1. For extended discussion of the agenda control advantages of the Reed Rules, see Cox, Gary W. and McCubbins, Mathew D., Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 4.

2. On the emergence of the congressional development subfield, see Katznelson, Ira and Lapinski, John S., “At the Crossroads: Congress and American Political Development,” Perspectives on Politics 4 (June 2006): 243–260Google Scholar. Milestones in the literature on the Reed Rules include, among others: Cox and McCubbins, Setting the Agenda; Binder, Sarah A., Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Schickler, Eric, Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of Congress (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 32–53Google Scholar; Strahan, Randall, Leading Representatives: The Agency of Leaders in the Politics and Development of the U.S. House (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007), ch. 4Google Scholar; Thomas Westerman Wolf, “Congressional Sea Change: Conflict and Organizational Accomodation [sic] in the House of Representatives, 1878–1921,” Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT Department of Political Science, 1981, ch. 5.

3. Binder, Minority Rights, Majority Rule, 15, 30–34; 122–23.

4. Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, 39; Strahan, Leading Representatives, ch. 4; Wolf, “Congressional Sea Change,” ch. 5.

5. On “formative acts,” see Skowronek, Stephen and Glassman, Matthew, eds., Formative Acts: American Politics in the Making (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007)Google Scholar. For a succinct account of the Reed Rules, see Bacon, Donald C., Davidson, Roger H., Keller, Morton, eds., The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress (Simon & Schuster, 1995), Vol. 3, s.v.Google Scholar “Thomas B. Reed,” 1689–90. Also quite useful is Forgette, Richard G., “Reed's Rules and the Partisan Theory of Legislative Organization,” Polity 29 (Spring 1997): 382–84Google Scholar. For a contemporary source that is illuminating because it is hostile to Reed, see Hon. John G. Carlisle, , “The Limitations of the Speakership,” North American Review 150 (March 1890): 390–400Google Scholar.

6. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 1248.

7. Daniel Kerr (R-IA), 1239–1240; John Alexander Anderson (R-KS), 1243; Harrison Kelley (R-KS), 1303–1304.

8. For a succinct short discussion, see Blatter, Joachim and Blume, Till, “Co-Variation and Causal Process Tracing Revisited: Clarifying New Directions for Causal Inference and Generalization in Case Study Methodology,” Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 6:1 (Spring 2008): 29–34Google Scholar.

9. Geddes, Barbara, Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2003), 38–39 and 40Google Scholar. See also King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 19, 28–29, and 111Google Scholar.

10. Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, 46–49.

11. On the “solid South after 1877,” see Woodward, C. Vann, Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1951)Google Scholar; and McConnell, Michael W., “The Forgotten Constitutional Moment,” Constitutional Commentary 11 (1994): 115–144Google Scholar. The “retreat from Reconstruction” view is very well presented in Frymer, Paul, Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), ch. 3Google Scholar. Title to the phrase belongs to Gillette, William, author of Retreat From Reconstruction, 1869–1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1979)Google Scholar.

12. Jenkins, Jeffery A., “The First ‘Southern Strategy’: The Republican Party and Contested-Election Cases in the Late 19^th-Century House,” in Brady, David W. and McCubbins, Mathew D., ed., Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress, Volume 2, Further New Perspective on the History of Congress (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 78–90Google Scholar; and Green, Matthew N., “Race, Party, and Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives,” Polity 39 (April 2007): 155–178Google Scholar. On the legalism of the contest process, see, for instance, Rowell, Chester H., A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives of the United States From the First to Fifty-Sixth Congress, 1789–1901 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), 3Google Scholar; and Thomas v. Loney, 134 U.S. 372 (1890).

13. Valelly, Richard M., The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), ch. 2–4Google Scholar; King, Ronald F., “Counting the Votes: South Carolina's Stolen Election of 1876,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 32 (Autumn 2001): 169–191Google Scholar; Kousser, J. Morgan, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

14. John Sherman to Hon. L.J. Gartrell, 26 July 1890, John Sherman Papers, Library of Congress Manuscripts Division, Container 612, Letterpress volume, 224–225.

15. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 1^st Session 11 February 1890, 1225.

16. Valelly, The Two Reconstructions, ch. 3–5; King, “Counting the Votes;” James, Scott C. and Lawson, Brian L., “The Political Economy of Voting Rights Enforcement in America's Gilded Age: Electoral College Competition, Partisan Commitment, and the Federal Election Law,” American Political Science Review 93 (March 1999): 115–131Google Scholar.

