Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The general problem of party membership in the United States was examined to some extent in an earlier article in this Review, and out of that study certain implications could be noted with respect to the nature and operation of our two-party system. It was assumed, to begin with, that it is important in any party system “to bring together those persons, and only those persons, who adhere to the respective party principles,” and particularly important to do that in a two-party system, “where the principles and issues are presumably sharply denned and clearly distinguishable.” The extended survey of the trends in legislation and in party practice led to the conclusion that there is still need for “some better definition or understanding of what is meant by a loyal Republican and a loyal Democrat,” that the lack of such definition is at least partially responsible for the loose and irresponsible nature of the party organizations, for the mass of glittering generalities in party platforms, and for the failure to offer the voter anything like clear alternative programs. “Somehow or other, it should be possible to have a party system which would make it clear whether Wendell Willkie or Senator Nye is the better Republican, whether Franklin D. Roosevelt or Senator Wheeler is the better Democrat.”
1 Berdahl, Clarence A., “Party Membership in the United States”, in this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 16–50, 241–262 (Feb., Apr., 1942)Google Scholar.
2 This relationship between the respective party organizations is a matter for further special study by itself.
3 “Although some concerted action must always have been necessary to produce a majority result, caucuses as we know them did not appear until towards the middle of the century.” Follett, , The Speaker of the House of Representatives (1909), p. 40Google Scholar; cf. Willoughby, , Principles of Legislative Organization and Administration (1934), pp. 546–547Google Scholar.
4 “By 1797 senators [presumably Federalist senators] were arranging the membership of committees in party conferences secretly held.” Luce, , Legislative Procedure, p. 508Google Scholar. “The Democrats [Republicans] in Congress are adopting of late quite an economical plan of making laws …. All business is to be settled in caucuses before it comes before the House; and the arguments or motives be given in newspapers afterwards. The federal members are to be treated as nullities.” Washington Federalist, Feb. 6, 1802, quoted in Luce, p. 508. Cf. Harlow, , The History of Legislative Methods in the Period before 1825, pp. 143–144Google Scholar. The writer has not, however, been able to find any record of actual caucuses before the 26th Congress (1839–1841). See compilation of House party caucus chairmen, in Cong. Record, Vol. 87, pp. A383–A384Google Scholar (77 Cong., 1 Sess.).
5 The distinction between caucus and conference has reference primarily to the binding nature of decisions, and is a matter deserving some examination, but not for the purposes of these notes.
6 Report of Democratic House Caucus, Mar. 22, 1909, in Washington Post, Mar. 23, 1909, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 7; the caucus rules are reprinted in Mathews, and Berdahl, , Documents and Readings in American Government (rev. ed., 1940), pp. 433–434Google Scholar. The circumstances which brought about this action are related in a later instalment of this article.
6a See discussion of committee assignments as the “Party Rawhide”, in Norris, , Fighting Liberal, pp. 132–134Google Scholar.
7 These Whig bolters voted for Meredith P. Gentry (Tenn.). It was this bolt which in part brought about the long deadlock for speaker finally resolved by the House decision to elect by plurality instead of by majority, Howell Cobb (Ga.), the Democratic nominee, being thus chosen. For an account of the Whig caucus of Dec. 1, 1849, see National Intelligencer, Dec. 6, 1849, p. 3Google Scholar, cc. 3–4. It was a year later, on Dec. 11, 1850, that Toombs announced to a Georgia convention, “I am a Whig no more forever,” with the clear implication in his address that he had abandoned that party as a result of the above events; he thereupon helped to organize the Constitutional Union party in Georgia, and was elected to the Senate in 1851 under that party designation for the term beginning in 1853; meanwhile he served another term in the House (1851–53), apparently still as a Whig, but on July 3, 1852, joined eight other members in signing an “Address of Certain Whig Representatives in Congress against the Nomination of Gen. Scott,” and when Scott was nominated, supported the Democratic nominee, Franklin Pierce. Brewton, The Son of Thunder; An Epic of the South (1936), pp. 202–209Google Scholar; McCluskey, , The Political Text-Book, or Encyclopedia (1857), pp. 605–606Google Scholar.
