Welcome to the Deep Dive. We're really thrilled
to have you with us today. Yeah, thanks for joining
us. Now, to be perfectly upfront, if you were
to look at the source material sitting on the
table between us right now, you might be a little
skeptical. Oh, absolutely. It doesn't exactly
scream page -turner. Right. Today, we are exploring
a Wikipedia article titled, List of United States
Senators from Maryland. Yeah. And on the surface,
yes, it sounds like a very dry administrative
document. Just a spreadsheet, basically. Exactly.
You might be anticipating a straightforward reading
of names and dates, but that is not what we do
here. We're going to unpack this document together
because when you actually read between the lines,
this list is a hidden map of American history.
It really is. It is full of political musical
chairs, strange constitutional quirks, and, well,
and a nearly century -long delay on radicalization.
Which is wild. It provides this remarkable window
into how the mechanics of our government have
evolved. To understand what we're looking at,
we need to establish the foundational context
first, which takes us all the way back to the
very beginning of the republic. Right. Setting
the stage. Yeah. So Maryland was the seventh
state to ratify the U .S. Constitution. They
did that on April 28, 1788. And when the framers
were designing the legislative branch, they were
deeply concerned with this concept of continuity
of government. They didn't want everything changing
all at once. Exactly. They recognized that if...
The entire Senate were up for election at the
exact same time. A sudden shift in the public
mood could result in a 100 percent turnover.
Just wiping the slate clean. Right. That would
completely wipe out the institutional knowledge
of the chamber literally overnight. So to prevent
that total turnover, they created a system of
staggered classes. Yes. Where senators serve
six year terms, but the actual elections are
offset. Precisely. They divided the Senate into
three classes. That way, only about one third
of the Senate is up for election during any given
two year cycle. It's a really elegant solution.
It is. And when Maryland joined the union, the
state was assigned to class one and class three.
That incredibly simple structural decision, you
know, made back in the late 1700s. It set the
stage for the centuries of political evolution
we're about to explore. And looking at the early
days of this list, that evolution was shaped
by rules that seem well. entirely foreign to
us today. Oh, completely. Let's look at the geographic
rulebook. The text reveals a highly specific
and honestly largely forgotten rule that dictated
exactly who was allowed to sit in these Maryland
Senate seats. Yeah, the regional divide. Right.
For over a century, the state maintained a strict
geographic division for its senators. If you
were going to be a senator in class three, you
had to be chosen from the eastern shore. No exceptions.
Right. Meanwhile, the senators in class one were
chosen from the remainder of the state. Yeah.
What's fascinating here is when you analyze that
requirement, it tells you a great deal about
the priorities of early state politics. How so?
Well, we often think of early political battles
purely in terms of ideological differences or,
you know, party affiliation. But this rule highlights
an institutionalized geopolitical truce. truce
between different parts of the state. Exactly.
The eastern shore of Maryland has a distinct
geography, its own economy and culture compared
to the western part of the state or say the areas
surrounding Baltimore. Very different over there.
Right. So the early political leaders recognized
that if they didn't explicitly guarantee representation
for the eastern shore, the sheer demographic
weight of the rest of the state would just constantly
overpower them. It was a regional power sharing
agreement baked directly into their federal representation.
And what stands out in the text is how deeply
entrenched that geographic mandate became. This
wasn't just some temporary compromise to get
the state through its first few elections. No,
it stuck around. It really did. This strict regional
divide was the standard operating procedure until
1897. Almost the 20th century. Yeah. It was finally
broken when George L. Wellington, who was from
Cumberland in the western part of the state,
was appointed to a Class III seat. But for over
100 years, geography was the ultimate prerequisite
for that specific Senate seat. The fact that
Wellington was appointed brings us to another
critical difference in how early politics operated.
Oh, this is a huge one. When we look at this
early list, we have to remember that the individuals
holding these offices were not answering to the
general public in the way we understand it today.
That is a crucial distinction for you to keep
in mind. Originally, US senators from Maryland
were not chosen directly by the voters. They
were actually selected by the Maryland General
Assembly. That was the standard constitutional
practice across the entire country. until the
20th century. The original idea was that the
House of Representatives represented the people
directly, while the Senate represented the interests
of the state governments. A different kind of
representation. Right. But that entire system
was radically altered by the 17th Amendment to
the U .S. Constitution, which was passed by Congress
in 1913. The Direct Election Amendment. Yes.