17. For two introductions, see Burke, Albie, “Federal Regulation of Congressional Elections in Northern Cities, 1871–94,” American Journal of Legal History 14 (January 1970): 17–34Google Scholar; and Quigley, David, “Constitutional Revision and the City: The Enforcement Acts and Urban America, 1870–1894,” Journal of Policy History 20 (January 2008): 64–75Google Scholar. Note, too, Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1885; 2nd edition), 27Google Scholar.

18. Brandwein, Pamela, The Supreme Court, State Action, and Civil Rights: Rethinking the Judicial Settlement of Reconstruction (New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming), ch. 5Google Scholar.

19. See Erie, Steven P., Rainbow's End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840–1985 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 35–38Google Scholar; Robert Anderson Horn, “National Control of Congressional Elections,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 1942, 141–147 and 189–199; and Mushkat, Jerome, The Reconstruction of the New York Democracy 1861–1874 (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1981), 145–146Google Scholar, 163–165, 167–168. Percentage estimate based on division of estimated number of fraudulent votes for New York State stated in Horn, “National Control,” 144, into total presidential vote for New York listed in Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1985; 2nd edition), 337.

20. Thanks to Wang's meticulous scholarship, the texts of the statutes are easily accessible; see Wang, Xi, The Trial of Democracy: Black Suffrage and Northern Republicans, 1860–1910 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1997), Appendix 2, 275–277Google Scholar. See also, Horn, “National Control.” An essential contemporary source is Davenport, John I., The Election Frauds of New York City and Their Prevention Vol. 1 (New York: n.p., 1881), 107–344Google Scholar.

21. Wang, Trial of Democracy, Appendix 3, 278–287; and, Underwood, James Lowell, The Constitution of South Carolina Vol. IV: The Struggle for Political Equality (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 138–139Google Scholar.

22. Martis, Kenneth C. and Elmes, Gregory A., The Historical Atlas of State Power in Congress, 1790–1990 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1993), 163Google Scholar, Table 3–11: “High-Density House Districts in Relation to Total House Districts, 1870–1930.” “A high-density district is defined as a small district that encompasses one county or less with a large city within its boundaries, or two counties with the majority of the district population from a large city.”

23. Quigley, “Constitutional Revision and the City.”

24. Wang, Trial of Democracy, Appendix 5, 292–293. This was a precursor of contemporary practice. Federal observers operate today under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

25. Two other equivalents, “nominal GDP per capita” and “relative share of GDP” yield much higher conversions for 1888: $78,408,231 and $387,030,260, respectively. Samuel H. Williamson, “Six Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1790 to Present,” MeasuringWorth, 2008. URL http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/.

26. One reason why they are overlooked today is the Court's eventual repudiation of these cases at the height of the black disenfranchisement process in James v. Bowman 190 U.S. 127 (1903). See, however, Schultz, David, “Regulating the Political Thicket: Congress, the Courts, and State Reapportionment Commissions,” Charleston Law Review 3 (Fall 2008): 107–143Google Scholar.

27. Ex parte Siebold, decision for the Court by Justice Bradley, quotes at 382, 386, 387, 388, 394, 395–396.

28. A precursor to Yarbrough is the circuit case, U.S. v. Butler, 25 Federal Cases 213 (1877). See Williams, Lou Falkner, “Federal Enforcement of Black Rights in the Post-Redemption South: The Ellenton Riot Case,” in Waldrep, Christopher and Nieman, Donald G., ed., Race, Crime, and Justice in the Nineteenth-Century South (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2001), 172–200Google Scholar, esp. 186. For an account of Speer's prosecution, see Aucoin, Brent J., A Rift in the Clouds: Race and the Southern Federal Judiciary, 1900–1910 (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2007), 38–44Google Scholar.

29. The supposedly unconstitutional sections of the Revised Statutes were Sections 5508 (formerly Section 6 of the First Federal Elections Act of 31 May 1870) and Section 5520 (a piece of Section 2 of the Third Federal Elections Act – the Ku-Klux Act – of 20 April 1871). V. Wang, Trial of Democracy, pp. 294–299, Appendix 6, “Sections From the Enforcement Acts in the Revised Statutes, Their Repeals, and Amendments.” These numbers refer both to the first and second editions of the Revised Statutes; the first edition was published in 1875, the second in 1878.

