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 Senate elections, 1868 and 1869

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Senate elections, 1868 and 1869

← 1866/67 Dates vary by state
(And other dates for special elections)
1870/71 →

25 of the 66 (8 vacant)/74 seats in the United States Senate (with special elections)
34 seats needed for a majority

  Majority party Minority party
 
Party Republican Democratic
Last election 39 seats 10 seats
Seats before 57 9
Seats won 17 5
Seats after 57 9
Seat change Steady Steady
Seats up 17 5

Majority Party before election

Republican Party

Elected Majority Party

Republican Party

The United States Senate elections of 1868 and 1869 were elections which had the Republican Party maintain their majority in the United States Senate. However, six former Confederate states were also readmitted separately from the general election, each electing two Republicans. This increased the Republicans' already overwhelming majority to the largest number of seats ever controlled by the party.

As these elections were prior to ratification of the seventeenth amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislatures.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    34 896
    1 626
    2 406 166
    2 605
    3 945
  • 25. The "End" of Reconstruction: Disputed Election of 1876, and the "Compromise of 1877"
  • 3D Stereoscopic Photographs of the United States in the 1860's: Part 1
  • Reconstruction and 1876: Crash Course US History #22
  • The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson (1992)
  • Adelbert Ames: From Gettysburg to Mississippi (Lecture)

