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
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
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

United States House of Representatives elections, 1914

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States House of Representatives elections, 1914
United States
← 1912 November 3, 1914[Note 1] 1916 →

All 435 seats to the United States House of Representatives
218 seats needed for a majority
  Majority party Minority party
 
ChampClark.jpg
James Robert Mann 1909.jpg
Leader Champ Clark James Mann
Party Democratic Republican
Leader since March 4, 1909 March 4, 1911
Leader's seat Missouri-9th Illinois-2nd
Last election 291 seats 134 seats
Seats won 230[1][2] 196[1][2]
Seat change Decrease 61 Increase 62

  Third party Fourth party
 
Party Progressive Socialist
Last election 9 seats 0 seats
Seats won 6[1][2] 1[1][2]
Seat change Decrease 3 Increase 1

  Fifth party Sixth party
 
Party Prohibition Independent
Last election 0 seats 1 seat
Seats won 1[1][2] 1
Seat change Increase 1 Steady

Speaker before election

Champ Clark
Democratic

Elected Speaker

Champ Clark
Democratic

Elections to the United States House of Representatives in 1914 were held in the middle of President Woodrow Wilson's first term for members of the 64th Congress.

The opposition Republican Party had recovered from the split they underwent during the 1912 presidential election, and they made large gains in seats from the Democratic Party, though not enough to regain control of the body. The burgeoning economy greatly aided Republicans, who pushed for pro-business principles and took credit for the success that had been reached in the industrial sector. Many former Progressives rejoined the Republican Party, but a number of the most liberal members of the House remained under this banner. In addition, William Kent was reelected to California's 1st congressional district as an Independent, and a Prohibition Party member (Charles H. Randall) and a Socialist Party member (Meyer London) were elected to CA-09 and NY-12, respectively.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    1 810 957
    1 723
    1 171 651
    6 840
    326
  • American Imperialism: Crash Course US History #28
  • The United States Senate's History and Traditions of the Past 200 Years (1989)
  • Progressive Presidents: Crash Course US History #29
  • Map of USA senators by party affiliation from 1789 to 2017
  • United States Senate

