All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Vote Choice and Vote Change in the Antebellum House: Evidence from the Gag Rule, 1836-1845
Unformatted Document Text:  On December 3, 1844, the House of Representatives voted to repeal a standing House rule that had formally barred the chamber from even considering the abolition of slavery or the slave trade. 1 The vote reversed a policy that the House had adopted since 1836; it also signaled the effective end of a decade-long battle that featured countless passionate floor speeches and dozens of sharply divided roll-call votes. In the course of this battle over the “gag rule,” the controversy evolved from a chiefly partisan dispute with sectional undertones into one that displayed the polarizing sectional forces that would drive the nation apart in the subsequent two decades. The gag rule debate in the House of Representatives was, in the words of historian William Freehling, “the Pearl Harbor of the slavery controversy” (quoted. in Miller 1995, 3)— one of the first serious skirmishes on the long road to the Civil War. Over the six Congresses that faced the issue, gag rule disputes forced members to record a long series of official positions on this divisive question. This unusually lengthy record of recurring votes provides a good context for exploring member decision-making in the antebellum House. Yet despite the growing interest in extending contemporary congressional theories into the nineteenth century Congress, the gag rule has received little attention from political scientists (a few recent exceptions are Binder 1997; Jenkins and Stewart 2003; Meinke 2002b). This paper develops a quantitative case study of gag rule voting in order to illustrate several larger points about congressional decision making. First, I explain members’ vote choices on the gag rule, focusing on the role of party and constituency in shaping decisions. Using district and electoral data, I provide evidence that the electoral connection affected some 1 Rule 21 specified “that no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave trade between the States or Territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever” (Congressional Globe, 28 Cong 2, 28 Jan 1840, 150). As discussed below, the gag rule was imposed as a resolution rather than in a standing rule prior to 1840. 1

Authors: Meinke, Scott.
first   previous   Page 2 of 41   next   last



background image
On December 3, 1844, the House of Representatives voted to repeal a standing House
rule that had formally barred the chamber from even considering the abolition of slavery or the
slave trade.
The vote reversed a policy that the House had adopted since 1836; it also signaled
the effective end of a decade-long battle that featured countless passionate floor speeches and
dozens of sharply divided roll-call votes. In the course of this battle over the “gag rule,” the
controversy evolved from a chiefly partisan dispute with sectional undertones into one that
displayed the polarizing sectional forces that would drive the nation apart in the subsequent two
decades. The gag rule debate in the House of Representatives was, in the words of historian
William Freehling, “the Pearl Harbor of the slavery controversy” (quoted. in Miller 1995, 3)—
one of the first serious skirmishes on the long road to the Civil War.
Over the six Congresses that faced the issue, gag rule disputes forced members to record
a long series of official positions on this divisive question. This unusually lengthy record of
recurring votes provides a good context for exploring member decision-making in the antebellum
House. Yet despite the growing interest in extending contemporary congressional theories into
the nineteenth century Congress, the gag rule has received little attention from political scientists
(a few recent exceptions are Binder 1997; Jenkins and Stewart 2003; Meinke 2002b).
This paper develops a quantitative case study of gag rule voting in order to illustrate
several larger points about congressional decision making. First, I explain members’ vote
choices on the gag rule, focusing on the role of party and constituency in shaping decisions.
Using district and electoral data, I provide evidence that the electoral connection affected some
1
Rule 21 specified “that no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper praying the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave trade between the States or Territories of the United
States in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever” (Congressional
Globe, 28 Cong 2, 28 Jan 1840, 150). As discussed below, the gag rule was imposed as a resolution rather than in a
standing rule prior to 1840.
1


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 2 of 41   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.