No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Notes on Party Membership in Congress, III*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
By contrast with the numerous membership problems confronting the Republican party in Congress, the Democrats have had relatively little difficulty, whether because of a more harmonious party, a higher sense of party loyalty, a stricter party discipline, a more tolerant attitude toward party rebels, or for whatever reason. The first case on record involved David Davis, that sturdy independent from Illinois, who was probably a member at one time or another of every political party that operated during his lifetime. After his election to the Senate in 1877, he was pointed out as the only Senator who did not attend either party caucus, and it was said that he “passed a rather lonesome hour on the floor of the Senate, in company with the door-keepers and pages, while the other Senators were talking politics to each other in well-guarded rooms.” The Democrats nevertheless considered Davis as one of their own number, or at any rate as one worth cultivating; and when in control of the Senate in 1881, they presented a committee slate with Davis as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
- Type
- American Government and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1949
Footnotes
*
The first two instalments of this article appeared in the April and June issues. Man. Ed.
References
99 The following letter from a Democratic Congressman from New York in 1834 suggests a lack of party discipline during the Jackson Administration: “I wish, my dear sir, that organization, according to the New York school, was a little more the order of the day here. Then something like concert of action could be secured upon party questions, and we should not meet with those defeats to which the want of organization constantly exposes us. At the commencement of the session of 1829, the administration had a majority in the lower house of about sixty, and yet, the friends of the president could hardly ever carry a question. You would be disgusted at the arrogance and magnificent air with which southern politicians claim an exemption from the shackles of party. They swell like frogs at the fountain when a party question is broached, and generally demonstrate their independence by voting with the opposition. How short would be the career of a New York politician who would thus misrepresent his constituents?” Kinderhook [N.Y.] Herald, reprinted in Niles' Register, vol. 45 (4th series, vol. 9), p. 394 (Feb. 8, 1834)Google Scholar.
100 N. Y. Tribune, Oct. 17, 1877, p. 1, c. 2.
101 See text of Davis', statement in Washington Star, Mar. 11, 1881, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 6.
102 Supra, p. 315.
103 Washington Post, Dec. 10, 1891, p. 1 Google Scholar, e. 5; Deo. 15, 1891, p. 1, cc. 3–4.
104 Ibid., Mar. 15, 1893, p. 1, cc. 4–5.
105 Washington Post, Aug. 1, 1893, p. 2 Google Scholar, c. 5; Aug. 2, 1893, p. 1, c. 3. Bell was reëlected several times as a Democrat, and Harris later served one term in the Senate (1897–1903) as a Democrat.
105 Text of Patterson resolution (which includes the text of the Democratic caucus resolution), in Cong. Record, vol. 40, pp. 2053–2054 (59 Cong., 1 Sess., Feb. 5, 1906)Google Scholar; see also Washington Post, Feb. 4, 6, 1906.
106 “Resolved, That hereafter all members of the Senate Democratic caucus shall be bound to vote in accordance with its decisions, made by a two-thirds vote of all its members, on all questions except those involving a construction of the Constitution, or upon which a Senator has made pledges to his constituents or received instructions from the legislature of a State which he represents.” Resolution adopted by Democratic Senate caucus, Dec. 15, 1903, by vote of 23–2; text in Cong. Record, vol. 40, p. 2218 (59 Cong., 1 Sess., Feb. 7, 1906)Google Scholar.
107 Cong. Record, vol. 40, pp. 2207–2219 (59 Cong., 1 Sess., Feb. 7, 1906)Google Scholar.
107a Among these were Broussard (La.), Conry (N. Y.), Fornes (N. Y.), Goldfogle (N. Y.), Howard (Ga.), Keliher (Mass.), Lindsay (N. Y.), Livingston (Ga.), McDermott (Ill.), and Peters (Mass.).
108 Clark himself was appointed to both the Ways and Means and Rules Committees. Although the Speaker at that time had full authority to make all committee assignments, the practice had already developed under Speakers Reed and Henderson of consulting the Minority Leader about the minority assignments, and Cannon himself had even allowed the previous Minority Leader (John Sharp Williams) to make these appointments with only a few exceptions.
109 Caucus held Mar. 15,1909, in morning and evening sessions. Washington Post, Mar. 16, 1909, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 8.
110 Statement issued Mar. 16, 1909. Washington Post, Mar. 17, 1909, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 8.