30. Ex parte Yarbrough 110 U.S. 651 (1884)—sometimes referred to as “The Ku Klux Cases.” Quotes from 657–58, 659, 660, 661–662, 664, 665, 667.

31. Recall that today we see the unanimity of the Court in Brown, for instance, as strategic and deliberate. It is hard to believe that unanimity in Yarbrough was an accident of everyone voting from their chambers and then stepping out to tally the result.

32. See United States v. Hiram Reese and Matthew Foushee 92 U.S. 214 (1876); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876); and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883). For discussions of the first two, see Goldman, Robert M., Reconstruction & Suffrage: Losing the Vote in Reese & Cruikshank (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2001)Google Scholar; Magrath, C. Peter, Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963), ch. 7Google Scholar; and Gillette, William, “Anatomy of a Failure: Federal Enforcement of the Right to Vote in the Border States during Reconstruction,” in Curry, Richard O., ed., Radicalism, Racism, and Party Realignment: The Border States During Reconstruction (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1969), 265–304, esp. 286–289Google Scholar. Thorough, path-breaking correction of the conventional wisdom from a neo-Dahlian perspective is in Brandwein, Pamela, “A Judicial Abandonment of Blacks? Rethinking the ‘State Action’ Cases of the Waite Court,” Law & Society Review 41 (2007): 343–386Google Scholar; and more fully in idem, The Supreme Court, State Action, and Civil Rights.

33. Nieman, Donald G., Promises to Keep: African-Americans and the Constitutional Order, 1776 to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 78–81Google Scholar, and idem, “African American Communities, Politics, and Justice: Washington County, Texas, 1865–1890,” in Waldrep, Christopher and Nieman, Donald, ed., Race, Crime, and Justice in the Nineteenth-Century South (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2001), 201–224Google Scholar. On the witness assassination, see “The Senate Outrage Mill. Another Day Wasted in Buncombe Talk. Mr. Spooner Brings in a Bloody-Shirt Resolution – Mr. Coke Defends Texas – A Denial By Mr. Paine.” New York Times, 13 September 1888, 5.

34. On Hoar, see Welch, Richard E. Jr., George Frisbie Hoar and the Half-Breed Republicans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), 62–68Google Scholar; Valelly, Richard M., “Partisan Entrepreneurship and Policy Windows: George Frisbie Hoar and the 1890 Federal Elections Bill,” in Skowronek, Stephen and Glassman, Matthew, ed., Formative Acts: American Politics in the Making (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 126–152Google Scholar; and Saltman, Roy G., The History and Politics of Voting Technology: In Quest of Integrity and Public Confidence (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 108Google Scholar.

35. “Testimony On the Alleged Election Outrages in Texas Reported From the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate of the United States. February 4, 1889.” 50^th Congress, 2^nd Session. S. Misc. Doc. 62 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1889). Minutes book, Senate Privileges and Elections Committee, 50–54^th Congresses, 19–27, 131–136. Center for Legislative Archives. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC. The witness expense figure is an average of three measures. $325,000 is the most conservative conversion for $2809.40, based on the “unskilled wage” equivalent. The “relative share of GDP” equivalent yields $2,670,072, and the “nominal GDP per capita” equivalent yields $540,928.” For conversion, see Samuel H. Williamson, http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/.

36. “Alleged Election Outrages in Washington County, Tex.,” Senate Report No. 2534, 50^th Congress, 2^nd Session, 89–90.

37. Daniel Wallace Crofts, “The Blair Bill and the Elections Bill: The Congressional Aftermath to Reconstruction,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1968, 233.

38. Porter, Kirk H. and Johnson, Donald Bruce, comps., National Party Platforms 1840–1956 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956), 80Google Scholar.

39. McPherson, Edward, Hand-Book of Politics IV 1890–1894 New Introduction by Harold M. Hyman and Hans L. Trefousse (New York: Da Capo Press, 1972Google Scholar, Da Capo Press Reprint Series, originally published in 1890 as A Handbook of Politics For 1890: Being A Record of Important Political Action, Legislative Executive and Judicial, National and State, From August 31, 1888, to July 31, 1890 (Washington, DC: James J. Chapman, 1890), p. 28.

