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, 1904 and 1905

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Senate elections, 1904 and 1905

← 1902/03 February 4, 1904 –
January 27, 1905
1906/07 →

30 of the 90 seats in the United States Senate
(as well as special elections)
46 seats needed for a majority

  Majority party Minority party
 
William B. Allison - Brady-Handy.jpg
Arthur Pue Gorman.jpg
Leader William B. Allison Arthur P. Gorman
Party Republican Democratic
Leader's seat Iowa Maryland
Seats before 57 33
Seats won 22 5
Seats after 56 31
Seat change Decrease 1 Decrease 2
Seats up 23 7

Majority Party before election

Republican

Elected Majority Party

Republican

The United States Senate elections of 1904 and 1905 were elections that coincided with President Theodore Roosevelt's landslide election to a full term. Party share of seats remained roughly the same, when including vacancies and appointments, and the Republicans retained a significant majority over the Democrats.

As these elections were prior to ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, senators were chosen by State legislatures.

This was the last election cycle until 1996 which featured a presidential candidate who won re-election without securing coattails in the Senate in either of his presidential runs.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    2 158 288
    1 372
    3 518
    442
    395
  • American Imperialism: Crash Course US History #28
  • When Washington Went Nuts: The Senator Who Broke Careers and Lives (2004)
  • American History - Part 146 - T Roosevelt - Morocco Conference - Taft to be President
  • Researcher Talk: Buying the Vote: A History of Campaign Finance Reform
  • Geronimo's Story of His Life | Full Audiobook with subtitles | Native American History

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

Results summary

Senate Party Division, 59th Congress (1905–1907)

  • Majority Party: Republican (58)
  • Minority Party: Democratic (32)
  • Other Parties: (0)
  • Total Seats: 90

Change in Senate composition

Before the elections

At the beginning of 1904.

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
D15 D14 D13 D12 D11 D10 D9 D8 D7 D6
D16 D17 D18 D19 D20 D21 D22 D23 D24 D25
R56
Retired
R57
Retired
D33
Retired
D32
Ran
D31
Ran
D30
Ran
D29
Ran
D28
Ran
D27
Ran
D26
R55
Retired
R54
Retired
R53
Retired
R52
Retired
R51
Ran
but died
R50
Ran
R49
Ran
R48
Ran
R47
Ran
R46
Ran
Majority →
R36
Ran
R37
Ran
R38
Ran
R39
Ran
R40
Ran
R41
Ran
R42
Ran
R43
Ran
R44
Ran
R45
Ran
R35
Ran
R34 R33 R32 R31 R30 R29 R28 R27 R26
R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25
R15 R14 R13 R12 R11 R10 R9 R8 R7 R6
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Result of the general elections

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
D15 D14 D13 D12 D11 D10 D9 D8 D7 D6
D16 D17 D18 D19 D20 D21 D22 D23 D24 D25
R53
Hold
R54
Hold
R55
Hold
R56
Gain
D31
Gain
D30
Re-elected
D29
Re-elected
D28
Re-elected
D27
Re-elected
D26
R52
Hold
R51
Hold
R50
Hold
R49
Hold
R48
Re-elected
R47
Re-elected
R46
Re-elected
R45
Re-elected
R44
Re-elected
V1
D Loss
Majority → V2
D Loss
R36
Re-elected
R37
Re-elected
R38
Re-elected
R39
Re-elected
R40
Re-elected
R41
Re-elected
R42
Re-elected
R43
Re-elected
V3
R Loss
R35
Re-elected
R34 R33 R32 R31 R30 R29 R28 R27 R26
R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25
R15 R14 R13 R12 R11 R10 R9 R8 R7 R6
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Beginning of the next Congress

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
D15 D14 D13 D12 D11 D10 D9 D8 D7 D6
D16 D17 D18 D19 D20 D21 D22 D23 D24 D25
R54 R55 R56 D32
Appointed
D31 D30 D29 D28 D27 D26
R53 R52 R51 R50 R49 R48 R47 R46 R45 V1
Majority →
R36 R37 R38 R39 R40 R41 R42 R43 R44 V2
R35 R34 R33 R32 R31 R30 R29 R28 R27 R26
R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25
R15 R14 R13 R12 R11 R10 R9 R8 R7 R6
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Key:
D# Democratic
R# Republican
V# Vacant

Race summaries

Special elections during the 58th Congress

In these elections, the winners were seated during 1904 or in 1905 before March 4; ordered by election date.