The 17th Amendment finally established the direct
election of U .S. senators by popular vote. This
represents a monumental shift of power. I mean,
you are looking at the federal government taking
the authority to choose senators out of the hands
of political insiders and state legislators and
handing it directly to the voters. It fundamentally
rewrites the job description of a senator. Completely.
Instead of just campaigning to a few dozen state
legislators in Annapolis, you suddenly have to
campaign to millions of everyday citizens across
the entire state. The Wikipedia text contains
a detail about this amendment that is just genuinely
surprising. This is one of my favorite parts
of the document. So the 17th Amendment was passed
in 1913, and it became the law of the land shortly
after when three -fourths of the states ratified
it. However, the Maryland General Assembly did
not officially ratify the 17th Amendment until
April 1st, 2010. It is a remarkable administrative
anomaly. That is nearly a hundred year delay.
Yeah. The state operated under the rules of the
17th Amendment for almost a century, holding
direct popular elections for their senators just
like everyone else, while the official paperwork
to ratify the amendment apparently just sat in
a drawer somewhere in the statehouse. Just gathering
dust. This specific quirk perfectly illustrates
the sometimes baffling nature of legislative
bodies. You see, once the 17th Amendment reached
the necessary threshold of states to become constitutional
law, Maryland's formal ratification became legally
moot. They had to follow the new election rules
regardless. Exactly. Because the immediate political
urgency was gone, the formal vote to ratify just
became a piece of procedural housekeeping. It
turned into a loose thread that successive generations
of state legislators simply ignored or honestly
probably just forgot about entirely. Right. It
serves as an excellent reminder for us that government
processes are rarely sleek, perfectly oiled machines.
They are prone to oversight, inertia and administrative
backlogs that can take a century to clear up.
And that inherent dysfunction in the state legislature
brings us to perhaps the most fascinating part
of the historical record, the sheer chaos of
the early Senate roster. Oh, it's a mess. It
really is. When you examine the table of senators
from the late 1700s and early 1800s, it looks
nothing like the stable institution we picture
today. It is a constant revolving door of resignations
and vacancies. The turnover rate is striking.
And to understand it, we have to kind of reorient
our modern perspective on political ambition.
Because today, a seat in the U .S. Senate is
widely considered the pinnacle of a political
career. You get there and you stay there. Right.
It's the destination. But the text. shows early
politicians treating the U .S. Senate as a temporary
gig or even a stepping stone to jobs back at
the state level. Which sounds backward to us.
Totally backward. Yeah. The document lists numerous
specific examples of this. For instance, Charles
Carroll served in the very first Congress in
Class I, but by 1792, he resigned his federal
seat specifically to remain in the Maryland Senate.
He preferred the state job. Right. A few years
later... Richard Potts resigned his seat, and
eventually Robert Wright in Class III did the
exact same thing. Both men left the U .S. Senate
to become the governor of Maryland. We also see
Ezekiel F. Chambers, who served a pretty lengthy
stint from 1826 to 1834, suddenly resigning to
become a judge on the Maryland Court of Appeals.
What really stands out about those career moves
is how clearly they map the perceived centers
of power in the early republic. From a modern
vantage point, leaving the federal Senate to
serve as a state level judge or a state senator
seems entirely counterintuitive. It feels like
a demotion. Exactly. But in the decades immediately
following the ratification of the Constitution,
the federal government was still a very nascent
experiment. It was physically small, lightly
funded, and its influence over the day -to -day
lives of citizens was minimal compared to the
sweeping powers of the state governments. So
they went where the action was. Yes. For a highly
ambitious politician like Charles Carroll or
Robert Wright, the real tangible influence was
wielded in the state capitol, not in Washington.
That explains why the senators were so eager
to leave. But the text also reveals that the
Maryland General Assembly itself struggled to
keep the seats filled. The roster lists multiple
terms where the Senate seat is simply recorded
as vacant. Yes, the infamous failures to elect.
Right. The given reason is that the state legislature
failed to elect the senator. This occurs in 1801,
again in 1813, 1815 and 1819. The state simply
operated shorthanded in the U .S. Senate because
the assembly couldn't agree on a candidate. Those
failures to elect provide a really clear window
into the intense political fracturing of that
era. Keep in mind the mechanics of how this worked.
