To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

1902 Massachusetts legislature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

123rd
Massachusetts General Court
122nd 124th
Overview
Legislative bodyGeneral Court
ElectionNovember 5, 1901
Senate
Members40
PresidentRufus A. Soule
Party controlRepublican (33–7)[1]
House
Members240
SpeakerJames J. Myers
Party controlRepublican (159—70—11)[2]
Sessions
1stJanuary 1, 1902 (1902-01-01) – June 28, 1902 (1902-06-28)[3]
Rufus Soule, Senate president.
James Myers, House speaker.
Leaders of the Massachusetts General Court, 1902.

The 123rd Massachusetts General Court, consisting of the Massachusetts Senate and the Massachusetts House of Representatives, met in 1902 during the governorship of Winthrop M. Crane. Rufus A. Soule served as president of the Senate and James J. Myers served as speaker of the House.[4]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    3 077 666
    3 940 995
    52 992
    316
    6 657
  • The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27
  • When white supremacists overthrew a government
  • Why Did We Create Public Schools?: A Short History of Education
  • “Promises Kept: John McCormack, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid”
  • Lynching in the United States | Wikipedia audio article

Transcription

Episode 27: Progressive Era Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. history, and today we’re gonna talk about Progressives. No Stan Progressives. Yes. You know, like these guys who used to want to bomb the means of production, but also less radical Progressives. Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Are we talking about, like, tumblr progressive where it’s half discussions of misogyny and half high-contrast images of pizza? Because if so, I can get behind that. Me from the past, your anachronism is showing. Your Internet was green letters on a black screen. But no, The Progressive Era was not like tumblr, however I will argue that it did indirectly make tumblr and therefore JLaw gifsets possible, so that’s something. So some of the solutions that progressives came up with to deal with issues of inequality and injustice don’t seem terribly progressive today, and also it kinda overlapped with the gilded age, and progressive implies, like, progress, presumably progress toward freedom and justice, which is hard to argue about an era that involved one of the great restrictions on freedom in American history, prohibition. So maybe we shouldn’t call it the Progressive Era at all. I g--Stan, whatever, roll the intro. Intro So, if the Gilded Age was the period when American industrial capitalism came into its own, and people like Mark Twain began to criticize its associated problems, then the Progressive era was the age in which people actually tried to solve those problems through individual and group action. As the economy changed, Progressives also had to respond to a rapidly changing political system. The population of the U.S. was growing and its economic power was becoming ever more concentrated. And sometimes, Progressives responded to this by opening up political participation and sometimes by trying to restrict the vote. The thing is, broad participatory democracy doesn’t always result in effective government--he said, sounding like the Chinese national Communist Party. And that tension between wanting to have government for, of, and by the people and wanting to have government that’s, like, good at governing kind of defined the Progressive era. And also our era. But progressives were most concerned with the social problems that revolved around industrial capitalist society. And most of these problems weren’t new by 1900, but some of the responses were. Companies and, later, corporations had a problem that had been around at least since the 1880s: they needed to keep costs down and profits high in a competitive market. And one of the best ways to do this was to keep wages low, hours long, and conditions appalling: your basic house-elf situation. Just kidding, house elves didn’t get wages. Also, by the end of the 19th century, people started to feel like these large, monopolistic industrial combinations, the so-called trusts, were exerting too much power over people’s lives. The 1890s saw federal attempts to deal with these trusts, such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but overall, the Federal Government wasn’t where most progressive changes were made. For instance, there was muckraking, a form of journalism in which reporters would find some muck and rake it. Mass circulation magazines realized they could make money by publishing exposés of industrial and political abuse, so they did. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? I bet it involves muck. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either correct or I get shocked. “Let a man so much as scrape his finger pushing a truck in the pickle-rooms, and all the joints in his fingers might be eaten by the acid, one by one. Of the butchers and floormen, the beef-boners and trimmers, and all those who used knives, you could scarcely find a person who had the use of his thumb; time and time again the base of it had been slashed, till it was a mere lump of flesh against which the man pressed the knife to hold it. ... They would have no nails – they had worn them off pulling hides.” Wow. Well now I am hyper-aware of and grateful for my thumbs. They are just in excellent shape. I am so glad, Stan, that I am not a beef-boner at one of the meat-packing factories written about in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. No shock for me! Oh Stan, I can only imagine how long and hard you’ve worked to get the phrase “beef-boner” into this show. And you finally did it. Congratulations. By the way, just a little bit of trivia: The Jungle was the first book I ever read that made me vomit. So that’s a review. I don’t know if it’s positive, but there you go. Anyway, at the time, readers of The Jungle were more outraged by descriptions of rotten meat than by the treatment of meatpacking workers: The Jungle led to