State Incumbent Results Candidates
Senator Party Electoral history
Ohio
(Class 1)
Mark Hanna Republican 1877 (Appointed)
1898 (Special)
1898
Incumbent died February 15, 1904.
New senator elected March 2, 1904.[1]
Republican hold.
Winner was also elected to the next term, see below.
Charles W. F. Dick (Republican) 174 votes
John H. Clarke (Democratic) 25 votes[1]
Pennsylvania
(Class 1)
Matthew Quay Republican 1887
1893
1899 (Legislature failed to elect)
1899 (Re-elected but not qualified)
1901 (Special)
Incumbent died May 28, 1904.
New senator elected January 17, 1905.[2]
Republican hold.
Winner was also elected to the next term, see below.
Philander C. Knox (Republican) 100.00%
Massachusetts
(Class 2)
Winthrop M. Crane Republican 1904 (Appointed) Interim appointee elected January 18, 1905.[3] Winthrop M. Crane (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]

In this election, the winner was seated March 4, 1905.

State Incumbent Results Candidates
Senator Party Electoral history
Indiana
(Class 3)
Charles W. Fairbanks Republican 1897
1903
Incumbent resigned March 3, 1905 to become U.S. Vice President.
New senator elected January 18, 1905 begin service on the first day of the new Congress.
Republican hold.
James A. Hemenway (Republican) 100.00%

In these elections, the winners were seated March 4, 1907 in the 60th Congress; ordered by election date.

State Incumbent Results Candidates
Senator Party Electoral history
Mississippi
(Class 2)
Anselm J. McLaurin Democratic 1894 (Special)
1900
Incumbent re-elected early January 19, 1904. Anselm J. McLaurin (Republican)
Unopposed[4]
Louisiana
(Class 2)
Murphy J. Foster Democratic 1900 Incumbent re-elected early May 18, 1904.[5] Murphy J. Foster (Democratic) 148 votes
Unopposed[5]

Races leading to the 59th Congress

In these general elections, the winners were elected for the term beginning March 4, 1905; ordered by state.

All of the elections involved the Class 1 seats.

