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;
To continue reading
Request your trial