The Rules that Made Lincoln President

Did parliamentary procedure play an unusual role in the rise of America's sixteenth President? Parliamentarians may have special insight into that period of political uncertainty leading to the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. In the political conventions of that era, the application of numerous rules and procedures were instrumental in Lincoln's journey to the White House.

One might say that the Whig Party didn't have a prayer... literally! At their 1852 Baltimore Convention, the minister invited to give the invocation never got the chance. Whether out of rudeness to the minister or disregard of Providence, delegates finally voted an agenda which omitted the prayer altogether.

The Whigs that year adopted a hotly debated proposal to apportion the Platform Committee based upon each state's strength in the Electoral College. Outraged delegates from Southern and small Northern states then demanded and got a change to an apportionment of one per state. That American motion to reconsider had been used as far back as the Continental Congress. But in the emotion-charged atmosphere, the change in the Whigs' already-adopted credentials report was made without all the technical inconvenience of a motion and vote to reconsider!

Accusations of collusion between Southern delegates and party managers had been published by New York Times Editor Henry Raymond. During the Whigs' nominating process, the proxy held by Raymond was challenged and Southern delegates unsuccessfully moved to expel him.

After three days and fifty-three nominating ballots, Whigs chose Mexican War hero Winfield Scott. Several vice-presidential choices refused the nomination. By the time of the 1856 Whig Convention, the Party was all but extinct, but it had helped develop the convention system for presidential nominations.

Storm clouds for the War between the States were gathering in April 1860 at the Democrats' Convention in Charleston, South Carolina. Many national church denominations had already split between North and South. Now the slavery issue was severing "The Democracy," as the Democratic Party was then called.

Even before Democrats' presidential balloting, frequent points of order, appeals, and furious debate led to twenty-seven procedural roll call votes. After a day-long debate, delegates voted to recommit the Platform along with a minority report.

At the Democrats' 1856 Convention, a close vote on a minority Credentials report had split the New York vote between two rival delegations. Now, once again, at the first business session in Charleston a delegate was demanding to read a letter from another contested New York delegation, led by New York City's Tammany Hall Mayor Fernando Wood.

Let's look at parts of that first chaotic session, as the Temporary Chairman, Colonel Thompson Flournoy of Arkansas, has the misfortune to preside:

Denying Cochrane's right to speak, Fisher states that he has a resolution to offer following his reading, and that no power on earth can compel him to yield. Ohio Senator Pugh suggests the letter should either be communicated to the Chair or read to the Convention. Cochrane - amid chanting of "Read! Read!" - demands reading of the resolution first. The Chair puts the question on the reading of the letter, which is affirmed by the Convention.

Cochrane moves that the rules of the previous Convention be adopted. Fisher, surrounded with immense confusion and cries of "Order! Order!" mounts the Secretary's table and threateningly raises a point of order that he has the floor. The Chair recognizes Cochrane, but Fisher will not be trampled upon. He has his rights and will maintain them! Amid increasing confusion, Mr. Clarke of Alabama protests the decision of the Chair.

Former Alabama Congressman Percy Walker has addressed the Chair forty-two times seeking recognition. Now he comes forward, mounts the Clerk's table, demands to be heard, and appeals the ruling of the Chair. Mr. Clark of Mississippi loudly claims the right of Walker to be heard on the appeal, which the Chair permits. Mr. Rynders has an unusual kind of parliamentary inquiry: "Who is the Chairman?" With cries of "Question! Question!" the Chair puts the question on the appeal and is sustained overwhelmingly with several minutes of cheering.

Fisher again rises to introduce his resolution, but the Chair rules that Cochrane's motion to adopt rules is now on the floor. George W. McCook of Ohio moves to appoint a Committee on Permanent Organization. Mr. Barksdale of Mississippi moves an amendment that the Committee consist only of delegates from uncontested delegations.

Former Congressman and later Senator William A. Richardson of Illinois rises to ask for harmony, urging gentlemen to keep calm and preserve order. Cochrane says he desires nothing but a fair hearing.