Transcription

Episode 28: American Imperialism Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. History and today we’re gonna talk about a subject near and dear to my white, male heart: imperialism. So, here at CrashCourse we occasionally try to point out that the U.S., much as we hate to admit it, is actually part of a larger world. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, you mean like Alaska? No, Me from the Past, for reasons that you will understand after your trip there before your senior year of college, I do not acknowledge the existence of Canada’s tail. No, I’m referring to all of the Green Parts of Not-America and the period in the 19th century when we thought, “Maybe we could make all of those green parts like America, but, you know, without rights and stuff.” Intro So, the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a period of expansion and colonization in Asia and Africa, mostly by European powers. As you’ll know if you watched Crash Course World History, imperialism has a long, long history pretty much everywhere, so this round of empire building is sometimes called, rather confusingly, New Imperialism. Because the U.S. acquired territories beyond its continental boundaries in this period, it’s relatively easy to fit American history into this world history paradigm. But there’s also an argument that the United States has always been an empire. From very early on, the European settlers who became Americans were intent on pushing westward and conquering territory. The obvious victims of this expansion/imperialism were the Native Americans, but we can also include the Mexicans who lost their sovereignty after 1848. And if that doesn’t seem like an empire to you, allow me to draw your attention to the Russian Empire. Russians were taking control of territory in Central Asia and Siberia and either absorbing or displacing the native people who lived there, which was the exact same thing that we were doing. The empires of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were different because they were colonial in their own special way. Like, Europeans and Americans would rule other places but they wouldn’t settle them and more or less completely displace the native people there. (Well, except for you, Australia and New Zealand.) American historians used to try to excuse America’s acquisitions of a territorial empire as something of an embarrassing mistake, but that’s misleading because one of the primary causes of the phenomenon of American imperialism was economics. We needed places to sell our amazing new products. And at the time, China actually had all of the customers because apparently it was opposite day. It’s also not an accident that the U.S. began pursuing imperialism in earnest during the 1890s, as this was, in many ways, a decade of crisis in America. The influx of immigrants and the crowded cities added to anxiety and concern over America’s future. And then, to cap it all off, in 1893 a panic caused by the failure of a British bank led the U.S. into a horrible economic depression, a great depression, but not The Great Depression. It did however feature 15,000 business failures and 17% unemployment, so take that, 2008. According to American diplomatic historian George Herring, imperialism was just what the doctor ordered to help America get out of its Depression depression. Other historians, notably Kristin Hoganson, imply that America embarked on imperial adventures partly so that American men could prove to themselves how manly they were. You know, by joining the Navy and setting sail for distant waters. In 1890, Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan published “The Influence of Seapower upon History” and argued that, to be a great power like Great Britain, the U.S. needed to control the seas and dominate international commerce. Tied into this push to become a maritime power was the obsession with building a canal through Central America and eventually the U.S. decided that it should be built in Panama because you know how else are we gonna get malaria. In order to protect this canal we would need a man, a plan, a canal. Panama. Sorry, I just wanted to get the palindrome in there somewhere. No we would actually need much more than a man and a plan. We would need ships and in order to have a functioning two-ocean navy, we would need colonies. Why? Because the steamships at the time were powered by coal and in order to re-fuel they needed coal depots. I mean, I suppose we could have, like, rented harbor space, but why rent when you can conquer? Also, nationalism and the accompanying pride in one’s “country” was a worldwide phenomenon to which the U.S. was not immune. I mean, it’s no accident that the 1890s saw Americans begin to recite the pledge of allegiance and celebrate Flag Day, and what better way to instill national pride than by flying the stars and stripes over … Guam. So pre-Civil War attempts to expand beyond what we now know as the continental United States included our efforts to annex Canada, which were sadly unsuccessful, and also filibustering, which before it meant a senator talking until he or she had to stop to pee was a thing where we tried to take over Central America to spread slavery. But, the idea of taking Cuba persisted into the late 19th century because it is close and also beautiful. The Grant administration wanted to annex