Time to recycle another of my old soc.history.what-if posts:
***
Some Republicans blamed him [Levi Morton] for the failure to break the filibuster of the
Elections Bill (the so-called "Force Bill") in the Senate in 1891. (Morton
had spoken out in favor of free and fair elections in the South years
earlier, but now stated that as presiding officer of the Senate he had to be
neutral and respect the rights of senators on both sides of the question.)
This may be one reason he was not re-nominated in 1892.
However, I have glanced at the portion of Gregory J. Wawro and Eric
Schickler, *Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate*
(Princeton UP 2006) available online (all quotes in this post are from that
book) and have concluded that the real reason the Elections Bill (which was
the last serious attempt until the 1960's to safeguard the right of African
Americans to vote in the South) did not pass was that by the time the Senate
considered it in its 1891 lame duck session, there was already a narrow
majority against it, consisting of all the Democrats and a number of
Republicans, especially from the silver states. If the Senate had voted on
it in the summer of 1890, it probably would have passed. But the McKinley
Tariff was considered a higher priority, so the Elections Bill was put off
until the lame-duck session which would follow the 1890 fall elections. This
was a fatal mistake: "One reason that the Republicans might have had better
success in holding onto the silver Republicans had they pushed for cloture in
summer 1890, instead of waiting for the lame duck session, is that the fall
elections likely changed the silverites' calcuations. The Republicans'
devastating losses suggested that the long-term success of the free silver
movement would require working with the newly ascendant Democrats, rather
than making deals with the Republicans."
http://books.google.com/books?id=iCrtXipvJigC&pg=PA77
(Another thing that bothered some of the silver Republicans, who had racial
prejudices shared by Democrats and Republicans alike in the West: if the
rights of black people to vote were to be enforced, would the Chinese be
voting next? But in spite of this concern it seems that in 1890 Republicans
were still heavily in favor of the bill.)
Senator Aldrich's almost-successful attempt to change the rules could have
had important consequences, and not only for African American voting rights:
"On January 26, a coalition of Democrats and dissident Republicans shocked
the Republican leadership by voting 35-34 to displace the cloture resolution
in favor of an apportionment bill...In interpreting the January 26 events,
the crucial point is that the source of the GOP defections was oppositon to
the Elections Bill rather than fear of the consequences of voting for the
cloture rule or the belief that it was futile to fight the Democratic
filibuster..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=iCrtXipvJigC&pg=PA82
"This narrative indicates that Aldrich's bid to change the rules to pave the
way for the passage of the Elections Bill was, in the end, not doomed by the
ability of the minority to obstruct the change. Instead, it failed because
Aldrich and Hoar lacked the support of a Senate majority to pass the bill
itself. The Democratic filibuster no doubt allowed the southerners time to
build coalitions with the silver Republicans and to rally much of the press--
including several Republican papers--against the bill. But the filibuster
was not sufficient to kill the Elections Bill. Aldrich came tantalizingly
close to succeeding in passing his rule, but ultimately failed because he
lacked majority support. Writing in 1909, Frederic Haskin noted that had
Aldrich succeeded, 'the Senate would now proceed under rules practically the
same as those obtaining in the House.' ('The Force Bill and Cloture,'
Washington Post, December 1, 1909, p. 4) Though this may exaggerate the
long-term impact of Aldrich's reform, it would have at the least set an
important precedent for de jure majority rule in the Senate. Indeed, in his
authoritative study of congressional procedure, Tiefer (1989, 702) notes that
the notorious filibuster of the Federal Elections Bill in 1890-91 'revealed
quite clearly what it would take to curb the filibuster: a Senate majority
determined to change the rules, aided by a vice president in the chair
willing to bring the Senate to an immediate vote on the path to a rules
change, overcoming all resistance in the process.
"Beyond its impact on the Senate, the Elections Bill was arguably the last
gasp of Reconstruction. The death of the Elections Bill meant that 'the last
window for voting rights jurisprudence had closed for decades to come.'...
The nominal Republican majority in the chamber had lacked the commitment and
unity necessary to reform the rules and pass the Elections Bill, thus
abandoning the party's historic commitment to the civil rights of African
Americans."
http://books.google.com/books?id=iCrtXipvJigC&pg=PA86
Given that the vote to put aside the cloture resolution was only 35-34, even
in 1891, it is certainly conceivable that even in that year (and certainly in
1890) the Aldrich rule and the Elections Bill could pass. I am inclined to
think that the effect on Senate rules might be more important than the effect
on voting rights. After all, the Elections Bill could be repealed as soon as
the Democrats elected a President and got a majority in both houses of
Congress. (This would happen in OTL as early as 1892, and I am inclined to
believe that Cleveland would still have won that year even if the Elections
Bill had been passed and enforced: as
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1892.txt shows, he carried
such critical northern states as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Indiana, as well as eight of the nine electoral votes of California.
Moreover, it is doubtful that the law could have ended all intimidation of
black voters in the South, and even if it did, there were more than enough
white voters to give much of the South to the Democrats.)
But the precedent of majority rule in the Senate would still be there.
Thoughts?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/jcKOEbATYpQ/tueA-edEKAAJ