Transcription

Professor David Blight: The last book you're reading in this course is by a great journalist, Nick Lemann. It's called Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War. There seems to be a contest right now in writing about and publishing about the violence of Reconstruction. It's really been discovered by American publishers and certainly by American writers. There are no less than three new books out on either the Colfax Massacre, which we'll talk about in a minute, or what Lemann does mostly in his book, which is the story of Mississippi--sometimes called the Shotgun Policy, sometimes called the Mississippi Plan--but, in effect, a coup d'état whereby the white Democrats of Mississippi took back control of that state, largely by terrorist violence, political violence, in 1875. The titles of these books strike me. Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War. Charles Lane's book, a good journalistic popular writer, a whole book on the Colfax Massacre entitled The Day Freedom Died--one day. And there's another book by a young, New York private high school teacher, proof that good books can be written by anyone, The Colfax Massacre: The Untold Story of Black Power, White Terror and the Death of Reconstruction. Now all those titles are true. It's not the redemption, of course, that you hear about in Bob Marley's Redemption Song, but I might recommend that you put Marley on while you're reading about this stuff. It might be a nice antidote. No, I'm not going to sing it. But I am going to start with a very brief little poem, one of the best illustrations in poetry I know of, of this idea that revolutions can go backward, that revolutions usually do go backwards, for awhile, that revolutions always cause counter-revolutions. It's a poem by Langston Hughes. He wrote it right near the end of his life, in 1965-- note the date. He entitled it "Emancipation," and then a subtitle: "Long View Negro." Two simple verses: "Emancipation, 1865, sighted through the telescope of dreams, looms larger, so much larger, so it seems, than truth can be. But turn the telescope around, look through the larger end, and wonder why, what was so large becomes so small again." The metaphor is powerful, if vexing. Look through the opposite end of a telescope. Look back at history and not forward, and wonder why what was such a dream, what was so large, can become so small again. Now, when that Fifteenth Amendment passed, that I talked about briefly the other day, there were just amazing celebrations, when it was finally ratified, in 1870, all over the place. I'll only cite a couple. Grant in his Message to Congress in effect said Reconstruction was now largely over. Frederick Douglass, though he wasn't thrilled with the fact that it was the most conservative version of the Fifteenth Amendment and so on, nevertheless said, "We can now breathe a new atmosphere; we have a new earth beneath and a new sky above." That's a dream. One Republican newspaper called it the nation's second birth; second founding. And Wendell Phillips, again the Massachusetts abolitionist, said it was now the real birthday of the nation because now the Declaration of Independence applied to all. Now, that was placing a great deal of hope in a somewhat limited amendment, to say the least. That's 1870. Now go ahead just five years with me. This is the period now of Southern redemption, defined of course as the Southern white Democratic Party's counter-revolution in taking back control of its state governments. Happens very quickly in some Southern states. Some are redeemed as early as 1870 by the Democrats and the last three or so not until 1876/77. But think of what you just heard there, that almost unfathomable hope, rooted in this Voting Rights Amendment, and then listen to this statement from the floor of Congress by one of the most brilliant young black politicians who got himself elected-- among those hundreds who got elected, among the sixteen who got elected to Congress-- John Roy Lynch, a former slave, self-taught, he educated himself; like Frederick Douglass there's mysteries about the brilliance of this guy. But he's elected to Congress when he's twenty-six, from Mississippi, under Mississippi's Radical Reconstruction government, so long as it lasted. He's still there in 1875, and on the floor of the Congress-- which was then, as you'll see in a moment, after the '74 Election, now ruled by a majority of Democrats-- he looks them in the eye and he says, "Think of it for a moment, my colleagues. When I leave my home in Mississippi to come to the capital of the nation to take part in the deliberations of this House, and to participate with you in making laws for the government of this great republic, I am treated, not as an American citizen, but as a brute, forced to occupy a filthy smoking car, both night and day, with drunkards, gamblers and criminals, and for what? Not that I am unable or unwilling to pay my way, not that I am obnoxious in my personal appearance or disrespectful in my conduct, but simply because I happen to be of a darker complexion." Now here's the irony and the point. The majority of those men he was speaking to that day in the Congress, in their minds, when they heard him, to the extent they listened when he said that, I think we can safely assume were thinking, "yeah, that's just exactly the way you should be treated." Now, to 1873 for the moment. The day freedom died, according to Charles Lane's book, is the day of the Colfax Massacre. That day--I wouldn't quite say freedom died on one day, that's a little ahistorical, but so be it; that's probably a publisher's title more than an author's title. But April 14,1873 is in some ways one of those days we could call in American history a day of infamy. The Supreme Court that day-- at least it's the date of the decision, even though it was Easter Sunday-- handed down its decision, five to four, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so-called, a collection of five cases that came out of Louisiana, which was the court's first major ruling on the Civil War Amendments, on the meaning of the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth and in effect the Fifteenth Amendments. That day, the same day, Easter Sunday, in Colfax, Louisiana--a town, not very big, named for Schuyler Colfax, the Vice-President of the United States in the Grant Administration--in Grant Parish--renamed by the Republican regime for Ulysses Grant--the largest mass murder of Americans ever in American history occurred, in the political violence stemming from the divided election in Louisiana, back in the fall of 1872. Now 9/11 of course killed more Americans. We can get caught up in categories of what is domestic violence and foreign violence and so forth, but this is the largest mass murder of Americans in our history, so far as we can tell. That divided election produced in effect two competing governments in Louisiana: the Republican regime which did win the election, for all practical purposes, in spite of the tremendous political violence committed against particularly black voters in that fall '72 election; but a so-called Fusion ticket of basically a kind of white supremacist coalition also claimed to be the legitimate government of Louisiana. And in this situation of essentially an ongoing vigilante war, throughout many of the parishes, counties, of Louisiana, a standoff took place in Colfax. I'll come back to that in a moment. But back to the Slaughterhouse Case that came down that day. It was, in the end, a testing of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1869 the City of New Orleans, under its Republican state government, created a corporation to move the slaughterhouse of New Orleans--there actually had never been a legitimate slaughterhouse in New Orleans. What the butchers of New Orleans would do, the white butchers of New Orleans would do, is they'd herd the hogs through the streets of New Orleans and basically they'd butcher the things wherever they wanted to, and they always threw all the--this gets ugly--all of the offal from the hogs into the Mississippi River, up river from the city, before the river reached the main water pipeline into the city. This had long been a problem, long been a series of complaints. And so this was an attempt at clean government and clean cities. The city, and the state backing it up, created a corporation that created a new slaughterhouse. They moved it across the Mississippi River and downstream from the city, for health reasons. They put in a state-appointed inspector, and the white butchers of New Orleans were angry. Some butchers and some critics charged this was a monopoly and an unfair practice. Twenty-five butchers brought suit, with support from the reviving Democratic Party-- white butchers. The lower courts in this particular suit found in favor of the new corporation. It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It got on the docket in '72. It was decided April 14,1873. It was a five-to-four decision. Seemingly on the surface, when you read it-- it's like many court decisions, it's a bit boring at first; five cases from butchers and so on and so on, and you wonder what the hell's this about? Then you keep reading and you realize it became a fundamental decision. Justice Samuel Miller, for the majority, argued that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were intended-- this was the good part of the decision--to end slavery and advance the rights of the freedmen. But he made a sharp--in other words, not to protect a bunch of white butchers in New Orleans. And by the way, the lead lawyer, for the butchers, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, was none other than a man named John A. Campbell, a Georgia-born, former member of the Supreme Court. He had been part of the six-man majority in the Dred Scott decision