the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. That’s pretty cool for Upton Sinclair, although my books have also led to some federal legislation, such as the HAOPT, which officially declared Hazel and Augustus the nation’s OTP. So, to be fair, writers had been describing the harshness of industrial capitalism for decades, so muckraking wasn’t really that new, but the use of photography for documentation was. Lewis Hine, for instance, photographed child laborers in factories and mines, bringing Americans face to face with the more than 2 million children under the age of 15 working for wages. And Hine’s photos helped bring about laws that limited child labor. But even more important than the writing and photographs and magazines when it came to improving conditions for workers was Twitter … what’s that? There was no twitter? Still? What is this 1812? Alright, so apparently still without Twitter, workers had to organize into unions to get corporations to reduce hours and raise their pay. Also some employers started to realize on their own that one way to mitigate some of the problems of industrialization was to pay workers better, like in 1914, Henry Ford paid his workers an average of $5 per day, unheard of at the time. . Whereas today I pay Stan and Danica 3x that and still they whine. Ford’s reasoning was that better-paid workers would be better able to afford the Model Ts that they were making. And indeed, Ford’s annual output rose from 34,000 cars to 730,000 between 1910 and 1916, and the price of a Model T dropped from $700 to $316. Still, Henry Ford definitely forgot to be awesome sometimes; he was anti-Semitic, he used spies in his factories, and he named his child Edsel. Also like most employers at the turn of the century, he was virulently anti-union. So, while the AFL was organizing the most privileged industrial workers, another union grew up to advocate for rights for a larger swath of the workforce, especially the immigrants who dominated unskilled labor: The International Workers of the World. They were also known as the Wobblies, and they were founded in 1905 to advocate for “every wage-worker, no matter what his religion, fatherland or trade,” and not, as the name Wobblies suggests, just those fans of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey. The Wobblies were radical socialists; ultimately they wanted to see capitalism and the state disappear in revolution. Now, most progressives didn’t go that far, but some, following the ideas of Henry George, worried that economic progress could produce a dangerous unequal distribution of wealth that could only be cured by … taxes. But, more Progressives were influenced by Simon W. Patten who prophesied that industrialization would bring about a new civilization where everyone would benefit from the abundance and all the leisure time that all these new labor-saving devices could bring. This optimism was partly spurred by the birth of a mass consumption society. I mean, Americans by 1915 could purchase all kinds of new-fangled devices, like washing machines, or vacuum cleaners, automobiles, record players. It’s worth underscoring that all this happened in a couple generations: I mean, in 1850, almost everyone listened to music and washed their clothes in nearly the same way that people did 10,000 years ago. And then BOOM. And for many progressives, this consumer culture, to quote our old friend Eric Foner, “became the foundation for a new understanding of freedom as access to the cornucopia of goods made available by modern capitalism.” And this idea was encouraged by new advertising that connected goods with freedom, using “liberty” as a brand name or affixing the Statue of Liberty to a product. By the way, Crash Course is made exclusively in the United States of America, the greatest nation on earth ever. (Libertage.) That’s a lie, of course, but you’re allowed to lie in advertising. But in spite of this optimism, most progressives were concerned that industrial capitalism, with its exploitation of labor and concentration of wealth, was limiting, rather than increasing freedom, but depending on how you defined “freedom,” of course. Industrialization created what they referred to as “the labor problem” as mechanization diminished opportunities for skilled workers and the supervised routine of the factory floor destroyed autonomy. The scientific workplace management advocated by efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor required rigid rules and supervision in order to heighten worker productivity. So if you’ve ever had a job with a defined number of bathroom breaks, that’s why. Also “Taylorism” found its way into classrooms; and anyone who’s had to sit in rows for 45 minute periods punctuated by factory-style bells knows that this atmosphere is not particularly conducive to a sense of freedom. Now this is a little bit confusing because while responding to worker exploitation was part of the Progressive movement, so was Taylorism itself because it was an application of research, observation, and expertise in response to the vexing problem of how to increase productivity. And this use of scientific experts is another hallmark of the Progressive era, one that usually found its expression in politics. American Progressives, like their counterparts in the Green Sections of Not-America, sought government solutions to social problems. Germany, which is somewhere over here, pioneered “social legislation” with its minimum wage, unemployment insurance and old age pension laws, but the idea that government action could address the problems and insecurities that characterized the modern industrial world, also became prominent in the United States. And the notion that an activist government could enhance rather than threaten people’s freedom was something new in America. Now, Progressives pushing for social legislation tended to have more success at the state and local level, especially in cities, which established public control over gas and water and raised taxes to pay for transportation and public schools. Whereas federally the biggest success was, like, Prohibition, which, you know, not that successful. But