it and the Dominican Republic, but Congress demurred. But we did succeed in purchasing Canada’s tail. You can see how I feel about that. To be fair, discovery of gold in the Yukon made Seward’s icebox seem like less of a Seward’s folly and it did provide coaling stations in the Pacific. But we could have had rum and Caribbean beaches. Ugh, Stan, all this talk about how much I hate Alaska has me overheated, I gotta take off my shirt. Ughhh. Waste of my life. So hard to take off a shirt dramatically. I’m angry. Anyway, coal stations in the Pacific were important because in 1854 we “opened” Japan to American trade by sending a flotilla of threatening black ships under Matthew Perry. No Stan, not that Matthew Perry. You know better. By far, America’s best piece of imperial business before 1898 was Hawaii. Like, I like oil and gold as much as the next guy but Hawaii has pineapples and also had sugar, which was grown on American owned plantations by Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and native workers. Treaties between the U.S. and the Hawaiian governments exempted this sugar from tariffs, and America also had established a naval base at Pearl Harbor, which seemed like a really good idea...then. We eventually annexed Hawaii in 1898 and this meant that it could eventually become a state, which it did in 1959, two years before Barack Obama was born in Kenya. And this leads us nicely to the high tide of American imperialism, the Spanish-American-Cuban-Fillipino War. The war started out because native Cubans were revolting against Spain, which was holding on to Cuba for dear life as the remnant of a once-great empire. The Cubans’ fight for independence was brutal. 95,000 Cubans died from disease and malnutrition after Spanish general Valeriano Weyler herded Cubans into concentration camps. For this Weyler was called “Butcher” in the American yellow press, which sold a lot of newspapers on the backs of stories about his atrocities. And at last we come to President William McKinley who responded cautiously, with a demand that Spain get out of Cuba or face war. Now Spain knew that it couldn’t win a war with the U.S. but, as George Herring put it, they “preferred the honor of war to the ignominy of surrender.” Let that be a lesson to you. Always choose ignominy. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either right or I get shocked. Alright, let’s see what we’ve got today. With such a conflict waged for years in an island so near us and with which our people have such trade and business relations; when the lives and liberty of our citizens are in constant danger and their property destroyed and themselves ruined; where our trading vessels are liable to seizure and are seized at our very door by warships of a foreign nation, the expeditions of filibustering that we are powerless to prevent altogether -- all these and others that I need not mention, with the resulting strained relations, are a constant menace to our peace, and compel us to keep on a semiwar footing with a nation with which we are at peace. Thank you, Stan. This is obviously President William McKinley’s war message to Congress. You can tell it’s a war message because it includes the word “peace” more than the word “war.” By the way, it’s commonly thought that the President McKinley asked Congress for a declaration of war, he didn’t; he let Congress take the lead. That’s the only time that’s ever happened in all of American history, which would be more impressive if we had declared war more than 5 times. So, the document shows us that, at least according to McKinley, we officially went to war for American peace of mind and to end economic uncertainty. It was not to gain territory, at least not in Cuba. How do we know? Because Congress also passed the Teller Amendment, which forswore any U.S. annexation of Cuba, perhaps because representatives of the U.S. sugar industry like Colorado’s Senator Henry Teller feared competition from sugar produced in an American Cuba. Or maybe not. But probably so. Also not the cause of the war was the sinking of the USS Maine. The battleship which had been in Havana’s harbor to protect American interests sank after an explosion on February 15, 1898 killing 266 sailors. Now, most historians chalk up the sinking to an internal explosion and not to Spanish sabotage, but that didn’t stop Americans from blaming the Spanish with their memorable meme: “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain.” Let’s go to the Thoughtbubble. The actual war was one of the most successful in U.S. history, especially if you measure success by brevity and relative paucity of deaths. Secretary of State John Hay called it a “splendid little war” and in many ways it was. Fighting lasted about 4 months and fewer than 400 Americans were killed in combat, although 5,000 died of, wait for it, disease. Stupid disease, always ruining everything. There weren’t a ton of battles but those that happened got an inordinate amount of press coverage, like the July attack on San Juan Hill at the Cuban city of Santiago, led by future president Theodore Roosevelt. While it was a successful battle, the real significance is that it furthered Roosevelt’s career. He returned a hero, promptly became Governor of New York and by 1900 was McKinley’s vice president. Which was a good job to have because McKinley would eventually be assassinated. A more