Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

William Jennings Bryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Jennings Bryan
BRYAN, WILLIAM JENNINGS LCCN2016856655 (cropped).jpg

41st United States Secretary of State
In office
March 5, 1913 – June 9, 1915
PresidentWoodrow Wilson
Preceded byPhilander C. Knox
Succeeded byRobert Lansing
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Nebraska's 1st district
In office
March 4, 1891 – March 3, 1895
Preceded byWilliam James Connell
Succeeded byJesse Burr Strode
Personal details
BornMarch 19, 1860
Salem, Illinois, U.S.
DiedJuly 26, 1925 (aged 65)
Dayton, Tennessee, U.S.
Resting placeArlington National Cemetery
Political partyDemocratic
Other political
affiliations
Populist
Spouse(s)
(m. 1884⁠–⁠1925)
RelationsCharles Bryan (younger brother)
Children3, including Ruth
ParentsSilas Bryan
Mariah Elizabeth
Education
Signature

William Jennings Bryan (March 19, 1860 – July 26, 1925) was an American orator and politician from Illinois and Nebraska. Beginning in 1896, he emerged as a dominant force in the Democratic Party, running three times as the party's nominee for President of the United States in the 1896, 1900, and 1908 elections. He also served in the United States House of Representatives and as the United States Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson. Because of his faith in the wisdom of the common people, he was often called "The Great Commoner".

Born and raised in Illinois, Bryan moved to Nebraska in the 1880s. He won election to the House of Representatives in the 1890 elections, serving two terms before making an unsuccessful run for the Senate in 1894. At the 1896 Democratic National Convention, Bryan delivered his "Cross of Gold speech" which attacked the gold standard and the eastern moneyed interests and crusaded for inflationary policies built around the expanded coinage of silver coins. In a repudiation of incumbent President Grover Cleveland and his conservative Bourbon Democrats, the Democratic convention nominated Bryan for president, making Bryan the youngest major party presidential nominee in U.S. history. Subsequently, Bryan was also nominated for president by the left-wing Populist Party, and many Populists would eventually follow Bryan into the Democratic Party. In the intensely fought 1896 presidential election, Republican nominee William McKinley emerged triumphant. At age 36, Bryan remains the youngest person in United States history to receive an electoral vote. Bryan gained fame as an orator, as he invented the national stumping tour when he reached an audience of 5 million people in 27 states in 1896.

Bryan retained control of the Democratic Party and won the presidential nomination again in 1900. After the Spanish–American War, Bryan became a fierce opponent of American imperialism and much of his campaign centered on that issue. In the election, McKinley again defeated Bryan, winning several Western states that Bryan had won in 1896. Bryan's influence in the party weakened after the 1900 election and the Democrats nominated the conservative Alton B. Parker in the 1904 presidential election. Bryan regained his stature in the party after Parker's resounding defeat by Theodore Roosevelt and voters from both parties increasingly embraced the progressive reforms that had long been championed by Bryan. Bryan won his party's nomination in the 1908 presidential election, but he was defeated by Roosevelt's chosen successor, William Howard Taft. Along with Henry Clay, Bryan is one of the two individuals who never won a presidential election despite receiving electoral votes in three separate presidential elections held after the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment.

After the Democrats won the presidency in the 1912 election, Woodrow Wilson rewarded Bryan's support with the important cabinet position of Secretary of State. Bryan helped Wilson pass several progressive reforms through Congress, but he and Wilson clashed over U.S. neutrality in World War I. Bryan resigned from his post in 1915 after Wilson sent Germany a note of protest in response to the sinking of Lusitania by a German U-boat. After leaving office, Bryan retained some of his influence within the Democratic Party, but he increasingly devoted himself to religious matters and anti-evolution activism. He opposed Darwinism on religious and humanitarian grounds, most famously in the 1925 Scopes Trial. Since his death in 1925, Bryan has elicited mixed reactions from various commentators, but he is widely considered to have been one of the most influential figures of the Progressive Era.

Early life and education

Bryan's birthplace in Salem, Illinois
 
Attorney Mary Baird Bryan, the wife of William Jennings Bryan

William Jennings Bryan was born in Salem, Illinois, on March 19, 1860, to Silas Lillard Bryan and Mariah Elizabeth (Jennings) Bryan. Silas Bryan had been born in 1822 and had established a legal practice in Salem in 1851. He married Mariah, a former student of his at McKendree College, in 1852. Of Scots-Irish and English ancestry, Silas Bryan was an avid Jacksonian Democrat. He won election as a state circuit judge and in 1866 moved his family to a 520-acre (210.4 ha) farm north of Salem, living in a ten-room house that was the envy of Marion County. Silas served in various local positions and sought election to Congress in 1872, but was narrowly defeated by the Republican candidate. An admirer of Andrew Jackson and Stephen A. Douglas, Silas passed on his Democratic affiliation to his son, William, who would remain a life-long Democrat.

Bryan was the fourth child of Silas and Mariah, but all three of his older siblings died during infancy. Bryan also had five younger siblings, four of whom lived to adulthood. Bryan was home-schooled by his mother until the age of ten. Demonstrating a precocious talent for oratory, Bryan gave public speeches as early as the age of four. Silas was a Baptist and Mariah was a Methodist, but Bryan's parents allowed him to choose his own church. At age fourteen, Bryan had a conversion experience at a revival. He said it was the most important day of his life. At age fifteen, Bryan was sent to attend Whipple Academy, a private school in Jacksonville, Illinois.

A young Bryan

After graduating from Whipple Academy, Bryan entered Illinois College, which was also located in Jacksonville. During his time at Illinois College, Bryan served as chaplain of the Sigma Pi literary society. He also continued to hone his public speaking skills, taking part in numerous debates and oratorical contests. In 1879, while still in college, Bryan met Mary Elizabeth Baird, the daughter of an owner of a nearby general store and began courting her. Bryan and Mary Elizabeth married on October 1, 1884. Mary Elizabeth would emerge as an important part of Bryan's career, managing his correspondence and helping him prepare speeches and articles.

After graduating from college at the top of his class, Bryan studied law at Union Law College (which later became Northwestern University School of Law) in Chicago. While attending law school, Bryan worked for attorney Lyman Trumbull, a former senator and friend of Silas Bryan's who would serve as an important political ally to the younger Bryan until his death in 1896. After graduating from law school, Bryan returned to Jacksonville to take a position with a local law firm. Frustrated by the lack of political and economic opportunities in Jacksonville, in 1887 Bryan and his wife moved west to Lincoln, the capital of the fast-growing state of Nebraska.

Early political career

Congressional service

Bryan established a successful legal practice in Lincoln with partner Adolphus Talbot, a Republican whom Bryan had known in law school. Bryan also entered local politics, campaigning for Democrats like Julius Sterling Morton and Grover Cleveland. After earning notoriety for his effective speeches in 1888, Bryan ran for Congress in the 1890 election. Bryan called for a reduction in tariff rates, the coinage of silver at a ratio equal to that of gold and action to stem the power of trusts. In part due to a series of strong debate performances, Bryan defeated incumbent Republican Congressman William James Connell, who campaigned on the orthodox Republican platform centered around the protective tariff. Bryan's victory made him only the second Democrat to represent Nebraska in Congress. Nationwide, Democrats picked up seventy-six seats in the House, giving the party a majority in that chamber. The Populist Party, a third party that drew support from agrarian voters in the West, also picked up several seats in Congress.

With the help of Congressman William McKendree Springer, Bryan secured a coveted spot on the House Ways and Means Committee. He quickly earned a reputation as a talented orator and he set out to gain a strong understanding of the key economic issues of the day. During the Gilded Age, the Democratic Party had begun to separate into two groups. The conservative northern "Bourbon Democrats," along with some allies in the South, sought to limit the size and power of the federal government. Another group of Democrats, drawing its membership largely from the agrarian movements of the South and West, favored greater federal intervention to help farmers, regulate railroads and limit the power of large corporations. Bryan became affiliated with the latter group, advocating for the free coinage of silver ("free silver") and the establishment of a progressive federal income tax. Though it endeared him to many reformers, Bryan's call for free silver cost him the support of Morton and some other conservative Nebraska Democrats. Free silver advocates were opposed by banks and bondholders who feared the effects of inflation.

