DOCSLIB.ORG

Popular Impressions of Antebellum Filibusters: Support and Opposition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Popular Impressions of Antebellum Filibusters: Support and Opposition POPULAR IMPRESSIONS OF ANTEBELLUM FILIBUSTERS: SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION IN THE MEDIA _____________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University Dominguez Hills ______________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in The Humanities _______________________ by Robert H. Zorn Summer 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TITLE PAGE ……………………………………………………………………………...i TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………...ii LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………...iii ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………..iv CHAPTER 1. THE FILIBUSTER IDEOLOGY …………………………….......................................1 2. WILLIAM WALKER AND HENRY CRABB, EXCEPTIONAL AMERICANS …...12 3. THE IMPACT OF THE PRESS ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION ………………………26 4. NON-FICTION’S ROLE IN SUPPORTING THE FILIBUSTER IDENTITY ……...39 5. DEPICTIONS OF FILIBUSTERS IN FICTION AND ART ………...….………….. 47 6. AN AMBIGUOUS LEGACY ……………………………………….……...……….. 56 WORKS CITED ………………………………………………………………………... 64 ii LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1. National Monument in San Jose Costa Rica Depicting the Defeat of William Walker................................................................53 2. Playbill of 1857 Featuring an Original Musical Theatre Production Based on William Walker .......................................................55 iii ABSTRACT The term “filibuster” in the 1800s was nearly synonymous with, and a variation of, the word “freebooter;” pirate to some, liberator to others. Prompted by the belief in Manifest Destiny, increased tensions regarding slavery, the fear of a disappearing Southern identity, and a growing population of young, disaffected men in an increasingly industrialized society, the antebellum filibustering phenomenon left significant impressions on the perception of the American public, fueling the debate between southern and northern ideologies. An examination of antebellum news, literature, art, public opinion, and politics brings into focus the personalities of high-profile filibusters. This contemporaneous media coverage of antebellum filibustery also left an ideological imprint on Americans. While some Americans were sympathetic to filibustering, others were opposed to the practice and its themes of imperialism, racism, and sexism. The ideology was closely tied to the idea of American Exceptionalism, a mindset still seen in American thinking today. 1 CHAPTER 1 THE FILIBUSTER IDEOLOGY The American antebellum filibuster, largely forgotten in American history, seemed destined for historical greatness during the 1850s. The phenomenon acted as a flash point for the debate around American expansionism and slavery, and a building block in an evolving American identity. Foes of expansion used filibustery as an example of expansion’s evils, and filibuster supporters used it as an example of the American spirit. Neither was interested in compromise, but both recognized qualities of distinctly American thought in the filibusters’ antics. That they were celebrated in public, in song, literature and performance, is testament to the public’s perception of men like General William Walker, “The Gray-Eyed Man of Destiny, “ “Renaissance Man,” and self- appointed “President of Lower California, Sonora, and Nicaragua,“ whose methods were questionable, but whose character and qualities (both factual and imaginative) were admired and promoted. The filibuster ideology, an extension of Manifest Destiny, spoke to the perceived personal destinies of American individuals who believed they, by virtue of Christianity, American citizenship and ethnicity were superior to others. No wonder Walker and others so brazenly flouted international law and invaded where they pleased. At the time, most white Americans agreed they had a democratic and religious right to occupy more territory and the filibuster translated this idea into actions that captured the American attitude and imagination. 