Lengthy debate follows. John Cessna, former Pennsylvania House Speaker and future Republican Congressman, moves an amendment that two committees be appointed on organization and credentials, New York and Illinois to be excluded from the latter. The previous question is called and the motion adopted, 254 to 44.

A motion is then offered "requesting" New York and Illinois not to participate in organization until their contests were settled. The motion is laid on the table, 259 to 44.

Committees are appointed by calling the roll of states for appointments from the delegations. A resolution is offered requesting that credentials be turned in to the Secretary.

Once again, Fisher demands to read the Wood letter before referring it to the Credentials Committee. Cochrane moves that the letter be referred without reading. After much commotion, Cochrane's motion is adopted and his voice is now too hoarse to speak. The Convention then adjourns until the next morning.

The Wood letter had claimed its delegation was the rightful one, that the wrong delegation had been seated, and had asked for a fair hearing. Reading of the letter before the Convention could only have provoked even more strife. The following January, Mayor Wood was to recommend secession for New York City.

Wood's efforts were labeled a "confidence game," by one of his hometown papers, The New York Times:

Now for permanent Convention Chairman, Democrats would truly need a diplomat. Caleb Cushing had served as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. The former Whig Congressman, Mexican War General, and U.S. Attorney General had also served in the Massachusetts Legislature with his third cousin Luther S. Cushing. The latter Cushing had authored the leading parliamentary manual of the day.

The third day the Credentials Committee recommended against seating the contested New York and Illinois delegations. More sharp debate ensued over a minority report splitting the state's votes with the contested delegations. The minority report was defeated, 210 to 55.

Following another bitter dispute, both the Platform Committee and minority reports were recommitted, but little progress was made in the revised reports. After two more procedural roll calls, delegates accepted the minority report which left the question of slavery in the territories to the Supreme Court. It was then that forty-five delegates from nine mostly Southern states walked out.

Chairman Cushing's most fateful ruling related to the "two-thirds-to- nominate" rule. After Southern delegates left, Cushing ruled that two thirds of the originally allocated votes were still necessary to nominate. This overturned precedents at the 1840 and 1848 Democratic Conventions requiring only two thirds of those present and voting. A motion to abolish the two-thirds rule was defeated.

If delegates imagined the two-thirds rule would enhance party unity, they were dismally mistaken. After fifty-seven ballots, Lincoln's old Illinois debate rival Senator Stephen Douglas held a commanding lead, but still short of the required two thirds. Cushing's ruling had assured a deadlock, and the 1860 Democratic Convention became the only major party convention ever to adjourn to reassemble in another city.

In June, delegates reconvened at Baltimore with Cushing still presiding. Credentials Committee and minority reports concerned reseating some delegates who had walked out at Charleston. As the minority report was defeated in favor of the more lenient Committee report, a new and even greater walkout ensued. With the second nominating roll call it became obvious that a of two-thirds vote of the original roll of delegates had become mathematically impossible. Fewer than the required number were still even present. A motion to declare Douglas the nominee was then made unanimous, leaving some to wonder why that had not been done two months and fifty-eight ballots earlier at Charleston.

In a last-ditch effort to salvage any trace of party unity, remaining Southern delegates were permitted to caucus and nominate the vice-presidential candidate, Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama. When Fitzpatrick declined after the Convention had adjourned, the Democratic National Committee filled the vacancy with former Georgia Governor Herschel V. Johnson.

Back in Massachusetts, Caleb Cushing had once served as Mayor of Newburyport, but following the ill-fated Convention he was burned in effigy in its streets. Having supported the Southern cause, he nevertheless remained with the Union, supporting Lincoln in 1864. By the following year he had moved to Virginia and served in the Andrew Johnson administration.

When members "walk out" of an organization, it is often because they believe the rules or their application has been unfair. But Democratic delegations led by former Alabama Congressman William L. Yancey had planned months in advance to walk out if the Platform did not support slavery in the territories.

Before leaving Charleston, seceders held their own rump session. But even the seceders could not agree among themselves. Alabama Governor Winston protested the Platform, and Delaware Senator Bayard seceded from the seceders.

Again in Baltimore, seceding delegates met following the regular Democrats' adjourned session. These mostly Southern Democrats nominated Kentucky's John C. Breckinridge with running-mate Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon. In the fall elections, they carried most of what would soon form the Confederacy.