40. Benjamin Harrison, inaugural address, 4 March 1889, John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/, 4–5.

41. Benjamin Harrison, first annual message, 3 December 1889, John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/, 13–14.

42. Southern party platforms were kindly provided to me by Richard Bensel. For background on his dataset, see Bensel, Richard Franklin, The Political Economy of American Industrialization, 1877–1900 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001)Google Scholar, ch. 3, esp. 168–174—sources listed at 112–113; Vernon Lane Wharton, The Negro in Mississippi 1865–1890. James Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1947; with a foreword by A.R. Newsome), 209.

43. Lowi, Theodore, “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory,” World Politics 16 (July 1964): 677–693Google Scholar. A more recent treatment of the policy-creates-politics idea is Pierson, Paul, “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change,” World Politics 45 (July 1993): 595–628Google Scholar.

44. Forgette, “Reed's Rules,” 393.

45. Peterson, Theodore, Magazines in the Twentieth Century (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956), 132–34Google Scholar.

46. Lodge, Henry Cabot, “The Coming Congress,” North American Review, September 1889, 293–301Google Scholar.

47. This discussion is based on sources in notes 1–5, above.

48. Reed, Thomas B., “The Limitations of the Speakership,” North American Review 150 (March 1890): 389Google Scholar.

49. Idem, Reed's Parliamentary Rules (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1894), 213.

50. That number did not include a case from Arkansas featuring murder of the Republican contestant after the election; the Democrat was briefly unseated by the House in early fall, 1890 through majority declaration of the seat as “vacant,” the only such action in House history. Bolin, James Duane, “Clifton Rodes Breckinridge, ‘The Little Arkansas Giant,’” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 53 (Winter 1994): 425Google Scholar; United States Congress, 1^st Session, House of Representatives, Report No. 2912, “Clayton vs. Breckinridge.” “Tariff in the Senate. The Discussion of the Free List At An End. Some Portions of the Bill Passed Over – Mr. Breckinridge Turned Out of His Seat.” New York Times 6 September 1890, 1. Jack Maskell, “Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives,” CRS Report for Congress, received through the CRS Web, updated 25 January 2005, esp. “Table III. Expulsion,” 24. Voteview for Windows, 3.03, House #51, Roll Call #362, “Disputed Elec. Ark.,” 5 September 1890, using “chronological” feature of the search function in Voteview. Re-election of Democrat noted in Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections 2^nd edition (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1985), 818.

51. McPherson played a key role during his first stint as clerk, in 1865, in enabling congressional Reconstruction. He put aside his almanac and newspaper business to run one last time for clerk, in part out of his own strong interest in the elections bill. He was an old and quite reliable radical Republican. See Edward McPherson Papers, Letterbook 39, 17 March 1889- 26 February 1891, Library of Congress Manuscripts Division. For discussion of McPherson's Reconstruction role, see Jeffery A. Jenkins and Charles Stewart III, “More than Just a Mouthpiece: The House Clerk as Party Operative, 1789–1870,” prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 2–5 September 2004.

52. Strahan, Leading Representatives, ch. 4.

53. Its purview did not include contested elections, however; that prerogative fell to the oldest standing committee of the House, the Committee on Elections. The select committee's name had been changed in the 50^th Congress from its original name (dating to the 44^th Congress) of Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President. The title had been lengthened to include “and Representatives in Congress” with the adoption in late December 1887 of the Rules. Canon, David T., Nelson, Garrison, Stewart, Charles III, Committees in the U.S. Congress Volume 4, Select Committees (Washington, DC: CQ Press, A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2002), 308–309Google Scholar.

54. Minutes book of Select Committee on Election of President, Vice-President, and Representatives in Congress, 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 1, 3, 5, 7. Center for Legislative Archives, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.

55. Minutes book, Select Committee on Election of President, Vice-President, and Representatives in Congress, 10, entry for Saturday, 22 March 1890. Dictionary of North Carolina Biography edited by William S. Powell (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976–1996), s.v. “Albion Winegar Tourgee,” accessed online at http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/tourgee/bio.html. Olsen, Otto H., Carpetbagger's Crusade: The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965)Google Scholar, Letter reproduction between 304–305, 309–310, 326–331, and 353–354.