2 History books in the United States give short shrift to the phenomenon and since the disappearance of filibustering at the end of the nineteenth century the term itself has broken out of its etymology to take on an entirely different meaning. In antebellum America, particular in the 1850s, a filibuster was nearly synonymous with “freebooter,” with the additional criteria of being white, American, Christian, and having the ultimate goal of American expansion. The antebellum filibusters were American citizens who illegally invaded neighboring and sovereign countries with the intent of overthrowing the existing government, creating a new republic and/or setting the region up for annexation to the United States, and, in some cases, the expansion of Southern slavery. In January 1853, when the term was regularly in the news, the editorial section of Harper’s Magazine, “Editor’s Table,” offered this definition: Filibustering is a term lately imported from the Spanish, yet destined, it would seem, to occupy an important place in our vocabulary. In its etymological import it is nearly synonymous with piracy. It is commonly employed, however, to denote an idea peculiar to the modern progress, and which may be defined as the right and practice of private war, or the claim of individuals to engage in foreign hostilities aside from, and even in opposition to the government with which they are in political membership. (266) While the writer’s prediction that the word “filibuster” was destined to be an important part of the American vocabulary materialized, it only came true as a word with a wholly different meaning than recognized by an antebellum audience. Today, this 3 popular term is used to indicate a parliamentary procedure in congress that attempts to stall legislation. In nineteenth-century America, the term was championed by Americans bent on expansion, conquest, and the practice of slavery for the purpose of imposing a white American version of civilization. The term “filibuster” can be variously used in referring to the general ideology of white Christian superiority and political forms physically forced on other peoples, the practice of these illegal conquests, a specific campaign, or the men who were involved in efforts to extend white power in the hemisphere. For the purposes of this discussion, references to the acts of the filibuster will be referred to as “filibustery” or “filibustering,” and the term antebellum filibuster refers specifically to filibuster operations occurring between 1850 and 1860. While many filibusters of the time held various governmental positions at different stages of their lives, their actions were independent of any official U.S. policy or official encouragement. The term, then, carried an equal or greater level of negativity, signaling a maverick, if not contrary, disposition on the part of these self-proclaimed autonomous invaders. The ostensible goal of these renegades was to declare independent republics, often with the intent of bringing about eventual U.S. annexation of the claimed territory, and at times with the intent of establishing themselves as heads of a new and independent country and enabling the men who followed them a place of power in the new regime. These acts were direct violations of U.S. neutrality laws and were often prosecuted by the U.S. Government, though with little consequence, as quick and easy acquittal for the offenders generally resulted as sympathetic jurists, judges, former U.S. officials, and military 4 officers presided over these trials. Manifest Destiny was the overriding ideology behind nineteenth-century filibustery that justified the adventurers’ actions, both in their own eyes and those Americans who supported it. From an American perspective, the antebellum filibuster is obscure, but certain Central American countries have kept the memory alive by including stories of William Walker (the “King” of the filibusters and arguably the last antebellum filibuster) in their official histories. In mid-late eighteenth-century America, Walker’s exploits were material for romanticists, apologists, supporters and opponents alike, but with the coming of the Civil War and Walker’s humiliating defeat in 1860, it was relegated to a small footnote in the history of the United States. In Nicaragua and Costa Rica, however, Walker’s exploits were of grave national concern and his defeat, now celebrated as a national holiday, was a significant chapter in the formation of those countries, their governments, and their Central American geographical alliances. In Costa Rica, the annual holiday known as Juan Santamaria Day celebrates Walker’s defeat and the common soldier, Juan Santamaria, who died bravely by exposing himself to enemy fire in a successful bid to set fire to crucial Walker resources. Santamaria is Costa Rica’s most celebrated combatant. In 1948 Costa Rica abolished the military and has no standing army, and Santamaria has become a symbol of that policy of non-aggression, who gave his life so that future Costa Ricans would not have to fight for theirs. This is the main, and unintended, legacy of those who are known in Central America as Filibusteros. At first glance, when written histories are available, antebellum filibustering does seem a fairly insignificant phenomenon in history. Its insignificance, though, is cosmetic, 5 as the exploits of these adventurers helped to fuel Manifest Destiny, spark American imaginations, provide material for a growing American press moving towards a closer-to- real-time model of reporting, and shape personal attitudes and ideologies for many individual Americans. The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Filibusters All Have in Common? Warm Up: November 11, 2017 TX History