important battle was that of Manila Bay in which commodore George Dewey destroyed a tiny Spanish fleet and took the Philippines. This battle took place in May of 1898, well before the attack on Cuba, which strongly suggests that a war that was supposedly about supporting Cuban independence was really about something else. And what was that something else? Oh right. A territorial empire. As a result of the war, the U.S. got a bunch of new territories, notably the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. We also used the war as an opportunity to annex Hawaii to protect our ships that would be steaming toward the Philippines. We didn’t annex Cuba, but we didn’t let it become completely independent, either. The Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution authorized American military intervention whenever it saw fit and gave us a permanent lease for a naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Thanks Thoughtbubble. So, Cuba and Puerto Rico were gateways to Latin American markets. Puerto Rico was particularly useful as a naval station. Hawaii, Guam, and especially the Philippines opened up access to China. American presence in China was bolstered by our contribution of about 3,000 troops to the multinational force that helped put down the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. But in the Philippines, where Americans had initially been welcome, opinion soon changed after it became clear that Americans were there to stay and exercise control. Emiliano Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipino rebellion against Spain, quickly turned against the U.S. because his real goal was independence and it appeared the U.S. would not provide it. The resulting Philippine War lasted 4 years, from 1899-1903. And 4,200 Americans were killed as well as over 100,000 Filipinos. The Americans committed atrocities, including putting Filipinos in concentration camps, torturing prisoners, rape, and executing civilians. And much of this was racially motivated and news of these atrocities helped to spur anti-imperialist sentiment at home, with Mark Twain being one of the most outspoken critics. Now, there was some investment in modernization in the Philippines, in railroads, schools, and public health, but the interests of the local people were usually subordinated to those of the wealthy. So, American imperialism in short looked like most other imperialism. So Constitution nerds will remember that the U.S. Constitution has no provision for colonies, only territory that will eventually be incorporated as states. Congress attempted to deal with this issue by passing the Foraker Act in 1900. This law declared that Puerto Rico would be an insular territory; its inhabitants would be citizens of Puerto Rico, not the United States and there would be no path to statehood. But this wasn’t terribly constitutional. Congress did extend U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans in 1917. Now it’s a commonwealth with its own government that has no voice in U.S. Congress or presidential elections and no control over its own defense or environmental policy. The Philippines were treated similarly to Puerto Rico, in a series of cases between 1901 and 1904 collectively called the Insular Cases. But Hawaii was treated differently. Because it had a sizeable population of American settlers who happened to be white. Ergo, it became a traditional territory with a path to statehood because white people and also pineapples. Now let’s briefly talk about anti-imperialism. There were lots of people who objected to imperialism on racial grounds, arguing that it might lead to, like, diversity. But there were also non-racist anti-imperialists who argued that empire itself with its political domination of conquered people was incompatible with democracy, which, to be fair, it is. The Democratic Party, which had supported intervention in Cuba, in 1900 opposed the Philippine War in its platform. Some Progressives opposed imperialism too because they believed that America should focus on its domestic problems. Yet those who supported imperialism were just as forceful. Among the most vocal was Indiana Senator Albert Beveridge who argued that imperialism was benevolent and would bring “a new day of freedom.” But, make no mistake, underneath it all, imperialism was all about trade. According to Beveridge, America’s commerce “must be with Asia. The Pacific is our ocean … Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer.” In the end, imperialism was really driven by economic necessity. In 1902, Brooks Adams predicted in his book The New Empire that the U.S. would soon “outweigh any single empire, if not all empires combined.” Within 20 years America would be the world’s leading economic power. We didn’t have the most overseas territory, but ultimately that didn’t matter. Now, the reasons for imperialism, above all the quest for markets for American goods, would persist long after imperialism became recognized as antithetical to freedom and democracy. And we would continue to struggle to reconcile our imperialistic urges with our ideals about democracy until...now. 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 and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. This is the part where Stan gets nervous, like, is he gonna go this way or this way or this way? I’m going this way. Imperialism -