56. Ibid, 303.

57. Canon, Nelson, and Stewart, Committees in the U.S. Congress, Vol. 4, Select Committees, xxi.

58. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 1149–1151, 1171–1189, 1206–1226, 1234–1264, and 1282–1347.

59. Daniel Kerr (R-IA), 1239–1240, John Alexander Anderson (R-KS), 1243, David Henderson (R-IA), 1248; Harrison Kelley (R-KS), 1303–1304.

60. On Henderson, see Finocchiaro, Charles J. and Rohde, David W., “Speaker David Henderson and the Partisan Era of the U.S. House,” in Brady, David W. and McCubbins, Mathew D., ed., Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress, Volume 2, Further New Perspectives on the History of Congress (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 259–270Google Scholar; career and influence in House before the Speakership at 260–261.

61. See note 59 above.

62. Ibid.

63. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 1330.

64. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 1305.

65. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 1235; Rep. James Bennett McCreary (D-KY).

66. The 50^th Congress is chosen because Reed did not vote in the 51^st, being Speaker.

67. Royce Carroll, Jeff Lewis, James Lo, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, “DW-NOMINATE Scores with Bootstrapped Standard Errors,” Updated 28 March 2008, Legislator Estimates 1^st to 110^th Houses (Excel file), at voteview.com. For an introduction to these scores, see Phil Everson, Rick Valelly, and Jim Wiseman, “NOMINATE and American Political History: A Primer,” available under “Recent Working Papers” at voteview.com.

68. From Reed Collection, Box 3, “Scrapbooks 1870–1901,” 7 of unlabelled scrapbook, clipping with headline that reads “Speaker Reed Sums Up The Southern Situation and Favors a National Election Law.” These scrapbooks came from a clipping service. Thomas Brackett Reed Collection, George J. Mitchell Department of Special Collections and Archives, Bowdoin College Library, Brunswick, ME.

69. Crofts, “The Blair Bill and the Elections Bill,” 230.

70. Average of “unskilled wage,” “nominal GDP per capita,” and “relative share of GDP” conversions at Samuel H. Williamson, www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/.

71. “April, 29, 1890, Memorandum for Mr. Speaker Reed concerning Mr. Tourgee's objection to Senator Hoar's bill for national elections.” William E. Chandler Papers, Container 81. Library of Congress Manuscripts Division.

72. “Contests for Seats in the Fifty-First Congress,” 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, House of Representatives, Mis. Doc. No. 82. 2 pages.

73. Reed, Thomas B., “The Federal Control of Elections,” North American Review 150 (June 1890): 671–681Google Scholar.

74. Calhoun, Charles W., Conceiving a New Republic: The Republican Party and the Southern Question, 1869–1900 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006)Google Scholar, 237 and 323, n. 30.

75. Minutes book, Select Committee on Election of President, Vice-President, and Members of Congress, 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 14–15.

76. H.R. 11045, Substitute for H.R. 10958 A Bill To Amend and Supplement the Election Laws of the United States and to provide for the more efficient enforcement of such laws, and for other purposes,” Original House Bills Nos 10885–11058 51^st Congress H.R., Bound volume, Center for Legislative Archives, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC; and, H.R. 11045, in George Frisbie Hoar Papers, Carton 183, “Bills 1890 May – December,” Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, MA.

77. McCall, Samuel W., Thomas B. Reed American Statesmen, Second Series (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, The Riverside Press Cambridge, 1914), 175Google Scholar. The tendency to misread the caucus vote is treated emphatically by Crofts, “The Blair Bill and the Elections Bill,” 261 and 362.

78. Crofts, “The Blair Bill and the Elections Bill,” 257 and 263.

79. United States Congress, 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, House of Representatives, Report No. 2493, 5.

80. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 6540, 6541, 6542–43, 6543, and 6544.

81. Voteview for Windows 3.0.3 (downloadable from voteview.com), at “U.S. Elec. Laws” searching chronologically, i.e. clicking “none” in the search menu window, also numbered as Roll Calls 221–223, 226–235.

82. Besides Voteview 3.0.3 for Windows (note 79, above), see Calhoun, Conceiving a New Republic, 244. Wang, Trial of Democracy, 240 and 368, n. 116.

83. Voteview for Windows 3.0.3, (downloadable from voteview.com), at “Pay of Deputy Marshals at Cong. Elecs.” searching chronologically, i.e. clicking “none” in the search menu window, also numbered as Roll Calls 309–310.