7a The Philadelphia movement, otherwise referred to as the “Arm-in-Arm Convention,” was an attempt to unite moderates in support of President Johnson's reconstruction policy. Good accounts are to be found in Randall, , The Civil War and Reconstruction, pp. 746–748Google Scholar, and Beale, The Critical Year; A Study of Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction, Chap. 4, esp. pp. 123–128.
8 Caucus Proceedings, Dec. 5, 1866, in N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 6, 1866, p. 1Google Scholar, cc. 2–3. At an earlier joint caucus, held July 11, 1866, a resolution was almost unanimously adopted denouncing the Philadelphia convention. See Raymond's, own account (contributed by Krout, John A.), in Amer. Hist. Rev., Vol. 33, pp. 837–839 (July, 1928)Google Scholar.
9 N. Y. Tribune, May 29, 1868, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 2; June 2, 1868, p. 1, cc. 3–4. Apparently George C. Gorham (Calif.) was elected as sergeant-at-arms. Biographical Congressional Directory (1927), p. 293Google Scholar.
10 N. Y. Tribune, Mar. 15, 1871, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 5.
11 Ibid., Nov. 12, 1870, p. 1, c. 6; Dec. 7, 1870, p. 1, c. 6.
12 Ibid., Dec. 9, 1870, p. 1, c. 3. The matter of committee assignments was on this occasion complicated by Sumner's refusal, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, to accept Conkling as a colleague on that committee, and the consequent necessity of some reassignments.
13 N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 6, 1872, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 1; Dec. 7, 1872, p. 1, c. 2.
14 See the correspondence between Senator Schurz and Senator Thurman, chairman of the Democratic caucus, dated Dec. 6, 1872. N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 7, 1872, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 1.
15 Washington Star, Oct. 31, 1881, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 4.
16 Washington Post, Dec. 4, 1887, p. 2Google Scholar, c. 5. The six were Anderson (la.), Smith (Wis.), Nichols (N.C.), Hopkins (Va.), Brower (N.C.), J. R. Brown (Va.).
17 Ibid., Dec. 15, 1891, p. 1, cc. 3–4.
18 Ibid., Dec. 10, 1891, p. 1, c. 5; Dec. 15, 1891, p. 1, cc. 3–4.
19 Kyle was actually assigned by the Democrats to two additional committees (Arid Lands and American University), but these assignments were not confirmed by the Senate. For an account of the Kyle episode, see Washington Post, Dec. 16, 1891, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 5.
20 Washington Post, Mar. 15, 1893, p. 1Google Scholar, cc. 4–5.
21 Washington Post, Mar. 15, 1893, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 4; Mar. 16, 1893, p. 2, cc. 6–7. It is interesting to note that of these Republican senators, Dubois and Teller were soon to leave the party, and for the same reasons as Stewart.
22 Carter (Mont.), Wolcott (Colo.), Mitchell (Ore.), Shoup (Ida.), Cameron (Pa.), Pritchard (N.C.), Perkins (Calif.), Clark (Wyo.).
23 These were Dubois (Ida.), who also resigned as secretary of the caucus; Teller (Colo.), Cannon (Utah), Mantle (Mont.), Pettigrew (S.D.), and Squire (Wash.). N. Y. World, Dec. 8, 9, 1896. Apparently Teller and Dubois, who continued in the Senate for some time, did not formally participate in Democratic caucuses until 1901. Ibid., Dec. 11, 1901.
24 N. Y. World, Dec. 4, 5, 14, 1901.
26 N. Y. World, Jan. 15, 1910.
27 These were: Borah (Ida.), Bourne (Ore.), Bristow (Kans.), Brown (Neb.), Clapp (Minn.), Crawford (S.D.), Cummins (la.), Dixon (Mont.), Gronna (N.D.), LaFollette (Wis.), Poindexter (Wash.), Works (Calif.).
