Posted on 01/06/2023 7:33:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
As I’m writing this, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) just lost his eighth vote to fulfill his lifelong dream of becoming speaker of the House. For all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the whole situation is kind of funny — as long as your name isn’t Kevin McCarthy.
It’s been a heck of a week for Congress, and it’s the first time in a century that the vote for speaker went beyond one ballot. But if these folks want to set a record, they have a long way to go.
A lot of the one-and-done nature of selecting a speaker over the past few decades has much to do with the dominant two-party system, but before the 1860s, multiple ballots were common. History shows us that eight votes for speaker went more rounds than this one has gone so far. Six contests went into the double digits, but the longest fight for speaker went a whopping 133 rounds and took about two months.
It all started with the disintegration of the Whig party in 1855, which left no single dominant party in the House. The country was starting to splinter over the issue of slavery, and factions in favor and against slavery in Congress tussled for control. When the House convened on Dec. 3, 1855, to choose a speaker, 21 candidates from several parties put their names into the mix.
Pro-slavery Rep. William Richardson (D-Ill.) was the early leader, but he couldn’t muster a majority of votes. Anti-slavery members began to coalesce around Rep. Nathaniel “Bobbin Boy” Banks (American Party-Mass.), a young teetotaler who started his career in the textile industry, where he earned his nickname.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
As the votes continued, Banks began to garner more votes than Richardson, but neither one of them could summon a majority of votes. By the 33rd vote, Banks had 100 of the 113 he needed to secure the speakership.
“This is not a mere contest as to a Speaker of the House; it is but an incident in a long and arduous struggle which is to determine whether slavery will be the pole star of our National career,” read an editorial in the New York Tribune at the time.
Good post—there is an obvious lesson here—the two party system is starting to show fracture lines—at least on the Republican side.
The Democratic base (Sanders types) have been intimidated and silenced into obedience by their establishment—so far.
Why wouldn’t the Saunder’s cliche be silent? For the most part they are getting what they want, their numbers have dramatically increased and are increasing and they’re watching their enemies destroy themselves! Perfect job for leftists all pay no work; the opposition does all the work.
The Managerial Class/Deep State utterly controls the Democrat Party, and it very nearly has complete control of the Republican Party. The very few holdouts are doing what they can, but I predict that the establishment will get its way before too long.
It sure would be great to have an actual news establishment that does not view every situation as an opportunity to make one party look bad. What’s happening is a good thing and the way it’s supposed to be especially in The House. Different viewpoints trying to moved the final product close the their side.
A main point is that THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS PRO-SLAVERY. They are still keeping blacks in slavery through “social welfare.”
Five years later the Civil War started.
Given the level of division in the country today, are we in for a repeat?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