Of some concern to Republicans was the 1860 Constitutional Union Party Convention at Baltimore the week before Republicans met in Chicago. Republicans knew they had to win all of the free states. Constitutional-Unionists, with no chance of winning, hoped to throw the election into the House of Representatives where compromise might yet be possible.

The "issue-less" Constitutional Union Platform call for national unity. With Tennessee's John Bell for President and Massachusetts orator Edward Everett for Vice-President, the C.U. Party carried only Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act, allowing slavery to be decided by settlers in each territory, had given rise to mass meetings of disenchanted Free-Soilers, Whigs, and Democrats throughout the North. One such meeting held March 20, 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin is often said to be the birth of the Republican Party.

In 1856, nearly 600 delegates gathered in Pittsburgh for the first Republican Convention. Without the strife of Democrats and Whigs, the unified Republicans adopted their Platform on a voice vote. California explorer and Senator John C. Fremont was nominated first on an informal ballot, then officially. Former New Jersey Senator William L. Dayton was nominated for Vice-President, outdistancing two-to-one an Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln. One might recall John Kennedy's loss for the 1956 Democratic vice-presidential nomination, or Franklin Roosevelt's loss as the Democrat's vice-presidential nominee in 1920. Such losses may work to bring one to future prominence.

On the eve of their 1860 Chicago Convention, Republicans were already looking for a victory. Interest and attendance for such a convention was unprecedented. The recent catastrophic split at the Democratic gathering, together with the disintegration of the Whig Party, had set the stage for Republicans to elect their first President.

No one could predict the outcome. Heir apparent was Senator and former New York Governor William H. Seward. Virginia delegates supported Seward, but made it known that in a close contest they would open up competition by abstaining on the first ballot. Seward's opponents were anything but united behind another candidate, but many believed Seward could not win in the fall elections.

It was suggested early in the Convention that, but for the efforts of Pennsylvania delegates, Seward might even be nominated by acclamation. California explorer and Senator John C. Fremont, the standard-bearer from four years earlier, had asked to be considered only in case of an all-out deadlock. There were too many other names: Banks, Bates, Cameron, Chase, Corwin, Fessenden, McLean, Wade... and Lincoln. Anti-Seward forces were finding it nearly impossible to reach a consensus on another candidate. Lincoln forces sought to make the Illinois rail-splitter everyone's second choice.

Horace Greeley, influential Founder and Editor of the New York Tribune, was quite a celebrity at the Convention. His weekly edition was one of the most popular publications of the era. His command of delegates' interest and attention in and out of the caucuses and bitter opposition to Seward's nomination did much to foil the front-runner.

"Go west, young man!" was the slogan popularized by Greeley. And go west he did - on paper - for his credentials as a Convention delegate. Seward supporters in his native New York kept him out of their delegation. But rules did not require delegates to reside in states they represented, so Greeley arranged his own election as a delegate from Oregon! Thus gaining access to the floor and caucuses, he helped turn the tide against Seward.

The Credentials Committee report was protested sharply by Pennsylvania Judge David Wilmot, former Congressman and future U.S. Senator, who had served briefly as temporary Convention Chairman. His "Wilmot Proviso," had called for the exclusion of slavery from any territory acquired from Mexico, which helped lead to the founding of the Republican Party and Southern secession.

Wilmot protested allowing Southern states to vote when those states had little actual party organization or support. He even suggested Northern intrigue in Southern delegations representing pretended constituencies to demoralize and divide Republicans.

Mr. Palmer of Maryland denied that he was a tool of any Northern State. He had dared and risked more than anyone from Pennsylvania. He had been jeered by a mob in Baltimore, and had returned to his hometown to be burned in effigy. Wilmont replied that he only desired the facts: Did Southern delegations represent regular Republican organizations in their states? Would they cast votes only for those congressional districts represented?

Sometimes sensitive matters are better first examined in committee, where fuller and cooler discussion may take place. Greeley had originally proposed that credentials be submitted from the floor, and only those contested be referred to the Committee. This motion was amended to refer all credentials to the Committee. Greeley's proposal could have hurt party unity and morale by bringing disputes before the whole Convention. Instead the Credentials Committee was allowed to examine facts and make recommendations.

