Wrong? The endorsers were from the 35th Congress, not the 36th as you claim. At least a quick check of a few states shows endorsers from the 35th Congress who weren't in the 36th. The 36th House did not convene until December 5, 1859, and members apparently did not get sworn in until 1860 because of the long delayed election of the Speaker of the House. The Congressional Globe of January 5, 1860 provides info about the late swearing in:
Mr. Thaddeus Stevens made the point of order that it was inadmissible, on the ground that, by the act of June 1, 1789, it is not competent for the House to enter upon any other business before the oath to support the Constitution of the United States is administered to the Speaker, and by him to the other members present and to the Clerk.
The 68 who endorsed on March 9, 1859 were all in the House of Representatives, likely members of the 35th House session that ended on March 3. They were a majority of the House; 68 out of 92 for the 35th House (73.9%). The Congressional Globe listed 109 Republican House members on December 5, 1859 as the Republican part of the 237 members of the House.
I'll be more circumspect next time and say a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives endorsed Helper's Book, at least the sanitized, cleaned up version of it they wanted to distribute. Thanks for helping me clear that up.
The controversy over Helper's Book stirred interest in the book such that 142,000 copies of the book had been distributed by the Fall of 1860. From Michael Kent Curtis's article I linked to in my last post:
A final irony was that the attack on Helper's book transformed it from a moderate success to a raging best seller. One hundred and forty-two thousand copies of the book had been distributed by the fall of 1860. In December 1860, the New York Tribune, which was promoting the book, cheerfully reported that Southern "Fire-eaters" and Northern "Doughfaces" had by their persistent discussion of The Impending Crisis generated a circulation rapidly approaching that of Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Republicans were apparently sending out copies of the sanitized Helper's Book to constituents using public money via the franking privilege. The New York Herald of November 28, 1859 said the following:
To frank this document was a great saving, as the postage on each copy amounts o eight or nine cents, or fully one half of its cost.
But naturally Dems focused not on the sanitized abridged version, but Hinton's original unabridged & highly inflammatory version, which many of those 68 Republicans were far too cowardly to own up to.
I suspect that for political reasons the Republicans wanted to distribute a sanitized version that would cause the readers of the sanitized version to wonder what the fuss the Democrats were making was all about. The circular that justified the sanitized version had a heading, "The Stupid Masses in the South." Like that would go over big in the South, but it might in parts of the North.
That "Stupid Masses in the South" reminds me of something spot on that Texas Senator Wigfall said in the Senate. Originally posted by former FReeper GOPcapitalist. My paragraph breaks below:
That the people of the North shall consider themselves as more blessed than we, more civilized, and happier, is not a matter at which we would complain at all, if they would only content themselves with believing that to be the fact; but when they come and attempt to propagandize, and insist that we shall be as perfect as they imagine themselves to be, then it is that their good opinion of themselves becomes offensive to us.
Let my neighbor believe that his wife is an angel and his children cherubs, I care not, though I may know he is mistaken; but when he comes impertinently poking his nose into my door every morning, and telling me that my wife is a shrew and my children brats, then the neighborhood becomes uncomfortable, and if I cannot remove him, I will remove myself; and if he says to me, "you shall not move, but you shall stay here, and you shall, day after day, hear the demerits of your wife and children discussed," then I begin to feel a little restive, and possibly might assert that great original right of pursuing whatever may conduce to my happiness, though it might be kicking him out of my door.
If New England would only be content with the blessings which she imagines she has, we would not disturb her in her happiness.
So in this quote Wigfall is making his case, as a senator from Texas, against the Union based on his idea that, for virtually the first time ever, the South was now a minority in Congress.
But the truth is, the South had many more potential friends than Wigfall here admits.
The South had already been a minority in Congress for some time. They weren't able to stop the Morrill Tariff in the House in 1859, even though all but one Southerner voted against it.
You know better than Wigfall how Senators would vote? Wigfall, who knew the Senators well? Is there any end to your omnipotence? (/sarc)
The rest of your post is basically regurgitating your vesion of history again.
Check out this source.
Note it says there was a special session of the 36th Congress from March 4 to March 10, 1859.
So, the article you posted says this particular event took place on March 9, which would be during that special session of the 36th Congress.
That would make those 68 endorsers 49% of all 138 Republican Congressmen & Senators.
Certainly a minor & arcane point, but interesting.
rustbucket: "The 68 who endorsed on March 9, 1859 were all in the House of Representatives, likely members of the 35th House session that ended on March 3."
See my link above, the 36th Congress was in special session on March 9, 1859, so 68 would be 49% of the total 138 Republicans.
rustbucket: "The South had already been a minority in Congress for some time.
They weren't able to stop the Morrill Tariff in the House in 1859, even though all but one Southerner voted against it."
But Southern Democrats had always allied with Northern Democrats to make large majorities in both House & Senate.
Of course, the strength of that alliance depended on political passions of a particular issue.
On matters of great importance to Southern Democrats, they could call on not just their Northern Democrat allies, but also Southern Whigs or American Party, and possibly even Northern Border state Republicans.
That's why my argument here is that Southern Democrats didn't really care as much about the Morrill tariff bill as they later pretended.
When you look at the numbers, you see there were enough abstentions to have defeated the bill, if they had voted against it.
Bottom line: in 1860 tariffs were just "politics as usual", they went up, they went down based on many factors, and had never been considered a justification for extreme measures like secession.
Even in 1861 the Morrill tariff was not mentioned by any of the four seceding state conventions which produced official "Reason for Secession" documents.
Those documents all focused on the real reason for secession: their fears over what might happen to their "peculiar institution" under Republican government in Washington, DC.
It was not secession with mutual consent.
It was not secession for material cause.
It was secession "at pleasure".
rustbucket: "You know better than Wigfall how Senators would vote?
Wigfall, who knew the Senators well?
Is there any end to your omnipotence? (/sarc)"
You forget that Wigfall was only elected to the Senate in December 1859, so by December 1860 had exactly one year of seniority.
That did not make him the most experienced & knowledgeable Senator in Washington.
So Wigfall's judgment on these matters should be taken with a healthy dose of salt.
Again, the historical fact is that Southern Democrats had always worked with Northern & Western allies, sometimes called "Doughfaced", and could continue doing so in 1861 and beyond, if they wanted.
But the voting on November 6, 1860 convinced many that it was too much effort and time had come to declare secession.
But it was secession "at pleasure" because in fact, at that time, nothing had changed.
That the people of the North shall consider themselves as more blessed than we, more civilized, and happier, is not a matter at which we would complain at all, if they would only content themselves with believing that to be the fact; but when they come and attempt to propagandize, and insist that we shall be as perfect as they imagine themselves to be, then it is that their good opinion of themselves becomes offensive to us.
"Gay Marriage!" You intolerant bigots need to be made to understand that you are morally inferior to we people of Boston, New York, and San Francisco who recognize different kinds of love.
"Global Warming!" You racists backwards fools who live in "flyover country" are too ignorant to understand the great crises facing us. You should just do what we, your educated betters tell you to do.
"Black Lives Matter!" You are a racist if you think all lives matter as much as Black lives.
"Abortion!" You immoral people need to be taught that you have no say over a woman's right to chose abortion.
"Animal Rights!" Meat is murder.
And so on... .
They are still preaching at us. Whatever is their latest moral outrage, you can bet they are going to chastise us for not embracing their new-found morality quickly enough!