anyway, if all that local collectivist investment sounds like Socialism, it kind of is. I mean, by 1912 the Socialist Party had 150,000 members and had elected scores of local officials like Milwaukee mayor Emil Seidel. Some urban progressives even pushed to get rid of traditional democratic forms altogether. A number of cities were run by commissions of experts or city managers, who would be chosen on the basis of some demonstrated expertise or credential rather than their ability to hand out turkeys at Christmas or find jobs for your nephew’s sister’s cousin. Progressive editor Walter Lippman argued for applying modern scientific expertise to solve social problems in his 1914 book Drift and Mastery, writing that scientifically trained experts “could be trusted more fully than ordinary citizens to solve America’s deep social problems.” This tension between government by experts and increased popular democratic participation is one of the major contradictions of the Progressive era. The 17th amendment allowed for senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by state legislatures, and many states adopted primaries to nominate candidates, again taking power away from political parties and putting it in the hands of voters. And some states, particularly western ones like California adopted aspects of even more direct democracy, the initiative, which allowed voters to put issues on the ballot, and the referendum, which allows them to vote on laws directly. And lest you think that more democracy is always good, I present you with California. But many Progressives wanted actual policy made by experts who knew what was best for the people, not the people themselves. And despite primaries in direct elections of senators it’s hard to argue that the Progressive Era was a good moment for democratic participation, since many Progressives were only in favor of voting insofar as it was done by white, middle class, Protestant voters. Alright. Let’s Go to the Thought Bubble. Progressives limited immigrants’ participation in the political process through literacy tests and laws requiring people to register to vote. Voter registration was supposedly intended to limit fraud and the power of political machines. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar, but it actually just suppressed voting generally. Voting gradually declined from 80% of male Americans voting in the 1890s to the point where today only about 50% of eligible Americans vote in presidential elections. But an even bigger blow to democracy during the Progressive era came with the Jim Crow laws passed by legislatures in southern states, which legally segregated the South. First, there was the deliberate disenfranchisement of African Americans. The 15th amendment made it illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude but said nothing about the ability to read, so many Southern states instituted literacy requirements. Other states added poll taxes, requiring people to pay to vote, which effectively disenfranchised large numbers of African American people, who were disproportionately poor. The Supreme Court didn’t help: In 1896, it made one of its most famous bad decisions, Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregation in public accommodations, in Homer Plessy’s case a railroad car, did not violate the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection clause. As long as black railroad cars were equal to white ones, it was A-OK to have duplicate sets of everything. Now, creating two sets of equal quality of everything would get really expensive, so Southern states didn’t actually do it. Black schools, public restrooms, public transportation opportunities--the list goes on and on--would definitely be separate, and definitely not equal. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Now, of course, as we’ve seen Progressive ideas inspired a variety of responses, both for Taylorism and against it, both for government by experts and for direct democracy. Similarly, in the Progressive era, just as the Jim Crow laws were being passed, there were many attempts to improve the lives of African Americans. The towering figure in this movement to “uplift” black southerners was Booker T. Washington, a former slave who became the head of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, a center for vocational education. And Washington urged southern black people to emphasize skills that could make them successful in the contemporary economy. The idea was that they would earn the respect of white people by demonstrating their usefulness and everyone would come to respect each other through the recognition of mutual dependence while continuing to live in separate social spheres. But Washington’s accommodationist stance was not shared by all African Americans. WEB DuBois advocated for full civil and political rights for black people and helped to found the NAACP, which urged African Americans to fight for their rights through “persistent, manly agitation.” So I wanted to talk about the Progressive Era today not only because it shows up on a lot of tests, but because Progressives tried to tackle many of the issues that we face today, particularly concerning immigration and economic justice, and they used some of the same methods that we use today: organization, journalistic exposure, and political activism. Now, we may use tumblr or tea party forums, but the same concerns motivate us to work together. And just as today, many of their efforts were not successful because of the inherent difficulty in trying to mobilize very different interests in a pluralistic nation. In some ways their platforms would have been better suited to an America that was less diverse and complex. But it was that very diversity and complexity that gave rise and still gives rise to the urge toward progress in the first place. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. If you like it, and if you’re watching the credits you probably do, make sure you’re subscribed. And as we say in my hometown don’t forget to be awesome...That was more dramatic than it sounded. Progressive Era -