Bryan sought re-election in 1892 with the support of many Populists and he backed Populist presidential candidate James B. Weaver instead of the Democratic presidential candidate, Grover Cleveland. Bryan won re-election by just 140 votes, while Cleveland defeated Weaver and incumbent Republican President Benjamin Harrison in the 1892 presidential election. Cleveland appointed a cabinet consisting largely of conservative Democrats like Morton, who became Cleveland's secretary of agriculture. Shortly after Cleveland took office, a series of bank closures brought on the Panic of 1893, a major economic crisis. In response, Cleveland called a special session of Congress to call for the repeal of the 1890 Sherman Silver Purchase Act, which required the federal government to purchase several million ounces of silver every month. Though Bryan mounted a campaign to save the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, a coalition of Republicans and Democrats successfully repealed it. Bryan was, however, successful in passing an amendment that provided for the establishment of the first peacetime federal income tax.

As the economy declined after 1893, the reforms favored by Bryan and the Populists became more popular among many voters. Rather than running for re-election in 1894, Bryan sought election to the United States Senate. He also became the editor-in-chief of the Omaha World-Herald, although most editorial duties were performed by Richard Lee Metcalfe and Gilbert Hitchcock. Nationwide, the Republican Party won a huge victory in the elections of 1894, gaining over 120 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. In Nebraska, despite Bryan's popularity, the Republicans elected a majority of the state legislators and Bryan lost the Senate election to Republican John Mellen Thurston. Bryan was nonetheless pleased with the result of the 1894 election, as the Cleveland wing of the Democratic Party had been discredited and Bryan's preferred gubernatorial candidate, Silas A. Holcomb, had been elected by a coalition of Democrats and Populists.

After the 1894 elections, Bryan embarked on a nationwide speaking tour designed to boost free silver, move his party away from the conservative policies of the Cleveland administration, lure Populists and free silver Republicans into the Democratic Party and raise Bryan's public profile before the next election. Speaking fees allowed Bryan to give up his legal practice and devote himself full-time to oratory.

Presidential candidate and party leader

Presidential election of 1896

Democratic nomination

The Cross of Gold speech (excerpt):
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

By 1896, free silver forces were ascendant within the party. Though many Democratic leaders were not as enthusiastic about free silver as Bryan was, most recognized the need to distance the party from the unpopular policies of the Cleveland administration. By the start of the 1896 Democratic National Convention, Congressman Richard P. Bland, a long-time champion of free silver, was widely perceived to be the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination. Bryan hoped to offer himself as a presidential candidate, but his youth and relative inexperience gave him a lower profile than veteran Democrats like Bland, Governor Horace Boies of Iowa and Vice President Adlai Stevenson. The free silver forces quickly established dominance over the convention and Bryan helped draft a party platform that repudiated Cleveland, attacked the conservative rulings of the Supreme Court and called the gold standard "not only un-American but anti-American."

"UNITED SNAKES OF AMERICA" "IN BRYAN WE TRUST" political satire token of 1896, known as "Bryan Money"

Conservative Democrats demanded a debate on the party platform and on the third day of the convention each side put forth speakers to debate free silver and the gold standard. Bryan and Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina were chosen as the speakers who would advocate for free silver, but Tillman's speech was poorly received by delegates from outside the South due to its sectionalism and references to the Civil War. Charged with delivering the convention's last speech on the topic of monetary policy, Bryan seized his opportunity to emerge as the nation's leading Democrat. In his "Cross of Gold" speech, Bryan argued that the debate over monetary policy was part of a broader struggle for democracy, political independence and the welfare of the "common man." Bryan's speech was met with rapturous applause and a celebration on the floor of the convention that lasted for over half an hour.

Bryan campaigning for president, October 1896

The following day, the Democratic Party held its presidential ballot. With the continuing support of Governor John Altgeld of Illinois, Bland led the first ballot of the convention, but he fell far short of the necessary two-thirds vote. Bryan finished in a distant second on the convention's first ballot, but his Cross of Gold speech had left a strong impression on many delegates. Despite the distrust of party leaders like Altgeld, who was wary of supporting an untested candidate, Bryan's strength grew over the next four ballots. He gained the lead on the fourth ballot and won his party's presidential nomination on the fifth ballot. At 36 years old, Bryan became (and still remains) the youngest presidential nominee of a major party in American history. The convention nominated Arthur Sewall, a wealthy Maine shipbuilder who also favored free silver and the income tax, as Bryan's running mate.

General election

Conservative Democrats known as the "Gold Democrats" nominated a separate ticket. Cleveland himself did not publicly attack Bryan, but privately he favored the Republican candidate, William McKinley, over Bryan. Many urban newspapers in the Northeast and Midwest that had supported previous Democratic tickets also opposed Bryan's candidacy. Bryan did, however, win the support of the Populist Party, which nominated a ticket consisting of Bryan and Thomas E. Watson of Georgia. Though Populist leaders feared that the nomination of the Democratic candidate would damage the party in the long-term, they shared many of Bryan's political views and had developed a productive working relationship with Bryan.

The Republican campaign painted McKinley as the "advance agent of prosperity" and social harmony and warned of the supposed dangers of electing Bryan. McKinley and his campaign manager, Mark Hanna, knew that McKinley could not match Bryan's oratorical skills. Rather than giving speeches on the campaign trail, the Republican nominee conducted a front porch campaign. Hanna, meanwhile, raised an unprecedented amount of money, dispatched campaign surrogates and organized the distribution of millions of pieces of campaign literature.

1896 electoral vote results

Facing a huge campaign finance disadvantage, the Democratic campaign relied largely on Bryan's oratorical skills. Breaking with the precedent set by most major party nominees, Bryan gave some 600 speeches, primarily in the hotly contested Midwest. Bryan invented the national stumping tour, reaching an audience of 5 million in 27 states. He was building a coalition of the white South, poor northern farmers and industrial workers and silver miners against banks and railroads and the "money power". Free silver appealed to farmers who would be paid more for their products but not to industrial workers who would not get higher wages but would pay higher prices. The industrial cities voted for McKinley, who won nearly the entire East and industrial Midwest and did well along the border and the West Coast. Bryan swept the South and Mountain states and the wheat growing regions of the Midwest. Revivalistic Protestants cheered at Bryan's semi-religious rhetoric. Ethnic voters supported McKinley, who promised they would not be excluded from the new prosperity, as did more prosperous farmers and the fast-growing middle class.

McKinley won the election by a fairly comfortable margin, taking 51 percent of the popular vote and 271 electoral votes. Democrats remained loyal to their champion after his defeat; many letters urged him to run again in the 1900 presidential election. William's younger brother, Charles W. Bryan, created a card file of supporters to whom the Bryans would send regular mailings to for the next thirty years. The Populist Party fractured after the election; many Populists, including James Weaver, followed Bryan into the Democratic Party, while others followed Eugene V. Debs into the Socialist Party.

War and peace: 1898–1900

Spanish–American War

Because of better economic conditions for farmers and the effects of the Klondike Gold Rush, free silver lost its potency as an electoral issue in the years following 1896. In 1900, President McKinley signed the Gold Standard Act, which put the United States on the gold standard. Bryan remained popular in the Democratic Party and his supporters took control of party organizations throughout the country, but he initially resisted shifting his political focus from free silver. Foreign policy emerged as an important issue due to the ongoing Cuban War of Independence against Spain, as many Americans supported Cuban independence. After the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the United States declared war on Spain in April 1898, beginning the Spanish–American War. Though wary of militarism, Bryan had long favored Cuban independence and he supported the war. He argued that "universal peace cannot come until justice is enthroned throughout the world. Until the right has triumphed in every land and love reigns in every heart, government must, as a last resort, appeal to force".

The United States and its colonial possessions after the Spanish–American War

At Governor Silas A. Holcomb's request, Bryan recruited a two thousand man regiment for the Nebraska National Guard and the soldiers of the regiment elected Bryan as their leader. Under Colonel Bryan's command, the regiment was transported to Camp Cuba Libre in Florida, but the fighting between Spain and the United States ended before the regiment was deployed to Cuba. Bryan's regiment remained in Florida for months after the end of the war, thereby preventing Bryan from taking an active role in the 1898 midterm elections. Bryan resigned his commission and left Florida in December 1898 after the United States and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris.