    What do Pirates, Buccaneers, El Chapo, Bank Robbers and Filibusters all have in common? Warm Up: November 11, 2017 TX History FILIBUSTER .A person who wages an unofficial war on a country. They act on their own benefit. They don’t carry out the plan of any government. (FORTUNE SEEKERS-CRIMINALS) OTHER NAMES FOR FILIBUSTERS: •IN OTHER COUNTRIES, FILIBUSTERS ARE KNOWN BY OTHER NAMES: •BUCCANEER-----FRENCH •PIRATES----------SPANISH •FREE-BOOTERS--BRITISH Philip Nolan . Horse trader from the U.S. Claimed he was in Texas to buy and sell horses for Spain . Spain thought he was working for U.S. as a spy . Nolan explored and made maps of Texas . The Spanish ambushed him and killed him near Waco Double-Agent .A person who is hired to spy on one country but is secretly spying on the country that hired him. General James Wilkinson .U.S. General hired by Spain as a double- agent .Hired to take Louisiana and Kentucky from U.S. .Plotted with former U.S. VP Aaron Burr to take those lands for themselves General James Wilkinson . Double crosses Burr and testifies against him . Orders Zebulon Pike to explore Spanish New Mexico . Helped settle a border dispute between Texas and Louisiana . The Neutral Ground Agreement Augustus Magee . U.S. Army Lieutenant sent to Neutral Zone to catch criminals . Angry that he did not get a promised promotion . Joins up with a rebel named Bernardo Gutierrez to free Mexico from Spanish rule . Both men decide to wage war against Spanish rule Gutierrez-Magee Expedition . Gutierrez-Magee attack and capture Nacogdoches in 1812 .
    [Show full text]
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7
    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • What's New in Washington: 10 Things You Need to Know
    Having trouble reading this email? View it in your browser Share This Page March 31, 2017 As the Trump presidency completes its first 10 weeks, the administration is celebrating big wins on the regulatory reform front while nursing some wounds from a major defeat on efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While health care reform is on pause for the moment, Republicans are turning to tax reform as the next major policy priority and continuing to use executive orders (EO) and the Congressional Review Act to roll back Obama­era regulations. Funding for the government expires on April 28, 2017, so Republicans and Democrats will face the first test of bipartisanship in the next few weeks as they seek to fund government agencies, including the Department of Defense, through the end of September. All eyes will be on the Senate next week as the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch takes center stage. Here are 10 things that we believe are worth focusing on from the last two weeks: 1. Gorsuch Nomination 2. Possible Repeal of ISP Security Rules 3. TSA’s New Restrictions on Electronic Devices 4. “Energy Independence” Executive Order 5. Secretary Tillerson in Asia 6. Bilateral Trade and NAFTA Renegotiations 7. FDA User Fees Reauthorization 8. Fiduciary Rule 9. USTR Reports 10. Congressional Appropriations Preview Gorsuch Nomination Amid pressure from his left­leaning base, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D­NY) stepped up his opposition to the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • The Senate in Transition Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nuclear Option1
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYL\19-4\NYL402.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-JAN-17 6:55 THE SENATE IN TRANSITION OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE NUCLEAR OPTION1 William G. Dauster* The right of United States Senators to debate without limit—and thus to filibuster—has characterized much of the Senate’s history. The Reid Pre- cedent, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s November 21, 2013, change to a sim- ple majority to confirm nominations—sometimes called the “nuclear option”—dramatically altered that right. This article considers the Senate’s right to debate, Senators’ increasing abuse of the filibuster, how Senator Reid executed his change, and possible expansions of the Reid Precedent. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 632 R I. THE NATURE OF THE SENATE ........................ 633 R II. THE FOUNDERS’ SENATE ............................. 637 R III. THE CLOTURE RULE ................................. 639 R IV. FILIBUSTER ABUSE .................................. 641 R V. THE REID PRECEDENT ............................... 645 R VI. CHANGING PROCEDURE THROUGH PRECEDENT ......... 649 R VII. THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION ........................ 656 R VIII. POSSIBLE REACTIONS TO THE REID PRECEDENT ........ 658 R A. Republican Reaction ............................ 