Senators

image name [5] date of birth [6] district
Albert S. Apsey November 27, 1870
John K. Berry November 8, 1854
Henry Clay Bliss May 5, 1846
Edward F. Blodgett August 9, 1848
Leonard B. Chandler August 29, 1851
Cornelius R. Day December 29, 1847
George Z. Dean February 22, 1844
Perlie A. Dyar March 26, 1857
Frank A. Fales October 13, 1848
Henry S. Fitzgerald October 24, 1875
W. T. A. Fitzgerald December 19, 1871
Herbert E. Fletcher May 10, 1862
Harry C. Foster August 27, 1871
Archie N. Frost July 26, 1872
Henry E. Gaylord June 5, 1846
Elisha T. Harvell December 18, 1841
Edward C. Holt January 13, 1850
Carleton F. How April 20, 1863
Willard Howland December 3, 1852
George R. Jones February 8, 1862
David Manning August 29, 1846
John F. Marsh February 1, 1828
Andrew H. Morrison June 27, 1871
Merrick A. Morse May 1, 1847
John P. Munroe June 28, 1850
William A. Nye May 26, 1850
J. Frank Porter April 8, 1847
Thomas F. Porter October 30, 1847
David G. Pratt November 7, 1848
Edward Seaver June 3, 1849
Henry R. Skinner May 9, 1860
Rufus Albertson Soule 1839
John Thomas Sparks July 9, 1865
Eugene H. Sprague May 23, 1864
Charles S. Sullivan June 29, 1875
John Andrew Sullivan May 10, 1868
Michael J. Sullivan October 23, 1870
George Keyes Tufts October 17, 1841
Chester B. Williams October 10, 1870
Alva S. Wood May 12, 1828