Bryan had supported the war to gain Cuba's independence, but he was outraged that the Treaty of Paris granted the United States control over the Philippines. While many Republicans believed that the United States had an obligation to "civilize" the Philippines, Bryan strongly opposed what he saw as American imperialism. Despite his opposition to the annexation of the Philippines, Bryan urged his supporters to ratify the Treaty of Paris; he wanted to quickly bring an official end to the war and then grant independence to the Philippines as soon as possible. With Bryan's support, the treaty was ratified in a close vote, bringing an official end to the Spanish–American War. In early 1899, the Philippine–American War broke out as the established Philippine Government under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo sought to stop the American invasion of the archipelago.

Presidential election of 1900

Conservatives in 1900 ridiculed Bryan's eclectic platform.

The 1900 Democratic National Convention met in Kansas City, Missouri, the westernmost location that either major party had ever held a national convention. Some Democratic leaders opposed to Bryan had hoped to nominate Admiral George Dewey for president, but Bryan faced no significant opposition by the time of the convention and he won his party's nomination unanimously. Bryan did not attend the convention, but he exercised control of the convention's proceedings via telegraph. Bryan faced a decision regarding what issue his campaign would focus on. Many of his most fervent supporters wanted Bryan to continue his crusade for free silver, while Democrats from the Northeast advised Bryan to center his campaign on the growing power of trusts. Bryan, however, decided that his campaign would focus on anti-imperialism, partly to unite the factions of the party and win over some Republicans. The party platform contained planks supporting free silver and opposing the power of trusts, but imperialism was labeled as the "paramount issue" of the campaign. The party nominated former Vice President Adlai Stevenson to serve as Bryan's running mate.

In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, Bryan argued that the election represented "a contest between democracy and plutocracy." He also strongly criticized the U.S. annexation of the Philippines, comparing it to the British rule of the Thirteen Colonies. Bryan argued that the United States should refrain from imperialism and should seek to become the "supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes." By 1900, the American Anti-Imperialist League, which included individuals like Benjamin Harrison, Andrew Carnegie, Carl Schurz and Mark Twain, had emerged as the primary domestic organization opposed to the continued American control of the Philippines. Many of the leaders of the league had opposed Bryan in 1896 and continued to distrust Bryan and his followers. Despite this distrust, Bryan's strong stance against imperialism convinced most of the league's leadership to throw their support behind the Democratic nominee.

 

1900 electoral vote results

Once again, the McKinley campaign established a massive financial advantage, while the Democratic campaign relied largely on Bryan's oratory. In a typical day Bryan gave four hour-long speeches and shorter talks that added up to six hours of speaking. At an average rate of 175 words a minute, he turned out 63,000 words a day, enough to fill 52 columns of a newspaper. The Republican Party's superior organization and finances boosted McKinley's candidacy and, as in the previous campaign, most major newspapers favored McKinley. Bryan also had to contend with the Republican vice presidential nominee, Theodore Roosevelt, who had emerged a national celebrity in the Spanish–American War and proved to be a strong public speaker. Bryan's anti-imperialism failed to register with many voters and as the campaign neared its end, Bryan increasingly shifted to attacks on corporate power. He once again sought the voter of urban laborers, telling them to vote against the business interests that had "condemn[ed] the boys of this country to perpetual clerkship."

By election day, few believed that Bryan would win and McKinley ultimately prevailed once again over Bryan. Compared to the results of 1896, McKinley increased his popular vote margin and picked up several Western states, including Bryan's home state of Nebraska. The Republican platform of a strong American industrial economy proved to be more important to voters than questions of the morality of annexing the Philippines. The election also confirmed the continuing organizational advantage of the Republican Party outside of the South.

Between presidential campaigns, 1901–1907

After the election, Bryan returned to journalism and oratory, frequently appearing on the Chautauqua circuits. In January 1901, Bryan published the first issue of his weekly newspaper, The Commoner, which echoed Bryan's long-standing political and religious themes. Bryan served as the editor and publisher of the newspaper, but Charles Bryan, Mary Bryan and Richard Metcalfe also performed editorial duties when Bryan was traveling. The Commoner became one of the most widely-read newspapers of its era, boasting 145,000 subscribers approximately five years after its founding. Though the paper's subscriber base heavily overlapped with Bryan's political base in the Midwest, content from the papers was frequently reprinted by major newspapers in the Northeast. In 1902, Bryan, his wife and his three children moved into Fairview, a mansion located in Lincoln; Bryan referred to the house as the "Monticello of the West," and frequently invited politicians and diplomats to visit.

Bryan's defeat in 1900 cost him his status as the clear leader of the Democratic Party and conservatives like David B. Hill and Arthur Pue Gorman moved to re-establish their control over the party and return it to the policies of the Cleveland era. Meanwhile, Roosevelt succeeded McKinley as president after the latter was assassinated in September 1901. Roosevelt prosecuted antitrust cases and implemented other progressive policies, but Bryan argued that Roosevelt did not fully embrace progressive causes. Bryan called for a package of reforms, including a federal income tax, pure food and drug laws, a ban on corporate financing of campaigns, a constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of senators, local ownership of utilities and the state adoption of the initiative and the referendum. He also criticized Roosevelt's foreign policy and attacked Roosevelt's decision to invite Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House.

Bryan in 1908

Prior to the 1904 Democratic National Convention, Alton B. Parker, a New York judge and conservative ally of David Hill, was seen as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Conservatives feared that Bryan would join with publisher William Randolph Hearst to block Parker's nomination. Seeking to appease Bryan and other progressives, Hill agreed to a party platform that omitted mention of the gold standard and criticized trusts. Parker won the Democratic nomination, but Roosevelt won the election by the largest popular vote margin since the Civil War. Parker's crushing defeat vindicated Bryan, who published a post-election edition of The Commoner that advised its readers: "Do not Compromise with Plutocracy."

Bryan traveled to Europe in 1903, meeting with figures such as Leo Tolstoy, who shared some of Bryan's religious and political views. In 1905, Bryan and his family embarked on a trip around the globe, visiting eighteen countries in Asia and Europe. Bryan funded the trip with public speaking fees and a travelogue that was published on a weekly basis. Bryan was greeted by a large crowd upon his return to the United States in 1906 and was widely seen as the likely 1908 Democratic presidential nominee. Partly due to the efforts of muckraking journalists, voters had become increasingly open to progressive ideas since 1904. President Roosevelt himself had moved to the left, favoring federal regulation of railroad rates and meatpacking plants. Yet Bryan continued to favor more far-reaching reforms, including federal regulation of banks and securities, protections for union organizers and federal spending on highway construction and education. Bryan also briefly expressed support for the state and federal ownership of railroads in a manner similar to Germany, but backed down from this policy in the face of an intra-party backlash.

Presidential election of 1908

 
Presidential Campaign button for Bryan

Roosevelt, who enjoyed wide popularity among most voters even while he alienated some corporate leaders, anointed Secretary of War William Howard Taft as his successor. Meanwhile, Bryan reestablished his control over the Democratic Party, winning the endorsement of numerous local Democratic organizations. Conservative Democrats again sought to prevent Bryan's nomination, but were unable to unite around an alternative candidate. Bryan was nominated for president on the first ballot of the 1908 Democratic National Convention. He was joined on the Democratic ticket by John W. Kern, a senator from the swing state of Indiana.

Bryan campaigned on a party platform that reflected his long-held beliefs, but the Republican platform also advocated for progressive policies, leaving relatively few major differences between the two major parties. One issue that the two parties differed on concerned deposit insurance, as Bryan favored requiring national banks to provide deposit insurance. Bryan was largely able to unify the leaders of his own party and his pro-labor policies won him the first presidential endorsement ever issued by the American Federation of Labor. As in previous campaigns, Bryan embarked on a public speaking tour to boost his candidacy; he was later joined on the trail by Taft.

Defying Bryan's confidence in his own victory, Taft decisively won the 1908 presidential election. Bryan won just a handful of states outside of the Solid South, as he failed to galvanize the support of urban laborers. Bryan remains the only individual since the Civil War to lose three separate U.S. presidential elections as a major party nominee. Since the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment, Bryan and Henry Clay are the lone individuals who received electoral votes in three separate presidential elections but lost all three elections. The 493 cumulative electoral votes cast for Bryan across three separate elections are the most received by a presidential candidate never elected.

