How Thomas B Reed Once Killed The House Filibuster And Why Senate Democrats Must Do The Same
"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." -Thomas Brackett Reed
Like a bulwark against the tides of progress, or like, as the apocryphal story concerning George Washington and Thomas Jefferson recalls, “the saucer that cools the hot tea,” the United States Senate sits able to make a significant change to American life, and yet remains unwilling to do so. With the current and continued application of the infamous concept of unlimited debate, alongside the previously discussed “compromise” of that principal, Senate Rule 22, continuing to exist within that institution, Senatorial prevarication will, indeed, continue to be the norm as it has been for the greater part of so many previous decades. The current Democratic majority in the Senate, led by New York Senator Chuck Schumer, still has the chance to help people and to smash this tool of minority rule once and for all, if only he and his party might find the courage to do so–even with a slight Republican majority in the House of Representatives
Killing the filibuster is not as difficult as some consider it to be. It can be done, because it literally has already been done across American history. For while the Senate filibuster is most famous and frequently spoken about in schools, the media, and across society, it– historically–was not always the only filibuster that plagued the workings of the federal government of this nation. The House of Representatives had its own too. What then, are the differences between the Senate and House filibusters? In that they both existed as tools of minority tyranny, bent on subverting the will of the Democratic process, very little; and yet, one was bravely abolished over 130 years ago while the other suffers the nation still in 2023.
The silent or disappearing quorum or filibuster utilized the roll call aspect of quorum calling–or ensuring that the minimum number of required members of a deliberative body, in this case the House of Representatives, necessary for that body to do business are present - in order to essentially halt proceedings of that body. It did not even require any representative to actually be absent either–although many would later come to try that, amongst other innovations; instead, all that was required was that the individual not acknowledge that they were, in fact, present when their name was called upon the roll. The fact that they sat there did not matter, so long as they did not acknowledge being there for any of the particular roll calls that might be called regarding a topic during the course of proceedings.
With this understood, as was previously alluded to, it must also be noted that Senate Rule 22 was, itself, an innovation upon the earlier premise that the US Senate could debate topics indefinitely–”unlimited debate”–which was not actually a Senate rule until 1917. Furthermore, for roughly 80 years of this country’s early history - from 1806 to 1890–both of its legislative bodies had mechanisms which actively worked to undermine the voted will of the majority of its citizens.
Now, returning to the Silent Filibuster of the US House of Representatives, there was literally just one, single man–Thomas Brackett Reed of Maine–a Republican who had entered the House first after the Presidential Election of 1876, just in time to play a large role in the Compromise of 1877, who plotted and planned secretly for years to free the US House of Representatives and the people of the United States from what he considered the “tyranny” of the minority as exercised using the silent filibuster. His allies and fellow Republicans were not in favor initially and, but for his sheer force and will, would likely not ever have been at all.
Yet when the time finally came in the Speaker’s eyes, at the height of “Czar” Reed’s power–one of the most powerful Speakers of the House in this nation’s history–during the 51st Congress of 1889 to 1891, he famously and hysterically put his plans into motion and ended this counterproductive and idiotic House filibustering technique—as well as any associated procedures—forever more.
He did all of this, not because he imagined that the House of Representatives would never again fall into the hands of some opposition party–be it Democrats or someone else. No, he changed the course of American history to come, simply because it was indeed the correct and right thing to do in and for a representative Democracy; the voted will of the people matters, and Speaker Reed understood this better than his contemporaries–as well as, clearly, many of his successors.
While the Republicans had the majority in the House during the 51st Congress, the pendulum swung by the 52nd, and Representative Reed, now the Minority Leader, watched the Democrats amass a majority that allowed for them to call a quorum by themselves; during that congressional session, “Reed’s Rules” were cast aside by the Democratic Majority and their Speaker Charles Crisp of Georgia, to which Reed amusingly stated that “the House has more sense than anyone in it.”
And, by the 53rd Congress, with the Democratic majority lessened and split by issues like silver, bimetallism, and foreign policy, he was proven correct once again; the Democratic Speaker had to, with some humiliation, call for the readoption of Reed’s Rules, to which, after they were officially reinstated, Reed himself stated that, “This scene here today is a more effective address than any I could make; I congratulate the 53rd Congress.”
The Senate Democrats of today would be wise to heed the ambition and vision of former-Speaker Reed at a time when the United States is being dragged backward into history itself by the flagrant ambitions of the reactionary, conservative minority, who more ruthlessly utilize the rules of the establishment than do their Democratic colleagues. For while some Democrats understand that the time is long past for the Senate filibuster to be buried in the history from whence it came from, others actually try to utilize the argument that, without it, things could be made far worse in the Senate.
They fail to understand, however. Things happening based upon the voting will of the people is the entire and whole point of representative government; Democracy is not preserved better by making any innovation harder to come by. The people of this nation who, during Speaker Reed’s own lifetime, were not responsible for directly electing their own United States Senators have, since 1917, very much had this power, same as they have regarding their House representatives.
There will in this circumstance and with this innovation, of course, be ups and downs, and there can be little doubt that, were the Congress left for Republicans for years on end, the consequences could be dangerous and upsetting for the nation. On the other hand, however, it is possible–and likely in my view–that a more decisive, responsive, and directly accountable Senate would quite invigorate the people themselves; with innovations actually able to occur, and occurring regularly therefore as a result, voting would hopefully–but also logically–take on a more important and urgent meaning each cycle than ever before.
Who knows, perhaps with a working brace of federal legislative bodies finally functioning properly for the first time in nearly two-and-a-half centuries, maybe Democrats–or whoever could positively improve the lives and futures of so many millions of Americans and billions of humans the world over–might begin to be given even larger mandates by the people to those legislative bodies too.
With the House held by Republicans currently, a Democratic push to kill the Senate filibuster and Rule 22 might invigorate voters who are sincerely wishing for change. Might this energize liberal opposition too? Yes. But such is the price one pays for creating a process by which results can create actual social impact. In any event, political parties cannot cling to some false semblance of power by fundamentally limiting the functionality of their positions and institutions, which Speaker Reed knew all too well during his own lifetime.
If the Democratically controlled US Senate does not abolish the filibuster in order to fundamentally preserve Democracy for the people of this nation at a federal level–while also making the offensively undemocratic Senate just a bit more democratic and functional–they are doing themselves, this nation, it’s present, and it’s future, a grave disservice.
The purpose of serving in such institutions as the House or Senate is, of course, to make a profound difference upon the lives of people–not to simply sit there and collect a paycheck. As the former Speaker of the House himself noted once he had resigned as Speaker, as well as from his congressional seat, in 1899, just after the 55th Congress, “Office, as a ribbon to stick in your coat, is worth no one’s consideration.”