Jump to content

1855–56 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1855–56 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election

← 1853 December 3, 1855 to February 2, 1856 1857 →

Needed to win:
First ballot: 225 votes cast, 113 needed for majority
Final (133rd) ballot: 214 votes cast, plurality needed
  Majority party Minority party
 
Candidate Nathaniel P. Banks William Aiken Jr.
Party Opposition (N) Democratic
Alliance Republican
Free Soil
Anti-Nebraska
North American
Opposition (S)
American
Seat Massachusetts 7th South Carolina 2nd
First ballot 21 (9.3%)
Final ballot 103 (48.1%) 100 (46.7%)

Speaker before election

Linn Boyd
Democratic

Elected Speaker

Nathaniel Prentiss Banks
Opposition (N)

From December 3, 1855, to February 2, 1856, the incoming House of Representatives held an election for speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. After one hundred and thirty-two inconclusive ballots, Nathaniel Prentiss Banks of Massachusetts was elected over William Aiken Jr. of South Carolina pursuant to a temporary rule permitting a candidate to be elected with a plurality of the vote. The election was dominated by debate over slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and contemporary reaction recognized Banks's victory as the first "Northern victory" in the events leading to the American Civil War.[1]

Following the 1854–55 United States House of Representatives elections, opponents of the incumbent Franklin Pierce administration won a large majority of the seats in the House. However, the anti-administration representatives-elect, grouped together informally as the "Opposition," had little common ground and no common party organization. Five Opposition candidates were formally nominated, but the race soon coalesced around two Opposition figures, Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts and Henry Mills Fuller of Pennsylvania, against Democratic nominee William Alexander Richardson. Banks gained the formal nomination of the Opposition but repeatedly fell short of a majority of the House as many members of the Opposition, primarily Southern nativists or anti-abolitionists, cast their votes for Fuller or other Opposition candidates. On the final day of balloting, members of Democratic minority agreed to the use of plurality voting, having settled on South Carolina unionist William Aiken Jr. as a compromise candidate who could win the votes of the southern Opposition. On the final ballot, Aiken gained most of the dissident Opposition votes but fell three short of Banks.

As of 2024, this remains the longest election for speaker in the history of the United States House, both in terms of ballots and duration, and a record 135 people received votes. Banks remains one of only two Speakers, with Howell Cobb in 1849, elected by plurality.

Background

[edit]

Kansas-Nebraska Act

[edit]

In May 1854, the 33rd Congress passed the Kansas–Nebraska Act with support from President Franklin Pierce, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, and pro-slavery Democratic members of the House. The Act repealed the 1820 Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 by establishing a path to statehood for the territories of Kansas and Nebraska and allowing these new states to permit or prohibit slavery by popular referendum. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was regarded as a major victory for pro-slavery activists, as the two Compromises had previously restricted any further legalization of slavery to lands south of parallel 36°30′ north. The new possibility of slavery north of this parallel inflamed political tensions, especially in the Northern United States, and immediately triggered a trend of political migration to the territories in hopes of influencing the first territorial elections. The political reaction was immediately negative for Pierce and the Democratic Party. Even some pro-slavery legislators and voters, particularly Southern members of the Whig Party, felt repealing the Missouri Compromise was politically reckless and attempting to push slavery by law and force into territories where most settlers predictably were unlikely to want it endangered slavery everywhere, even in the South.

Elections to the 34th United States Congress

[edit]

Elections to the House of Representatives were held in thirty-one states for all 234 seats between August 4, 1854, and November 6, 1855. Each state legislature separately set a date to elect members to the House of Representatives before the 34th Congress convened its first session on December 3, 1855.