1908 electoral vote results

Bryan remained an influential figure in Democratic politics and, after Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in the 1910 midterm elections, he appeared in the House of Representatives to argue for tariff reduction. In 1909, Bryan came out publicly for the first time in favor of Prohibition. A lifelong teetotaler, Bryan had refrained from embracing Prohibition earlier because of the issue's unpopularity among many Democrats. According to biographer Paolo Colletta, Bryan "sincerely believed that prohibition would contribute to the physical health and moral improvement of the individual, stimulate civic progress and end the notorious abuses connected with the liquor traffic."

In 1910, he also came out in favor of women's suffrage. Bryan crusaded as well for legislation to support the introduction of the initiative and referendum as a means of giving voters a direct voice, making a whistle-stop campaign tour of Arkansas in 1910. Although some observers, including President Taft, speculated that Bryan would make a fourth run for the presidency, Bryan repeatedly denied that he had any such intention.

Wilson presidency

1912 election

A growing rift in the Republican Party gave Democrats their best chance in years to win the presidency. Though Bryan would not seek the Democratic presidential nomination, his continuing influence in the party gave him a role in choosing the party's nominee. Bryan was intent on preventing the conservatives in the party from nominating their candidate of choice, as they had done in 1904. For a mix of practical and ideological reasons, Bryan ruled out supporting the candidacies of Oscar Underwood, Judson Harmon and Joseph W. Folk, leaving two major candidates competing for his backing: New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson and Speaker of the House Champ Clark. As Speaker, Clark could lay claim to progressive accomplishments, including the passage of constitutional amendments providing for the direct election of senators and the establishment of a federal income tax. But Clark had alienated Bryan for his failure to lower the tariff and Bryan viewed the Speaker as overly friendly to conservative business interests. Wilson had criticized Bryan in the past, but he had compiled a strong progressive record as governor. As the 1912 Democratic National Convention approached, Bryan continued to deny that he would seek the presidency, but many journalists and politicians suspected that Bryan hoped a deadlocked convention would turn to him.

After the start of the convention, Bryan engineered the passage of a resolution stating that the party was "opposed to the nomination of any candidate who is a representative of, or under any obligation to, J. Pierpont Morgan, Thomas F. Ryan, August Belmont, or any other member of the privilege-hunting and favor-seeking class." Clark and Wilson won the support of most delegates on the first several presidential ballots of the Democratic convention, but each fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority. After Tammany Hall came out in favor of Clark and the New York delegation threw its support behind the Speaker, Bryan announced that he would support Wilson. In explaining his decision, Bryan stated that he could "not be a party to the nomination of any man ... who will not, when elected, be absolutely free to carry out the anti-Morgan-Ryan-Belmont resolution." Bryan's speech marked the start of a long shift away from Clark: Wilson would finally clinch the presidential nomination after over 40 ballots. Journalists attributed much of the credit for Wilson's victory to Bryan.

In the 1912 presidential election, Wilson faced off against President Taft and former President Roosevelt, the latter of whom ran on the Progressive Party ticket. Bryan campaigned throughout the West for Wilson, while also offering advice to the Democratic nominee on various issues. The split in the Republican ranks helped give Wilson the presidency and Wilson won over 400 electoral votes despite taking just 41.8 percent of the popular vote. In the concurrent congressional elections, Democrats expanded their majority in the House and gained control of the Senate, giving the party unified control of Congress and the presidency for the first time since the early 1890s.

Secretary of State

Bryan served as Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson
 
Cartoon of Secretary of State Bryan reading war news in 1914

Upon taking office, Wilson named Bryan as Secretary of State. Bryan's extensive travels, popularity in the party and support for Wilson in the 1912 election made him the obvious choice for what was traditionally the highest-ranking position in the Cabinet. Bryan took charge of a State Department that employed 150 officials in Washington and an additional 400 employees in embassies abroad. Early in Wilson's tenure, the president and the secretary of state broadly agreed on foreign policy goals, including the rejection of Taft's Dollar diplomacy. They also shared many priorities in domestic affairs and, with Bryan's help, Wilson orchestrated passage of laws that reduced tariff rates, imposed a progressive income tax, introduced new antitrust measures and established the Federal Reserve System. Bryan proved particularly influential in ensuring that the president, rather than private bankers, was empowered to appoint the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Secretary of State Bryan pursued a series of bilateral treaties that required both signatories to submit all disputes to an investigative tribunal. He quickly won approval from the president and the Senate to proceed with his initiative; in mid-1913, El Salvador became the first nation to sign one of Bryan's treaties. 29 other countries, including every great power in Europe other than Germany and Austria-Hungary, also agreed to sign the treaties. Despite Bryan's aversion to conflict, he oversaw U.S. interventions in Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Mexico.

After World War I broke out in Europe, Bryan consistently advocated for U.S. neutrality between the Entente and the Central Powers. With Bryan's support, Wilson initially sought to stay out of the conflict, urging Americans to be "impartial in thought as well as action." For much of 1914, Bryan attempted to bring a negotiated end to the war, but the leaders of both the Entente and the Central Powers were ultimately uninterested in American mediation. While Bryan remained firmly committed to neutrality, Wilson and others within the administration became increasingly sympathetic to the Entente. The March 1915 Thrasher incident, in which a German U-boat sank a British passenger ship with an American citizen on board, provided a major blow to the cause of American neutrality. The May 1915 sinking of RMS Lusitania by another German U-boat further galvanized anti-German sentiment, as 128 Americans died in the incident. Bryan argued that the British blockade of Germany was as offensive as the German U-boat Campaign. He also maintained that by traveling on British vessels, "an American citizen can, by putting his own business above his regard for this country, assume for his own advantage unnecessary risks and thus involve his country in international complications." After Wilson sent an official message of protest to Germany and refused to publicly warn Americans not to travel on British ships, Bryan delivered his letter of resignation to Wilson on June 8, 1915.

Later career

Political involvement

During the 1916 presidential election, members of the Prohibition Party attempted to place Bryan into consideration for its presidential nomination, but he rejected the offer via telegram.

Despite their differences over foreign policy, Bryan supported Wilson's 1916 re-election campaign. Though he did not attend as an official delegate, the 1916 Democratic National Convention suspended its own rules to allow Bryan to address the convention; Bryan delivered a well-received speech that strongly defended Wilson's domestic record. Bryan served as a campaign surrogate for Wilson in the 1916 campaign, delivering dozens of speeches, primarily to audiences west of the Mississippi River. Ultimately, Wilson narrowly prevailed over the Republican candidate, Charles Evans Hughes. When the United States entered World War I in April 1917, Bryan wrote Wilson, "Believing it to be the duty of the citizen to bear his part of the burden of war and his share of the peril, I hereby tender my services to the Government. Please enroll me as a private whenever I am needed and assign me to any work that I can do." Wilson declined to appoint Bryan to a federal position, but Bryan did agree to Wilson's request to provide public support for the war effort through his speeches and articles. After the war, despite some reservations, Bryan supported Wilson's unsuccessful effort to bring the United States into the League of Nations.

After leaving office, Bryan spent much of his time advocating for the eight-hour day, a minimum wage, the right of unions to strike and, increasingly, women's suffrage and Prohibition. Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment, providing for nationwide Prohibition, in 1917. Two years later, Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the right to vote nationwide. Both amendments were ratified in 1920. During the 1920s, Bryan called for further reforms, including agricultural subsidies, the guarantee of a living wage, full public financing of political campaigns and an end to legal gender discrimination.

Some Prohibitionists and other Bryan supporters tried to convince the three-time presidential candidate to enter the 1920 presidential election and a Literary Digest poll taken in mid-1920 ranked Bryan as the fourth-most popular potential Democratic candidate. Bryan, however, declined to seek public office, writing "if I can help this world to banish alcohol and after that to banish war ... no office, no Presidency, can offer the honors that will be mine." He attended the 1920 Democratic National Convention as a delegate from Nebraska, but was disappointed by the nomination of Governor James M. Cox, who had not supported ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment. Bryan declined the presidential nomination of the Prohibition Party and refused to campaign for Cox, making the 1920 campaign the first presidential contest in over thirty years in which he did not actively campaign.

