Talk:Tennessee's 1st congressional district

There was some chronologically incorrect and non-NPOV statements within this article pertaining to the lenght of time that the Tennessee First Congressional Seat has been held by various Republican office holders --- the Oppositon Party pre-dated the Republican party and the Civil War era National Union Pary was an entirely new political party established by the collaboration of both Republicans and Democrats (as contrasted by the maonstream "Radical" Republicans who were in 1864 again supporting the election of Frémont as U.S. President)4.88.58.36 19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Opposition Party existed both independently of the Republican Party before 1856 and also concurrently with the Republican Party in 1856 and on into the 1858 elections.

The Opposition Party arose in 1854 from a split within the Whig Party, primarily along the question of permiting slavery within the United States (and case you can read between the lines, the Opposition Party was constituted of former Whigs in opposition to both slavery and pro-slavery Whigs.). Any attempt to double-count other third parties as Republicans within this Wikipedia article is inaccurate, misleading, and suggestively partisan.4.88.59.239 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Foetusized has apparently engaged in sneaky vandalism by adding the bogus citation referencing the following sentence to the online article "Slavery" at the Tennessee Encyclopedia:

Like the rest of East Tennessee, slavery had never taken root in this area due to its terrain.[2] The district was also the home of the first abolitionist periodicals in the nation, The Manumission Intelligencer and The Emancipator, founded in Jonesborough in 1819.[3] As a result, the people identified with the Republican Party and the Union during and after the Civil War. This allegiance continues to this day, even though the district shares demographic characteristics with formerly Confederate areas that consistently voted for Democrats for most of the 20th century. To this day, the district's residents are somewhat skeptical of social programs unless they directly benefit.

However the folllowing excerpt from the Tennessee Encyclopedia article "Slavery" cited by User:Foetusized very plainly states:

In the 1760s Anglo-American frontiersmen, determined to settle the land, planted slavery firmly within the borders of what would become Tennessee. Over time, East Tennessee, hilly and dominated by small farms, retained the fewest number of slaves. Middle Tennessee, where tobacco, cattle, and grain became the favored crops, held the largest number of slaves throughout the antebellum period. West Tennessee, the area between the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers, ultimately the richest cotton producing section of the state, saw the greatest concentration of slaves. By 1860 Tennessee's 275,719 slaves represented just under 25 percent of the total population and were engaged in urban, industrial, and agricultural slavery.

When North Carolina ceded its western lands to the United States in 1790, the terms of cession prevented the new federal congress from excluding slavery in the Southwest Territory, as had been done under the Articles of Confederation's government in the Northwest Territory. Six years later, when Tennessee achieved statehood, the 1796 constitution remained mute on the status of slavery. The state operated under the laws first promulgated by North Carolina, whereby slaves were regarded primarily as chattel (the property of their owners), but sometimes as persons with legal obligations and a very few legal rights... [...]

To say that the entire population ("the people", in the vernacular of Foetusized) of the Tennessee 1st Congressional District identified with the Republican Party and the Union during and after the Civil War is also highly questionable. As I recall reading from a fairly recent edition of a Carter County, Tennessee history book (circa 1992-1994), the Veterans Momument at the Carter County Courthouse in Elizabethton was originally dedicated in 1904 to both the Confederate and Union veterans of the Civil War and a Confederate officer had lived in the house across the street from both the Carter County Courthouse and the house were noted Union officer Samuel P. Carter was born.

Another factual and easily verifible counter to Foetusized assertion that Like the rest of East Tennessee, slavery had never taken root in this area due to its terrain.[2] that can be found online is that one of the earliest Carter County settlers, John Carter was a frontier plantation slaveowner as was his father King Carter back in Virginia. Author James R. Hewitt Jr of Texas has written a family geneaology book J. Carter A Texas Pioneer 1790-1857 that reveals a very remarkable example slave ownership in Carter County by and family relationship to the founding Carter family in the area now known as Carter County, Tennessee.

Out of this entire paragraph, I am thinking that the sentence "The district was also the home of the first abolitionist periodicals in the nation, The Manumission Intelligencer and The Emancipator, founded in Jonesborough in 1819.[3]" is the only verifible statement within the text as is that can logically be salvaged for inclusion in the article, or the edited NPOV paragraph as:

The Tennessee 1st Congressional District was also home to two of the earliest abolitionist periodicals published within the United States, The Manumission Intelligencer and The Emancipator, both founded in Jonesborough in 1819. As a result of these local anti-slavery publications, many people within the district identified with the Republican Party and the Union during and after the Civil War.

Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Foetusized. I'm really not sure why Bee Cliff River Slob thinks I'm a vandal, or how I got under his skin. Before I edited the article yesterday, it stated that the district became Republican during Reconstruction, going so far as to claim it was due to an influx of carpetbaggers after the war. This view ignores such facts as that this district elected a Union Party candidate to Congress in 1861, and that East Tennessee voted against succession from the Union in both 1861 state referendums. Support for Republicans and their predecessors, and such Republican ideas as abolition and anti-successionism existed in this district earlier than then. I tried to bring some balance to the article, and got branded a vandal.