These elections were among the most disruptive in American history, bringing the total collapse of the Second Party System. Candidates opposed to the Kansas–Nebraska Act and the administration, included disaffected Democratic voters, won widely in the North from April 1854 through November 1855, but the Whig Party did not reap the benefit. By 1854, most leading national Whigs, e.g., Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, had died, and the party had limited success in recent national elections. The Whigs were associated with big business and seen as elitist and unresponsive to the concerns of the American people over slavery, immigration, industrialization, and monopoly power. Instead, the Whig Party began to disintegrate in all but a handful of states, and new Representatives were elected on a range of oppositional tickets, including the nativist American Party (better known as "Know Nothings"), the People's Party in Indiana, the Anti-Nebraska party in Ohio, and the abolitionist Republican Party in Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Maine.[1] Many new anti-administration representatives were elected on a fusion ticket with support from multiple parties, and many were political novices who frankly admitted they had not expected to be elected.[1][2]

Taken together, the opposition parties, including the Whigs and the old anti-slavery Free Soil Party, won an estimated net gain of 69 seats nationwide and made up a sizable majority of the House in the 34th Congress. However, due to the confused and overlapping nature of the anti-Nebraska opposition, contemporaries and historians have had difficulty defining the precise makeup of the 34th Congress. The Congressional Globe failed to list party labels in its opening session guide, and according to historian George H. Mayer, "When the votes were counted... the Democrats knew that they had lost, but nobody knew who had won."[3] The anti-Nebraska coalition also had a wide range of positions on slavery, from abolitionists like Joshua Giddings, to former Whigs sympathetic to the slave-dependent economic order, like Solomon G. Haven.[1] Representatives-elect also varied in the importance they placed on slavery as an issue. Many of the American Party representatives-elect, though opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, prioritized the issue of immigration and were willing to compromise with pro-Nebraska Democrats in order to gain support for immigration restriction or anti-Catholic measures.[1]

Bleeding Kansas and American Party split

[edit]

As the 34th Congress prepared to meet in its first session, scheduled for December 1855, tensions between Kansas settlers came to a head in the outbreak of political violence. In a conflict which would later come to be known as "Bleeding Kansas," the status of slavery was violently disputed between anti-slavery Free-Staters and pro-slavery Border Ruffians from neighboring Missouri. The settlement of Kansas and especially the activism of emigrant aid companies like the New England Emigrant Aid Company heightened national attention on slavery and Kansas.[1] In June 1855, the national American Party council split over the issue of slavery into its northern and southern wings.[1] As autumn approached, anti-slavery activists and journalists began to congregate in Washington in hopes of organizing the House under an anti-slavery majority. These efforts were boosted on the eve of the opening session, when the administration Democrats adopted a caucus resolution authored by J. Glancy Jones of Pennsylvania which severely denounced nativism and the Know Nothing movement, thus leaving the southern American representatives-elect without any potential coalition partner.[1]

Despite these apparent advantages, organizing anti-slavery men behind a single candidate before the vote failed. Representative-elect Timothy C. Day privately remarked, "There are about thirty modest men who think the country needs their services in the Speaker's chair. To get rid of this swarm of patriots will take time."[1] They could only agree to a resolution presented by Joshua Giddings, to oppose any candidate who was not "pledged ... to organize the standing committees of the House by placing on each a majority of the friends of freedom."[1]

Process and conventions

[edit]
Portrait of John Weiss Forney
Outgoing clerk John Weiss Forney oversaw the election as the acting presiding officer.

The speaker is the presiding officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. The House elects its speaker at the beginning of each new Congress (i.e., biennially) or when a speaker dies, resigns, or is removed from the position intra-term. Since 1839, the House has elected speakers by roll call vote.[4] Following an election, there being no speaker, the outgoing clerk summons, convenes, and calls the House to order. They then order and oversee the election of a speaker of the House.

Upon winning election, the new speaker is immediately sworn in by the dean of the U.S. House of Representatives, the chamber's longest-serving member.[5][6] The new speaker then administers the oath en masse to the rest of the members of the House.[7]

To be elected speaker, a candidate typically must receive an absolute majority of the votes cast, as opposed to an absolute majority of the full membership of the House.[8] A variation in the number of votes necessary to win a given election might arise due to vacancies, absentees, or members being present but not voting.

Multiple roll calls had been necessary eleven times since 1789. This had happened most recently in 1849, when Howell Cobb was elected by a plurality on the 63rd ballot, a record at the time.[9]

Election of the speaker

[edit]

The election for speaker began on December 3, 1855, at the start of the 34th Congress.

At the opening of the session, George W. Jones of Tennessee moved to proceed viva voce to an election of a speaker.