One factor for the Committee to consider was the Convention's Official Call. It went beyond the party faithful to reach out to others who might share their ideals, even in the slave states and territories. The Credentials report was strongly debated, then recommitted. That evening with much applause the Convention adopted a modified report which curtailed Southern votes and was generally considered to hurt Seward.

One critical ruling at the Republican's 1856 meeting had required only a majority of those present and voting to nominate, unlike the two-thirds rule of the Democratic conventions. Now in 1860 there was an effort to impose what amounted to a two-thirds rule on Republicans, less than a month after Democrats' catastrophic experience with the same kind of rule.

The Committee report required a majority of all electoral votes in the whole Union. Since not all states and congressional districts were represented, this was essentially a two-thirds rule. The proposal had been carried in a committee meeting by a single vote with only 17 of 27 present. Amid loud protests, the Convention adopted a minority report requiring only a simple majority to nominate a candidate. This would make a critical difference for Lincoln in the balloting, and it demonstrates how even a slight procedural edge can prove decisive in a close contest.

The report allowed two votes for each congressional district and four at-large for each state. But many, especially Southern, states did not bring complete delegations. The rule was amended to limit delegations to no more votes cast than they had delegates present.

About half of the Republican Platform was devoted to the slavery issue, but it also included a strong statement favoring states' rights. Upon its introduction, former Democratic Congressman David K. Cartter of Ohio said he was confident that all approved of the platform resolutions, then moved the previous question.

Cartter's fellow Ohio delegate Joshua Reed Giddings had served in Congress as Whig, Free-Soiler, and Republican. He had been censured by the U. S. House for offering a motion in support of slave mutineers aboard the Creole, an incident somewhat similar to the famous Amistad case. Giddings had resigned from Congress and was vindicated by his Ohio constituents who re-elected him to fill his own vacancy.

Giddings asked Cartter to withdraw the motion for previous question so that Giddings might offer an amendment. The proposal would add language from the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence to the first Platform resolution.

When Cartter refused, this exchange occurred:

Giddings: "Does my colleague desire to cut me off?"

After some skirmishing, the previous question was rejected. Giddings' amendment was defeated, but was later accepted as an amendment to the second resolution.

After more debate, the adoption of the Platform set off a deafening clamor of wild excitement and cheers. It was not only applause for the Platform, but because the time had arrived to nominate a President.

Maryland delegate Montgomery Blair had come to prominence as the Missouri attorney who argued Dred Scott's case before the Supreme Court. Later serving as Lincoln's Postmaster General, Blair joined his brother, Missouri delegate and Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., in opposing Seward. Following the War, the Blairs returned to the Democratic Party, and Francis would become their 1868 vice-presidential nominee and later a Senator. Today the White House hosts visiting foreign dignitaries at the nearby Blair House.

Immediately before the nomination balloting, Montgomery Blair notified the Chair that Maryland had filled five vacancies in its delegation. The action was protested by other delegates, including Mr. Armour of Maryland who had not been notified of the Maryland caucus. Armour claimed that a Maryland resident was passed over while the vacancies were filled with "men who live God only knows where." The motion to admit the delegates was lost with applause.

At this point came an action of the Chair that may well have cost Seward the Presidency. Amid the excitement and confusion, a motion to adjourn until the next day was voted down. Mr. Goodrich of Minnesota moved to ballot for the nomination. Convention Chairman George Ashmun was actually an undeclared Seward supporter, but ten thousand roaring voices made it hopelessly vain to try to restore order. The Secretary said that tally sheets were not ready. Amid much confusion and cries of "Ballot! Ballot!" the Chair declared the Convention adjourned until the next morning. Many Seward backers were left believing if balloting had begun that night, their man would have been the next President.

Many conventions have rules eliminating candidates after the first ballot. Some eliminate all but the top two, others narrow the field to those above a certain threshold percentage. This can prevent endless balloting such as at the ill-fated Democratic Convention. But it can also preclude agreement on an eventual compromise candidate or "dark horse." Such a rule would likely have given Seward the nomination.