State Incumbent Results Candidates
Senator Party Electoral history
California Thomas R. Bard Republican 1900 Incumbent lost renomination
New senator elected January 11, 1905.[3]
Republican hold.
Frank Putnam Flint (Republican) 111 votes
Theodore Arlington Bell (Democratic) 8 votes[3]
Connecticut Joseph Roswell Hawley Republican 1881
1887
1893
Incumbent retired.
New senator elected January 17, 1905.[6]
Republican hold.
Morgan Bulkeley (Republican) 228 votes
A. Heaton Robertson (Democratic) 37 votes[6]
Delaware L. Heisler Ball Republican 1903 (Special) Incumbent retired.
Legislature failed to elect.
Republican loss.
Seat would remain vacant until June 13, 1906.
J. Edward Addicks (Union Republican)
Willard Saulsbury Jr. (Democratic)
Henry A. du Pont (Republican)
James H. Hughes (Democratic)
Florida James Taliaferro Democratic 1899 (Special) Legislature failed to elect.
Democratic loss.
Incumbent would be appointed to start the term.
Appointee was later elected to finish the term, see below.
[Data unknown/missing.]
Indiana Albert J. Beveridge Republican 1899 Incumbent re-elected January 18, 1905.[3] Albert J. Beveridge (Republican)
Unopposed
Maine Eugene Hale Republican 1881
1887
1893
1899
Incumbent re-elected January 18, 1905.[3] Eugene Hale (Republican)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Maryland Louis E. McComas Republican 1898 Incumbent lost re-election.
New senator elected February 4, 1904.
Democratic gain.
Isidor Rayner (Democratic) 70.49%
Louis E. McComas (Republican) 29.51%
Massachusetts Henry Cabot Lodge Republican 1893
1899
Incumbent re-elected January 18, 1905.[3] Henry Cabot Lodge (Republican)
Unopposed
Michigan Julius C. Burrows Republican 1899 Incumbent re-elected January 18, 1905.[3] Julius C. Burrows (Republican)
Unopposed
Minnesota Moses E. Clapp Republican 1901 Incumbent re-elected January 18, 1905.[3] Moses E. Clapp (Republican)
Unopposed
Mississippi Hernando Money Democratic 1897 (Appointed)
1899
Incumbent re-elected January 19, 1904.[7] Hernando Money (Democratic)
Unopposed
Missouri Francis Cockrell Democratic 1874
1881
1887
1893
1899
Incumbent lost re-election.
Legislature failed to elect.
Democratic loss.[3]
William Warner (Republican)
Francis Cockrell (Democratic)
Thomas K. Niedringhaus (Republican)[3]
Montana Paris Gibson Democratic 1901 (Special) Incumbent retired.
New senator elected January 16, 1905.[3]
Republican gain.
Thomas H. Carter (Republican) 62 votes
W.C. Conrad (Democratic) 28 votes
Martin Dee (Fusion) 6 votes
Scattering 6 votes[3]
Nebraska Charles Henry Dietrich Republican 1901 (Special) Incumbent retired.
New senator elected January 17, 1905.
Republican hold.
Elmer Burkett (Republican) 92.19%
Richard Lee Metcalfe (Democratic) 7.03%
Alfred Sorenson (Republican) 0.78%
Nevada William Morris Stewart Republican 1887
1893
1899
Incumbent retired.
New senator elected January 25, 1905.[3]
Republican hold.
George S. Nixon (Republican) 31 votes
John Sparks (Democratic) 25 votes[3]
New Jersey John Kean Republican 1899 Incumbent re-elected January 2, 1905. John Kean (Republican)
Unopposed
New York Chauncey Depew Republican 1899 Incumbent re-elected January 18, 1905.[3] Chauncey Depew (Republican) 136 votes
Smith M. Weed (Democratic) 57 votes[3]
North Dakota Porter J. McCumber Republican 1899 Incumbent re-elected January 18, 1905.[3] Porter J. McCumber (Republican)
Unopposed
Ohio Marcus A. Hanna Republican 1897 (Appointed)
1898 (Special)
1898
Incumbent ran for re-election, but died February 15, 1904.
New senator elected March 2, 1904.[1]
Republican hold.
Winner was also elected to finish the term, see above.
Charles W. F. Dick (Republican) 174 votes
John H. Clarke (Democratic) 25 votes[1]
Pennsylvania Philander C. Knox Republican 1904 (Appointed)
1905 (Special)
Incumbent re-elected January 18, 1905.[3] Philander C. Knox (Republican) 225 votes
James Knox Polk Hall (Democratic) 25 votes[3]
Rhode Island Nelson W. Aldrich Republican 1881 (Special)
1886
1892
1898
Incumbent re-elected January 18, 1905.[3] Nelson W. Aldrich (Republican) 93 votes
George W. Greene (Democratic) 17 votes[3]
Tennessee Washington C. Whitthorne Democratic 1887
1893
1899
Incumbent re-elected January 11, 1905.[3] William B. Bate (Democratic)
Walter P. Brownlow (Republican)[3]
Texas Charles Allen Culberson Democratic 1899 Incumbent re-elected January 25, 1905.[3] Charles Allen Culberson (Democratic)
Unopposed
Utah Thomas Kearns Republican 1901 (Special) Incumbent retired.
New senator elected January 18, 1905.[3]
Republican hold.
George Sutherland (Republican) 57 votes
William H. King (Democratic) 6 votes[3]
Vermont Redfield Proctor Republican 1891 (Appointed)
1892 (Special)
1892
1898
Incumbent re-elected October 18, 1904.[8] Redfield Proctor (Republican) 205 votes
John H. Senter (Democratic) 31 votes[8]
Virginia John W. Daniel Democratic 1887
1893
1899
Incumbent re-elected January 26, 1904.[4] John W. Daniel (Democratic)
Unopposed
Washington Addison G. Foster Republican 1899 Incumbent lost re-election.
New senator elected January 27, 1905.[3]
Republican hold.
Samuel H. Piles (Republican) 125 votes
Addison G. Foster (Republican) 2 votes
George Turner (Democratic) 6 votes[3]
West Virginia Nathan B. Scott Republican 1899 Incumbent re-elected January 25, 1905.[3] Nathan B. Scott (Republican) 82 votes
John T. McGraw (Democratic) 27 votes[3]
Wisconsin Joseph V. Quarles Republican 1899 Incumbent retired.
New senator elected January 25, 1905.[9]
Republican hold.
Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (Republican)
Unopposed
Wyoming Clarence D. Clark Republican 1895 (Special)
1899
Incumbent re-elected January 25, 1905.[10] Clarence D. Clark (Republican)
Unopposed

Elections during the 59th Congress

In these elections, the winners were elected in 1905 after March 4; sorted by election date.