111 Caucus held Mar. 16, 1909, reported in Washington Post, Mar. 17, 1909, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 8.
112 “Whether they merely did not attend because they objected to listening to the unkind words which the Democratic leaders had to say about them, or whether they considered themselves outside the Democratic caucus for good was a question that caused considerable speculation.”
113 For a vigorous defense of the insurgent case, see statement by the Georgians issued Mar. 20, and statement by Harrison, Keliher, and Peters, issued Mar. 21, in Washington Post, Mar. 21, 1909, p. 6 Google Scholar, c. 5; Mar. 22, 1909, p. 4, c. 3.
114 This was the beginning of the more formal party organization in Congress. See supra, pp. 309–311.
115 Caucus held Mar. 22, 1909, reported in Washington Post, Mar. 23, 1909, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 7. The members particularly censured in this resolution were Fitzgerald and presumably Harrison.
116 Democratic House Caucus, Jan. 19, 1911, reported in N. Y. Times, Jan. 20, 1911, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 5.
117 N. Y. Times, Jan. 20, 1911, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 5; N. Y. World, Jan. 20, 1911.
118 See comment by Crawford, Arthur, in Chicago Tribune, Nov. 9, 1928 Google Scholar; for further analysis of the Hoovercrat problem outside Congress, see Berdahl, Clarence A., “Party Membership in the United States,” in this Review, vol. 36, esp. pp. 33–35 (Feb., 1942)Google Scholar.
119 Chicago Tribune, Dec. 27, 1936, Pt. 1, p. 9 Google Scholar, cc. 1–2; N. Y. Times, Jan. 3, 1937, Sec. 2. p. 2N, c. 1.
120 Chicago Tribune, Jan 3, 1937, Pt. 1, p. 7 Google Scholar, c. 1; N. Y. Times, Jan. 7, 1937, p. 3 Google Scholar, c. 4. Lundeen's assignment by the Democrats was also in accord with the custom that third party men were to be assigned within the majority quota; he had, however, been invited to attend the Republican caucus under the test of “political origin” set up by the Senate Republicans in 1936. Supra, pp. 505–506.
121 This was clearly the case in respect to two seats (the 16th and one at large), and possibly the case in respect to six others (6th, 8th, 10th, 14th, 23rd, 24th), in which the ALP vote, if cast solidly for the Republican instead of the Democratic candidate, would have elected the Republican.
122 See accounts by Trussell, C. P. and Krock, Arthur, in N. Y. Times, Jan. 20, 1943, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 2; p. 10, cc. 2–6. Two Southern conservative Democrats, Cox (Ga.) and Bulwinkle (N. C.), were reported to have supported the Marcantonio assignment, but only on the ground that they did not desire to upset the decision of the Committee on Committees. Pearson, Drew, “Washington Merry-Go-Round,” in Washington Post, Jan. 26, 1943, p. 14 Google Scholar, cc. 1–2.
123 The vote for Marcantonio in 1942 was: ALP—3,501; Dem.—7,553, Rep.—7,890; in 1944: ALP—13,543, Rep.—31,731, Dem.—37,042. Cong. Directory, 78 Cong., 2 Sess. (1st ed., Jan., 1944), p. 254 Google Scholar; 79 Cong., 1 Sess. (2nd ed., Aug., 1945), p. 258.
124 N. Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1948, p. 18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, c. 3. Leo Isacson, elected as the Wallace candidate in a special election on Feb. 17, 1948, was also assigned to a committee (the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments) out of the Republican quota, and without any quibbling, since he was elected only on the American Labor party ticket and was clearly a third party man. “The precedents are clear,” said Martin, Speaker. “We'll have to make a spot for him. The majority party must take care of the minority [third] party members.” N. Y. Times, Feb. 20, 1948, p. 3 Google Scholar, c. 6. See also Cong. Directory for committee assignments in the respective sessions.
125 See account by Catledge, Turner, in N. Y. Times, Dec. 16, 1937, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 8; p. 4, cc. 3–6 (text of declaration at p. 4); Dec. 17, 1937, p. 1, c. 6, p. 19, cc. 4–6; Dec. 21, 1937, p. 5, cc. 1–3; and Cong. Record, vol. 82 (75 Cong., 2 Sess., Dec. 20, 1937), pp. 1934–1940 Google Scholar (text of declaration at pp. 1937–1938). The signatures to the declaration were not published, but those who admitted or were known to have been included were: Democrats: Bailey (N. C), Burke (Neb.), Byrd (Va.), Copeland (N. Y.), Tydings (Md.); Republicans: Austin (Vt.), Vandenberg (Mich.).
