Has "congressman" ALWAYS meant "representative, not senator"?

[Joel S. Berson]

At 10/20/2010 02:37 PM, Neal Whitman wrote:
>but I'd like
>to find some attestations between 1789 and the early 1800s to see how
>"congressman" is being used in the early years of the US.

Having seen the light overnight -- that the significant time for
examining how "congressman" began to be used is when a *bicameral*
legislature was first established for the United States -- I have now
tried EAN for "congressman/men" (and with and without a hyphen)
between March 4, 1789 (actually I started with 1787) and 1799.

There are, interestingly, only 30 hits for "congressman/men" between
1787 and 1799 in EAN, at least 5 of which are reprints in other
papers and 2 of which seem to be false positives..  The others would
probably merit more thorough reading than I have given them.  My
sample below is biased (that is, out of proportion) towards those
that hint at "congress-man" = "representative" (House member) only.

My sense from these few is that in this period:  "Congress-man" was
often used for the members of the two branches collectively.  Those
specifically of the lower house were called "members" (of the House
of Representatives) or "representatives".  (I have not tried to
examine uses of these two words.)  Those of the upper house were
early on called "senators".  But also it seems that "Congress-man"
was sometimes used, perhaps increasingly gradually during the 1790s,
to refer *only* to a member of the lower house.  See in particular
(6) below, from 1796, where a "Congress-man" represents 30,000 people,

Still, the use of "congress" by the Massachusetts Spy writer of 1777,
in his proposals for a bicameral state legislature, to refer only to
the lower house, also seems significant.  The quote was "That each of
these districts have a member chosen out of them for the Congress;
and five Counsellors, or senators for the upper house of the
Legislature".  Here "the Congress" is clearly *only* the lower
house.  (Although admittedly this sentence does not use "Congressman"
but rather "member".)


1)   1788 Feb. 13, Massachusetts Centinel, pp. 1-2.  Reprinted in 4
other newspapers.

1a)  P. 2, col. 2.  "My Hon. old Daddy, there [pointing to Mr.
Singletary] won't think that I expect to be a Congress-man, and
swallow up the liberties of the people."

This is within an article reporting proceedings of the state
convention discussing whether to adopt the proposed U.S. constitution.

1b)   P. 2, col. 2.  "We are by this Constitution allowed to send ten
members to Congress."

Massachusetts originally had 8 Representatives.  So here "Congress" =
both chambers together, suggesting that "Congress-man" in (1a) meant
a member of either chamber.


2)  1791 Aug. 24, New-York Journal, p. 2.

"How can the excise of Congress be incompatible with liberty, if the
people vested them with power to lay it, and can turn out every
Congress-man that voted for it ..."

Probably refers to members of both houses.  But in the day when
Senators were elected indirectly, would a writer think that the
*people* could "turn out" Senators?  So "Congress-man" here *might*
mean only a Representative to the House.


3)   1793 Jan 9, National Gazette [Philadelphia], p. 2-3.

"... we have long been amused with hints and insinuations respecting
the dark intrigues of Congress-men" [and further on:]  "... drag
forth to daylight the men let them be who they will; whether they be
Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Judges, Senators, Representatives,
Secretaries, Comptrollers [etc.]"

"Long been amused" only two years after the establishment of the
United States government?  But I don't suppose "Congress-men" here
refers to allegedly corrupt members of Continental Congresses.  Here
"Congress-men" appears to include both branches, as contrasted with
"Senators" and "Representatives".


4)   1794 Sept. 13, Independent Gazetteer [Philadelphia], p.
2-3.  This article seems to use "Congress" to refer to the
legislature collectively, both chambers.

"Shall these brave heroes and guardians of our lives at the risque of
their own, be thus slighted, or poorly compensated for their
services, with three dollars per month and shall six dollars per day
be lavished on a Congressman, three upon an Assemblyman, two thousand
pounds a year upon a governor, upon three officers in the land office
department 500 pounds per annum each ..."

"Congressman" is unclear, but likely correlates with the use of
"Congress" to mean both chambers.  (I believe "Assemblyman" refers to
a member of the Pennsylvania state legislature (the "Assembly"; was
Pennsylvania still unicameral in 1794?), not to a member of the U.S.
House of Representatives.)


5)   1794 Sept. 27, Greenleaf's New York Journal, p. 2.

"That is not all, if he returns a hale man he must become a tenant to
some Congressman, salary officer or other engrosser of large
quantities of land ..."

Ambiguous perhaps without reading the bulk of the article.  Here
might mean a member of either chamber.


6)   1796 May 17, Rising Sun [Keene, NH], p. 1.  Headline: "From the
United States Chronicle".

"And now as ever 30,000 fokes [sic] (I think tis) makes a Congress-man ..."

Clearly the House of Representatives only.


(7)  1798 May 9, The Bee [New London, Conn.], p 4.  "Anecdotes, &c."

" 'Landed from on board the schooner Atlantic, and for sale at public
vendue, thirty nine _Congress-men_, or _Jack-asses_, &c. &c.' "

The more things change ... oh well.  Wikipedia says that in this, the
5th Congress, there were 32 Senators, so 38 must either be a mixture
from both houses or -- more likely -- only Representatives.  And
Wikipedia also says there were 106 Representatives, so they weren't
all jack-asses.


Joel

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org