of 1857; resigned his position in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1861 to go home and fight for the Confederacy. He didn't fight on the battlefield; he became Assistant Secretary of State in the Confederacy and served in that position, and other high-ranking official positions, in the Confederate national government throughout the Civil War. And when the war was over he was one of those high-ranking Confederate officials denied the right to vote, disfranchised for up to four years. He was part of the final set of amnesty and pardons that Andrew Johnson enacted just before leaving office in the spring of '69. And Campbell had made it his business, as a Redeemer now, in the South, to thwart and fight Reconstruction at every turn. He hated black suffrage. He hated black people. He was a virulent white supremacist. He took this case on because he wanted to crush Reconstruction. He even argued, by the way, in the Slaughterhouse Cases-- which Miller turned right back on his head--he even argued that the rights of the butchers were being violated under the Thirteenth Amendment. He said that these butchers were now being forced into a form of involuntary servitude because they had to take their hogs across the Mississippi and slaughter then downriver. It was violating their right to make a proper livelihood by their own individual choice. And frankly, folks--I read this decision this morning; well I got through most of it--if you want to read the origins of our modern day uses, and some would say misuses, of civil rights language and legislation, in our own time, the ways in which some American politicians, lawyers, judges, etcetera, pundits, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, have appropriated the language of the modern Civil Rights movement--especially the language of the "content of our character"--to sometimes some scurrilous ends, the roots of that are in John Campbell's arguments in the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873. Miller threw the Thirteenth Amendment argument back at Thompson [ph?] and told him, in effect, to--well--stick it somewhere. Now, however, back to Miller's opinion, in a five-to-four case, the real importance of the Slaughterhouse Case is that even though Miller argued that the purpose of these amendments were to advance black freedom and the rights of the freedman, he nevertheless made a clear distinction between national and state citizenship. In these years we don't even think of--well, I don't think we think in terms today of our state citizen-- do you think of yourself as a citizen of the State of Virginia? Maybe you do, I don't know. Maybe today in Pennsylvania, where people are voting in droves, they're thinking of their citizenship as Pennsylvanian, I don't know. But we tend to think in terms of citizenship now, certainly in the early twenty-first century, as a national phenomenon. One has Portuguese or German or American or whatever, Brazilian, citizenship and in some countries dual and so on. Rarely do we think of ourselves as citizens of states. But they did in the nineteenth century. Now what Miller did in this decision though was a bit weird, in retrospect. He named various national privileges and immunities--that's the language of the Fourteenth Amendment--like entering the nation's ports, or protection out on the high seas, the ability to run for federal office, and to travel to the seat of government, and so on. But he never mentioned basic civil rights, access to public facilities, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. He never mentioned the right to vote. He said all of those rights are only under the jurisdiction of the state, not the national government. In other words, traditional federalism, this separation of what states can control--like the right to vote; like what is a civil right; which civil rights; what kinds of equality are to be adjudicated in court--would be left to the states. Slaughterhouse set in motion then this federal retreat, at least in the courts--and the retreat is already happening elsewhere-- from Miller's own definition, ironically, of the meaning of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Back to Colfax, Louisiana, April 14,1873. I don't have time for all the gruesome details of this massacre, and I'll spare you most of it. But it is in some ways an American My Lai Massacre, a Katyn Forest Massacre--what the Soviets did in 1944 in Poland. One of these authors of this new book, I think a bit inappropriately, uses the term genocide, that it was a result of a wish for genocide. It is mass murder by any definition. What happened is that with these two competing governments in Louisiana--Democrat Fusion government and the Republican government--both would appoint sheriffs in the same parish. So there was the Republican sheriff, who was black, and there was the Democratic sheriff, who was white. Local officials of all kinds are being appointed. Well what happened is that the violence in the countryside got so bad, in Grant Parish, that the blacks in the area began leaving their cabins and leaving their small farms, and they came into Colfax, because Colfax had become a symbol of protection and safety for blacks in the great Red River District of Central Louisiana. By the way, the Red River Region of Central Louisiana was some of the richest soil in all of the South. It was a tremendous sugar and cotton plantation region. Several thousand acres of that Red River District, right around Colfax, was owned by a white landowner named Willie Calhoun, William Calhoun. He was the son of Meredith Calhoun, who had been a very, very proslavery, huge slaveholder before the Civil War. But his son Willie, who had been raised in part in Europe, because his parents kept living half the time in Paris, as a kid was badly, terribly injured. His back was broken. He spent his life as a hunchback. And God only knows how he came by his sympathies and his beliefs in the rights of former slaves, but he became a Unionist during the Civil War in an area where--it was not healthy to be a Unionist in the Red River District. And after the war was over, Willie Calhoun became an early-and-often scalawag, a Republican. And he, in effect, turned over much of his land, without even selling it, to the settlement of hundreds and hundreds of freedmen and their families. Willie Calhoun would spend the Colfax Massacre watching probably 150-odd blacks murdered in cold blood, as a kind of a prisoner on his front porch. But at any rate, blacks gathered in Colfax for weeks before the spring of '73, because it was--it had been, at least, the Calhoun Landing, as it was called, had been a place of safety. Blacks took over the courthouse in Colfax. They occupied it. They collected lots of weapons. They were ready. They built trenches all the way around the courthouse. They were ready for battle. And it is battle they got from a huge mob of disparate, paramilitary whites, many of whom were former Confederate soldiers, many of whom were former members of the Ku Klux Klan; some now called themselves Knights of the White Camellia--they went by all kinds of different names. And what happened on April 14^(th) was indeed, in effect, a pitched battle. The whites had a cannon, lots of weapons. Blacks couldn't hold them off, they fled into the courthouse. The whites captured a black man and forced him to take a torch and they said, "We'll kill you or you take the torch and light the roof on fire." He lit the roof on fire and the courthouse began to burn down, which, of course, smoked most of the blacks out of the courthouse, although a few stayed and were burned to death, hiding under the floorboards. And as they came out many of them were executed right around the door. Before the thing was over that night, the estimate runs from about eighty to possibly as high--we'll never really know--as 150 blacks were killed--most of them execution style; most of them with shots to the head, many of them shots to the back of their heads, and many of them, in the wake of being shot, having their bodies mutilated. The First Representatives of the Louisiana State Government, the Republican Louisiana State Government, arrived forty-eight hours after the massacre and recorded, one after another corpse, shot in the back of the head and then shot many more times, and then somebody's mutilated, and they kept this--this is this kind of gruesome need to describe you find in these reports. They also described many of the bodies being eaten by dogs and turkey vultures. Well, Colfax led to a national sensation. Harper's Weekly and Leslie's Weekly had illustrated articles about it within a week, the famous pictures of blacks carrying their dead home to bury them; quotations from women describing--a woman describing dragging her son away from the dogs who were eating his body, and so on and so forth. And it led to a national investigation, a federal investigation, led by the Republican appointed U.S. Attorney in New Orleans, whose name was James Beckwith, a northern-born New England, old abolitionist fellow with a good deal of zeal who heroically tried to bring indictments and prosecutions. There were indeed many indictments but only three convictions, in the wake of Colfax. It took over two years and it led to the second great Supreme Court case that turned around Reconstruction. That case, first argued in Louisiana, was for the three men convicted of leading the Colfax Massacre. One of the names was a man named William Cruikshank, c-r-u-i-k-s-h-a-n-k; I don't think I put it on the outline, or did I? I guess I didn't, sorry. In the United States versus Cruikshank, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case of these convictions in Louisiana. The court by this time, early 1876 when the Cruikshank case came down, had a new chief justice. His name was Morrison Remick