126 “They [the Republicans] have obeyed almost to a man their whips' instructions, voting practically solidly on all important issues which might be embarrassing to the Administration or to the Democratic majority. They keep their members on the floor, prepared to thwart any parliamentary strategy the Democrats might spring at short notice.” Hinton, Harold B., in N. Y. Times, Feb. 12, 1939, Sec. 1, p. 1 Google Scholar, cc. 4–5, p. 41, cc. 3–4.
127 N. Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1939, p. 1 Google Scholar, c. 8, p. 8, cc. 3–5.
128 Ibid., July 26, 1939, p. 10, c. 4.
129 The caucus resolution was as follows:
“Whereas during the present session of the Seventy-sixth Congress the leadership of the Democratic party has been handicapped by a carping, critical reactionary Republican party, totally bereft of a constructive program, and
“Whereas responsibility for legislative action rests with the Democratic party and should not and cannot be avoided or delayed without grave danger and injury to the country and the party, and
“Whereas the President of the United States as the leader of the Democratic party has recommended to the Congress the social and economic necessity of the enactment of enabling legislation, and
“Whereas the progressive and constructive legislation of the Democratic party will be opposed by the reactionary members of the Republican party—which party, lest we forget, was responsible after twelve successive years of national leadership for the economic collapse under President Hoover, resulting in ten-cent corn, twenty-cent wheat, and five-cent cotton—industrial bankruptcy, complete collapse of the banking and credit structure, loss of savings, farms and homes and general business paralysis, with its attendant hunger and chaos,
“Be it resolved by the members of the Democratic party of the House of Representatives in caucus assembled that it is the sense of the caucus that we hereby pledge our continued support of and devotion to the great social and economic program as enunciated by the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, to the end that the economic collapse of 1929, with its frightful social consequences, be remedied and removed and the general welfare of the people of the United States reestablished.” Ibid., July 29, 1939, p. 1, cc. 6–7, p. 2, c. 3.
130 Statement at Scranton, Pa., Aug. 21, 1939. Ibid., Aug. 22, 1939, p. 2, c. 4. Mr. Boland did not name these disloyal members, and the record does not reveal any further action.
131 Krock, Arthur, in N. Y. Times, Mar. 12, 1946, p. 24 Google Scholar, c. 5.
132 Lippmann, Walter, “Today and Tomorrow,” in Washington Post, Oct. 18, 1948, p. 11 Google Scholar. Marquis Childs also discussed the same problem by pointing to Dewey's plea in Missouri for the reelection of Representative Dewey Short. “With his reëlection this year, Short will presumably be chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. That committee is likely to be vital to a Dewey program. Both before and after World War II, Short was by conviction or expediency a head-in-the-sand isolationist who opposed every move to strengthen America in a perilous world. In his speeches, Dewey cannot flout the Shorts, the Curley Brookses, the Harold Knutsons. They remember on the Dewey team what happened to Wendell Willkie when he flouted and ignored party organization. So the speeches are general and hopeful. Presumably the trial of strength and skill will come after the new administration is in the White House. The old liners are muttering in their beards, promising themselves that they will take care of this young man and what sounds suspiciously like his New Dealism when the time comes.” Marquis Childs, in ibid., Oct. 19, 1948, p. 12, c. 7.
133 Henry Wallace, when Secretary of Commerce, urged that members of both parties in Congress should abide by their party platforms or get out of the party, and President Truman endorsed this plea for stricter party discipline of members who bolt the party line. Chicago Sun, Mar. 22, 1946, p. 3 Google Scholar, cc. 4–5. For a well-reasoned statement against a rigid system of party discipline, see Coyle, David Cushman, “Reorganizing Congress,” in Va. Quar. Rev., Winter, 1947 Google Scholar, reprinted in Cong. Record, 80 Cong., 2 Sess. (Jan. 12, 1948), pp. A124–A127Google Scholar; and for a good analysis of the problem of party organization in respect to legislation, see Fainsod, Merle, “Consolidating Party Control,” in this Review, vol. 42, pp. 316–326 (Apr., 1948)Google Scholar. It may be noted also that a Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association is now studying the entire subject of party responsibility.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.