New York Times Article on 1855 Speaker’s Race Omits the Partisan Background

Posted on by December 31, 2022

The New York Times has this article about the 1855 race for Speaker of the U.S. House. In the print edition it is titled “How Once-in-a-Century Chaos Could Hit the Vote for Speaker.” It describes how, in 1855-1856, the race for Speaker took two months to resolve.

But the article omits the reason. After the 1854 election, no party was even close to having a majority in the U.S. House. The new Republican Party had the most seats; Democrats were second; and the American “Know-Nothing” Party was third. When the house finally chose a speaker, Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts, the Speaker was a member of the third biggest party, the Know-Nothings. It was actually easier for the House to choose someone from that party, because Democrats couldn’t abide having a Republican speaker, and vice versa.

The New York Times article has not one word about the partisan split back then.

Comments

New York Times Article on 1855 Speaker’s Race Omits the Partisan Background — 58 Comments

  1. Moral of the story: do not go to the New York Times for election/partisan politics coverage and expect anything resembling unbiased, Journalistic content. Or pretty much any of the major national news media and newspapers either. But unfortunately, they are the source of election “information” for millions of people, and thus one of the major causes said millions’ ignorance concerning matters such as the partisan history of this country, or the current unconstitutional and undemocratic ballot access laws. Thanks again for helping at least some of us stay better informed.

  2. Why are you so surprised? The New York Times is not a reliable source. You might as well post Babylon Bee articles.

  6. A Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives is not constitutionally required to have been elected to the House. Any citizen 35 years of age or older (to hold the Presidency if need be) can be elected by House members to serve as Speaker. I have urged the Libertarian party to nominate a Speaker candidate in the past. No ballot access obstacles to a Speaker nomination.
    As a co-founder of the LP, I will accept a Speaker’s nomination by the Libertarian party.
    An empty gesture? What if the House deadlocks or removes a Speaker?
    BTW, the Bylaws of the national LP are silent about who can nominate a candidate for an office which never appears on any election ballot. The LNC could nominate me for the Speakership at its next meeting.

  7. Nonstop minority rule in all major govts in USA since 1776 —

    1/2 or less votes [aka plurality] x bare majority [1/2 +] of rigged gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL laws = oligarchy.

    Super-worse extremist primary math — super-worse before 1888 – olde gang bosses in rigged conventions
    —-
    NOOOO primaries
    equal ballot access
    PR- legis
    APPV- nonpartisan execs/judics
    TOTSOP
    —-
    Speakers are nominated and elected by the legislators in the legislative body involved.

    Goes back to English House of Commons vs Brit monarchs – esp in 1500s-1600s >>> English Civil War 1642-1649.

    KC I enters HC in 1642 to arrest some HC members who oppose his tyrant machinations [trying to copy tyrant rot in most of Europe in 1642]

    WHOOO remembers USA H Reps Speakers in War of 1812, 1861 USA CIVIL WAR I, WW I, WW II, etc. ???

    Speakers NOW – the monarch / dictator HACK chosen by other gerrymander monarch / oligarch HACKS — to enact the party line tyrant agenda.

    Would change with REAL PR — Democracy monarch vs exec monarchs esp.

    Noises NOW — NOT to have olde Congress hacks [incl Speakers] [ often 80 plus yrs olde ] in Prez line of succession
    2-1, 20 Amdt, 25 Amdt — ie only execs in Prez line of succession.

  9. Edward Brown sounds like he drops the soap on purpose but every time he’s in the shower, which, to be fair, is not necessarily every week. Fascism, despite the relentless leftist propaganda that it is right wing, is and always was left wing. Its origins are undeniably left wing and it was only well after it existed that leftists became too embarrassed by fascists to keep characterizing them as heterodox leftists and start characterizing them falsely as rightists, which always was and remains laughable and ridiculous.

    To be clear, I am not a fascist or any other kind of leftist. I am right wing. Fascists are left wing, much like this Edward Brown do do.

  11. Nope. Fascism is right-wing populism.

    Trump likes to drop the soap, because he is a total b@tch!

  14. Wrong. Repeating your lies does not make them true. The links showing absolute undeniable proof that (and how) the big lie that fascism is right wing evolved and how it came to be commonly mischaracterized as right wing have been posted on past articles here, I think within the last two or three months. Anyone who bothered to follow and read those links knows how stupid, ignorant and uneducated you sound when repeating this commonly accepted big lie like the brainless sheep or lemming you actually are.

  15. Nope. Trump doesn’t. Edward Brown does. For the very same reason he gives. He’s just projecting his own weaknesses on Trump, because Trump reminds him of his daddy and all the boys and men who have bullied and owned him his whole life since he was a little boy and all the way up to right this minute.

  16. Edward Brown doesn’t sound smart enough to convincingly portray the typical condescending leftist pseudointellectual. I doubt reading is even a thing he actually does at all, much less thinking!!

  17. “Fascism is the complete opposite of … Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production… Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied – the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that the class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.”

    – Benito Mussolini on how Fascism is really left wing.

  19. As usual, there are at least a few posters here who need Murphy beds dropped on THEM.

  20. I think Brown and Max are both Stock and need to be folded up inside a Murphy bed and shoved back in the closet.

  21. What is a Murphy bed? I’m going to have to look that up, if I get around to it. Maybe you’ll save me and anyone else who might be curious, if such people exist, the trouble and post the definition in the meantime.