Waite, w-a-i-t-e, who'd been appointed by Grant in 1874 to replace the recently deceased Salmon P. Chase, who had been appointed Chief Justice by Abraham Lincoln. The court by 1876 was seven Republicans and two Democrats. Most of them now had been appointed by Lincoln or Grant. This was a thoroughly Republican Party Supreme Court. Waite by the way--we've been through many Supreme Court appointments in our recent lifetime and we know how political these things can get--Waite was Grant's fifth choice. The first two people he asked turned him down. I don't want to be on the Supreme Court, there's no political future there. Supreme Court justices in these years often ran for President while they were on the court, and it's--they don't do that, at least they don't do that now. The next two people he appointed, or he wanted to appoint, were turned down by the Senate. Waite was his fifth choice. Nobody had ever heard of him. He was known in Ohio, but as one of his own Supreme Court colleagues called him, said Waite was, quote, "at the front rank of second rank lawyers." And maybe it proved the old adage-- apologies to anyone from Ohio; you know the old saying; Ohio's had more presidents I think even than Virginia-- some are born great, some achieve greatness, some just come from Ohio. Morrison Waite will write the opinion, in a nine-to-nothing decision, unanimous decision, in the Cruikshank case. This was a test, this case now, of really the Enforcement Act passed in 1870, the Enforcement Act as part of the Ku Klux Klan Acts, authorizing the federal government to enforce the right to vote, with military action if necessary, in the South. This was a case now testing that; also, of course, testing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The court decision in Cruikshank found the indictments, it said, faulty. It overturned two of the three convictions. It ruled that those immortal phrases of 'due process' and 'equal protection,' those two great clauses in part one of the Fourteenth Amendment, applied, they said, only to state actions, and not to the actions of individuals. If a man murders another man in Colfax, Louisiana, in a political way or any other way, that's a state matter. Even if it's around voting it's a state matter, not a federal matter; can't be adjudicated in the federal court. Federal government does not have the power to enforce the right to vote, the right to civil rights, and so on. The Cruikshank case--the implications of the Cruikshank case--immediately were obvious. It meant, number one, that mass murder went unpunished in the United States. Two, it meant that blacks increasingly now would be at the mercy of now hostile state governments. Back when Justice Miller wrote that decision in Slaughterhouse, there were still a lot of Republican Regimes. And he claimed to his dying day he was leaving adjudication to states, under sympathetic Republic governments. Yeah, but Justice Miller, what if a government's no longer sympathetic, what if it's run by Klansmen? And three, it opened up--Cruikshank now opens up--as a federal court decision, all manner of discriminatory laws passed by what will be Democratic Redeemer governments in the Southern states. Why was there a nine-to-nothing decision in 1876 on this, with seven of the justices appointed by Lincoln and Grant and so on? Well, one, you have to realize that by '75 and '76, when these guys were adjudicating this decision, there was a tremendous amount of just flat-out fatigue with Reconstruction. And I've been to all--I've been to a lot of your sections now and I've heard you say the same thing, and I'm not chastising you, I'm not. But sometimes we read back into the past even our own fatigue with certain issues. They were sort of fed-up with Reconstruction in the North. Well yeah, they were, but look at the consequences. It's clear, even in their own writings, that many of the justices just wanted to get rid of Reconstruction and leave it to the South. It signaled now, most importantly--and Foner makes this point in the one little paragraph he gives you on the Cruikshank case--it signaled now that the federal government was, in effect, exiting Reconstruction; certainly the Supreme Court was. And as Foner says, terror was given a green light anywhere that a state government was unwilling to enforce the law or protect people. Now, why was Radicalism waning in the 1870s, or even at the beginning of the 1870s? What is it about the Grant years, especially the second Grant Administration, that leads--that just practically paves these roads to a Southern redemption, a Southern counter-revolution? Well there are many factors, and let me kind of run through them and then focus especially on the scandals, for a moment, and then on this larger question of violence; in case you haven't heard enough about violence. First of all there's the Panic of 1873, which hit in the spring of 1873. A major economic depression had hit the country--eventually the entire country--that led to a great deal of labor strife and violence. It meant in the wake of the--well, in the midst of the Panic of '73, into '74, '75, that the issues now that politicians were most concerned about, and that voters were most concerned about, particularly in the North, were things like currency, tariffs, unemployment, railroad subsidies, labor strife, whether a union had the right to strike here or the right to strike there. And across the great Midwest, among farmers, the biggest issue was the price of wheat, which dropped from two dollars a barrel to fifty cents in a year and a half. Wages for manufacturing laborers in the United States, in a year and a half, dropped by fifty percent across the country; that's for those who kept their jobs. The Panic of 1873 shifted people's minds, to say the least. Then there's the factor of--the nature of Grant's presidency; the way in which Grant himself even defined the presidency. Grant, you'll remember, was a rather reluctant politician, at first. He actually got a little better at it than his historical reputation has sometimes led us to believe. Grant could be very political. Although he did have this idea that the presidency ought to be--especially in these crisis years, with the tremendous bitterness, bloody shirt tensions after the Civil War; and after all, he's the general that won the war and obliterated Virginia--that the president ought to be now just basically a caretaker, ought to have as few opinions as possible; a caretaker presidency, not so much a leader as a unifier. Now his hands-off approach to so many things, of course, is what, in part, led to the scandals that have so long been associated with him, or at least with his administration. I would argue that Grant has gotten, to some extent, a bad rap, from some historians, although if you look at any of those lists that come out every year, when they survey historians--the greatest presidents, the worst presidents--Lincoln's always at the top and then you get FDR; now Reagan is always in the top three, for reasons I don't even want to discuss. [Laughter] Well, a lot of airports are named for him, I guess that's why. At any rate, enough on that. Grant has always been down near the bottom. I can't resist this. The great American cynic of the nineteenth century, one of our greatest historians and one of our most beautiful writers--but what a cynic--Henry Adams, son of Charles Francis Adams, grandson of Quincy, great-grandson of John. This was his description of Grant, and he was living the Grant Administration: "Grant had no right to exist." [Laughter] "He should've been extinct for ages. That 2000 years after Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, a man like Grant should be called and should actually and truly be the highest product of the most advanced evolution, made evolution ludicrous. The progress of evolution, from President Washington to President Grant, was alone evidence enough to upset Darwin. Grant should've lived in a cave and worn skins." Oh. [Laughter] That's cold, and unfair. But under his leadership a whole series of four or five different scandals that sort of set the standard [laughs] for scandal to come in American history; although we've had some much worse ones since than some of these. Most of them were of course financial. There's almost no sex in the Grant scandal years, so far as we can tell. The first was the Gold Scandal. This was an attempt to corner the gold market by one Jay Gould and James Fisk. These were Wall Street guys in New York. This is in 1869, right after Grant took office. They did indeed corner the market on gold. They tried to buy up all the gold in New York, and then they planned to force bankers and business people to buy the gold from them at inflated prices--it's an old cornering trick. They made eleven million dollars in three weeks doing this, in the nineteenth century. They were eventually selling that gold at $163.50 per ounce. And the only way to break their corner was--suddenly, because it happened so fast--was for the Federal Government to begin selling all of its gold, put it on the market, get the prices down. Grant's brother-in-law--never appoint your brother-in-law to anything--Abel Corbin was a sort of personal emissary. He assured and promised the plotters, Gould and Fisk, that he had influence on Grant and that Grant would never permit the government's gold to be sold. But he was wrong and Grant did allow it to be sold. And then Grant's treasury secretary, George Boutwell, got involved. The scandal finally broke open in the press, and though nothing ever really happened to Gould or Fisk--setting in motion a history of who gets caught and who doesn't get caught in the Wall Street world--it was the first scandal of its kind that began to lead to cries of civil service reform, which became a big rallying cry in the 1870s. Then there was the Whiskey Ring. Man, this