Bee Cliff River Slob, go read WP:GOODFAITH before making more vandalism accusations, and please try making more constructive edits to the article than just adding "citation needed" tags. Also, please note that I never wrote the sentence "Like the rest of East Tennessee, slavery had never taken root in this area due to its terrain." but just found a citation to help support it, replacing one of those annoying "citation needed" tags. If you want to rewrite the sentence, go right ahead. "Never" probably is too strong, but there was not as much slavery in this area as the flatland downstate, because large plantations were not as feasible up here in the mountains. Then again, I didn't write the sentence, so I'm not sure what the author intended. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Foetusized's version of the region's history is generally consistent with everything I've ever read and heard. Yes, there were slaves in East Tennessee (there's even a 19th century "African" cemetery here in Oak Ridge), and yes, there were supporters of the Confederacy in East Tennessee (there are many stories of families with divided loyalties during the Civil War), but there is ample basis for assertions that the region did not have a plantation economy and had strong Unionist loyalties. This and other TN Congressional District articles are poorly sourced (I think they may have been based in part on the Almanac of American Politics) and they need better sourcing. IMHO, accusing other good-faith contributors of vandalism won't help with improving the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Consider the following passage

Like the rest of East Tennessee, slavery was not as common in this area as the rest of the state due to its mountain terrain, which could not support a plantation economy.[2]

http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=S044 Which is purposefully misleading as the TEH&C Slavery article makes no mention of "plantation economy", and the associated Wikipedia article attributes this economic-historical descriptive as applying to an entire section of a country (e.g.: the southern United States prior to the American Civil War" and not a vasty smaller area as then defined by the Tennessee 1st Congressional District. In actually, one of the earliest founder within the Tennessee 1st Congressional District --- John Carter (widely belived to be the illegalitimate son of Virginia plantion owner King Carter --- established his own frontier plantation along the banks of the Watauga and Doe Rivers of Carter County.

And as I stated above, I am thinking that one pharagraph of the article should be edited as the follwoing:

While the ownership of plantations and large numbers of slaves was not common in East Tennessee, individual ownership of few slaves by many people was common within the Tennessee 1st Congressional District prior to the American Civil War. The Tennessee 1st Congressional District was also home to two of the earliest abolitionist periodicals published within the United States, The Manumission Intelligencer and The Emancipator, both founded in Jonesborough in 1819. As a result of these local anti-slavery publications, many people within the district with Union Army during the American Civil War and the Republican Party during and following the U.S. Reconstruction era.

A couple of lopsided passages that need to be edited out follows:

This allegiance continues to this day, with Republicans dominating every level of government. While a few Democratic pockets exist in the district's urban areas, they are not nearly enough to sway the district.

An earlier author conveniently neglects to mention for proper NPOV balance that both Confederate soldiers and sympathizers (both accussed and proven) were widely disfranchised of the right to vote by Republicans in East Tennessee during and across the entire State of Tennessee immediately following the end of the American Civil War upto the time that William Gannaway Brownlow resigned as Tennessee Governor in 1869.

Another passage that needed the Crystal template cites:

Given this district's overwhelming Republican tilt (see below), Roe is all but assured of becoming the district's next congressman.

One could also state (incorrectly) that "...given this district's overwhelming Republican tilt [?], incumbant freshman U.S. Representative David Davis is all but assured of winning re-election during the 2008 Republican Primary", but Davis has been widely reported within the news media as blaming "crossover" Democrats for his defeat during the 2008 Republican Primary. In actuality, Davis was apparently the first incubent freshman MOC from the district to be defeated during the Republican primary by a non-prior incumbent MOC since Zachary D. Massey (Sevierville) who served as a frehman incumbent in 1910 - 1911. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee Cliff River Slob (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I'm removing the "crystal ball" material and the template. If there were a sourced statement to the effect that Roe is expected to win easily, that information could be added to the article, but the article should not predict nomination based on history. Other issues with the article could be resolved by faithfully following WP:V. --Orlady (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I edited the "lopsided" sentence to try to tone down the language, and mentioned some evidence (already in the table of representatives) to back up the statement. Bee Cliff River Slob, I find your cause-and-effect to be faulty; you state that the local abolitionist publications influenced local thought, but perhaps the abolitionist viewpoint already existed in the area, which is what brought about the establishment of the publications in Washington County. The way it is stated in the article now doesn't inject unverifiable causality. Your theory about the disenfranchisement of Confederates post-war falls apart on the evidence of pre-war elections, both for Unionist George Washington Bridges and against succession from the USA, as well as opposition to the Confederacy in East Tennessee during the war (see Tennessee in the American Civil War#Tennessee secedes) -- Foetusized (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article has a Source section, with a single link to The Political Graveyard. Some of the information from that site that had been used in this article -- particularly [1] -- was wrong and has now been corrected. Should we delete this section and its link to inaccurate information? -- Foetusized (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to the House's website, Tennessee was divided into districts from the 9th Congress on.