20

It's probably because Ganson--one of the handful of Democrats who voted for the 13th Amendment--was on the fence about this Amendment himself. Voting not to reconsider the bill is similar to voting "present" in order to duck a difficult issue. First, Ganson voted against the 13th Amendment the first time the House considered it. He was widely expected to ...


10

Quite possibly for procedural reasons. There are a lot of little nits about parliamentary procedures that encourage weird things like this. For instance, under the older Roberts Rules of Order extant at the time, a motion to reconsider could only be made by someone who voted on the prevailing side in the previous vote. So if there's a chance the vote might ...


4

This graph seems to show somewhat of you're looking for: http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/EU/EU02-02.html The graph shows that: between 500 BC and 350 BC, there were between 100,000 and 200,000 citizens between 350 BC and 225 BC, there were between 200,000 and 300,000 citizens There was a 100,000 citizen dip from 225 BC to 175 BC during the ...


4

No, the Governor of Virginia had no power of veto in 1786. The Commonwealth of Virginia adopted its first Constitution on 29 June 1776. This was superseded by the second constitution in 1830. The First Constitution is therefore the one that would have applied in 1786. That Constitution did not give the Governor any power of veto. It states simply that: ...


4

Ummm..no. As a bit of background, Glass Steagall was passed in the wake of the Great Depression to prevent commercial banks, or entities affiliated with commercial banks, from speculating in securities. This was viewed as a cause for the financial bubble that kicked off the crash of 1929. Investigations found that banks were doing a lot of underwriting of ...


3

Scholars argue over the very basics of the functioning of the comitia centuriata . Here is the nearest to a hard number I could come up with. The total number of equites in the late Republican/Augustan period is generally thought to be around 10-20,000 (much scholarly squabbling, but most guesses converge around here). The census of 86BC counted 463,000 ...


3

It does depend on what you mean by "under Glass Steagall" as it was only partially in place in 2007-8. As the wikipedia page for the Glass-Steagall legislation mentions, the Glass-Steagall provisions were partially undone by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. This Act repealed two of the four Glass-...


3

Alright, I am answering from memory of things I have read without quoting specific sources, but this may give you things to search if you want to verify. Until the partial reforms of 1832 most boroughs and counties elected two members but there were exceptions e.g. in Wales where they only elected one, because of the lower population. The City of London (...


1

No. The whole point of repealing Glass Steagall was to allow financial institutions to engage in the risky (and initially profitable) practices depicted in the Big Short. This, after decades of lobbying by the banks. It may not be a coincidence that the two sets of events happened over 70 years apart, after everyone who had a personal recollection of ...


1

In an article in McClure's in 1898, Charles Dana writes that in 1864, when he was an Assistant Secretary of War, he had with President Lincoln a week before the Nevada bill vote, in which Lincoln was anxious about the 1864 passage of the Nevada enabling act because one more yea vote might carry the Amendment vote in the House. What Dana wrote was "Here [said ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible