By James Finck, Ph.D.
If you have followed my column over the years you may have noticed a theme. My belief is that there is really nothing new, that in some way or another we have seen everything before.
Most of my writing is comparing modern events to the past. Yet, recently the fates have mocked my belief as not only has a former president been indited for the first time in our country’s history, but the Speaker of the House was removed – the latter a feat tried on a few occasions but never successful.
Earlier this year was the fourth time in our nation’s history that the Speaker of the House was not chosen on the first day of the Congress. Much of this craziness is coming from a group of 20 of so Republicans who feel the status quo is no longer working and it is their task is to shake things up, starting with new leadership.
Historically speaking, this is not completely new. While it took four days and 15 ballots to elect McCarthy back in January, the 31st Congress took 19 days to elect a speaker and the 68th Congress took three. Now, however, I guess the House has nothing better to do, so they decided to do it all over again. With the ousting of McCarthy, Republicans tried to find a representative who could satisfy all sides of the party. This time it took three weeks and several candidates to finally get their man.
While I could choose any of these earlier speaker contests to in which to compare, the one from the 1850s that took two months seems most applicable as the 1850s look politically similar to today.
The makeup of the 34th Congress was 83 Democrats, 51 Know-Nothings, and 100 Oppositions. On the opening day of Congress, Dec. 3, 1855, 21 different candidates were nominated for speaker. The most important of these were William Richardson, Democrat from Illinois, who received 74 votes; Lewis Campbell, Opposition from Ohio, who received 53 votes; Humphrey Marshall, Know-Nothing from Kentucky, who received 30 votes; and finally, Nathaniel Banks, Know-Nothing from Massachusetts, who received 21 votes. After that, the votes dropped off greatly among the other candidates. That meant 74 votes for the Democrats, 53 for Opposition, and 51 between the two Know-Nothings, but 113 votes were needed to win a majority. The House voted three more times that day with very little movement in the votes.
The first significant change occurred on Dec. 5 during the 12th vote where Campbell (O) took the lead among 14 candidates with 75 votes followed by Richardson (D) with 73 votes and Banks (K) dropping to fifth with 12 votes. Then on Dec. 7, after the 24th vote, Campbell addressed the House. He recognized the anxiety of the nation to get a speaker and believed that even though he was in the lead, he would never win. He said, “it is obvious to me that it is Impossible for my friends to succeed, unless I can perform one of the 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.” With that, Campbell pulled his name from the race for the good of the nation.
With Campbell out, the numbers fluctuated over the next two months and 95 ballots, but always with Banks in first.
Banks is an interesting candidate. He was a machinist from Massachusetts but loved politics and participated in a local debate club. His speeches were so powerful that he was asked by the Democrats to run for local office. From there, he moved up the Democratic Party even winning a seat in the 33rd Congress as a Democrat. Yet, like some other Northern Democrats he was troubled as his party was becoming the party of slavery. So, in 1854, he ran for a second term as a Know-Nothing. After all the chaos of running for speaker, he ran a third time, but as a Republican. He was a congressman for three consecutive terms in three different parties.
Another major shift occurred on the 123rd vote when Democrats replaced Richardson with James Orr, Democratic congressman from South Carolina. The shakeup did not work as Banks led with 96 votes and Orr came in second with 68. This duo at the top lasted nine more days and seven more votes until on Feb. 2, during the 130th vote, when Orr was replaced by William Aiken, another Democratic congressman from South Carolina. Aiken received 68 votes.
Congress had reached exasperation. There were serious concerns in the nation especially in dealing with Bleeding Kansas, not unlike today’s Congress concerning the Israeli situation. The House could not move forward with rules or committees or even debate until they settled the speakership.
Finally, Samuel Smith from Tennessee recommended that the speaker election by determined by a vote of plurality. His motion called for three more attempts for a candidate to reach a majority, but if none could be reached, the majority rule would be dropped and a fourth vote would be taken. The candidate with the most votes would be named speaker. The resolution was passed.
With that, three more votes were taken. Each time Banks received 102 and Aikens 93. Finally, the fourth and final vote was taken. Banks received 103 to Aiken’s 100. The two-month drama was over; Banks had been elected Speaker of the House.
There are many similarities and differences to our time and 1856. Like then, there are divisions within both parties making it difficult to get things done. In the 1850s the struggle to elect a speaker was a precursor to horrific events and civil war. Let’s hope our problems in Congress will not lead to the same.
James Finck, Ph.D. is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He may be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.