (1962; rev. Thomas Y. Crowell Company: New York, 1976).