28 Those named were: Committee on Committees (progressives): LaFollette (Wis.), Bourne (Ore.), Cummins (la.), Bristow (Kans.); (regulars) Gallinger (N.H.), Lodge (Mass.), Warren (Wyo.) Penrose (Pa.), Heyburn (Ida.), Smoot (Utah), Bradley (Ky.); Steering Committee (progressives): Borah (Ida.) and Brown (Neb.); (regulars) Cullom (I11.), Gallinger (N.H.), Clark (Wyo.), Nelson (Minn.), Gamble (S.D.), Brandegee (Conn.), Smith (Mich.), Briggs (N.J.), Jones (Wash.). Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1911, p. 1Google Scholar, cc. 3–4; Apr. 6, 1911, p. 1, c. 6.
29 The principal committee assignments sought by the progressives and refused them were: LaFollette to Interstate Commerce, Cummins (later Bristow) to Finance, and Bristow to Foreign Relations. In the first two cases, the progressives carried the fight into caucus, and were defeated there also. Washington Post, Apr. 22, 1911, p. 4Google Scholar, c. 1; Apr. 23, 1911, p. 4, c. 5; Apr. 26, 1911, p. 1, cc. 3–4; Apr. 27, 1911, p. 4, cc. 1–2.
30 “Republican regulars just now are showing the most tender solicitude for this original rock-ribbed Republican progressive (LaFollette), and want to keep him on the committee [Finance], where LaFollette was at the bottom of the list. If the Democrats will not concede another minority member, some one will have to leave Finance to make way for LaFollette if he is to stay. If that is the only alternative, and the Republicans feel that they must hold fast to the Wisconsin senator, it will be Senator Clark of Wyoming who must give way.” Washington Post, Mar. 7, 1913, p. 4Google Scholar, c. 1; Mar. 8, 1913, p. 4, c. 1; Mar. 9, 1913, p. 6, c. 1.
31 N. Y. World, Apr. 6, 1913.
32 Washington Post, Nov. 28, 1923, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 5.
33 These were Borah (Ida.), Brookhart (la.), Frazier (N.D.), Ladd (N.D.), LaFollette (Wis.), and Norris (Neb.). Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1923, p. lGoogle Scholar, c. 1. Since the Republicans had a total of 51, these six senators held the balance of power in the Senate; they could also count on the support of Shipstead and Magnus Johnson, the Farmer-Labor senators from Minnesota.
34 This was accomplished after 31 ballots over the period Dec. 10, 1923–Jan. 9, 1924. Cong. Record, Vol. 65, pp. 155–157, 158–160, 233–234, 249–251, 327–328, 399–401, 427–431, 508–509, 626, 737, 747Google Scholar (68 Cong., 1 Sess.).
35 The House was composed of 225 Republicans, 207 Democrats, and 3 Independents; the Wisconsin delegation consisted of ten Republicans and one Socialist (Victor Berger).
36 Washington Post, Dec. 1, 1923, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 8.
37 For Speaker, Gillett (Mass.), the regular candidate, received 190 votes; Cooper (Wis.), the progressive candidate, 15; Madden (I11.), 9; and Little (Kan.), 1. Longworth (O.) was chosen majority floor leader with almost no opposition.
37a Cooper was formally nominated in the House for speaker against Gillett, the regular caucus nominee, and received 17 votes (15 Republican) on the first eight ballots, nine from Wisconsin (Cooper himself voting “present”), four from Minnesota (Clague, Davis, Keller, Knutson), one from North Dakota (Sinclair), one from New York (LaGuardia), and the two Farmer-Labor members from Minnesota (Kvale and Wefald). In addition, five other Republicans (King, Michaelson, and Reid, of Illinois; James and Woodruff, of Michigan) also bolted the caucus nominee on the first eight ballots, voting instead for Madden (I11.); and two of these (James and Reid) so voted on the ninth and last ballot, when the insurgents went over en bloc to Gillett.
38 Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1923, p. 1Google Scholar, c. 1; Dec. 16, 1923, p. 3, c. 1; Jan. 13, 1924, p. 4, c. 4. The fight over the rules was closely related to the speakership, and Gillett's election was secured only after an agreement to permit modification of the rules was read to the House, entered into between the progressive group represented by Nelson (Wis.), Woodruff (Mich.), and LaGuardia (N.Y.), on the one hand, and Majority Leader Longworth, on the other. Cong. Record, vol. 65, pp. 8–15 (68 Cong., 1 Sess., Dec. 3, 4, 5, 1923)Google Scholar; text of agreement at p. 14.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.