State Incumbent Results Candidates
Senator Party Electoral history
Missouri
(Class 1)
Vacant Legislature had failed to elect.
New senator elected March 18, 1905.
Republican gain.
William Warner (Republican) 91 votes
Francis Cockrell (Democratic) 83 votes
Thomas K. Niedringhaus (Republican) 1 vote[3]
Tennessee
(Class 1)
William B. Bate Democratic 1887
1893
1899
1905
Incumbent, having just been re-elected, died March 9, 1905.
New senator elected March 21, 1905.
Democratic hold.
James B. Frazier (Democratic)
W. P. Brownlow (Republican)[3]
Florida
(Class 1)
James Taliaferro Democratic 1899 (Special)
1905 (Appointed)
Legislature had failed to elect.
Predecessor was appointed to begin the term.
Interim appointee re-elected April 20, 1905.
James Taliaferro (Democratic)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Connecticut
(Class 3)
Orville H. Platt Republican 1879
1885
1891
1897
1903
Incumbent died April 21, 1905.
New senator elected May 10, 1905.
Republican hold.
Frank B. Brandegee (Republican) 227 votes
Henry A. Bishop (Democratic) 34 votes

Complete list of races

New York

The 1905 election in New York was held on January 17, 1905, by the New York State Legislature. Republican Chauncey M. Depew had been elected to this seat in 1899, and his term would expire on March 3, 1905. At the State election in November 1904, large Republican majorities were elected for a two-year term (1905-1906) in the State Senate, and for the session of 1905 to the Assembly. The 128th State Legislature met from January 3, 1905, on at Albany, New York.

Late in 1904, Ex-Governor Frank S. Black tried to be nominated to succeed Depew. Black was supported by Governor Benjamin B. Odell, Jr., but after intense fighting behind the scenes, Odell finally dropped Black and accepted Depew's re-election which had been supported by his fellow Senator Thomas C. Platt and Speaker S. Frederick Nixon. The Republican caucus met on January 16. They re-nominated the incumbent U.S. Senator Chauncey M. Depew unanimously.

The Democratic caucus met also on January 16. They nominated again Smith M. Weed who had been the candidate of the Democratic minority in the U.S. Senate election of 1887.

1905 Democratic caucus for United States Senator result
Candidate First ballot
Smith M. Weed 42
D. Cady Herrick 14

Chauncey M. Depew was the choice of both the Assembly and the State Senate, and was declared elected.

1905 United States Senator election result
Office House Republican Democrat
State Senate
(50 members)
Chauncey M. Depew 36 Smith M. Weed 13
State Assembly
(150 members)
Chauncey M. Depew 100 Smith M. Weed 44

Note: The votes were cast on January 17, but both Houses met in a joint session on January 18 to compare nominations, and declare the result.

Pennsylvania

The election in Pennsylvania was held on January 17, 1905. Incumbent Philander C. Knox was elected by the Pennsylvania State Assembly to his first full term in the United States Senate.[11]

Republican Matthew Quay was elected by the Pennsylvania General Assembly to the United States Senate in the previous election in January 1901. He served until his death on May 28, 1904.[12] In June 1904, Republican Philander C. Knox was appointed to serve out the remainder of Quay's term, ending on March 4, 1905, when he began a term in his own right.[13]

The Pennsylvania General Assembly, consisting of the House of Representatives and Senate, convened on January 17, 1905, to elect a Senator to serve the term beginning on March 4, 1905. The results of the vote of both houses combined are as follows:

State Legislature Results[11][14]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Philander C. Knox (Inc.) 222 87.40
Democratic James K. P. Hall 23 9.06
N/A Not voting 9 3.54
Totals 254 100.00%

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d "GEN. DICK SUCCEEDS HANNA". The New York Times. March 3, 1904. p. 9.
  2. ^ Byrd, p. 159.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af The World Almanac and Encyclopedia 1906. New York: The Press Publishing Co. New York World. 1905. p. 108.
  4. ^ a b Tribune (1905), p. 234.
  5. ^ a b Official Journal of the Proceedings of House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana at the Regular Session of the General Assembly. 1904. p. 76.
  6. ^ a b "BULKELEY IN CONNECTICUT". The New York Times. January 18, 1905. p. 2.
  7. ^ "Re-elect Senators McLaurin and Money" (PDF). The New York Times. January 20, 1904. p. 5.
  8. ^ a b "SENATOR PROCTOR RE-ELECTED" (PDF). The New York Times. October 19, 1904. p. 1.
  9. ^ "Gov. La Follette Elected Senator". The New York Times. January 25, 1905. p. 5.
  10. ^ "Clark Returned for Another Term". The New York Times. January 25, 1905. p. 5.
  11. ^ a b "U.S. Senate Election - 17 January 1905" (PDF). Wilkes University. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
  12. ^ "QUAY, Matthew Stanley, (1833–1904)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
  13. ^ "KNOX, Philander Chase, (1853–1921)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
  14. ^ "PA US Senate - 1905". OurCampaigns. Retrieved December 22, 2012.

References

This page was last edited on 13 October 2018, at 07:00
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.