was old-fashioned, just unadulterated fraud. This began in the early 1870s. It first started in St. Louis. It was really a cartel, what we in modern times would call the creation of a cartel. These were whiskey distillers, all over the country, who banded together to cheat the U.S. Government out of excise taxes; the luxury tax on whiskey. The way that they did it is many distillers were forced to join this ring of people around the country or have their businesses ruined; join or we'll run you out of business. The Whiskey Ring had branch offices all over the country, in cities like Milwaukee and Peoria, New Orleans, Chicago, Cincinnati, in Washington, and many other cities, North, South, West, you name it. And then they started bribing the Treasury Department, which of course is where the excise taxes would go to. Many officials in the Treasury Department were soon on the payroll of the Whiskey Ring, especially the chief clerk of the U.S. Treasury Department, the man who kept the books. One General Orville Babcock, the president's private secretary, was implicated; more than implicated, he was involved. He was charged eventually, although acquitted. Grant entered a deposition on his behalf and his good character and so on, in court--which he never should have done. He didn't really look at the facts, he didn't look at the evidence. The point of all this one is that millions and millions of dollars in liquor revenues were lost to the U.S. Government, from about 1870 to 1875, and most of that money went into the pockets of whiskey distillers and a lot of it went into the pockets of Treasury Department officials who were themselves supposed to be collecting the tax. The estimate is that between forty and fifty million dollars was grafted in this particular scandal. The scandal broke in 1875. There were about 150 people indicted in the liquor business, about eighty-five people indicted in the federal government. There were 110 convictions, although nobody served terribly long in any prison. And thirdly, there's this thing called Crédit Mobilier. This was the company that was first chartered in 1859 as part of--it was the finance company for the Pennsylvania, it was called the Pennsylvania Fiscal Agency originally, it was the finance company for the Union Pacific Railroad, that got the greatest contract in American history to build the Transcontinental Railroad. The Union Pacific had a charter from the federal government to build this great railroad to the Pacific, or possibly two or three of them. For each mile of track built the Union Pacific was to receive ten sections of public land, and from 16,000 to 48,000 dollars, depending on how difficult the terrain was to build on. The Union Pacific arranged the construction contracts with its own firm, that it called Crédit Mobilier, so that all government money would get spent. You know the old routine, if you get a grant, make sure you spend it because they won't give you as much next time. Crédit Mobilier, and therefore Union Pacific, made enormous profits. The shares of stock in Crédit Mobilier skyrocketed, and to keep the federal government in line and to let this continue to go on, many congressmen--we'll never know exactly how many--were on the take, were simply being bribed, in old-fashioned handfuls of cash, by the Union Pacific. This scandal too broke in 1873. All kinds of people were accused, including Vice-President Schuyler Colfax. Congress reprimanded one government railroad agent and two congressmen, and then just left it alone. So far as I know, no one's ever really put a price tag on the graft committed by the Union Pacific in the Crédit Mobilier case. This kind of spoils-men financial corruption became rampant in the Grant years, and again a huge political distraction away from the issues of the South, the issues of the freedmen, the issues of Reconstruction. The other major path to Southern redemption, the success of the white Southern Democratic Party, was of course the uses of violence. But before I give you a little more litany on the level of Klan terrorism, think with me for just a moment what those Radical Republicans originally--almost none of whom are really in power anymore: Thaddeus Stevens died in 1869; Charles Sumner dies in 1874; Benjamin Wade is long gone, as a senator from Ohio. The old leadership of the Radicals is really no longer there by 1874, when the Democrats are going to throw the Republicans out of the leadership of the Congress anyway. But think with me for just a moment, back to what Foner called the Radicals' civic vision. That civic vision again was rooted in Free Soilism, Unionism, winning the war, and ending slavery, emancipation, and then to at least the beginnings of racial equality. You cannot mistake that they believed in at least the beginnings of that in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. But think for a moment, in the nineteenth century how would most Americans think about the idea of equality? I would argue that in our history, this nation in the modern world that probably tried to do more about the idea of equality than perhaps any place else, has gone through three definitions of equality. The first we might simply call equality in the eyes of God, or natural rights. The old Enlightenment--it's not just from the Enlightenment, it's in the Epistles of Paul, it's ancient in some ways--but the idea that somehow you're born equal before God or nature, that you have a natural capacity that's equal. It doesn't say anything about human affairs. It doesn't say anything about government or law. The second kind of equality that came into history is equality before law. That was never codified, never spoken, until the Fourteenth Amendment; the equal protection of the law. That's where it begins. If there's a third kind of equality in our history it's probably what we came to call, in the twentieth century, and especially in the Civil Rights Revolution and its wake, an equality of opportunity. In the nineteenth century trust--they never got to that one, and they didn't get terribly far with equality before law. The Radical Republicans' ideas were up against--and here you can just give up and say, "well you see, what--they tried to go too far too fast; they were ahead of their times; gee whiz, Reconstruction failed, maybe it should've failed, can't do anything about it, so be it; well the lights went out for 75 or 80 years but that's-- you know, some things are inevitable in history." If you're comfortable with that, fine. But the Radical Republican ideology at least set in motion a tradition. The problem was they got cornered themselves by their own language, because the language they got cornered by was the language of guaranteed rights. If you guaranteed somebody's beginnings of equality in law, what else is there to do? If you and I are equal before the law, at least the law says we're equal before the law, what else can government do? But the Radical Republicans in Reconstruction launched that question into our history, as no one ever had. What do governments owe people and what do people owe governments? The trouble, of course, was that on-the-ground in the South, the Klan, and all of its imitators, were winning Reconstruction by terror, by political violence, by intimidation. Now you've read about the Klan. I've given you statistics on Klan violence, especially in 1868 up through 1871. But it was the first Grant Administration--and we've got to give Grant credit for this, and Henry Adams should've at least thought of this when he wrote that God-awful passage--the Grant Administration did act, in 1870 and '71, against the Klan. May 31,1870, it passed the so-called Force Act, or the First Enforcement Act. It made it a federal offence to interfere with any person's right to vote and made it punishable in a federal court. That's the very law the Cruikshank case is going to come, along six years later and say, "no, the federal government can't enforce that, only the state can." It's one of those moments you want to go back into history and just grab some people by the collar and say, "No, no, no, no, think one more time." But, of course we can't do that. February 28,1871, the Second Force Act, provided a machinery for the federal supervision of registration and voting in the South. It had at least tried. And finally they passed what was called the Ku Klux Klan Act; April 20,1871. It authorized the President to use the Army and to suspend the writ of habeas corpus wherever he deemed necessary, if there was a state of insurrection--which there was in South Carolina, in about twelve counties. Move the Army in, if necessary, to protect the safety and security of elections. Now, under this authority of these Enforcement Acts and the Klan Acts, approximately 3000 people, mostly white Southerners, were indicted for Klan violence--murder, intimidation, torture. Thousands were arrested. Many of those 3000 indicted pleaded guilty and got suspended sentences. About 600 were convicted, 250 acquitted. Most received fines or light jail sentences. Sixty-five people were imprisoned for up to five years in a federal penitentiary in Albany, New York. All of them were out by 1875, before the Cruikshank Case. The thousands of people murdered by the Klan, the thousands tortured, the thousands kept from voting--sixty-five people were prosecuted. If you think back to the other day, that quotation I asked you to keep in your head, when Frederick Douglass gives that speech in 1875, imagining the following year the centennial of U.S. independence, and he worries about all the hosannas to American patriotism and to independence, and he says "if war among the whites brought freedom to blacks, what will peace among the whites bring?" It is a peace among the whites that was happening, by 1875. On Thursday we'll move this toward one of the ends of Reconstruction.