Though he became less involved in Democratic politics after 1920, Bryan attended the 1924 Democratic National Convention as a delegate from Florida. He helped defeat a resolution condemning the Ku Klux Klan because he expected that the organization would soon fold; Bryan disliked the Klan but never publicly attacked it. He also strongly opposed the candidacy of Al Smith due to Smith's hostility towards Prohibition. After over 100 ballots, the Democratic convention nominated John W. Davis, a conservative Wall Street lawyer. To balance the conservative Davis with a progressive, the convention nominated Bryan's brother, Charles W. Bryan, for vice president. Bryan was disappointed by the nomination of Davis, but strongly approved of the nomination of his brother and he delivered numerous campaign speeches in support of the Democratic ticket. Davis suffered one of the worst losses in the Democratic Party's history, taking just 29 percent of the vote against Republican President Calvin Coolidge and third-party candidate Robert M. La Follette.

Florida real estate promoter

Villa Serena, Bryan's home built in 1913 at Miami, Florida

To help Mary cope with her worsening health during the harsh winters of Nebraska, the Bryans bought a farm in Mission, Texas, in 1909. Due to Mary's arthritis, in 1912 the Bryans began building a new home in Miami, Florida, known as Villa Serena. The Bryans made Villa Serena their permanent home, while Charles Bryan continued to oversee The Commoner from Lincoln. The Bryans were active citizens in Miami, leading a fundraising drive for the YMCA and frequently hosting the public at their home. Bryan undertook lucrative speaking engagements, often serving as a spokesman for George E. Merrick's new planned community of Coral Gables. His promotions probably contributed to the Florida real estate boom of the 1920s, which collapsed within months of Bryan's death in 1925.

Trustee of American University

Bryan served as a member of the Board of Trustees at American University in Washington, D.C., from 1914 until his death in 1925. For some of these years, he served concurrently with Warren G. Harding and Theodore Roosevelt.

Anti-evolution activism

Charles W. and William J. Bryan

In the 1920s, Bryan shifted his focus away from politics, becoming one of the most prominent religious figures in the country. He held a weekly Bible class in Miami and published several religiously themed books. He was one of the first individuals to preach religious faith on the radio, reaching audiences across the country. Bryan welcomed the proliferation of faiths other than Protestant Christianity, but he was deeply concerned by the rejection of Biblical literalism by many Protestants. According to historian Ronald L. Numbers, Bryan was not nearly as much a fundamentalist as many modern-day creationists of the 21st century. Instead he is more accurately described as a "day-age creationist". Bradley J. Longfield posits Bryan was a "theologically conservative Social Gospeler".

In the final years of his life, Bryan became the unofficial leader of a movement that sought to prevent public schools from teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Bryan had long expressed skepticism and concern regarding Darwin's theory; in his famous 1909 Chautauqua lecture, "The Prince of Peace", Bryan had warned that the theory of evolution could undermine the foundations of morality. Bryan opposed Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection for two reasons. First, he believed that what he considered a materialistic account of the descent of man (and all life) through evolution was directly contrary to the Biblical creation account. Second, he considered Darwinism as applied to society (social Darwinism) to be a great evil force in the world, promoting hatred and conflicts and inhibiting upward social and economic mobility of the poor and oppressed.

As part of his crusade against Darwinism, Bryan called for state and local laws banning public schools from teaching evolution. He requested that lawmakers refrain from attaching a criminal penalty to the anti-evolution laws and also urged that educators be allowed to teach evolution as a "hypothesis" rather than as a fact. Only five states, all in the South, responded to Bryan's call to bar the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Bryan was worried that the theory of evolution was gaining ground not only in the universities, but also within the church. The developments of 19th century liberal theology, specifically higher criticism, had allowed many clergymen to be willing to embrace the theory of evolution and claim that it was not contradictory to Christianity. Determined to put an end to this, Bryan, who had long served as a Presbyterian elder, decided to run for the position of Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, which was at the time embroiled in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy. Bryan's main competition in the race was the Rev. Charles F. Wishart, president of the College of Wooster in Ohio, who had loudly endorsed the teaching of the theory of evolution in the college. Bryan lost to Wishart by a vote of 451–427. Bryan failed in gaining approval for a proposal to cut off funds to schools where the theory of evolution was taught. Instead, the General Assembly announced disapproval of materialistic (as opposed to theistic) evolution.

Scopes Trial

At the Scopes Trial, William Jennings Bryan (seated, left) being questioned by Clarence Darrow (standing, right).

From July 10 to July 21, 1925, Bryan participated in the highly publicized Scopes Trial, which tested the Butler Act, a Tennessee law barring the teaching of evolution in public schools. The defendant, John T. Scopes, had violated the Butler Act while serving as a substitute biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee. His defense was funded by the American Civil Liberties Union and led in court by famed lawyer Clarence Darrow. No one disputed that Scopes had violated the Butler Act, but Darrow argued that the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Bryan defended the right of parents to choose what schools teach, argued that Darwinism was merely a "hypothesis," and claimed that Darrow and other intellectuals were trying to invalidate "every moral standard that the Bible gives us." The defense called Bryan as a witness and asked him about his belief in the literal word of the Bible, though the judge later expunged Bryan's testimony.

Ultimately, the judge instructed the jury to render a verdict of guilty, and Scopes was fined $100 for violating the Butler Act. The national media reported the trial in great detail, with H. L. Mencken ridiculing Bryan as a symbol of Southern ignorance and anti-intellectualism. Even many Southern newspapers criticized Bryan's performance in the trial; the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that "Darrow succeeded in showing that Bryan knows little about the science of the world." Bryan had not been allowed to deliver a final argument at trial, but he arranged for the publication of the speech he had intended to give. In that publication, Bryan wrote that "science is a magnificent material force, but it is not a teacher of morals."

Death

In the days following the Scopes Trial, Bryan delivered several speeches in Tennessee. On Sunday, July 26, 1925, Bryan died in his sleep from apoplexy after attending a church service in Dayton. Bryan's body was transported by rail from Dayton to Washington, D.C. He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery, with an epitaph that read "Statesman, yet Friend to Truth! Of Soul Sincere, in Action Faithful, and in Honor Clear" and on the other side "He Kept the Faith"

Family

Bryan remained married to his wife, Mary, until his death in 1925. Mary served as an important adviser to her husband; she passed the bar exam and learned German to help his career. She was buried next to Bryan after her death in 1930. William and Mary had three children: Ruth, William Jr. and Grace. Ruth won election to Congress in 1928 and later served as the ambassador to Denmark during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. William Jr. graduated from Georgetown Law and established a legal practice in Los Angeles, later holding several federal positions and becoming an important figure in the Los Angeles Democratic Party. Grace also moved to Southern California and wrote a biography of her father. William Sr.'s brother, Charles, was an important supporter of his brother until William's death, as well as an influential politician in his own right. Charles served two terms as the mayor of Lincoln and three terms as the governor of Nebraska and was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in the 1924 presidential election.

Bryan's wife, Mary Baird Bryan
 
William Bryan Jr.
 
Grace Bryan

Legacy

Historical reputation and political legacy

Statue of Bryan on the lawn of the Rhea County courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee

Bryan elicited mixed views during his lifetime and his legacy remains complicated. Author Scott Farris argues that "many fail to understand Bryan because he occupies a rare space in society ... too liberal for today's religious [and] too religious for today's liberals." Jeff Taylor rejects the view that Bryan was a "pioneer of the welfare state" and a "forerunner of the New Deal", but argues that Bryan was more accepting of an interventionist federal government than his Democratic predecessors had been. Biographer Michael Kazin, however, opines that

Bryan was the first leader of a major party to argue for permanently expanding the power of the federal government to serve the welfare of ordinary Americans from the working and middle classes ... he did more than any other man—between the fall of Grover Cleveland and the election of Woodrow Wilson—to transform his party from a bulwark of laissez-faire to the citadel of liberalism we identify with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his ideological descendants.

Kazin argues that, compared to Bryan, "only Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had a greater impact on politics and political culture during the era of reform that began in the mid-1890s and lasted until the early 1920s." Writing in 1931, former Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo stated that "with the exception of the men who have occupied the White House, Bryan ... had more to do with the shaping of the public policies of the last forty years than any other American citizen." Historian Robert D. Johnston notes that Bryan was "arguably [the] most influential politician from the Great Plains." In 2015, political scientist Michael G. Miller and historian Ken Owen ranked Bryan as one of the four most influential American politicians who never served as president, alongside Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun.