Both chambers of the Maryland General Assembly
had to reach a consensus to send a senator to
Washington. They had to agree. Right. And when
you track the party affiliations listed alongside
these dates, you see a constant churning shift
in the national political landscape. The dominant
factions move from the pro -administration and
anti -administration groups to the Federalists
and the Democratic Republicans. It's constantly
evolving. It is. And eventually you see the rise
of the Jacksonians, the National Republicans
and the Whigs. Every time those political winds
shifted, it created massive friction in the statehouse.
If one party controlled the state Senate and
an opposing faction controlled the state House
of Delegates, the selection process would simply
grind to a halt. Total gridlock. The political
deadlock was so severe that they actually preferred
to leave the state unrepresented at the federal
level rather than compromise with their rivals.
That is just incredible. Deeply entrenched partisanship
only intensifies as the timeline moves forward
into the 1860s. The party labels listed in the
text undergo a dramatic transformation. You stop
seeing traditional 19th century parties like
the Whigs, and the roster is suddenly dominated
by labels like union and unconditional union.
The vocabulary of the roster itself begins to
reflect the existential crisis of the Civil War.
Maryland was a border state. And the ideological
divide within the state was profound. The tension
between remaining loyal to the federal government
and sympathizing with the Confederacy bled directly
into their political representation. And the
Wikipedia article gives us a very stark example
of those tensions clashing with constitutional
mechanics. The text details the situation of
Philip F. Thomas in 1867. A really important
case study. So Thomas was a Democrat. And according
to the records, he was successfully elected to
the U .S. Senate by the Maryland legislature.
However, he failed to qualify for the seat specifically
due to his support for the Confederacy. Right.
The T was forced to remain vacant until a man
named George Vickers was elected to finish out
the term. The case of Philip F. Thomas is a brilliant
illustration of federal authority overriding
state selections during a national crisis. Article
1 of the Constitution explicitly gives the Senate
the power to be the judge of the elections, returns,
and qualifications of its own members. So the
Senate has the final say. Yes. The Maryland legislature,
which clearly still harbored strong Confederate
sympathies following the war, elected Thomas.
But the federal Senate exercised their constitutional
right and refused. refused to seat him, essentially
stating that his actions during the war disqualified
him from serving in the federal government. It
is a profound moment of constitutional friction
captured right there in a single administrative
footnote. Navigating that kind of volatile, deeply
divided political environment required a very
unique kind of political agility. And if we look
at the specific individuals operating during
this era, one resume stands out as the ultimate
example of a political survivor, and that is
Reverdy Johnson. Reverdy Johnson is a fascinating
case study. His career trajectory is almost unfathomable
by today's standards. According to the roster,
Johnson treated these high -level federal positions
like a rotational training program. He first
enters the Senate in the 1840s, serving as a
Whig. He serves for a few years, then resigns
in 1849 to accept a position as a U .S. Attorney
General. Which is a huge job. You would think
that might be the capstone of his career. But
years later, in the 1860s, he returns to the
U .S. Senate, this time navigating the Civil
War era as a member of the Union Party. And he
doesn't stop there. He resigns from the Senate
a second time in 1868 to become the U .S. Ambassador
to the United Kingdom. He was a true political
chameleon, constantly lifting his affiliations
and his roles to fit the shifting needs of the
moment. But while Johnson's ability to bounce
between the Senate The cabinet and the diplomatic
corps is impressive. It also serves as further
evidence of the sheer instability we've been
tracking. Just constant movement. Yes. The 19th
century portion of this list is defined by movement
resignations, appointments, shifting parties
and vacancies. And we also have to recognize
another major factor contributing to that turnover,
which was the physical realities of the time.
The text makes that incredibly clear in the electoral
history column. The phrase died in office. appears
with alarming frequency. Alexander Hansen died
in office in 1819. William Pinckney died in office
in 1822. Joseph Kent died in office in 1837.
