If the South held Congress, the Supreme Court and ...

[5fish]

Originally Posted by trice

This is completely misleading.

The only reason the numbers show the Republicans in control of the 37th Congress is that 11 Southern states -- not one Republican Senator or Representative from them -- have decided to try secession and Civil War. Had they simply remained in Congress, the Republicans would have been a minority.

Tim

I noted that the Southern state had seceded in my post. It not misleading because the Southern states chose to secede giving the reigns of power to the Republicans...

A side note up until 1913 Senators were selected by state legislatures so if the Senators from one state were usually from the same party. The party that controlled the State legislature sent Senators from their party.

[trice]

Originally Posted by 5fish

I think if the south would not have seceded the Republicans I guess would have had only working majorities in both chambers...not total dominance..

Originally Posted by 5fish

I noted that the Southern state had seceded in my post. It not misleading because the Southern states chose to secede giving the reigns of power to the Republicans...

Note the above.

The Republicans controlled less than half (119 of 241) votes in the 1859-60 House of Representatives. In 1861-62 they lost ground, having only 108 votes.

The Republicans controlled less than half (26 of 66) votes in the 1859-60 Senate. In 1861-62 they gained ground, but were still below half according to your figures with 31 seats.

They would have been in the minority in both houses of Congress in 1861-62 if the South had simply stayed in.

In addition, your figures count the Senators and Representatives for Kansas, which was not a state in 1860. The admiision of Kansas only passed after the South began withdrawing from Congress (in late January of 1861) so you need to subtract 2 Senators and 1 Congressman to see what the true figure would be.

Originally Posted by 5fish

A side note up until 1913 Senators were selected by state legislatures so if the Senators from one state were usually from the same party. The party that controlled the State legislature sent Senators from their party.

True, of course -- but state legislatures also tend to change over time. Senators are elected for six year terms, and the terms are usually not expiring at the same time. As a result, in any given state, 1 out of every 3 Federal elections does not have a Senator being elected and the other 2 each have 1 Senate seat up for election unless something unusual has happened (death, resignation, etc.)

In the South in the 1850s, there were no Republicans in political office and the Democrats were generally in the ascendant. But legislatures have elections in between federal elections, and it was always possible for the party in charge of the state legislature to change -- which would lead to a change in the party of the Senator in most cases.

Nor does the state always act as we would expect: in 1861 Senator Edward D. Baker of Oregon, a Republican, resigned. He was replaced by Benjamin Stark, a Democrat. Meanwhile, Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois died, and was replaced by Orvill H. Browning, a Republican.

Tim

[whitworth]

the free soil Republicans were in the ascendancy; the Southern, slave promoting, Democrats were in the descendancy.
Population growth and free state growth was jeopardizing southern politics and power in the U.S. and the Congress.
Immigrants were mainly moving to the northern and midwestern states, giving growth in the House of Representatives to northern politics.

Unfortunately secession meant war, and probable defeat for Confederate aims, if not outright defeat.

The Slave Oligarchy said they need expansion in the territories. Unfortunately they never concluded that they lacked the population and logistics/industry to hold these territories by war. That meant the aim of secession, to spread slavery to the territories was impossible, after secession. By 1862, it was fairly evident that the Confederacy could never control Maryland, Missouri or Kentucky, the slave border states. That capturing and holding the U.S. territory of New Mexico by the Confederate States was impossible, even early in the war.

The Southern states seceded and gave up control over the border states. Without military control over the territories and border states, slavery was doomed in the very places, the Confederacy maintained it needed for the slave trade to be prosperous.