Candidates

[edit]

Before balloting began, candidates were placed into nomination, though a candidate need not be nominated to receive votes or win the election. The candidates placed into nomination were:

Richardson stood as the formally nominated candidate of the Democratic caucus as leader of the minority. Banks, Campbell, Fuller, and Pennington stood as anti-Nebraska candidates opposed to the extension of slavery, while Marshall stood as a southern, pro-Nebraska American Party candidate.[1] The anti-Nebraska faction split regionally, with Banks leading New England, Campbell leading Ohio and the Great Lakes, and Fuller and Pennington supported by their home states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, respectively.

Balloting

[edit]

December 3–6: Early ballots

[edit]

From the first ballot, it became clear that the anti-Nebraska majority were completely divided. Seventeen anti-Nebraska candidates polled votes, with none receiving over a quarter of the total.[1] Richardson led the first ballot with 74 votes, with Campbell leading the opposition at 55. Marshall received 39 votes, Banks received 22, Fuller received 18, and Pennington received 7. Two more ballots were taken with similar results.[11] To further confuse matters, four anti-Nebraska Democrats voted with their party for Richardson and three anti-slavery Know Nothings voted for Marshall.[1]

The first two days of the election were dominated by the search for an anti-slavery candidate. Campbell consistently led the coalition on early ballots but fell well short of a majority, while Nathaniel Banks. Banks, a former Democratic–Free Soil politician, presented as a natural alternative to Campbell, a former Whig. At a general anti-Nebraska conference, the coalition agreed to push Campbell's vote as high as possible and, if it proved he could not be elected, try Banks. If Banks failed, Pennington would be the candidate.[1] Thus, on December 5, the third day of balloting, Campbell reached eighty-one votes but remained thirty short of a majority, as anti-slavery conservatives and anti-Nebraska Democrats refused their support.[1]

December 6–7: Campbell and Marshall withdraw

[edit]

On December 6, before the start of balloting, Thomas R. Whitney withdrew the name of Humphrey Marshall, the southern American Party candidate, from the running.[11] The same day, Campbell's support collapsed as anti-slavery votes scattered to Banks, Pennington, and other candidates.[1]

On December 7, between the twenty-third and twenty-fourth ballots, Campbell withdrew his name from contention. In a brief speech, he said,

"[It] is obvious to me that it is impossible for my friends to succeed, unless I can perform one of three conditions: to repudiate my well-known principles in reference to slavery; my views on Americanism; or, in some way directly, or indirectly, to make pledges with regard to the forming of committees which will amount to a sacrifice of my self-respect and make me, in my opinion, a fit object for public contempt."[citation needed]

Campbell's bitter withdrawal cast a shadow over the anti-slavery coalition for the remainder of the contest. He was quoted in the New York Herald referring to Banks as a "dead cock in the pit" and frequently voted against him on subsequent ballots.[1] His accompanying statement also became a major issue on ensuing ballots, as the minority accused the fledgling Republican Party of attempting to secure the speakership by an improper quid pro quo.[citation needed]

December 7–15: Banks nominated, Fuller switches

[edit]

With Campbell now out of the race, his supporters split further between Banks, Pennington, and others including Felix Zollicoffer of Tennessee and Benjamin B. Thurston of Rhode Island. On the twenty-fourth ballot, the first after Campbell's withdrawal, Banks received only forty votes but led the opposition. He gained steadily and, after a night of conferences, emerged on December 8 with one hundred votes. By December 10, he had gained two more, coming within a half dozen of a majority and the speakership. He would remain at that margin for the rest of the contest.[1] As Banks began to stall over the next few days, Pennington supporters claimed their candidate should be given a turn, but on December 14, an anti-Nebraska caucus officially named Banks their nominee.[1]

With Banks as the nominee, the anti-slavery faction focused on rallying persuadable votes and keeping their ranks closed. Opposition to Banks was not uniform. Some thought him too extreme or too mild on slavery. Others questioned his convictions on other issues, such as nativism or protectionism, or opposed him because of the support he received from the New York Tribune, personal rivalries, or ambition.[12] Banks openly campaigned for support, denying any connection to abolition and repudiating his own past statements expressing sympathy for dissolution of the Union over slavery but reassuring anti-slavery members that he represented "the strongest anti-slavery district in the United States."[12]