659 R B. Legislation ...................................... 661 R C. Supreme Court Nominations ..................... 670 R D. Discharging Committees of Nominations ......... 672 R E. Overruling Home-State Senators ................. 674 R F. Overruling the Minority Leader .................. 677 R G. Time To Debate ................................ 680 R CONCLUSION................................................ 680 R * Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy for U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. The author has worked on U.S. Senate and White House staffs since 1986, including as Staff Director or Deputy Staff Director for the Committees on the Budget, Labor and Human Resources, and Finance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Filibuster and Reconciliation: the Future of Majoritarian Lawmaking in the U.S
    The Filibuster and Reconciliation: The Future of Majoritarian Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate Tonja Jacobi†* & Jeff VanDam** “If this precedent is pushed to its logical conclusion, I suspect there will come a day when all legislation will be done through reconciliation.” — Senator Tom Daschle, on the prospect of using budget reconciliation procedures to pass tax cuts in 19961 Passing legislation in the United States Senate has become a de facto super-majoritarian undertaking, due to the gradual institutionalization of the filibuster — the practice of unending debate in the Senate. The filibuster is responsible for stymieing many legislative policies, and was the cause of decades of delay in the development of civil rights protection. Attempts at reforming the filibuster have only exacerbated the problem. However, reconciliation, a once obscure budgetary procedure, has created a mechanism of avoiding filibusters. Consequently, reconciliation is one of the primary means by which significant controversial legislation has been passed in recent years — including the Bush tax cuts and much of Obamacare. This has led to minoritarian attempts to reform reconciliation, particularly through the Byrd Rule, as well as constitutional challenges to proposed filibuster reforms. We argue that the success of the various mechanisms of constraining either the filibuster or reconciliation will rest not with interpretation by † Copyright © 2013 Tonja Jacobi and Jeff VanDam. * Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law, t-jacobi@ law.northwestern.edu. Our thanks to John McGinnis, Nancy Harper, Adrienne Stone, and participants of the University of Melbourne School of Law’s Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies speaker series. ** J.D., Northwestern University School of Law (2013), [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • 1925 February
    Y. 3 .;. J. cr v 'H a r , o I 1 ~ r n ~: :· 1. t: .r. :· :: B H - 0 v Z ~· 2 X .L C 2 ·~ 0 STATE Volume 26, No. 2 WESTERVILLE, OHIO, FEBRUARY, 1925 $1.00 Per Year A BILL TO PROHIBIT" JAKE" AND OTHER LIQUOR SUBSTITUTES 'THE Senate Bill No. 235 by Stuart of Fort Worth proposes to cut out the TEXAS RANGERS sale of "jake," Lyko, Force, Monticello Tonic and other so-called medi­ FROM THE ROGERS NEWS -1· cines that are really substitutes for liquor. Really the bill puts these all The Ranger force should be built up to the highest possihl~oint o,f Cfficiency. under the same catalogue as straight liquor. It should be sent by the governor into every county in the state where the lo~l officers The language of the bill proposes to cut out those alcoholic prepara­ fail or refuse to discharge their duties tovvard the faithful enforcemet1l: of the laws that come under their jurisdiction. To condone or coddle crime of anyJ: c}la,racter is tions that are capable of use as beverages. those sections of state In itself a crime, and our state should clean up every stronghold of lawlessnes§ and where smuggled liquor or moonshine is plentiful, these substitutes are not crime within its confines. A strong Ranger force-a powerful state police agency­ so popular. In those sections where these are scarce and among those 1vl~o is the only available instrumentality by which crime may be suppressed and law and cannot afford the price for "bonded" or moonshine, these substitutes be-, order made supreme in all sections of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Failed Filibusters: the Kemper Rebellion, the Burr Conspiracy And