Representatives

image name [5] date of birth [6] district
Charles H. Adams April 22, 1859
Eben Timothy Adams January 7, 1857
Horace C. Adams July 18, 1848
Wilbur F. Adams March 6, 1865
Charles I. Albee January 17, 1862
Henry Morton Aldrich November 20, 1841
William A. Andrews July 31, 1859
Warren P. Babb November 10, 1850
Andrew A. Badaracco August 28, 1860
Frank E. Badger January 12, 1853
A. Dudley Bagley February 27, 1869
William Selby Bamford August 11, 1864
William F. Barrington April 15, 1877
Frank Bartlett September 5, 1854
J. Franklin Batchelder December 24, 1870
Fred Alfred Bearse February 15, 1871
John E. Beck May 10, 1869
Thomas E. Begley February 23, 1871
Albion F. Bemis July 19, 1856
Fred F. Bennett February 24, 1870
Patrick H. Bradley October 17, 1874
Henry Brandes January 23, 1848
Charles P. Brewer August 1, 1852
Elisha Hume Brewster September 10, 1871
William M. Brigham January 23, 1864
Abram English Brown January 21, 1849
George P. Bullard June 25, 1857
George Walton Bullard May 24, 1841
William J. Bullock January 31, 1864
James M. Burke September 11, 1873
Joseph E. Buswell August 7, 1842
Edward B. Callender February 23, 1851
James F. Carey August 19, 1867
Frank M. Chace April 16, 1856
Edwards Cheney May 3, 1861
Luther W. Clark September 19, 1851
A. Chalkley Collins March 27, 1857
Benjamin G. Collins December 25, 1860
John J. Collins August 27, 1865
Thomas J. Collins October 28, 1868
John A. Coulthurst June 24, 1871
William F. Craig September 15, 1866
Arthur G. Crane July 18, 1871
Frank G. Creamer July 20, 1861
David W. Creed November 5, 1867
Thomas Laurie Creeley May 23, 1849
J. Howell Crosby December 30, 1867
Joseph H. Cummings June 16, 1840
John J. Cunningham May 7, 1873
James Michael Curley[5][7] November 20, 1874
Henry Morse Cutler July 19, 1865
William F. Dana June 26, 1863
Alphonso Davis September 4, 1863
Daniel W. Davis October 3, 1846
Thomas L. Davis March 15, 1852
Benjamin C. Dean March 8, 1843
Charles Austin Dean March 26, 1856
F. Dorr Deming August 1, 1833
Jeremiah J. Desmond November 3, 1867
George H. Dinan May 18, 1871
Wooster F. Dodge March 28, 1841
Thomas Donahue August 20, 1853
Jeremiah F. Donovan May 10, 1856
James J. Dowd March 7, 1858
Aaron Coolidge Dowse March 27, 1856
Charles M. Draper November 1, 1869
Horace Rogers Drinkwater May 28, 1872
John Duff August 30, 1870
Edward Quincy Dyer October 4, 1841
Karl M. Ebert July 26, 1867
Fred Albert Emery November 22, 1869
James R. Entwistle June 5, 1845
Edward A. Estabrook December 21, 1842
Noble W. Everett February 20, 1827
George H. Fall October 19, 1858
William Newhall Felton December 25, 1835
Frank W. Fenno October 24, 1861
Henry M. Fern December 23, 1862
John Eben Fisher May 30, 1861
Richard H. Foley June 16, 1867
John F. Foster October 22, 1862
Louis A. Frothingham July 13, 1871
Fred Eugene Fuller September 10, 1862
Arthur H. Gardner August 4, 1854
Charles N. Gardner March 29, 1845
George H. Garfield July 18, 1858
John J. Gartland November 27, 1871
Frank Gerrett February 4, 1857
George H. Gibney October 24, 1858
Fred C. Gilpatric August 22, 1865
David J. Gleason July 14, 1864
C. Burr Goodrich January 13, 1875
Eben H. Googins July 28, 1845
Charles H. Goulding March 24, 1838
Charles H. Green January 11, 1842
Henry G. Greene October 26, 1843
John G. Hagberg August 24, 1873
George A. Hall November 28, 1848
Portus B. Hancock February 19, 1836
Edwin A. Harney February 22, 1862
Ulysses G. Haskell October 3, 1863
Elbridge Gerry Hastings July 21, 1840
Arthur W. Hatch December 26, 1865
William Henry Hayes November 26, 1866
William Henry Irving Hayes June 21, 1848
Frank M. Heath September 8, 1852
Joseph F. Hickey January 20, 1875
Albert S. N. Hickford January 24, 1859
Martin P. Higgins October 16, 1857
Sidney Adelvin Hill August 26, 1849
Alexander Holmes July 28, 1867
Robert Homans October 3, 1873
Timothy Howard October 19, 1863
George C. Hunt April 7, 1859
Harry Draper Hunt December 27, 1874
Harrie C. Hunter March 16, 1869
John C. Hurley December 19, 1875
George H. Jackson March 9, 1865
Joseph G. Jackson February 13, 1860
Warren Carlton Jewett January 28, 1855
