Bloc and Party in the United States Senate: 1861-1863

BLOC AND PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE: 1861-1863 Allan G. Bogue As he FOUCHT for election in 1854, James Harlan explained how he would conduct himself if elected to the Senate of the United States: "... in all Constitutional questions ... I would expect to be guided in my action by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the wellsettled principles of Constitutional Law—in aU questions of Legislative Expediency, by the views and wishes of the Legislature and people of Iowa—and in aU questions of Conscience by the Bible."1 To understand court, constituency and holy writ was to understand the legislative behavior of Senator Harlan, or so he said The fact is that it is rather difficult to understand Senator Harlan at times in these terms or by any other simple formula and this is also true of his colleagues in the Senate. Led, some time ago, to the Thirty-seventh or first Civü War Congress by my interest in the great economic legislation of that body, I soon found myself trying to understand the major forces that were reflected in the voting of the congressmen. This paper is an outgrowth of that rather frustrating endeavor—a case study of general voting behavior in the Senate during the second session, the longest and most important of the three legislative sessions of the Thirty-seventh Congress. The historian who seeks for understanding can, of course, usually find other historians willing to guide him. We are aU familiar with the interpretation which pictures a beleagured Lincoln, struggling during the Civü War to maintain his leadership against the determined onslaughts of the Radical faction that dominated his party and the Congress. This organizational theme has been rewarding and, indeed, the authors of some of the historical classics of the Civü War have used it. But recently David Donald has argued that historians have overstressed the difference between Radical and Moderate Republicans and suggested that the importance of party bonds should be emphasized instead.2 T. Harry Williams, however, continues to 1 Johnson Brigham, James Harlan (Iowa City, 1913), p. 87. 2 David Donald, "Devils Facing Zionwards' in Grady McWhiney (ed.), Grant, 221 222CIVIL WAR HISTORY believe that the distinction is an important one.3 If we exclude the executive branch from our discussion and focus on the congressional aspects of the Radical-Moderate controversy it is clear that the problem can be stated more precisely. Did party or did factional groups within the Republican party more significantly influence the voting of Republican senators and representatives during the Civil War years? More recently still, Professor Donald has suggested that the congressional district played a major part in determining the votes of members of the House of Representatives when they were considering reconstruction legislation.4 Thus in a sense he joined Senator Harlan in emphasizing the importance of constituency in helping to determine congressional voting patterns—a factor which may have accounted for the presence of Moderate and Radical factions among the Republicans, if indeed they did exist. We remember also that Frederick Jackson Turner had something to say about the relation of constituency to legislative behavior. "A study of votes in the federal House and Senate from the beginning of our national history reveals the fact," wrote Turner, "that party voting has more often broken down than maintained itself on fundamental issues; that when these votes are mapped or tabulated ... a persistent sectional pattern emerges."5 The Thirty-seventh was of course the first congress of the Civil War and unusual in that most of the representatives of one great section were missing. Although the empty seats render this and the next congress unique in the history of national legislative behavior, Earle Ross and others have maintained that sectionalism , particularly that of East against West, continued to influence the actions of legislators during the Civil War.6 In the Congressional Globe we can easily find proud affirmations of loyalty to constituency, frank declarations of sectional interest, and the appeals of Republican leaders to their colleagues to shun factionalism and cleave to party. But oratorical flourishes can be deceiving; in the end it was the votes of the senators that counted. And...