Peculiar Institutions: Slavery, Sectionalism, and Minority Obstruction in the Antebellum Senate

Wawro, Gregory J.

doi:10.3162/036298005x201509

Legislative Studies Quarterly

2005

DOI: 10.3162/036298005x201509

|View full text |Cite

Peculiar Institutions: Slavery, Sectionalism, and Minority Obstruction in the Antebellum Senate

Gregory J. Wawro

Abstract: This article examines obstruction in the U.S. Senate, focusing on political conflict in the antebellum period. I consider different theories that predict when obstruction should occur and conduct individual‐level analysis of the use of and support for dilatory tactics. The analysis investigates how the costs of obstruction, the probability that obstruction succeeds, the policy preferences of the senator, and the salience of legislation relate to decisions to obstruct. I find that both sectional and partisan fa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2006

2020

Publication Types

Select...

Article4

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent4

Authors

Journals

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By providing comparative evidence about House and Senate debate during the antebellum period, I join other recent efforts to reassess the nature of the early Senate and its relation to the House (see, for example , Binder 1997;Binder and Smith 1997, chaps. 2, 3;Swift 1996;and Wawro 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The “Golden Age” Senate And Floor Debate in the Antebellum Congress

Wirls

2007

Legislative Studies Qtrly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An image of an antebellum “golden age” of Senate debate and deliberation has passed virtually unblemished from one generation of historians and political analysts to the next. In what ways, if any, is the image of a more deliberative Senate evident in the realities of antebellum House and Senate debates? In this article, I present a series of case studies to examine elements of the quantity and quality of floor debate in each chamber. By providing comparative evidence about House and Senate debate during the antebellum period, I offer an assessment and critique of the bicameral implications of the largely untested “golden age” understanding of the Senate and join other recent efforts to reassess the nature of the early Senate and its relation to the House. My results show the conventional wisdom to be an oversimplification, at least in its implications about the scope and depth of House debates. The House debated as long, and arguably as well, as the Senate on the signal issues of the day.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The “Golden Age” Senate And Floor Debate in the Antebellum Congress

Wirls

2007

Legislative Studies Qtrly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Running to Lose?: John C. Breckinridge and the Presidential Election of 1860

Jenkins

Morris

2006

Electoral Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democratic Representation of all “the People”: Antislavery Petitions in the U.S. Senate

Griffin

Sager

2020

Stud. Am. Pol. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In keeping with the demands of political philosophers, America's constitutional design harnesses elected officials to the mass public's prevailing views, but also provides avenues for the opinions of disenfranchised groups and numerical minorities to be reflected in policy. We seek to shed light on this constitutional balancing act by studying U.S. senators’ decisions on thirty-six roll call votes related to the practice of slavery between 1835 and 1847. These voting decisions are modeled using the prevalence of antislavery petitions sent to Congress over the same period from each state's residents. We observe considerable and systematic senator representation of perceived majority opinion on antislavery petitions, despite the presence of nineteenth-century institutions buffering senators from the public. We also report evidence that the representation of disenfranchised women's views (as expressed in petitions) relative to those of men varied by party, and in ways that are predictable. Finally, we observe that senators sometimes represented perceived minority viewpoints, seemingly motivated by their political ambitions. These findings not only hold important implications for our understanding of democratic representation, but also for the processes of American political development.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Peculiar Institutions: Slavery, Sectionalism, and Minority Obstruction in the Antebellum Senate

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

The “Golden Age” Senate And Floor Debate in the Antebellum Congress

The “Golden Age” Senate And Floor Debate in the Antebellum Congress

Running to Lose?: John C. Breckinridge and the Presidential Election of 1860

Democratic Representation of all “the People”: Antislavery Petitions in the U.S. Senate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About