Thomas F. Keenan March 11, 1854
Edward H. Keith October 23, 1859
Thomas A. Kelley May 10, 1875
Daniel J. Kiley July 27, 1874
Moody Kimball July 2, 1862
Homer R. King June 4, 1846
Alfred Franklin Kinney October 25, 1851
Dwight Freeman Lane September 4, 1862
Thomas P. Larkin February 6, 1862
Joseph S. Leach November 14, 1860
David Dennis Leahy April 15, 1876
James Patrick Lennon August 28, 1863
George F. Leslie September 12, 1850
William Henry Lewis[8] November 28, 1868
William W. Linnehan August 6, 1861
William H. Litchfield August 18, 1855
Albert Littlefield May 8, 1856
Edward L. Logan January 20, 1875
Robert Luce December 2, 1862
Frederic O. MacCartney November 2, 1864
Thomas Mackey August 6, 1865
Michael J. Mahoney December 25, 1861
John T. Maloney July 14, 1853
John J. Mansfield October 10, 1869
Eugene Dennis Marchesseault September 29, 1865
J. Manuel Marshall June 1, 1869
George Washington Maxon August 3, 1862
James H. McInerney December 13, 1871
John McKnight March 5, 1872
Edward L. McMahon October 24, 1869
William S. McNary March 29, 1863
James J. Mellen March 30, 1875
Walter Brown Mellen September 24, 1860
John E. Merritt February 21, 1849
Edwin J. Mills May 1, 1861
Bernard Francis Mitchell March 30, 1867
James A. Montgomery May 17, 1864
J. Myron Moore November 3, 1866
Lucien O. Moore December 23, 1849
Harold P. Moseley November 13, 1871
James J. Myers November 20, 1842
Arthur E. Newcomb January 31, 1872
Richard Newell April 17, 1839
Francis S. Newhall December 4, 1860
Francis Dexter Newton August 31, 1848
H. Huestis Newton December 2, 1860
Walter E. Nichols July 16, 1870
John Nightingale September 6, 1838
Daniel J. O'Brien October 5, 1873
John E. O'Neill January 15, 1862
Edward L. Osgood August 6, 1844
Henry K. Palmer March 3, 1869
Fordis C. Parker January 3, 1868
James Pearce May 7, 1843
Pierre F. Peloquin May 26, 1851
Andrew James Peters April 3, 1872
William B. Phinney November 29, 1857
Joseph F. Pitman May 28, 1848
Charles H. Pratt November 11, 1848
Charles H. Preston March 22, 1863
John H. Quinlan February 29, 1864
John Quinn, Jr. December 16, 1859
Thomas E. Raftery July 10, 1869
Joseph C. Randlett May 22, 1859
John Laughlin Rankin December 6, 1850
Benjamin Calvin Reed December 24, 1849
Silas Dean Reed June 25, 1872
Charles H. Reinhart March 8, 1867
Samuel Roads, Jr. October 22, 1853
Webster Cushing Robbins January 28, 1860
Arthur E. Roberts June 22, 1861
Robert Rogerson October 11, 1869
Samuel Ross February 2, 1865
Thomas Bradford Rounds April 2, 1853
William J. Rounds June 24, 1855
Arthur P. Russell June 16, 1871
Simon B. Ryan October 8, 1874
Henry F. Sampson May 12, 1835
George A. Schofield April 26, 1863
William Schofield February 14, 1857
Winfield S. Schuster December 29, 1855
Daniel J. Sheehan August 11, 1857
Edmund C. Shepardson December 2, 1848
James Clifford Sherman May 23, 1874
Mark N. Skerrett February 23, 1870
Arthur P. Sleeper September 21, 1875
George T. Sleeper September 15, 1852
Caleb L. Smith June 23, 1849
Fred M. Smith September 19, 1862
Henry Ellsworth Stanton January 23, 1846
Charles Ephraim Stearns April 27, 1868
Frank K. Stearns November 26, 1854
Isaac M. Story April 28, 1855
Peter F. Sullivan June 29, 1871
William J. Sullivan April 14, 1865
Thomas Sutton April 2, 1850
Charles W. Swift December 26, 1866
Arthur M. Taft January 28, 1854
George W. Tapley September 1, 1835
Francis Xavier Tetrault November 5, 1845
James N. Thompson March 3, 1839
Charles Harrison Tucker May 19, 1867
Maurice Endicott Tyler January 27, 1843
Samuel Willard Tyler February 11, 1866
Charles L. Underhill July 20, 1867
Thomas Melville Vinson April 27, 1868
Charles E. Ward October 17, 1849
Louis H. Warner January 8, 1875
Handel E. Washburn August 25, 1859
Moses C. Waterhouse April 29, 1855
David P. Waters March 16, 1838
Joseph Warren Wattles August 7, 1862
Horace I. Whipple March 30, 1859
Charles F. Wildes October 17, 1848
J. William Williams June 11, 1849
Lombard Williams November 7, 1874
Thomas W. Williams September 15, 1865
Gordon Willis January 13, 1851
James Irish Wingate June 4, 1837
John Young, Jr. February 6, 1871