Contents

Results summary

Senate Party Division, 41st Congress (1869–1871)

  • Majority Party: Republican (57)
  • Minority Party: Democratic (9)
  • Other Parties: (0)
  • Vacant: (8)
  • Total Seats: 74

Change in Senate composition

Beginning of 1868

D3 D2 D1 V4 V3 V2 V1
D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 V5
Readmitted
V6
Readmitted
V7
Readmitted
V8
Readmitted
V9
Readmitted
R44 R45 V17
Readmitted
V16
Readmitted
V15
Readmitted
V14
Readmitted
V13
Readmitted
V12
Readmitted
V11
Special
V10
Readmitted
R43 R42 R41 R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R35 R34
Majority → R33
R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32
R23 R22 R21 R20 R19 R18 R17 R16 R15 R14
R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13
R3 R2 R1 V18 V19 V20 V21

After the readmission of the Confederate states

D3 D2 D1 V4 V3 V2 V1
D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9
Gain
R57
Gain
R56
Gain
R55
Gain
R54
Gain
R44 R45 R46
Gain
R47
Gain
R48
Gain
R49
Gain
R50
Gain
R51
Gain
R52
Gain
R53
Gain
R43 R42 R41 R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R35 R34
Majority →
R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33
R23 R22 R21 R20 R19 R18 R17 R16 R15 R14
R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13
R3 R2 R1 V5 V6 V7 V8

Before the elections

After July 16, 1868 readmission of South Carolina.

D3 D2 D1 V4
Seceded
V3
Seceded
V2
Seceded
V1
D4 D5
Unknown
D6
Retired
D7
Retired
D8
Retired
D9
Retired
R57
Retired
R56
Retired
R55
Unknown
R54
Unknown
R44
Ran
R45
Ran
R46
Ran
R47
Ran
R48
Ran
R49
Ran
R50
Ran
R51
Ran
R52
Ran
R53
Unknown
R43
Ran
R42
Ran
R41
Ran
R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R35 R34
Majority →
R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33
R23 R22 R21 R20 R19 R18 R17 R16 R15 R14
R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13
R3 R2 R1 V5 V6 V7 V8

Result of the elections

D3 D2 D1 V4
Seceded
V3
Seceded
V2
Seceded
V1
D4 D5
Hold
D6
Hold
D7
Gain
D8
Gain
D9
Gain
R57
Gain
R56
Gain
R55
Gain
R54
Hold
R44
Re-elected
R45
Re-elected
R46
Re-elected
R47
Re-elected
R48
Hold
R49
Hold
R50
Hold
R51
Hold
R52
Hold
R53
Hold
R43
Re-elected
R42
Re-elected
R41
Re-elected
R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R35 R34
Majority →
R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33
R23 R22 R21 R20 R19 R18 R17 R16 R15 R14
R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13
R3 R2 R1 V5 V6 V7 V8
Key:
D# Democratic
R# Republican
V# Vacant

Race summaries

Elections during the 40th Congress

In these elections, the winners were seated during 1868 or in 1869 before March 4; ordered by election date.

