Talk:1874–75 United States House of Representatives elections

The Rhodes explanation
Any attempt to explain the huge swing in election results in the Post-Reconstruction US that does not mention race is disingenuous at best. The Democrats had deliberately and openly named themselves as the party of the white man, and the readmission of white southern votes was the single key to the swing in congress. Rhodes is well known to have whitewashed that point in order to make the Southern Democrats look good. I'm going to eliminate that passage, which isn't properly referenced anyway. I'll look around for online-reference quotes from historians who AREN'T turn-of-the-19th-century Southern Democrats. Ken (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Better keep fully referenced analysis by the leading political expert of the day. Do the RS have viewpoints--yes indeed, but Wiki rules say that they stay in an alternative views can be added. Rhodes was a Boston historian known for his strong nationalism and sharp attacks on the Confederacy. The passage refers entirely to elections in the North. Rhodes sees multiple factors in a well-balanced analysis. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're going to cite a politically-biased historian, let's at least be open that you're doing so and acknowledge that there was more to it than he lets on. Ken (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Biased?? I know hundreds of historians and I would say the great majority are liberal Democrats. In fact I can't think of any who are politically totally independent with no views of their own. Rjensen (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * RJensen, I'm not going to argue with you. Rhodes is clearly making value judgements in the passage you quote. That is not unbiased historical writing, and it's not trying to be. Please, pretty please with sugar on it, leave your politics off Wikipedia and let it be a repository of facts. You think Rhodes was right, that's great. Good for you. But he is not simply reporting what happened, he's assigning it a moral value. That is better written on an editorial site, which this is not. Surely you can see that? Ken (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Rhodes is clearly making value judgements" well yes, that is what all historians do. Rhodes does a good job of bringing in multiple factors that explain the dramatic 1874 defeat of the GOP righ after a big 1872 landslide-- he has the South, the economy, unemployment, Grant's scandals, women, & ethnics--that's pretty good work in my opinion. To my knowledge no historians has disagreed with him on this point. By the way, do YOU claim to be "unbiased" in terms of history writing? Rjensen (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Map contradictory to article
Just comparing the map to the article's election summaries along with another map of the Congressional district, there are a number of contradictions. For example:

1. There are three Democrats in Wisconsin in the article, while the map shows three Independents out of nowhere. This also happens to the Democratic districts in Kansas and Iowa, along with the southwestern one in Michigan.

2. Both independents in Illinois are missing in the map, replaced by further Democratic seats. The same things happen with the other two independents in Massachusetts.

3. South Carolina's 1st is listed as a Democrat as opposed to an independent Republican. The same thing happens with the independent Republican in Vermont.

This map just isn't representative of actual history. We use this same website that provides the images in other House elections, and if it's not accurate, it doesn't seem to have any use being on the page. Ian SL (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1788 and 1789 United States House of Representatives elections which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)