84. Statehood dates from, http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/50sq_program/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=schedule, accessed 31 May 2009. For the special case of the Dakotas, see http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/ngp_nd_terr.html and http://gov.idaho.gov/fyi/history/history_1890–99.html. For Montana, “Proclamation – Admission of the State of Montana in to the Union,” 8 November 1889, by President Benjamin Harrison, at John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project. University of California at Santa Barbara: www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=71241. For text of the Enabling Act of 1889, see, http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/State/enabling.htm. On the Silver Republican senators, a fine sketch is Wellborn, Fred, “The Influence of the Silver-Republican Senators, 1889–1891,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 14 (March 1928): 462–480Google Scholar.

85. On impact of Reed Rules on Senate preferences, see Crofts, “The Blair Bill and the Elections Bill,” 289.

86. Ibid, 289–92.

87. Ibid, 298–310; Welch, George Frisbie Hoar, 151–155.

88. Crofts, “The Blair Bill and the Elections Bill,” 324–326; Ellis, Elmer, Henry Moore Teller: Defender of the West (Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, 1941), 198–199Google Scholar; Wellborn, “Influence of the Silver-Republican Senators.”

89. Ibid, 314–318; McElroy, Robert, Levi Parsons Morton: Banker, Diplomat and Statesman (New York: G.P. Putnam's Son, The Knickerbocker Press; reprinted by Arno Press, 1975), 86–192Google Scholar, is also useful.

90. Wawro and Schickler, Filibuster, p. 79.

91. Ibid, 79–80.

92. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 2^nd Session, 1541.

93. Ibid, 1543.

94. Crofts, “The Blair Bill and the Elections Bill,” 332–334; Wawro and Schickler, Filibuster, 82; Welch, George Frisbie Hoar, 159.

95. Crofts, “The Blair Bill and the Elections Bill,” pp. 334–336; Elliott, Russell R., Servant of Power: A Political Biography of Senator William M. Stewart Nevada Studies in History and Political Science Number 18 (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1983), pp. 128–129Google Scholar.

96. Binder, Sarah A., Madonna, Anthony J., and Smith, Steven S., “Going Nuclear, Senate Style,” Perspectives on Politics 5 (December 2007): 729–740Google Scholar.

97. Wawro, and Schickler, , Filibuster, 76–80Google Scholar.

98. Binder, Minority Rights, Majority Rule, 15, 30–34, and 122–13.

99. Peters, Ronald M. Jr., The American Speakership: The Office in Historical Perspective 2^nd Ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 1–17, 62–71Google Scholar.

100. Dion, Douglas, Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew: Minority Rights and Procedural Change in Legislative Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997), ch. 1–2, 5Google Scholar.

101. Forgette, “Reed's Rules and the Partisan Theory of Legislative Organization” — phrase at 393; Rohde, David W., Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar. For measurement of conditional party government in the 51^st Congress, see Aldrich, John H., Rohde, David W., and Tofias, Michael W., “One D Is Not Enough: Measuring Conditional Party Government, 1887–2002,” in Brady, David W. and McCubbins, Mathew D., ed., Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress, Volume 2, Further New Perspective on the History of Congress (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 111Google Scholar.

102. Zelizer, Julian E., On Capitol Hill: The Struggle To Reform Congress and Its Consequences, 1948–2000 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), ch. 1–6, 8Google Scholar; King, Desmond S. and Smith, Rogers M., “Racial Orders in American Political Development,” American Political Science Review 99 (February 2005): 87Google Scholar. Also suggestive is Upchurch, Thomas Adams, Legislating Racism: The Billion Dollar Congress and the Birth of Jim Crow (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2004), 67Google Scholar.

103. Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, 32–53, esp. 39; Strahan, Leading Representatives, ch. 4; Wolf, “Congressional Sea Change,” ch. 5.

104. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House, 105–118.

105. Lauren Kluz-Wisniewski and Richard M. Valelly, “Did Roger Taney Author the 14^th Amendment? Congress and the Definition of American Citizenship,” Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association, Palmer House, Chicago, 2–5 April 2009.

106. Cox and McCubbins, Setting the Agenda, 50–51 and 59.

107. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 1305.

108. Congressional Record 51^st Congress, 1^st Session, 1248.