Kazin also emphasizes the limits of Bryan's influence, noting that "for decades after [Bryan]'s death, influential scholars and journalists depicted him as a self-righteous simpleton who longed to preserve an age that had already passed." Writing in 2006, editor Richard Lingeman noted that "William Jennings Bryan is mainly remembered as the fanatical old fool Fredric March played in Inherit the Wind." Similarly, in 2011, John McDermott wrote that "Bryan is perhaps best known as the sweaty crank of a lawyer who represented Tennessee in the Scopes trial. After his defence of creationism, he became a mocked caricature, a sweaty possessor of avoirdupois, bereft of bombast." Kazin writes that "scholars have increasingly warmed to Bryan's motives, if not his actions" in the Scopes Trial, due to Bryan's rejection of eugenics, a practice that many evolutionists of the 1920s favored.

Kazin also notes the stain that Bryan's acceptance of the Jim Crow system places on his legacy, writing

His one great flaw was to support, with a studied lack of reflection, the abusive system of Jim Crow—a view that was shared, until the late 1930s, by nearly every white Democrat ... After Bryan's death in 1925, most intellectuals and activists on the broad left rejected the amalgam that had inspired him: a strict populist morality based on a close read reading of Scripture ... Liberals and radicals from the age of FDR to the present have tended to scorn that credo as naïve and bigoted, a remnant of an era of white Protestant supremacy that has, or should have, passed.

Nonetheless, prominent individuals from both parties have praised Bryan and his legacy. In 1962, former President Harry Truman said Bryan "was a great one—one of the greatest." Truman also claimed: "If it wasn't for old Bill Bryan, there wouldn't be any liberalism at all in the country now. Bryan kept liberalism alive, he kept it going." Tom L. Johnson, the progressive mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, referred to Bryan's campaign in 1896 as "the first great struggle of the masses in our country against the privileged classes." In a 1934 speech dedicating a memorial to Bryan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said

I think that we would choose the word 'sincerity' as fitting him [Bryan] most of all ... it was that sincerity that served him so well in his life-long fight against sham and privilege and wrong. It was that sincerity that made him a force for good in his own generation and kept alive many of the ancient faiths on which we are building today. We ... can well agree that he fought the good fight; that he finished the course; and that he kept the faith.

More recently, conservative Republicans such as Ralph Reed have hailed Bryan's legacy; Reed described Bryan as "the most consequential evangelical politician of the twentieth century." Bryan's career has also frequently been compared to that of Donald Trump.

In popular culture

Inherit the Wind, a 1955 play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee, is a highly fictionalized account of the Scopes Trial written in response to McCarthyism. A populist thrice-defeated presidential candidate from Nebraska named Matthew Harrison Brady (based on Bryan) comes to a small town to help prosecute a young teacher for teaching evolution to his schoolchildren. He is opposed by a famous trial lawyer, Henry Drummond (based on Darrow) and mocked by a cynical newspaperman (based on Mencken) as the trial assumes a national profile. The 1960 film adaptation was directed by Stanley Kramer and starred Fredric March as Brady and Spencer Tracy as Drummond.

It has been suggested by some economists, historians, and literary critics that L. Frank Baum satirized Bryan as the Cowardly Lion in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, published in 1900. These assertions are based partly on Baum's history as a Republican supporter who advocated in his role as a journalist on behalf of William McKinley and his policies.

Bryan appears as a character in Douglas Moore's 1956 opera The Ballad of Baby Doe. Bryan also has a biographical part in "The 42nd Parallel" in John Dos Passos' USA Trilogy. Vachel Lindsay's "singing poem" "Bryan, Bryan, Bryan, Bryan" is a lengthy tribute to the idol of the poet's youth. Edwin Maxwell, played Bryan in the 1944 film Wilson, Ainslie Pryor played Bryan in a 1956 episode of the CBS anthology series You Are There. The short story "Plowshare" by Martha Soukup and part of the novel Job: A Comedy of Justice by Robert A. Heinlein are set in worlds where Bryan became president. Bryan also appears in And Having Writ by Donald R. Bensen.

Memorials

The William Jennings Bryan House in Nebraska was named a U.S. National Historic Landmark in 1963. The Bryan Home Museum is a by-appointment only museum at his birthplace in Salem, Illinois. Salem is also home to Bryan Park and a large statue of Bryan. His home at Asheville, North Carolina, from 1917 to 1920, the William Jennings Bryan House, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983. Villa Serena, Bryan's property in Miami, Florida, is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered an address on May 3, 1934, dedicating a statue of William Jennings Bryan created by Gutzon Borglum, the sculptor of Mount Rushmore. This Bryan statue by Borglum originally stood in Washington, D.C., but was displaced by highway construction and moved by an Act of Congress in 1961 to Salem, Illinois, Bryan's birthplace.

A statue of Bryan represented the state of Nebraska in the National Statuary Hall in the United States Capitol, as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. In 2019 a statue of Chief Standing Bear replaced the statue of Bryan in the National Statuary Hall.

Bryan was named to the Nebraska Hall of Fame in 1971 and a bust of him resides in the Nebraska State Capitol. Bryan was honored by the United States Postal Service with a $2 Great Americans series postage stamp.

Numerous objects, places and people have been named after Bryan, including Bryan County, Oklahoma, Bryan Medical Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Bryan College, located in Dayton, Tennessee. Omaha Bryan High School and Bryan Middle School in Bellevue, Nebraska, are also named for Bryan. During World War II the Liberty ship SS William J. Bryan was built in Panama City, Florida, and named in his honor.

Filibuster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Senator Warren R. Austin speaking during an all-night filibuster

A filibuster is a parliamentary procedure where one or more members of Parliament or Congress debate over a proposed piece of legislation to delay or entirely prevent a decision being made on the proposal. It is sometimes referred to as "talking a bill to death" or "talking out a bill" and is characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.

This form of political obstruction reaches as far back as Ancient Roman times and could also be referred to synonymously with political stonewalling. Due to the often extreme length of time required for a successful filibuster, many speakers stray off-topic after exhausting the original subject matter. US Senators have, for example, read through laws from different states and recited past speeches and recipes.

Etymology

The ultimate source for filibuster is certainly Dutch vribuyter (now vrijbuiter) 'robber', 'pirate', 'plunderer', from vribuyt 'plunder' (16th c.), from vrij 'free' + buyt 'booty', 'loot'. However, the intermediate history is complicated, because several languages have influenced each other reciprocally. Intermediate links may be English freebooter (1598), a loan translation of the Dutch equivalent, and flibutor (1587): with an -r- altered in an -l- that may have been the result of dissimilation, typical for liquid consonants. This alteration may have occurred in English, or first in a foreign language before it entered English.

In French, flibutier (1666) appeared, next to fribustier (1667) and flibustier (1666) with a hyper corrected -s- inserted. The -s- was originally not pronounced and was purely graphic. This was in 17th century French a common misunderstanding, that followed the analogy of words with -st- in which the original -s- was retained in spelling, though had become silent in pronunciation (such as Middle French maistre 'master', now maître). At the beginning of the 18th century, the -s- in flibustier ended up being pronounced, after the analogy of other words with -st- with pronounced -s- in French.

The Spanish form filibustero (17th c.), can only be an accommodation of the French flibustier; now with the -i- inserted in the first syllable, to match Spanish phonology, and with the -s- pronounced. Originally, it applied to French, Dutch, and English privateers and buccaneers infesting the Spanish American coasts, with whom Spain was constantly at war. However, it was later applied to the military expeditions of Narciso López in Cuba, who fomented a revolution, and liberated the island from Spanish rule.

It designated the followers of American adventurer William Walker who, influenced by López, launched several filibustering campaigns in former Spanish colonies in Central America, and so the definition became specifically "an American engaged in fomenting insurrections in Latin America in the mid-19th century" (1851). Subsequently, the word entered American political slang with the meaning "to obstruct or delay legislation by dilatory motions or other artifices" (1861).

The commonly assumed metonymic relation that explains filibuster from Spanish filibote, (from French flibot, from English flyboat, calqued from Dutch vlieboot 'coasting vessel', from vlie 'shallow river estuary' + boot 'boat') is anachronistic and has no support either in form or in historical fact, since the introduction of the 'Spanish' -i- happened not before, but after the introduction of the 'French' -s-. However, pirates have used this vessel frequently, because of its shallow draught, that enabled them to swiftly navigate the seas and then escape to the shallower shores. Hence, it may have been possible that either flibot, flyboat or vlieboot, the name for the vessel, had a metonymical influence on the fr-fl dissimilation in freebooter, the pre-existing name for the user of such vessel.