There were reports that Lincoln forces had used counterfeit tickets to pack the galleries in the Chicago Wigwam with clamorous supporters. It brings to mind this writer's first experience at a national political convention, entering on a pass that had already been rotated in and out of the hall at least twice. At later conventions, the writer also had some success circumventing credentials check-points. Modern convention security includes metal detectors and credentials worn on necklace-chains, color-coded by date and section, with Secret Service agents protecting candidates and securing the podium.

As we parliamentarians strive to be peacemakers, what can we learn from that restless era leading to the Lincoln Presidency?

Feuding convention delegates included many Members of Congress and other public officials. Using parliamentary procedure, citizens struggled by voice and vote to decide the course of governmental authority. Even at Charleston, free people assembled to determine that which throughout human history had been resolved in bloodshed.

Their verbal hostilities were the headwaters of the tragic War between the States. Parliamentary procedure may be the best method yet devised to facilitate negotiation and compromise. But if rules and procedures were the universal remedy, that War would never have been fought.

The tragic conflict between the States came - the one greatest failure in our nation's endeavor to govern by ballots instead of bullets. Even so, for better or worse, compromises reached using parliamentary rules had postponed that War for generations.

The history of that era points directly to the issue suggested by Lincoln at Gettysburg: Can a government long endure, if it is of, by, and for the people, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to equality for all? Must a system where "We the People" rule... in time turn against itself and perish?

Can a free people exercise their liberty of peaceful assembly to govern themselves? Parliamentarians answer with some hopeful insight: Given principles of parliamentary rules and practice: Yes, they can... but often with great difficulty. Apart from such principles, not at all.

============

Bill Stemmons has been registered with NAP since 1981 and is past President of the Oklahoma State Association of Parliamentarians. He has worked closely with numerous public officials including several members of Congress, and has attended three national political conventions. Stemmons can be contacted through his website at: www.secondthemotion.com

CPP Michael Malamut contributed to this article.

__________________

1. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 1990 Edition [RONR], Scott-Foresman, Glenview, IL, p. xxxv

2. National Party Conventions - 1831 -1992, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1995, p. 34

3. RONR, §32, pp. 289-290

4. ibid., §58, p. 609

5. New York Times, April 26, 1860, p. 4

6. RONR, §49, p. 491; §57, pp. 599-600

7. New York Times, May 4, 1860, p. 4

8. Staunton [Virginia] Spectator, May 15, 1860, p. 2

9.Chambersburg [Virginia] Valley Spirit, May 16, 1860, p. 4

10. New York Times, May 17, 1860, p. 1

11. ibid., May 18, 1860, p. 1

12. RONR, §44, p. 414

13. ibid., §40, p. 357

14. Abraham Lincoln - The Prairie Years, Carl Sandburg, Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York,

p. 154

15. New York Times, May 16, 1860, p. 1

16. Daniel 2:21; Psalms 113:7-8

Additional references:

Official Proceedings of 1860 Democratic National Convention, Nevin's Print, 1860, University of

Michigan Library, Ann Arbor, courtesy Lawrence Kestenbaum, www.politicalgraveyard.com

New York Times, April 24-May 5; May 15-19, 1860

The Coming Fury, Bruce Catton, Doubleday, Garden City, 1961

Political Parties and Civil Action Groups, Schapsmeier and Schapsmeier, Greenwood Press,

Westport, CT, 1981

Encyclopedia of the Republican Party, G. T. Kurian, M.E. Sharp, Inc., Armonk, NY, 1997

National Party Platforms, D. B. Johnson, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1978

Cushing Family Genealogy, Lemuel Cushing, Lovell, Montreal, 1877, Boston Public Library

American National Biography, American Counsel of Learned Societies, Garraty & Carnes,

Oxford Press, New York, 1999

Who Was Who in America, A. N. Marquis Co., Chicago, 1963

Biographical Directory of the American Congress, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Alexandria, VA,

1997

"Lincoln Nominated," M. Halstead, Scholastic, Vol. II, No. 21, Feb 9, 1948. p. 21

==============