  22. I’m no stock character! Stock is leftist, sinister, evil and satanic. I’m RIGHTIST, dextrous (possessed of great dexterity), right handed, right wing, righteous, Orthodox, traditionalist, good, Godly, etc.

  26. Thanks bro Bob. Your prompt reply was very helpful and saved me from having to look it up myself. I wonder what if anything Murphy beds have to do with Murphy’s law. Do you know? Anyone?

    I too also find your arguments and those of what’s in a name to be highly compelling and I would be curious to know who could possibly marshal any evidence or logical argument to the contrary and how.

    You guys sound like successful, lucky winners who make a lot of money and do great with the ladies, and super smart too. I would be jealous if I wasn’t as well 🤣

  27. What changes do you anticipate in election laws this year to keep the duopoly in control for the 2024 elections?

  28. Why change what is already working for them? I don’t see them losing control as it stands now, do you?

  29. @RW,

    It is erroneus to refer to the 1854 election in the singular.

    Elections for the 34th Session of Congress for a term beginning March 4, 1855 took place throughout 1854 and 1855. Roughly 1/3 were elected in 1855 after the beginning of the term.

    Those elected in 1854 were not eligible to serve in the Lame Duck session of the 33rd Congress which convened on December 3, 1854. If a candidate had defeated an incumbent because he had voted for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the incumbent would travel to Washington, while the election victor would wait more than a year.

    Republicans were not a majority. Many representatives who had been elected as Whigs had aligned with Republicans. Oddly, Banks was elected by a ploy intended to elected a Southern Democrat. They agreed to a plurality election, after three more attempts to achieve a majority.

    On the final vote Banks was elected by 103 to 100 (227 members). Some expected vote switches did not come through. Had they not agreed to the plurality vote, Banks might never have been elected.

  30. Max,

    I agree except for, one thing. I attribute my success more to hard work, than to luck.

    Thanks man!

  33. COMMIES = LEFT WING CONTROL FREAK STATISTS.

    FASCISTS = RIGHT WING CONTROL FREAK STATISTS.

    NOW COMMIES VS FASCISTS DEJA JU NIGHTMARE ALL OVER AGAIN.

    AS IN OLDE 1929-1939 GERMANY, SPAIN, JAPAN , ITALY, ETC ETC ETC
    —-
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  34. Wrong! Just like commies, fascists are LEFT wing control freak statists. Please learn to read and follow links. You were provided with more than enough info to conclusively prove this simple fact months ago. And yet here you are repeating the same big lie yet again. Tsk tsk tsk. The LEFT wing is the evil one with all the totalitarian statist control freaks. They are the ones who have pounded their lie until you accepted it as unquestionable, that fascism is “rightist.” It’s not. Regardless of how little they like it or want anyone else to know, fascism is leftist just like they are. Wake up and realize you are living in a matrix of leftist lies and distortions and that is 1

  35. Max, sorry, I did not answer your question. I don’t know whether or how Murphy beds are related to Murphy’s law. I do know that Murphy’s Law is a band I like to listen to though.

  38. Please keep your homoerotic fantasies to yourself. This is a site for discussing ballot access.

  39. What separates the left and right is not control vs non-control. What separates left and right is a desire for government enforced economic and social equality vs a desire for government enforced elevation of a particular group or its values.

    This is very obvious in the group’s respective sloganeering. A sample:

    Left wing (socialism):

    You didn’t build that – Share our wealth
    Property is theft
    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    No war but class war
    Hate speech is not free speech
    A bright future for all humanity
    Common prosperity
    Eat the rich

    Right wing (nationalism):

    Blood and soil
    Love it or leave it
    Separate, but equal
    For god and country
    God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
    Holiness and heroism
    We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
    One people under one god saluting one flag
    One people, one empire, one leader

    Liberal (libertarianism):

    Laissez Faire – let us do it (not the government)
    That government is best which governs least
    I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
    Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.
    Give me liberty or give me death
    Life, liberty, and property
    Taxation is theft
    Our enemy: the state
    Individual rights are not subject to a public vote

  40. You mean I’m a liberal on some things? I don’t think so!!! I do agree with most of what you claim are liberal libertarian slogans. And most of the right wing nationalist ones of course. But not surprised that I disagree with everything leftist socialist.

  43. No, it was on this thread. Thanks for the additional context but Bob already saved me the research.

  44. And that reminds me to research the connection if any between Murphy beds and Murphy’s law (not the band). Thanks!

  46. Yes, that would be excellent! Looking forward to that, and then him being President again! Then maybe President for life or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court???

  51. How many $$$ billions going to current and past Swamp hacks in Devil City ???

    Govts since Oct 1929 Great Depression I —

    L-O-O-T the treasury and any morons who lend to govts– until CRISIS Day ???

    NOW more NET looters than NET tax slaves ???

  52. Yes, that is why we need the left totally crushed and the right wing in power everywhere!!!

  55. D Frank Robinson posted:

    “BTW, the Bylaws of the national LP are silent about who can nominate a candidate for an office which never appears on any election ballot. The LNC could nominate me for the Speakership at its next meeting”

    It seems appropriate that the candidates which a party runs for the US House of Reps could meet and nominate a candidate for US Speaker.

  57. D Frank Robinson posted:

    “BTW, the Bylaws of the national LP are silent about who can nominate a candidate for an office which never appears on any election ballot. The LNC could nominate me for the Speakership at its next meeting”

    And, by a similar principle, the candidates which a party runs for US Senate could meet and recommend candidates for the federal courts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.