See also

References

  1. ^ "Composition of the Massachusetts State Senate", Resources on Massachusetts Political Figures in the State Library, Mass.gov, archived from the original on June 6, 2020
  2. ^ "Composition of the State of Massachusetts House of Representatives", Resources on Massachusetts Political Figures in the State Library, Mass.gov, archived from the original on June 6, 2020
  3. ^ "Length of Legislative Sessions". Manual for the Use of the General Court. Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2009. p. 348+.
  4. ^ "Organization of the Legislature Since 1780". Manual for the Use of the General Court. Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2009. p. 340+.
  5. ^ a b c Manual for the Use of the General Court. Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1902 – via Internet Archive.
  6. ^ a b "Annual Register of the Executive and Legislative Departments of the Government of Massachusetts, 1902" (PDF), Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – via State Library of Massachusetts
  7. ^ Pamela W. Schofield (April 14, 2014), "Some Mayors of Boston who had been members of the General Court", State Library of Massachusetts blog
  8. ^ Massachusetts, State Library of; Court, Massachusetts General (2010), Black Legislators in the Massachusetts General Court: 1867-Present, State Library of Massachusetts, hdl:2452/48905

Further reading

External links

  • Massachusetts General Court, Bills (Legislative Documents) and Journals: 1902, hdl:2452/429119
  • Massachusetts Acts and Resolves: 1902, hdl:2452/70977
This page was last edited on 22 July 2023, at 07:27
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.