Who Rebelled? An Analysis of the Motivations of the Republicans Who Voted Against Speaker Cannon

• Author: Susan M. Miller,Peverill Squire
• Published date: 01 May 2013
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X12458964
• Date: 01 May 2013
• Subject Matter: Articles

American Politics Research

41(3) 387 –416

© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X12458964

apr.sagepub.com

458964APR41310.1177/1532673X12458964

American Politics ResearchMiller and Squire

© The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

2University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Susan M. Miller, Oklahoma State University, 220 Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.

Email: susan.miller@okstate.edu

Who Rebelled? An Analysis

of the Motivations of the

Republicans Who Voted

Against Speaker Cannon

Susan M. Miller1 and Peverill Squire2

Abstract

One of the most important events in U.S. congressional history is the 1910

revolt against Speaker Cannon. The rebellion had myriad ramifications for

the inner workings of the House of Representatives and dramatically altered

the chamber’s power structure. Despite its significance, we do not have a

clear understanding of the character of the revolt and why the 42 Repub-

lican insurgents revoked their allegiance to Cannon and their party. Did

the insurgents rebel because of their strong progressive ideals or for more

pragmatic reasons, such as political survival or retribution? Using data gath-

ered from Cannon’s personal papers and other sources, we systematically

explore disparate explanations credited for the revolt. For the progressive

core of the insurgency, our analysis indicates that policy differences drove

their behavior. These early insurgents were later joined by a group of less

progressive members who appear to have supported the rebellion for elec-

toral and retaliative reasons.

Keywords

legislative politics, political party dynamics

Article

388 American Politics Research 41(3)

The 1910 revolt against Speaker Cannon was a watershed in congressional

history. The rebellion initiated a series of decisions that would dramatically

alter power in the House of Representatives. Despite its significance, we do

not have a clear understanding of the character of the revolt and why the 42

Republican insurgents revoked their allegiance to Speaker Cannon and their

party. Did the insurgents rebel because of their strong progressive ideals or

for more pragmatic reasons, such as political survival or retribution for Can-

non’s heavy-handed control of the chamber? Given the gaps in our knowl-

edge, our insight into what prompted this rebellion is limited.

In this article, we systematically explore several explanations for the

revolt against Cannon. Using data gathered from Cannon’s personal papers

and other sources, we consider why the Republican insurgents behaved as

they did. Specifically, we examine whether the rebellion was motivated by

ideological principles, retribution for unjust committee assignments or

undemocratic control of the legislative agenda, or simple electoral survival.

The Insurgents and the Insurgency

The revolt against Cannon climaxed with a favorable vote on the Norris

resolution in March 1910. The resolution created an enlarged and elected

Rules Committee on which the speaker would not be allowed to serve. It

was a decision that was substantively of limited importance—Norris (1961,

p. 121) admitted in his autobiography, “I think the country gave us credit for

more than actually was accomplished in reform”—but in historical hind-

sight it represented a political earthquake. For the first time the Republican

insurgents had managed to defeat the speaker on a matter both sides saw as

significant. But it did not overthrow the speaker; a few days later the House

declined Cannon’s offer to resign.

The rebellion had long been simmering. News stories about the “despotic”

speaker being opposed by Republican “insurgents” began appearing in 1904

(New York Times, 1904). A year later a GOP representative from Wisconsin

wrote to his brother that “There is a pretty strong revolt brewing against the

domination of the House leaders and the efforts to crucify every man who

does not bow to the dictates of . . . the Speaker of the House” (Harrison, 1992,

p. 3). By 1908 a number of Republican House nominations were being con-

tested between Cannon supporters and opponents (Griffith, 1965; National

Tribune, 1908; New York Times, 1908c; Washington Times, 1908c). Many

candidates, among them E. A. Hayes (Republican, CA), Irvine Lenroot

(Republican, WI), and George Norris (Republican, NE), ran explicitly anti-

Cannon campaigns (Margulies, 1977, pp. 72-76; McCook Tribune, 1908b;