    Failed Filibusters: The Kemper Rebellion, the Burr Conspiracy and Early American Expansion Francis D. Cogliano In January 1803 the Congressional committee which considered the appropriation for the Louisiana Purchase observed baldly, “it must be seen that the possession of New Orleans and the Floridas will not only be required for the convenience of the United States, but will be demanded by their most imperious necessities.”1 The United States claimed that West Florida, which stretched south of the 31st parallel from the Mississippi River in the west to the Apalachicola River in the east (roughly the modern state of Louisiana east of the Mississippi, and the Gulf coasts of Mississippi and Alabama, and the western portion of the Florida panhandle) was included in the Louisiana Purchase, a claim denied by the Spanish. The American claim was spurious but the intent behind it was clear. The United States desired control of West Florida so that the residents of the Mississippi Territory could have access to the Gulf of Mexico. Since the American Revolution the region had been settled by Spaniards, French creoles and Anglo-American loyalists. Beginning in the 1790s thousands of emigrants from the United States migrated to the territory, attracted by a generous system of Spanish land grants. An 1803 American government report described the population around Baton Rouge as “composed partly of Acadians, a very few French, and great majority of Americans.” During the first decade of the nineteenth century West Florida became increasingly unstable. In addition to lawful migrants, the region attracted lawless adventurers, including deserters from the United States army and navy, many of whom fled from the nearby territories of Louisiana and Mississippi.2 1 Annals of Congress, 7th Cong.
    [Show full text]
  • Filibusters, Cloture, and the “Nuclear Option”: the Current Debate Over Changing Senate Rules for Approving Judicial Nominations
    Filibusters, Cloture, and the “Nuclear Option”: The Current Debate Over Changing Senate Rules for Approving Judicial Nominations March, 2005 Paul E. Stinson Janelle M. Smith Nixon Peabody, LLP © 2005. All Rights Reserved. Filibusters, Cloture, and the “Nuclear Option”: The Current Debate Over Changing Senate Rules for Approving Judicial Nominations March, 2005 © 2005, Nixon Peabody, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Abstract This background research paper examines the possible use of a simple majority vote rule to end filibusters of federal judicial nominees in the United States Senate. Recently, political controversy surrounding filibusters of presidential judicial nominations has prompted some Senators to suggest the use of a Senate procedure for ending filibusters by simple majority vote. Currently, Senate Standing Rule XXII requires a 60-Senator majority for ending debate upon a nomination, and a 67-Senator vote for ending debate on a motion to alter the Senate Rules themselves. This procedure, deemed the “constitutional” option by its supporters and the “nuclear” option by its detractors, is essentially a means for bypassing the Standing Rules through alternate Senate procedures such as rulings from the Chair, motions to table, modifications of Senate precedents, and Standing Orders. The debates over both the use of the filibuster and the use of the nuclear option raise significant questions of constitutional interpretation, the historical record, and the nature of the Senate itself. This paper presents an outline of the major issues surrounding both debates, as well as a description of the option and how it might be implemented. Part I presents a brief introduction. Part II explores the history of the filibuster.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 105 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 144 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, MAY 18, 1998 No. 63 House of Representatives The House met at 12 noon and was NER) come forward and lead the House Chair, on behalf of the Majority Lead- called to order by the Speaker pro tem- in the Pledge of Allegiance. er, in consultation with the Demo- pore (Mr. MILLER of Florida). Mr. FILNER led the Pledge of Alle- cratic Leader, appoints Bernard f giance as follows: Rapoport of Texas to the Library of I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the Congress Trust Fund Board for a term DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER United States of America, and to the Repub- of 5 years. PRO TEMPORE lic for which it stands, one nation under God, The message also announced that in The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. accordance with sections 1928a–1928d of fore the House the following commu- f title 22, United States Code, as amend- nication from the Speaker: MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE ed, the Chair, on behalf of the Vice President, appoints the Senator from WASHINGTON, DC, A message from the Senate by Mr. Arkansas (Mr. HUTCHINSON May 18, 1998. Lundregan, one of its clerks, an- ) as a mem- I hereby designate the Honorable DAN MIL- nounced that the Senate had passed ber of the Senate Delegation to the LER to act as Speaker pro tempore on this North Atlantic Assembly during the day.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Balance of Powers