Banks's campaign was headed in the House by Anson Burlingame, Schuyler Colfax, and the three Washburn brothers, Cadwallader, Elihu, and Israel Jr. They planned a three-pronged strategy in Washington to pressure swing votes, which included a letter-writing and telegraph campaign from constituents, personal appeals to representatives-elect from like-minded Banks supporters, and direct lobbying by agents on Banks's behalf. The lobbying efforts were the most controversial prong of the campaign, as opponents accused the Banks men of bribery during and after the election. Though Banks denied any knowledge of bribery, his supporter Horace Greeley privately remarked that the campaign had led him "to see the utility of rascals in the general economy of things."[12] Outside Washington, the Banks strategy was to cast the election not as an inter-party squabble among anti-Nebraska politicians but as a sectional fight over slavery. Journalists and politicians branded the anti-Nebraska men who opposed Banks as "doughfaces" and organized anti-slavery conferences to support Banks.[12]

Meanwhile, Fuller abandoned the anti-Nebraska cause entirely. Beginning with Marshall's withdrawal, Fuller began negotiations with Marshall and Richardson supporters in hopes of forming a coalition of pro-Nebraska Americans, administration Democrats, and Fuller's personal friends. By the eighth, most of Marshall's support had shifted to Fuller, who in turn shed his own initial support in Pennsylvania.[1]

December 15–January 9: Searching for a majority

[edit]

As early as December 10, when Banks peaked at 107 votes, efforts were made to secure his victory without a majority. Representative James Thorington of Iowa, a Banks supporter, offered a resolution "similar to that adopted at the commencement of the session in 1849," that "if, after the roll shall have been called three times, no member shall have received a majority of the whole number of votes cast, the roll shall again be called, and the member who shall receive the largest number of votes, provided it be a majority of a quroum, shall be declared to be Speaker."[citation needed] Though Thorington's motion was withdrawn, the plurality rule was introduced no fewer than fifteen times by Banks supporters during the election.[1]

Other schemes included a proposal that no one "be allowed to indulge in the use of meat, drink, fire, or other refreshments, gaslight and water only excepted" until a Speaker was elected and a proposal to vote on each member in alphabetical order until one was approved, which Representative Benjamin Wade objected to as discriminatory against the end of the alphabet.[citation needed](January 4) Others called longer or continuous sessions, an exhaustive ballot, the appointment of a speaker pro tempore, the collective resignation of all representatives-elect inducing a snap election, or the curtailment or prohibition of debate.[1] Representative Jacob Broom of Pennsylvania sought to curtail debate by proposing a petition to the Supreme Court to request an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of Congressional regulation of slavery in the territories, previewing the upcoming arguments in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case.[citation needed]

By Christmas, administration Democrats began to discuss support for a continuous session or plurality rule. President Pierce urged the resumption of business, and there was genuine belief in the possibility of a Democratic victory if the Fuller men were forced to choose between Richardson and Banks. However, these efforts died out after Pierce delivered his message without issue.[1]

January 9–10: Overnight session and the "catechism"

[edit]

On January 9, the House began an all-night session proposed by Democratic leaders, primarily to prevent an election by plurality. Through eighteen hours of debate and balloting, no candidate lost or gained significant footing. At eight o'clock a.m. the next day, with attendance dwindling, the pro-Nebraska men joined to adjourn the chamber.[1]

Soon after, Fuller supporters seeking to embarrass Richardson and force a fusion behind their candidate called for a "catechism" designed to investigate the political views of the three leading candidates on slavery in the territories, the Fugitive Slave Act, nativism, and white supremacy. In their replies, Fuller and Richardson delivered pro-Nebraska responses, while Banks denounced the bill:[1]

  • On the question of slavery in the territories, Banks defended congressional authority, while Fuller took the extreme opposite position, denying even that territorial legislatures could regulate slavery, except to protect the property rights of slaveowners. Richardson compromised, stating that the Constitution and Fugitive Slave Law applied to the territories.
  • Both Fuller and Richardson opposed the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, while Banks declined to answer the question.
  • Fuller defended nativism, while Richardson opposed it. Banks referred to his own record on the issue.
  • Fuller and Richardson agreed in support of the principle of white supremacy. Banks alluded to the Declaration of Independence as asserting that "all men are created equal" and declared that "time should determine the superiority of the black or the white race, by one of them absorbing the other."