Contents

Election summaries

230 1 1 6 1 196
Democratic S I P Pn Republican
State Type Total
seats
Democratic Republican Progressive Others
Seats Change Seats Change Seats Change Seats Change
Alabama District
+at-large
10 10 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Arizona At-large 1 1 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Arkansas District 7 7 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
California District 11 3 Steady 4 Decrease 1 2 Steady 2[Note 2] Increase 1
Colorado District[Note 3] 4 3 Decrease 1 1 Increase 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
Connecticut District 5 0 Decrease 5 5 Increase 5 0 Steady 0 Steady
Delaware At-large 1 0 Decrease 1 1 Increase 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
Florida District[Note 3] 4 4 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Georgia District 12 12 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Idaho At-large 2 0 Steady 2 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Illinois District
+2 at-large
27 10 Decrease 10 16 Increase 11 1 Decrease 1 0 Steady
Indiana District 13 11 Decrease 2 2 Increase 2 0 Steady 0 Steady
Iowa District 11 1 Decrease 2 10 Increase 2 0 Steady 0 Steady
Kansas District 8 6 Increase 1 2 Decrease 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
Kentucky District 11 9 Steady 2 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Louisiana District 8 7 Decrease 1 0 Steady 1 Increase 1 0 Steady
Maine[Note 4] District 4 1 Steady 3 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Maryland District 6 5 Decrease 1 1 Increase 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
Massachusetts District 16 4 Decrease 3 12 Increase 3 0 Steady 0 Steady
Michigan District[Note 3] 13 2 Steady 11 Increase 1 0 Decrease 1 0 Steady
Minnesota District[Note 3] 10 1 Steady 8 Decrease 1 1 Increase 1 0 Steady
Mississippi District 8 8 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Missouri District 16 14 Steady 2 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Montana At-large 2 2 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Nebraska District 6 3 Steady 3 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Nevada At-large 1 0 Steady 1 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
New Hampshire District 2 0 Decrease 2 2 Increase 2 0 Steady 0 Steady
New Jersey District 12 4 Decrease 7 8 Increase 7 0 Steady 0 Steady
New Mexico At-large 1 0 Decrease 1 1 Increase 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
New York District 43 19 Decrease 12 22 Increase 11 1 Steady 1[Note 5] Increase 1
North Carolina District 10 9 Decrease 1 1 Increase 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
North Dakota District 3 0 Steady 3 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Ohio District[Note 3] 22 9 Decrease 10 13 Increase 10 0 Steady 0 Steady
Oklahoma District[Note 3] 8 7 Increase 1 1 Decrease 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
Oregon District 3 0 Steady 3 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Pennsylvania District
+4 at-large
36 6 Decrease 6 30 Increase 8 0 Decrease 2 0 Steady
Rhode Island District 3 1 Decrease 1 2 Increase 2 0 Steady 0 Steady
South Carolina District 7 7 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
South Dakota District 3 1 Increase 1 2 Decrease 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
Tennessee District 10 8 Steady 2 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Texas District
+2 at-large
18 18 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Utah District[Note 6] 2 1 Increase 1 1 Decrease 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
Vermont District 2 0 Steady 2 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Virginia District 10 9 Steady 1 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Washington District[Note 3] 5 1 Increase 1 4 Increase 1 0 Decrease 2 0 Steady
West Virginia District
+at-large
6 3 Increase 1 3 Decrease 1 0 Steady 0 Steady
Wisconsin District 11 3 Steady 8 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Wyoming At-large 1 0 Steady 1 Steady 0 Steady 0 Steady
Total 435 230
52.9%
Decrease 61 196
45.1%
Increase 63 6
1.4%
Decrease 3 3[Note 7]
0.7%
Increase 2
House seats
Democratic
52.87%
Republican
45.06%
Progressive
1.38%
Prohibition
0.23%
Socialist
0.23%
Others
0.23%
 House seats by party holding plurality in state   80.1-100% Democratic   80.1-100% Republican   60.1-80% Democratic   60.1-80% Republican   Up to 60% Democratic   Up to 60% Republican
House seats by party holding plurality in state
  80.1-100% Democratic
  80.1-100% Republican
  60.1-80% Democratic
  60.1-80% Republican
  Up to 60% Democratic
  Up to 60% Republican
 Net gain in party representation   6+ Democratic gain     6+ Republican gain   3-5 Democratic gain     3-5 Republican gain   1-2 Democratic gain   1-2 Progressive gain   1-2 Republican gain   no net change
Net gain in party representation
  6+ Democratic gain
 
  6+ Republican gain
  3-5 Democratic gain
 
  3-5 Republican gain
  1-2 Democratic gain
  1-2 Progressive gain
  1-2 Republican gain
  no net change

Early election date

Maine held its elections early, on September 14, 1914. There had previously been multiple states with earlier elections, but Maine was the only one remaining by 1914 (after Vermont stopped holding its elections early, after 1912). Maine would continue to hold elections early, in September, until 1958.