    “The Founders intentionally placed the power of the government in the hands of the people via their representation in Congress. Yet for many years, Congress has slowly ceded its authority to the executive branch. Rather than taking the time to properly legislate, Congress has passed bills that lack detail and provide gross regulatory authority to unelected federal bureaucrats. Congress seems keen to participate in opaque rulemaking processes, begging bureaucrats to implement policies that align with congressional intent. We’ve seen the effects of this trend in every policy area, from immigration to environmental policies, and health care to foreign aid. It’s time for change. “One of the core tenants of my office mission is to restore the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches to more closely resemble what the Founders intended. I am grateful to FreedomWorks for raising awareness of this need and for the work they do reduce the size of government and promote individual liberty.” Congressman Andy Biggs (AZ-05) “The idea that the federal government is composed of three coequal branches is false. While it is essential that the three branches hold each other accountable, Congress was always intended to be the most powerful for a simple reason: it is the branch that is closest to the people, and is the only branch organized to encourage debate and compromise on the most pressing issues facing America. The founders of this great nation never imagined that Members of Congress would so willingly give away their power and responsibility, but that is exactly what we have done for a century.
    [Show full text]
  • The Solution to the Filibuster Problem: Putting the Advice Back in Advice and Consent
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 54 Issue 4 Article 17 2004 The Solution to the Filibuster Problem: Putting the Advice Back in Advice and Consent Laura T. Gorjanc Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Laura T. Gorjanc, The Solution to the Filibuster Problem: Putting the Advice Back in Advice and Consent, 54 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 1435 (2004) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol54/iss4/17 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE SOLUTION TO THE FILIBUSTER PROBLEM: PUTTING THE ADVICE BACK IN ADVICE AND CONSENT INTRODUCTION Today, hostility reigns in Washington. This is so, less than three years after a period of virtually unparalleled national unity following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Now, with Congress and the nation almost evenly divided politically, rela- tions between the Republicans and Democrats in Washington are as discordant as ever. As one pundit put it, "[c]ynicism is back in full force. Extraordinary political partisanship and acrimony are back."' This "extraordinary political partisanship and acrimony" is best evidenced by the recent wranglings over several nominees for prestigious and powerful federal courts of appeals appoint- ments. In the past year, Democrats successfully filibustered six of President Bush's nominees 2 and the Republicans responded with an all-night "talkathon" meant to publicly condemn the Democ- rats' filibusters.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions
    Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions Updated June 21, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43491 SUMMARY R43491 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): June 21, 2019 Frequently Asked Questions Ian F. Fergusson Legislation to reauthorize Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)—sometimes called “fast track”— Specialist in International the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA-2015), was Trade and Finance signed into law by former President Obama on June 29, 2015 (P.L. 114-26). If the President negotiates an international trade agreement that would reduce tariff or nontariff barriers to trade Christopher M. Davis in ways that require changes in U.S. law, the United States can implement the agreement only Analyst on Congress and through the enactment of legislation. If the trade agreement and the process of negotiating it meet the Legislative Process certain requirements, TPA allows Congress to consider the required implementing bill under expedited procedures, pursuant to which the bill may come to the floor without action by the leadership, and can receive a guaranteed up-or-down vote with no amendments. Under TPA, an implementing bill may be eligible for expedited consideration if (1) the trade agreement was negotiated during the limited time period for which TPA is in effect; (2) the agreement advances a series of U.S. trade negotiating objectives specified in the TPA statute; (3) the negotiations were conducted in compliance with an extensive array of notification and consultation with Congress and other stakeholders; and (4) the President submits to Congress a draft implementing bill, which must meet specific content requirements, and a range of required supporting information.
    [Show full text]