Each candidate was affected by their responses to the survey. Fuller's gambit paid off, strengthening his hold on the pro-Nebraska Know Nothings while weakening support for his opponents. Richardson's failure to denounce the Wilmot Proviso as an unconstitutional restriction on slavery offended some Democratic loyalists, and three South Carolinians deserted him on the next ballot. Banks was assailed as an "amalgamationist" for his views on race, harming his chances at victory, and he eventually publicly recanted his remarks.[1]

January 23–24: Rust resolution, Richardson withdraws

[edit]

Under pressure from President Pierce, administration men sought a compromise. After offers to vote by plurality in exchange for Banks's withdrawal failed, Albert Rust of Arkansas introduced a resolution to force the leading candidates to withdraw. The resolution, aimed at Banks, implied that personal ambitions stood in the way of organization.[1] However, Banks men allied with a half dozen administration Democrats to defeat the motion. With Richardson voting in favor, he was forced to withdraw to save his reputation.[1] Before the start of balloting, Richardson announced that, "after today my name will be unconditionally withdrawn from the pending canvass for the speakership. ... I hope this course may lead to a speedy organization. I fear that discord will still reign in this Hall, and that history will record the fact as an evidence against our ability for self-government." He was succeeded by James L. Orr of South Carolina as the Democratic caucus nominee.

On January 24, before the start of balloting, Fuller attempted to withdraw his name as well, stating, "This has been my desire for weeks; I have so expressed myself to my friends." Though his support dipped on the initial ballot following his nominal withdrawal, with many supporters voting for James Ricaud of Maryland, the Fuller votes recovered quickly and the balloting returned to its status quo.

January 30–February 2: Plurality rule adopted, Banks elected

[edit]
Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, a Southern unionist, concocted a plan to elect William Aiken Jr. as a compromise candidate by plurality.

From the time Richardson withdrew onwards, debate focused on the plurality rule, with some administration men who sought to finally organize the House joining Banks men in support.[13]

On January 30, Thomas L. Clingman of North Carolina moved for elections by plurality, along the lines of the 1849 resolution. Clingman's resolution divided the Democratic Party and the South. He argued that a failure to vote against Banks or Orr in a direct decision in fact meant that the voter "prefers him, of course, to the other." Several Democratic representatives spoke out against the motion. Philemon T. Herbert of California spoke in favor while denouncing those willing to "clothe [Banks] with power, who but a few days since expressed in their own hearing a doubt as to the superiority of the white man over the negro." William W. Boyce of South Carolina denounced "a single step toward the election of Mr. Banks... as one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen to this country ... as death to the Constitution and the Union." The resolution was voted down 106 to 110. The next day, it was reintroduced and failed 108 to 110.[13]

Sensing that Clingman's resolution and the narrow vote of January 31 meant the plurality rule would soon be adopted, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia privately proposed to allow the plurality rule to go into effect and substitute William Aiken Jr. of South Carolina before the final ballot. Unlike Orr, Aiken was not an active member of the caucus and had expressed no opinion on nativism, having avoided the caucus in which J. Glancy Jones's resolution was adopted.[14] The Stephens plan gained the quiet support of the southern Know Nothing representatives-elect who had thus far voted for Fuller.[15]

On February 1, representatives-elect offered several names, including Banks and Stephens, to be elected Speaker directly by resolution. Despite Stephens's plan to spring Aiken's name as a surprise only after a plurality rule was adopted, representatives-elect Williamson Cobb of Alabama and John Kelly of New York offered Aiken as a nominee directly. The Aiken resolution survived a motion to table by a vote of 98 to 117, and though Aiken was defeated by 103 to 110, he received several opposition votes. Though Cobb and Kelly had also cost Stephens the element of surprise, Aiken's total vote and ability to rally pro-Nebraska men and Fuller men raised Democratic confidence.[15][a] Last-ditch efforts to pass a compromise resolution, including one to appoint Banks, Aiken, and Fuller to vote on a Speaker as a committee of three, failed.