Ancient Rome

One of the first known practitioners of the filibuster was the Roman senator Cato the Younger. Cato would obstruct a measure by speaking continuously until nightfall. As the Roman Senate had a rule requiring all business to conclude by dusk, Cato's long-winded speeches could forestall a vote.

Cato attempted to use the filibuster at least twice to frustrate the political objectives of Julius Caesar. The first incident occurred during the summer of 60 BCE, when Caesar was returning home from his propraetorship in Hispania Ulterior. Caesar, as a result of his military victories over the raiders and bandits in Hispania, had been awarded a triumph (Roman victory celebration) by the Senate. Having recently turned forty, Caesar had also become eligible to stand for consul. This posed a dilemma. Roman generals honored with a triumph were not allowed to enter the city prior to the ceremony, but candidates for the consulship were required, by law, to appear in person at the Forum. The date of the election, which had already been set, made it impossible for Caesar to stand unless he crossed the pomerium and gave up the right to his triumph. Caesar petitioned the Senate to stand in absentia, but Cato employed a filibuster to block the proposal. Faced with the choice between a triumph and the consulship, Caesar chose the consulship and entered the city.

Cato made use of the filibuster again in 59 BCE in response to a land reform bill sponsored by Caesar, who was then consul. When it was Cato's time to speak during the debate, he began one of his characteristically long-winded speeches. Caesar, who needed to pass the bill before his co-consul, Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, took possession of the fasces at the end of the month, immediately recognized Cato's intent and ordered the lictors to jail him for the rest of the day. The move was unpopular with many senators and Caesar, realizing his mistake, soon ordered Cato's release. The day was wasted without the Senate ever getting to vote on a motion supporting the bill, but Caesar eventually circumvented Cato's opposition by taking the measure to the Tribal Assembly, where it passed.

Westminster-style parliaments

United Kingdom

In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, a bill defeated by a filibustering manoeuvre may be said to have been "talked out". The procedures of the House of Commons require that members cover only points germane to the topic under consideration or the debate underway whilst speaking. Example filibusters in the Commons and Lords include:

  • In 1874, Joseph Biggar started making long speeches in the House of Commons to delay the passage of Irish coercion acts. Charles Stewart Parnell, a young Irish nationalist Member of Parliament (MP), who in 1880 became leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, joined him in this tactic to obstruct the business of the House and force the Liberals and Conservatives to negotiate with him and his party. The tactic was enormously successful, and Parnell and his MPs succeeded, for a time, in forcing Parliament to take the Irish Question of return to self-government seriously.
  • In 1983, Labour MP John Golding talked for over 11 hours during an all-night sitting at the committee stage of the British Telecommunications Bill. However, as this was at a standing committee and not in the Commons chamber, he was also able to take breaks to eat.
  • On July 3, 1998, Labour MP Michael Foster's Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill was blocked in parliament by opposition filibustering.
  • In January 2000, filibustering directed by Conservative MPs to oppose the Disqualifications Bill led to cancellation of the day's parliamentary business on Prime Minister Tony Blair's 1000th day in office. However, since this business included Prime Minister's Questions, William Hague, Conservative leader at that time, was deprived of the opportunity of a high-profile confrontation with the Prime Minister.
  • On Friday 20 April 2007, a Private Member's Bill aimed at exempting Members of Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act was "talked out" by a collection of MPs, led by Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes and Norman Baker who debated for five hours, therefore running out of time for the parliamentary day and "sending the bill to the bottom of the stack". However, since there were no other Private Members' Bills to debate, it was resurrected the following Monday.
  • In January 2011, Labour peers, including most notably John Prescott, were attempting to delay the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010 until after 16 February, the deadline given by the Electoral Commission to allow the referendum on the Alternative Vote to take place on 5 May. On the eighth day of debate, staff in the House of Lords set up camp beds and refreshments to allow peers to rest.
  • In January 2012, Conservative and Scottish National Party MPs used filibustering to successfully block the Daylight Savings Bill 2010–12, a Private Member's Bill that would put the UK on Central European Time. The filibustering included an attempt by Jacob Rees-Mogg to amend the bill to give the county of Somerset its own time zone, 15 minutes behind London.
  • In November 2014, Conservative MPs Philip Davies and Christopher Chope successfully filibustered a Private Member's Bill that would prohibit retaliatory evictions. Davies's speech was curtailed by Deputy Speaker Dawn Primarolo for disregarding her authority, after she ordered Davies to wrap up his then hour-long speech. A closure motion moved by the government, which was agreed to 60–0, failed due to being inquorate.
  • In October 2016 Conservative Minister Sam Gyimah filibustered a bill sponsored by John Nicolson of the Scottish National Party that would pardon historic convictions of homosexual activity (which is no longer an offence), replacing an existing law that requires each pardon to be applied for separately.
  • In October 2016, the Private Members' Bill of Labour's Julie Cooper MP, which would exempt carers from having to pay hospital car parking charges, received its first reading on 24 June. At the second reading, in October, it was talked out in a filibuster by the Conservative MP Philip Davies.

The all-time Commons record for non-stop speaking, six hours, was set by Henry Brougham in 1828, though this was not a filibuster. The 21st century record was set on December 2, 2005 by Andrew Dismore, Labour MP for Hendon. Dismore spoke for three hours and 17 minutes to block a Conservative Private Member's Bill, the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill, which he claimed amounted to "vigilante law". Although Dismore is credited with speaking for 197 minutes, he regularly accepted interventions from other MPs who wished to comment on points made in his speech. Taking multiple interventions artificially inflates the duration of a speech and thus may be used as a tactic to prolong a speech.

In local unitary authorities of England a motion may be carried into closure by filibustering. This results in any additional motions receiving less time for debate by Councillors instead forcing a vote by the Council under closure rules.

Northern Ireland

A notable filibuster took place in the Northern Ireland House of Commons in 1936 when Tommy Henderson (Independent Unionist MP for Shankill) spoke for nine and a half hours (ending just before 4 am) on the Appropriation Bill. As this Bill applied government spending to all departments, almost any topic was relevant to the debate, and Henderson used the opportunity to list all of his many criticisms of the Unionist government.

Australia

Since both houses of the Australian Parliament have strictly enforced rules on how long members may speak, filibusters are generally not possible, though this is not the case in some state Parliaments.

The Museum of Australian Democracy identifies the last filibuster at the federal level to be a 12-hour long speech (including interruptions) by Senator Albert Gardiner in 1918, in which he read the entire Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, to which the Labor Party was opposed because it introduced preferential voting.

In response to this, Senate speeches were limited to 20 minutes the following year (there was already a limit on speeches in the House of Representatives).

During the 2008 Parnell–Bressington filibuster, two Members of the South Australian Legislative Council spoke for 13 hours to filibuster "to stall changes to workers' compensation laws".

In opposition, Tony Abbott's Liberal National coalition used suspension of standing orders in 2012 for the purposes of talking at length on political issues, most commonly during question time against the Labor government. However, the suspension of standing orders was not intended to delay or stop the passage of legislation, as with a traditional filibuster.

New Zealand

In August 2000, New Zealand opposition parties National and ACT delayed the voting for the Employment Relations Bill by voting slowly, and in some cases in Māori (which required translation into English).

In 2009, several parties staged a filibuster of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill in opposition to the government setting up a new Auckland Council under urgency and without debate or review by select committee, by proposing thousands of wrecking amendments and voting in Māori as each amendment had to be voted on and votes in Māori translated into English. Amendments included renaming the council to "Auckland Katchafire Council" or "Rodney Hide Memorial Council" and replacing the phrase "powers of a regional council" with "power and muscle".

India

The Rajya Sabha (Council of states) – which is the upper house in the bicameral Parliament of India – allows for a debate to be brought to a close with a simple majority decision of the house, on a closure motion so introduced by any member. On the other hand, the Lok Sabha (House of the people) – the lower house – leaves the closure of the debate to the discretion of the speaker, once a motion to end the debate is moved by a member.

Ireland

In 2014, Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter performed a filibuster; he was perceived to "drone on and on" and hence this was termed a "Drone Attack".

