Or you could read it as "have always been" as in the commentor's own personal experience. Or as in the current serving representatives throughout their careers.

Or you could read it as "have always been" as in the commentor's own personal experience. Or as in the current serving representatives throughout their careers. Taking a counterpoint from over 150 years ago and using a hard literalist interpretation... is a pretty pissweak way to counter the point that the GP was getting at. Extracting 'have always been' from everything that was said and then zeroing in on that like it's the core of the argument? It's an adolescent debating style.