On February 2, the House floor and galleries were packed as most anticipated the adoption of the plurality rule and the election of a Speaker. The day opened with a motion to proceed under plurality rule was reintroduced by Samuel A. Smith of Tennessee, a pro-Nebraska administration man. Smith argued that while he had voted against the rule before, the results of the previously day demonstrated that "a well-known man of sound, national principles, under its operation, may be elected." The motion was adopted by a vote of 113 to 104, with nine Pierce Democrats and one Fuller man joining the Banks men in the majority.[17]

The balloting proceeded despite repeated efforts to adjourn, with Banks, Aiken, and Fuller all receiving votes.[17] On the fourth and final ballot of the day, Banks narrowly defeated Aiken 103 to 100. Six northern representatives-elect (Jacob Broom, Bayard Clark, Elisha D. Cullen, Henry Winter Davis, William Millward, and Thomas R. Whitney) held out and voted for Fuller. Four others from Indiana and Ohio (George G. Dunn, John Scott Harrison, Oscar F. Moore, and Harvey D. Scott) voted for Lewis D. Campbell, and John Hickman voted for Daniel Wells Jr. of Wisconsin.

Though some in the minority claimed that Banks had not been elected until a formal resolution declared him Speaker, debate ended when Aiken asked permission to escort Banks to the chair himself. The formal resolution was soon adopted.[17]

Summary of balloting

[edit]
Date Ballot
Banks
Campbell
Pennington
Fuller
Marshall
Richardson
Others
Total
Majority
Date Ballot
Banks
Fuller
Richardson
Others
Total
Majority
Date Ballot
Banks
Fuller
Richardson
Orr
Aiken
Others
Total
Majority
December 3 1st 21 53 7 17 30 74 23 225 113 December 12 46th 106 33 74 11 224 113 January 4 91st 104 34 73 9 220 111
2nd 22 55 7 18 30 74 18 224 113 47th 106 32 74 11 223 112 92nd 104 34 73 10 221 111
3rd 23 55 8 18 30 74 16 224 113 48th 105 32 74 12 223 112 January 5 93rd 103 32 72 10 218 110
4th 22 56 8 17 30 72 17 222 112 49th 105 35 75 11 226 114 94th 98 29 72 11 210 106
December 4 5th 23 58 8 19 20 78 18 220 111 50th 105 33 75 11 224 113 January 7 95th 101 29 73 11 214 108
6th 25 57 9 23 18 75 18 223 112 December 13 51st 105 33 75 11 224 113 96th 99 30 73 12 214 108
7th 28 54 10 20 20 75 17 223 112 52nd 104 32 75 11 222 112 97th 97 30 73 14 214 108
8th 32 51 9 20 18 75 17 222 112 53rd 104 34 74 10 222 112 98th 99 30 72 15 216 109
9th 31 51 10 21 16 75 19 223 112 54th 104 35 74 9 222 112 99th 97 33 72 12 214 108
December 5 10th 32 48 9 21 25 72 13 220 111 55th 104 38 73 7 222 112 January 9 & 10 100th 90 32 68 10 200 101