And those are just a few examples. It was a hazardous
job. It really was. Whether it was the stress
of travel, the environment in Washington, or
simply the state of 19th century medicine, completing
a full six -year term was often the exception
rather than the rule. The high mortality rate
compounded the already chaotic nature of the
appointment process. The state legislature was
constantly being forced to convene to fill unexpired
terms, which, of course, only provided more opportunities
for the political deadlocks and failures to elect
that we discussed earlier. But as you scroll
further down the Wikipedia table, crossing into
the 20th and 21st centuries, the tone of the
document shifts entirely. The chaos practically
vanishes. We begin to see the modern era of the
Senate take shape. The position transforms from
a regional temporary appointment heavily influenced
by state level power struggles into a highly
stable career destination. And the absolute embodiment
of that modern stability is Senator Barbara Mikulski.
According to the data, she is officially Maryland's
longest -serving senator. A Democrat, she secured
her Class 3 seat in 1987 and held it continuously
until 2017. That is three decades of uninterrupted
service in a single seat. No resignations to
become a state judge, no failures to elect, and
no jumping to different cabinet positions. Just
30 years of direct elections and steady representation.
Senator Mikulski's tenure illustrates the final
stage of the historical evolution we've been
analyzing. By the late 20th century, the prestige
and power of the federal government had vastly
eclipsed that of the individual states. The power
dynamic flipped. Exactly. A seat in the U .S.
Senate was no longer a stepping stone. It was
the ultimate objective. And because of the 17th
Amendment, holding that seat meant maintaining
a long -term connection with the entire voting
public of the state, not just a faction of state
legislators. That brings us to the very bottom
of the list right up to the present day in 2026.
The current delegation gives us a snapshot. of
the modern mechanics in action. In the class
three seat, we have Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat.
The text notes his cycle was last contested in
2022, meaning he is next up for election in 2028.
Right. And in the class one seat, we have Angela
Alsobrooks, also a Democrat, who was elected
in the 2024 cycle and officially took office
on January 3, 2025. Her seat will be up again
in 2030. Looking at Van Hollen and also Brooks
provides a stark contrast to the politicians
at the top of the list. They campaign directly
to the voters across the entire state, completely
unbounded by geographic restrictions like the
old Eastern Shore mandate. It's a completely
different game now. It is. Their terms are highly
scheduled, predictable events. It represents
the complete stabilization of a system that spend
its first century in near constant flux. So.
What does this all mean for us? We began this
deep dive by looking at what appeared to be a
simple Wikipedia table, just a grid containing
names, dates, and party affiliations. Very unassuming.
But by pulling on those threads, we uncovered
a massive story about the changing nature of
American power. We tracked how early politicians
viewed state governments as more prestigious
than the federal Senate. We explored how intense
regional loyalties forced an institutionalized
geographic truce for over a century. And we uncovered
bureaucratic absurdities, like a state government
waiting nearly 100 years to officially ratify
a constitutional amendment they were already
following. It demonstrates that the political
structures we often take for granted today were
not smoothly implemented. They were forged through
decades of trial, error, intense partisanship,
and constitutional testing. But as we wrap up
our analysis of this historical record, I want
to leave you with a final concept to consider
on your own. OK, what is it? Let's return to
the very first point we established today. The
framers of the Constitution deliberately created
staggered classes, Class 1 and Class 3, with
the specific intention of providing continuity
of government. They wanted to ensure institutional
stability by preventing a total turnover of the
Senate. Right. They designed a system to keep
things steady. That was the intent. But when
you look at the evidence presented in this text,
the sheer volume of midterm resignations, the
legislative failures to elect anyone at all,
the Senate refusing to seat elected members due
to Civil War loyalties, and the extremely high
rate of deaths in office, it raises a rather
provocative question about that original design.
Oh, I see where you're going with this. Did the
staggered class system actually provide the institutional
stability the framers hoped for? Or given the
immense political volatility of the 1800s, did
staggering the seats merely ensure that the chaos
of the era was evenly distributed across every
single election cycle rather than contained to
one? That is a fascinating perspective. Did they
engineer continuity or did they accidentally
invent a slow drip mechanism for political chaos?
Exactly. That is definitely something to think
about the next time you cast a ballot. We want
to thank you for joining us on this deep dive
today. We hope this exploration encourages you
to look a little closer at the seemingly mundane
information around you. as we saw today even
a dry administrative table is hiding an incredible
story about who we are and how we govern ourselves
if you just take the time to read it we will
see you next time