State Incumbent Results Candidates
Senator Party Electoral history
Kentucky
(Class 2)
James Guthrie Democratic 1865 Incumbent resigned due to failing health.
Winner elected February 19, 1868.
Democratic hold.
Thomas C. McCreery (Democratic)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Maryland
(Class 3)
Vacant since March 3, 1867 when Senator-elect Philip F. Thomas failed to qualify. Winner elected March 7, 1868.
Democratic gain.
George Vickers (Democratic)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Florida
(Class 1)
Vacant since January 21, 1861 when Stephen Mallory (D) withdrew. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected June 17, 1868.
Republican gain.
Winner did not run for election to the next term, see below.
Adonijah Welch (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Arkansas
(Class 2)
Vacant since July 11, 1861 when William K. Sebastian (D) was expelled. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected June 22, 1868.
Republican gain.
Alexander McDonald (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Arkansas
(Class 3)
Vacant since July 11, 1861 when Charles B. Mitchel (D) was expelled. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected June 23, 1868.
Republican gain.
Benjamin F. Rice (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Florida
(Class 3)
Vacant since January 21, 1861 when David Levy Yulee (D) withdrew. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected June 25, 1868.
Republican gain.
Thomas W. Osborn (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Louisiana
(Class 2)
Vacant since February 4, 1861 when Judah P. Benjamin (D) withdrew. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected July 8, 1868.
Republican gain.
John S. Harris (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Louisiana
(Class 3)
Vacant since February 4, 1861 when John Slidell (D) resigned. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected July 9, 1868.
Republican gain.
William P. Kellogg (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Alabama
(Class 2)
Vacant since January 21, 1861 when Clement Claiborne Clay (D) withdrew. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected July 13, 1868.
Republican gain.
Willard Warner (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Alabama
(Class 3)
Vacant since January 21, 1861 when Benjamin Fitzpatrick (D) withdrew. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected July 13, 1868.
Republican gain.
George E. Spencer (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
North Carolina
(Class 2)
Vacant since March 6, 1861 when Thomas Bragg (D) resigned. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected July 14, 1868.
Republican gain.
Joseph Abbott (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
North Carolina
(Class 3)
Vacant since March 11, 1861 when Thomas Clingman (D) resigned. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected July 14, 1868.
Republican gain.
John Pool (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
South Carolina
(Class 2)
Vacant since November 10, 1860 when James Chesnut, Jr. (D) withdrew. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected July 15, 1868.
Republican gain.
Thomas J. Robertson (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
South Carolina
(Class 3)
Vacant since November 11, 1860 when James Henry Hammond (D) withdrew. State readmitted to the Union.
Winner elected July 16, 1868.
Republican gain.
Frederick A. Sawyer (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Delaware
(Class 1)
James A. Bayard, Jr. Democratic 1851
1857
1863
1864 (Resigned)
1867 (Appointed)
Incumbent appointee elected January 19, 1869 to finish the term.[1]
Winner did not run for election to the next term, see below.
James A. Bayard, Jr. (Democratic)
[Data unknown/missing.]

Races leading to the 41st Congress

In these general elections, the winners were elected for the term beginning March 4, 1869; ordered by state.

All of the elections involved the Class 1 seats.

State Incumbent Results Candidates
Senator Party Electoral history
California John Conness Republican 1862 or 1863 Unknown if incumbent lost re-election or retired.
Winner elected in 1868.
Democratic gain.
Eugene Casserly (Democratic)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Connecticut James Dixon Republican 1856
1863
Incumbent lost re-election.
Winner elected in 1868 or 1869.
Republican hold.
William Buckingham (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Delaware James A. Bayard, Jr. Democratic 1851
1857
1863
1864 (Resigned)
1867 (Appointed)
1869 (Special)
Incumbent retired.
Winner elected in 1869.
Democratic hold.
Thomas F. Bayard, Sr. (Democratic)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Florida Adonijah Welch Republican 1868 (Special) Incumbent retired.
Winner elected in 1868 or 1869.
Republican hold.
Abijah Gilbert (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Indiana Thomas A. Hendricks Democratic 1862 Incumbent retired.
Winner elected in 1868.
Republican gain.
Daniel D. Pratt (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Maine Lot M. Morrill Republican 1861 (Special)
1863
Incumbent lost re-election.
Winner elected in 1869.
Republican hold.
Hannibal Hamlin (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Maryland William P. Whyte Democratic 1868 (Appointed) Incumbent retired.
Winner elected in 1868 or 1869.
Democratic hold.
William T. Hamilton (Democratic)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Massachusetts Charles Sumner Republican 1851 (Special)
1857
1863
Incumbent re-elected in 1869. Charles Sumner (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Michigan Zachariah Chandler Republican 1857
1863
Incumbent re-elected in 1869. Zachariah Chandler (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Minnesota Alexander Ramsey Republican 1863 Incumbent re-elected in 1869. Alexander Ramsey (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Mississippi Vacant since January 21, 1861 when Jefferson Davis (D) resigned. Legislature failed to elect during Civil War and Reconstruction.
Seat remained vacant until 1870.
None.
Missouri John B. Henderson Republican 1862 (Appointed)
1862
Incumbent retired.
Winner elected in 1868.
Republican hold.
Carl Schurz (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Nebraska Thomas Tipton Republican 1867 Incumbent re-elected in 1869. Thomas Tipton (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Nevada William M. Stewart Republican 1865 Incumbent re-elected in 1869. William M. Stewart (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
New Jersey Frederick T. Frelinghuysen Republican 1866 (Appointed)
1867 (Special)
Incumbent lost re-election.
Winner elected in 1869.
Democratic gain.
John P. Stockton (Democratic)
Frederick T. Frelinghuysen (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
New York Edwin D. Morgan Republican 1863 Incumbent lost renomination.
Winner elected January 19, 1869.
Republican hold.
Reuben E. Fenton (Republican)
Henry C. Murphy (Democratic)
Henry S. Randall (Democratic)
Ohio Benjamin Wade Republican 1851
1856
1863
Incumbent lost renomination.
Winner elected in 1868.
Democratic gain.
Allen G. Thurman (Democratic)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Pennsylvania Charles R. Buckalew Democratic 1863 Unknown if incumbent lost re-election or retired.
Winner elected January 19, 1869.
Republican gain.
John Scott (Republican) 58.65%
William A. Wallace (Democratic) 38.35%
Hiester Clymer (Democratic) 0.75%
Rhode Island William Sprague IV Republican 1862 Incumbent re-elected in 1868. William Sprague IV (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Tennessee David T. Patterson Democratic 1866 (Special) Incumbent retired.
Winner elected early in October 22, 1867 for the term beginning March 4, 1869.
Republican gain.
William G. Brownlow (Republican) 63
William B. Stokes (Republican) 39[2]
Texas Vacant since March 23, 1861 when Louis Wigfall (D) withdrew. Legislature failed to elect during Civil War and Reconstruction.
Seat remained vacant until 1870.
None.
Vermont George F. Edmunds Republican 1866 (Appointed)
1866 (Special)
Incumbent re-elected in 1868. George F. Edmunds (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Virginia Vacant since January 2, 1864 when Joseph Segar (U) was not seated.[3] Legislature failed to elect during Civil War and Reconstruction.
Seat remained vacant until 1870.
None.
West Virginia Peter G. Van Winkle Republican 1863 Unknown if incumbent lost re-election or retired.
Winner elected in 1868 or 1869.
Republican hold.
Arthur I. Boreman (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Wisconsin James R. Doolittle Republican 1857
1863
Unknown if incumbent lost re-election or retired.
Winner elected in 1868 or 1869.
Republican hold.
Matthew H. Carpenter (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]