11th 37 47 9 19 25 74 11 223 112 December 14 56th 106 40 73 5 224 113 101st 88 28 65 11 192 97
12th 12 75 6 19 21 73 13 218 110 57th 105 41 74 5 226 114 102nd 92 28 68 10 199 100
13th 9 79 7 21 22 74 10 223 112 58th 106 41 73 5 225 113 103rd 92 26 67 11 196 99
14th 8 81 5 21 13 74 21 223 112 59th 105 41 74 4 224 113 104th 92 29 67 11 199 100
15th 8 80 7 19 6 74 25 219 110 December 15 60th 105 40 74 6 225 113 105th 88 28 63 9 188 95
December 6 16th 6 79 9 20 72 36 222 111 61st 105 40 74 6 225 113 106th 88 27 62 10 187 94
17th 14 69 9 21 73 31 218 110 December 17 62nd 106 37 73 7 223 112 January 11 107th 98 32 70 12 212 107
18th 18 62 11 21 72 33 217 109 63rd 105 38 73 7 223 112 January 12 108th 94 34 69 10 207 104
19th 18 57 14 23 71 31 214 108 64th 106 38 73 6 223 112 January 14 109th 95 34 66 16 211 106
20th 23 48 19 22 71 33 216 109 December 19 65th 102 38 75 6 219 110 110th 95 33 65 16 209 105
21st 21 45 20 21 71 32 211 106 66th 106 34 73 9 224 113 111th 95 33 64 16 208 105
December 7 22nd 11 74 9 20 73 34 221 111 December 20 67th 103 34 72 10 221 111 January 15 112th 92 34 65 16 207 104
23rd 10 75 9 16 73 39 221 111 December 24 68th 101 30 66 9 215 108 113th 92 33 65 16 206 104
24th 41 18 19 74 69 220 111 December 27 69th 100 30 66 9 205 103 114th 93 33 66 17 209 105
25th 44 18 22 72 63 219 110 70th 103 31 67 10 211 106 January 16 115th 88 29 65 13 195 98
26th 46 17 27 72 59 221 111 71st 103 31 67 10 211 106 January 17 116th 94 32 65 9 203 102
27th 49 17 28 73 48 215 108 72nd 103 31 67 10 211 106 January 19 117th 94 31 69 8 202 102
December 8 28th 86 26 73 34 219 110 December 28 73rd 101 30 68 8 207 104 January 21 118th 92 31 65 8 197 99
29th 97 18 73 35 221 111 74th 100 31 68 8 207 104 January 22 119th 91 29 67 8 195 98
30th 98 28 73 20 219 110 75th 101 31 68 8 208 105 120th 91 28 67 8 194 98
31st 99 20 72 21 221 111 76th 101 31 67 8 208 105 121st 91 29 67 8 195 98
32nd 100 29 72 19 221 111 December 29 77th 101 32 68 8 209 105 January 23 122nd 90 30 65 9 194 98
33rd 100 30 73 19 222 112 78th 103 30 68 8 211 106 January 24 123rd 96 12 68 27 203 102
December 10 34th 100 30 74 16 221 111 79th 102 31 68 8 209 105 124th 95 25 68 13 201 101
35th 105 31 76 15 225 113 80th 101 30 68 9 208 105 January 25 125th 94 28 65 12 200 101
36th 106 29 76 15 226 114 81st 102 30 68 9 209 105 126th 94 29 65 11 199 100
37th 107 29 76 13 224 113 82nd 100 30 68 10 208 105 127th 94 25 64 12 196 98
38th 107 28 75 15 225 113 83rd 99 29 67 10 205 103 January 28 128th 97 35 67 7 206 104
39th 107 28 76 15 226 114 84th 98 29 66 10 203 102 January 29 129th 99 34 69 8 210 106
December 11 40th 107 27 74 16 224 113 January 2,