Complete results

Party abbreviations

California

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
California 1 William Kent Independent 1910 Re-elected William Kent (I) 48.1%
Edward H. Hart (R) 38.3%
O. F. Meldon (D) 10.8%
Henry P. Stripp (Proh) 2.8%
California 2 John E. Raker Democratic 1910 Re-elected John E. Raker (D) 64.7%
James T. Matlock (R) 31.2%
W. P. Fassett (Proh) 4.1%
California 3 Charles F. Curry Republican gain 1912 Re-elected Charles F. Curry (R) 85.0%
David T. Ross (S) 8.7%
Edwin F. Van Vlear (Proh) 6.3%
California 4 Julius Kahn Republican 1898 Re-elected Julius Kahn (R) 69.1%
Henry Colombat (D) 22.8%
Allen K. Gifford (S) 6.6%
J. C. Westenberg (Proh) 1.5%
California 5 John I. Nolan Republican gain 1912 Re-elected John I. Nolan (R) 83.3%
Mads Peter Christensen (S) 11.4%
Frederick Head (Proh) 5.3%
California 6 Joseph R. Knowland Republican 1904 Retired
Progressive gain
John A. Elston (Prog) 44.4%
George H. Derrick (R) 37.7%
Howard H. Caldwell (S) 13.9%
Harlow E. Wolcott (Prog) 3.9%
California 7 Denver S. Church Democratic 1912 Re-elected Denver S. Church (D) 49.9%
A. M. Drew (R) 31.8%
Henry M. McKee (S) 9.9%
Don A. Allen (Proh) 8.3%
California 8 Everis A. Hayes Republican 1904 Re-elected Everis A. Hayes (R) 49.1%
Lewis Dan Bohnett (Prog) 45.3%
Joseph Merritt Horton (Proh) 5.6%
California 9 Charles W. Bell Progressive 1912 Lost re-election
Prohibition gain
Charles H. Randall (Proh) 30.9%
Charles W. Bell (Prog) 30.3%
Frank C. Roberts (R) 27.7%
Henry A. Hart (S) 11.1%
California 10 William Stephens Progressive 1910 Re-elected William Stephens (Prog) 38.4%
Henry Z. Osborne (R) 28.9%
Nathan Newby (D) 15.5%
Ralph L. Criswell (S) 13.0%
Henry Clay Needham (Proh) 4.3%
California 11 William Kettner Democratic 1912 Re-elected William Kettner (D) 52.7%
James Carson Needham (R) 27.9%
James S. Edwards (Proh) 12.7%
Casper Bauer (S) 6.7%

Florida

An at-large district had been created in 1912 for a newly apportioned seat. The at-large district was eliminated in 1914 and a new district created.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Florida 1 Stephen M. Sparkman Democratic 1894 Re-elected Stephen M. Sparkman (D) 99.3%
H. B. Jeffers (I) 0.7%
Florida 2 Frank Clark Democratic 1904 Re-elected Frank Clark (D) 100%
Florida 3 Emmett Wilson Democratic 1912 Re-elected Emmett Wilson (D) 98.8%
E. Wentworth (I) 1.2%
Florida 4 Claude L'Engle
Redistricted from the at-large district
Democratic win 1912 Lost primary
Democratic hold
William J. Sears (D) 100%

South Carolina

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
South Carolina 1 Richard S. Whaley Democratic 1913 (special) Re-elected Richard S. Whaley (D) 98.5%
Aaron P. Prioleau (R) 1.0%
William Eberhard (S) 0.5%
South Carolina 2 James F. Byrnes Democratic 1910 Re-elected James F. Byrnes (D) 100%
South Carolina 3 Wyatt Aiken Democratic 1902 Re-elected Wyatt Aiken (D) 100%
South Carolina 4 Joseph T. Johnson Democratic 1900 Re-elected Joseph T. Johnson (D) 99.5%
J. W. Sexton (R) 0.3%
M. I. Ellenberg (S) 0.2%
South Carolina 5 David E. Finley Democratic 1898 Re-elected David E. Finley (D) 100%
South Carolina 6 J. Willard Ragsdale Democratic 1912 Re-elected J. Willard Ragsdale (D) 100%
South Carolina 7 Asbury F. Lever Democratic 1901 (special) Re-elected Asbury F. Lever (D) 95.1%
I. S. Leevy (R) 4.1%
George F. Lee (S) 0.8%

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Maine held early elections on September 14, 1914.
  2. ^ 1 Prohibition Party member elected, and 1 Independent reelected. Previous election saw the Independent elected.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g At-large seat or seats eliminated in redistricting.
  4. ^ Elections held early.
  5. ^ Socialist
  6. ^ Changed from at-large.
  7. ^ 1 Socialist, 1 Prohibition, and 1 Independent.

References

  1. ^ a b c d e "Party Divisions of the House of Representatives* 1789–Present". Office of the Historian, United States House of Representatives. Retrieved May 18, 2015. 
  2. ^ a b c d e Martis, pp. 168–169.

Bibliography

External links

This page was last edited on 28 December 2017, at 14:54.
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.