Elections during the 41st Congress

There were no elections in 1869 during this Congress after March 4.

Complete list of races

New York

The election in New York was held on January 19, 1869 by the New York State Legislature. Republican Edwin D. Morgan had been elected in February 1863 to this seat, and his term would expire on March 3, 1869. At the State election in November 1867, 17 Republicans and 15 Democrats were elected for a two-year term (1868-1869) in the State Senate. At the State election in November 1868, Democrat John T. Hoffman was elected Governor, and 75 Republicans and 53 Democrats were elected for the session of 1869 to the Assembly. The 92nd New York State Legislature met from January 5 to May 11, 1869, at Albany, New York.

The caucus of Republican State legislators met on January 16, Assemblyman John H. Selkreg presided. All 92 legislators were present. They nominated Ex-Governor Reuben E. Fenton for the U.S. Senate. The incumbent U.S. Senator Edwin D. Morgan was very keen on his re-election, but was voted down. Speaker Truman G. Younglove had held back the appointments to the standing Assembly committees until after the caucus, and subsequent election, of a U.S. Senator, and was accused by the Morgan men to have made a bargain to favor the Fenton men with appointments after the election was accomplished. After the caucus, comparing notes, the assemblymen discovered that some of the most important committee chairmanships had been promised to a dozen different members by Speaker Younglove.

1869 Republican caucus for United States Senator result
Candidate First ballot Second ballot
Reuben E. Fenton (50) 52
Edwin D. Morgan (42) 40
blank (1)

Note: On the first ballot, 93 votes were cast, one too many, and it was annulled without announcing the result. The above stated result transpired unofficially. The blank vote caused some debate if the result was really invalidated by it, but it was finally agreed to take a second ballot.

The caucus of the Democratic State legislators met on January 18. State Senator Henry C. Murphy was again nominated, like in 1867.

In the Assembly, Republicans DeWitt C. Hoyt (Saratoga Co.) and James O. Schoonmaker (Ulster Co.); and Democrats James Irving (NYC), Lawrence D. Kiernan (NYC), Harris B. Howard (Rensselaer Co.), James B. Pearsall (Queens), John Tighe (Albany Co.) and Moses Y. Tilden (Columbia Co.); did not vote.

In the State Senate, Republicans Matthew Hale (16th D.) and Charles Stanford (15th D.); and Democrats Cauldwell, Thomas J. Creamer, Michael Norton (5th D.) and John J. Bradley (7th D.); did not vote.

Reuben E. Fenton was the choice of both the Assembly and the State Senate, and was declared elected.

1869 United States Senator election result
House Republican Democratic Democratic
State Senate
(32 members)
Reuben E. Fenton 15 Henry C. Murphy 10 Henry S. Randall 1
State Assembly
(128 members)
Reuben E. Fenton 73 Henry C. Murphy 46

Notes:

  • The vote for Ex-Secretary of State Randall was cast by Henry C. Murphy.
  • The votes were cast on January 19, but both Houses met in a joint session on January 20 to compare nominations, and declare the result.

Pennsylvania

The election in Pennsylvania was held on January 19, 1869. John Scott was elected by the Pennsylvania General Assembly.[4] The Pennsylvania General Assembly, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, convened on January 19, 1869, to elect a Senator to serve the term beginning on March 4, 1869. The results of the vote of both houses combined are as follows:

State Legislature Results[4][5]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican John Scott 78 58.65
Democratic William A. Wallace 51 38.35
Democratic Hiester Clymer 1 0.75
N/A Not voting 3 2.26
Totals 133 100.00%

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Byrd and Wolff, page 90
  2. ^ Coulter, E. Merton. "William G. Brownlow: Fighting Parson of the Southern Highlands". p. 347.
  3. ^ Segar was not seated on the premise that the Union-friendly legislature was illegitimate despite having seated his predecessor based credentials from the same legislature. In reality, the Senate refused because it did not want to set a precedent for easing reentry of Confederate states. See "Musical Chairs (1861–1869)". United States Senate. Retrieved March 20, 2009.
  4. ^ a b "U.S. Senate Election - 19 January 1869" (PDF). Wilkes University. Retrieved 23 December 2012.
  5. ^ "PA US Senate - 1869". OurCampaigns. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
This page was last edited on 13 October 2018, at 07:09
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.