1856

85th 103 32 72 11 218 110 February 2 130th 102 14 93 6 215 108
41st 107 28 74 16 225 113 86th 101 30 71 11 213 107 131st 103 13 93 6 214 108
42nd 106 27 75 17 225 113 January 3 87th 102 33 73 11 219 110 132nd 102 13 92 6 213 107
43rd 107 28 75 16 226 114 88th 102 33 73 11 219 110 133rd 103 6 100 5 214 N/A
44th 107 28 74 16 225 113 89th 102 33 73 11 219 110
45th 106 27 74 16 223 112 90th 101 30 72 11 214 108

Aftermath and legacy

[edit]

Joshua Giddings, as dean of the House, swore Banks in as Speaker after his election on February 2.[18]

Contemporary reaction

[edit]

Contemporaries immediately began to refer to Banks's election as the "first Northern victory" in the emerging sectional conflict over slavery which would lead to the American Civil War.[18][19] Justin S. Morrill later said, "This was the first gust, the large pelting drops, that preceded the storm of 1861."[18]

Opinion was largely divided along sectional lines. In the North and among abolitionists, the election was acclaimed as a long-awaited victory over the Slave Power. Hundred-gun saltues were fired in several New England cities. Joshua Giddings wrote to his daughter, "On Saturday we were in the wood, the dark and dreary forest was and around us, but on Monday we were in the promised land which flowed with milk and honey." Reaction in the South was negative, casting Banks's election as a sectional imposition of Northern will rather than a compromise. Some Democratic unionists took a subdued response. Alexander Stephens called the election the first "purely sectional" vote for speaker and noted Banks declined to make a typical pledge to "save the Union."[20] The radical Charleston Mercury editorialized, "Never will conscience, or justice, or the Constitution, obtrude their voice in the execution of [Banks's] appointed task. The creature of party, and the tool of fanaticism, who can foretell his course?"[20]

William Lloyd Garrison wrote in his Liberator, "Let us hope that this result is but the first gun at Lexington of the new Revolution. If so, then Bunker Hill and Yorktown are before us! All we have to do is press onward—right onward!"[20]

Establishment of Republican Party

[edit]

Historians have noted Banks as the initial symbol of the emerging Republican Party and his speakership as the origin point of the party's institutional organization.[21][22] Immediately after the election, Giddings remarked, "We have got our party formed, consolidated and established."[20] Thurlow Weed commented, "This triumph is worth all it cost in time, toil and solicitude ... [for] the Republican Party is now inaugurated. We can work with a will."[20]

A spatial analysis of the speakership election conducted by Jeffrey A. Jenkins and Timothy P. Nokken concluded that the voting patterns of individual members during the election were predictable from the outset as a function of their respective positions on slavery, whereas nativism had greater variability with any individual member's vote. On the final ballot, the split of the Fuller supporters between Banks and Aiken was highly predictable by both region and position on slavery. Jenkins and Nokken further argue that the organization of the House under Banks's leadership, which placed anti-slavery men (including Giddings, Pennington, Campbell, and the Washburn brothers) at the heads of most influential committees, allowed the Republican Party to operate as a single-issue, anti-slavery coalition before expanding its electoral platform in the critical election of 1860.[22]

The election also contributed to the death of the Know Nothing movement in the North, as many anti-Nebraska representatives-elect who prioritized nativism over slavery lost favor, and signaled the decline of the movement in the South as well, having demonstrated that pro-Nebraska Americans would prioritize slavery over nativism.[20]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ There is also evidence that Banks men intentionally inflated the Aiken vote to goad Democrats into adopting the plurality rule by having Fuller men Jacob Broom and Thomas R. Whitney, neither of whom ultimately voted for Aiken, change their votes from nay to aye.[16]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab Harrington 1939.
  2. ^ Jenkins & Nokken 2000, p. 105.
  3. ^ Mayer, George H. (1967). The Republican Party, 1854–1966 (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 30.
  4. ^ Forte, David F. (October 19, 2010). "Essays on Article I: Speaker of the House". Heritage Guide to The Constitution. The Heritage Foundation.
  5. ^ "Election of the Speaker Overview". Laws.com. October 28, 2011. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  6. ^ "Fathers/Deans of the House". United States House of Representatives. November 9, 2016.
  7. ^ "Oath of Office". US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. December 3, 2013. Retrieved January 6, 2023.
  8. ^ Looker, Rachel; Elbeshbishi, Sarah; Woodall, Candy; Jackson, David; Tran, Ken (January 3, 2023). "McCarthy loses first ballot in House speaker race in face of GOP infighting: live updates". USA Today.
  9. ^ "Speaker Elections Decided by Multiple Ballots". United States House of Representatives. November 30, 2015.
  10. ^ 1855 Congressional Record, Vol. 1, Page H5
  11. ^ a b c d e f g 1855 Congressional Record, Vol. 1, Page H3 (2 Dec 1855)
  12. ^ a b c d Harrington 1939, pp. 194–96.
  13. ^ a b Harrington 1939, p. 200.
  14. ^ Jenkins & Nokken 2000, p. 114.
  15. ^ a b Harrington 1939, pp. 200–01.
  16. ^ Harrington 1939, p. 201, n. 55.
  17. ^ a b c Harrington 1939, pp. 201–02.
  18. ^ a b c Harrington 1939, p. 186.
  19. ^ Sibley 1989.
  20. ^ a b c d e f Harrington 1939, pp. 203–05.
  21. ^ Sibley 1989, p. 1.
  22. ^ a b Jenkins & Nokken 2000.

Bibliography

[edit]