Talk:Richard Bassett (Delaware politician)

Bassett's "Party"
In which Congress would Bassett have been considered "Pro-Administation" and in which was he "Anti-Administration." I know that there is no formal distinction because there were no formal parties. Nevertheless, I'm having trouble categorizing him in these articles: 1st United States Congress, 2nd United States Congress, United States Senate elections, 1788, United States Senate elections, 1790. Please reply here, and I will adjust those articles accordingly.—Markles 17:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bassett seems to have been Pro-Administration in both congresses, as listed. Kraxler (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know that — what's your external source? The BioGuide says that he was both, but doesn't say which when. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000226 —Markles  00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to United States Senate elections, 1790, he voted Anti-Administration in the Second Congress. I'm by no means an expert on how partisan labels are determined for the early years, but as I understand it, they are sorted by voting patterns. As such, it is most likely that in the aggregate his votes were for the Administration position in the First Congress but against in the Second. As for exactly when he changed, it may be that no one ever actually studied the votes at that granular of a level. If they have, I don't know where to look for their work. Lexis maybe? Anyway, Kraxler's info may come from the fact that he wasn't up for election in 1790, so some sources may only reflect his affiliation for the first two years after he was elected. -Rrius (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, United States Senate elections, 1790 is one of the articles I'm trying to tweak in light of Bassett's position. It can't be relied upon as a source for itself.  What I really need is an external source.  Does someone have Martis?—Markles  21:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I Would suggest e-mailing the Senate Historical Office. There's a general e-mail address for historical inquiries, and they've been responsive to me in the past. I will be in DC at the end of Janurary and have research priviledges at the Library of Congress, and can try to check their records, too, since they have much more than Martis.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 05:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really need more than Martis? All we need here is one external source to tell us if Bassett was Pro- or Anti- during the 1st and/or 2nd Congresses.  While we do appreciate this approach, DCmacnut, wouldn't it be WP:OR?—Markles  15:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should clarify. The resources I speak of utilize Martis, combined with official house and senate journals. In particular, it's a four volume series on the committee assignments of all reps and senators from 1789. They have Martis as well. I was suggesting that if we had two sources saying the same thing, it might be useful. The whole pro v anti party is really just an invention of scholars, so in the end the more sources that can back up the info claim the better. The Library of Congress is the only place I've found them, since I can't get them locally or through interlibrary loan. And I'm in DC 4 or 5 times a year, so it's convenient.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 04:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The volume in question is Canon's Committees of the United States Congress 1789-1947 (listed in the resource section at WikiProject U.S. Congress/Committees). as luck would have it, I made a copy of the select committees volume for the 1st and 2nd congress the last time I was in DC. I just found it in my files. It indicates Bassett was Anti-Adminstration during the 1st Congress, and is Pro-Adminstration starting with the 2nd Congress. I've found this book to be well researched in both the dates of various committees, as well as the party affiliations and seniority ranking of the various committee members. It's pretty reliable. Incidentally, it says Bassett served on a committee on organizing the Judiciary in the 1st Congress (ranked 6th) and Chaired a committee to establish the post office and post roads in the 2nd Congress. References are from Volume 4 of the series, page 427 for the 1st Congress and page 438 for the 2nd Congress. DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 05:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lucky indeed! So it's resolved (at least for now) that Bassett was Anti-Adminstration during the 1st Congress, and Pro-Adminstration starting with the 2nd Congress.  Thanks —Markles  13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall Seniority of #1
This in reference to this statement, "He holds the overall seniority position of #1 in the history of the United States Senate." This seems like a strange and refutable detail. Is it not better to say he served in the First Congress than to say he is alphabetically first in the First Congress (which is what I take this statement to mean and is just odd trivia than anything really substantive for the encyclopedia). --Engineerchange (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears this just got copyedited, so I guess this thought/point is moot now. --Engineerchange (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Information on Bassett's background as slave owner
Details on Richard Bassett's background as a slave owner are sketchy. While he became an abolitionist after converting to Methodism, this in no way means he freed his slaves. Thus, it is not known - or at least I have not found anything to indicate - whether he was a slave owner while attending the Constitutional Convention. Many other prominent abolitionists of that era, such as Franklin and Hamilton, owned slaves until the times of their deaths. One indicator this may also be true of Bassett is his inheritance of Bohemia Farm in Maryland, where he retired to and lived until his death.

I would appreciate any information or feedback on the above for research I am doing on Slavery in the United States and its ties to the Founding Fathers. Thanks Allreet (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)