Canada

Federal

A dramatic example of filibustering in the House of Commons of Canada took place between Thursday June 23, 2011 and Saturday June 25, 2011. In an attempt to prevent the passing of Bill C-6, which would have legislated the imposing of a four-year contract and pay conditions on the locked out Canada Post workers, the New Democratic Party (NDP) led a filibustering session which lasted for fifty-eight hours. The NDP argued that the legislation in its then form undermined collective bargaining. Specifically, the NDP opposed the salary provisions and the form of binding arbitration outlined in the bill.

The House was supposed to break for the summer Thursday June 23, but remained open in an extended session due to the filibuster. The 103 NDP MPs to delay the passing of the bill. MPs are allowed to give such speeches each time a vote takes place, and many votes were needed before the bill could be passed. As the Conservative Party of Canada held a majority in the House, the bill passed. This was the longest filibuster since the 1999 Reform Party of Canada filibuster, on native treaty issues in British Columbia.

Conservative Member of Parliament Tom Lukiwski is known for his ability to stall Parliamentary Committee business by filibustering. One such example occurred October 26, 2006, when he spoke for almost 120 minutes to prevent the House of Commons of Canada Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from studying a private member's bill to implement the Kyoto Accord. He also spoke for about 6 hours on February 5, 2008 and February 7, 2008 at the House of Commons of Canada Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meetings to block inquiry into allegations that the Conservative Party spent over the maximum allowable campaign limits during the 2006 election.

Another example of filibuster in Canada federally came in early 2014 when NDP MP and Deputy Leader David Christopherson filibustered the government's bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. His filibuster lasted several meetings the last of which he spoke for over 8 hours and was done to support his own motion to hold cross country hearings on the bill so MPs could hear what the Canadian public thought of the bill. In the end, given that the Conservative government had a majority at committee, his motion was defeated and the bill passed although with some significant amendments.

Provincial

The Legislature of the Province of Ontario has witnessed several significant filibusters, although two are notable for the unusual manner by which they were undertaken. The first was an effort on May 6, 1991, by Mike Harris, later premier but then leader of the opposition Progressive Conservatives, to derail the implementation of the budget tabled by the NDP government under premier Bob Rae. The tactic involved the introduction of Bill 95, the title of which contained the names of every lake, river and stream in the province. Between the reading of the title by the proposing MPP, and the subsequent obligatory reading of the title by the clerk of the chamber, this filibuster occupied the entirety of the day's session until adjournment. To prevent this particular tactic from being used again, changes were eventually made to the Standing Orders to limit the time allocated each day to the introduction of bills to 30 minutes.

A second high-profile and uniquely implemented filibuster in the Ontario Legislature occurred in April 1997, where the Ontario New Democratic Party, then in opposition, tried to prevent the governing Progressive Conservatives' Bill 103 from taking effect. To protest the Tory government's legislation that would amalgamate the municipalities of Metro Toronto into the "megacity" of Toronto, the small NDP caucus introduced 11,500 amendments to the megacity bill, created on computers with mail merge functionality. Each amendment would name a street in the proposed city, and provide that public hearings be held into the megacity with residents of the street invited to participate. The Ontario Liberal Party also joined the filibuster with a smaller series of amendments; a typical Liberal amendment would give a historical designation to a named street. The NDP then added another series of over 700 amendments, each proposing a different date for the bill to come into force.

The filibuster began on April 2 with the Abbeywood Trail amendment and occupied the legislature day and night, the members alternating in shifts. On April 4, exhausted and often sleepy government members inadvertently let one of the NDP amendments pass, and the handful of residents of Cafon Court in Etobicoke were granted the right to a public consultation on the bill, although the government subsequently nullified this with an amendment of its own. On April 6, with the alphabetical list of streets barely into the Es, Speaker Chris Stockwell ruled that there was no need for the 220 words identical in each amendment to be read aloud each time, only the street name. With a vote still needed on each amendment, Zorra Street was not reached until April 8. The Liberal amendments were then voted down one by one, eventually using a similar abbreviated process, and the filibuster finally ended on April 11.

An unusual example of filibustering occurred in March 2017, when the governing Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador had "nothing else to do in the House of Assembly" and debated between only themselves about their own interim supply bill, after both the Conservative and New Democratic Parties indicated they intended to vote in favour of the bill.

Other

On 28 October 1897, Dr. Otto Lecher, Delegate for Brünn, spoke continuously for twelve hours before the Abgeordnetenhaus ("House of Delegates") of the Reichsrat ("Imperial Council") of Austria, to block action on the "Ausgleich" with Hungary, which was due for renewal. Mark Twain was present, and described the speech and the political context in his essay "Stirring Times in Austria".

In the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly, Independent member Dr Ahrn Palley staged a similar filibuster against the Law and Order Maintenance Bill on 22 November 1960, although this took the form of moving a long series of amendments to the Bill, and therefore consisted of multiple individual speeches interspersed with comments from other Members. Palley kept the Assembly sitting from 8 PM to 12:30 PM the following day.

On December 16, 2010, Werner Kogler of the Austrian Green Party gave his speech before the budget committee, criticizing the failings of the budget and the governing parties (Social Democratic Party and Austrian People's Party) in the last years. The filibuster lasted for 12 hours and 42 minutes (starting at 13:18, and speaking until 2:00 in the morning), thus breaking the previous record held by his party-colleague Madeleine Petrovic (10 hours and 35 minutes on March 11, 1993), after which the standing orders had been changed, so speaking time was limited to 20 minutes. However, it didn't keep Kogler from giving his speech.

United States

Senate

The filibuster is a powerful legislative device in the United States Senate. Senate rules permit a senator or senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (60 out of 100 senators) vote to bring debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time. Defenders call the filibuster "The Soul of the Senate".

The longest-ever single-Senator filibuster was Strom Thurmond's unsuccessful filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, lasting 24 hours and 18 minutes. The longest ever coordinated filibuster was the Southern Democrats' unsuccessful filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which included participation from Richard Russell Jr., Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, J. William Fulbright, and Sam Ervin. It lasted 60 days before Senate Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen gathered enough votes to end debate.

The filibuster is not codified by the US Constitution, but rather has been incorporated into Senate practice through the Standing Rules of the Senate. Prior to its formal codification, the first attempted instance of "talking a bill to death" took place during the first session of the Senate in 1789. It was first formally introduced with a change of Senate rules in 1806. Initially, a successful vote of cloture required unanimous approval by the Senate; this threshold was reduced to 2/3 of the chamber in 1917 as the filibuster gained wider use as a means of stymieing legislation. The first invocation of the reduced cloture threshold took place in 1919 as a means to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Although seldom used over the next 4 decades, the filibuster was the most common tool wielded by southern Senators as a means to oppose a number pieces of Civil Rights legislation, such as anti-lynching laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the 1970s, the filibuster was changed again to reduce the number of votes required from 2/3 to 3/5 of the Senate.

US Senators engaging in a filibuster

Under Senate rules, any modification or limitation of the filibuster would require an amendment to Senate Rule 22, which would require two-thirds of those senators present and voting in favor of the amendment.

Under Senate procedure, a simple majority of senators can limit the applicability of the filibuster. The removal or substantial limitation of the filibuster by a simple majority, rather than a rule change, is colloquially called the nuclear option.

On November 21, 2013, the then-Democratic-controlled Senate exercised the nuclear option, in a 52–48 vote, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required. On April 6, 2017, the Republican-controlled Senate did the same, in a 52–48 vote, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of Supreme Court nominees.

House of Representatives

In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created.

Minority party members subsequently used a disappearing quorum, where members would refuse to vote despite being present on the floor or walk out before a vote. At that time the quorum only counted those voting yea or nay as present, allowing the minority to make use of missing members to deny a vote. In 1890, after Republicans had taken control of Congress, Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed changed House rules to eliminate this by counting members who were present but not voting as present for a quorum. The 51st Congress, previously expected to be unproductive due to minority obstruction, accomplished passage of major legislation. This filibuster was reinstated in 1891 when control of the House flipped, but Reed's use of it forced its re-abolishment in 1893.

On February 7, 2018, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi set a record for the longest speech on the House floor, speaking for eight hours and seven minutes in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: she took advantage of the fact that the Minority Leader is allowed to speak indefinitely without interruption.

State legislatures

Only 14 state legislatures have a filibuster:

France

In France, member of Parlement Christine Boutin spoke for five hours in the French National Assembly in November 1999 in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent or postpone the adoption of PACS, a contractual form of civil union open to homosexual couples, which she opposed.

In August 2006, the left-wing opposition submitted 137,449 amendments to the proposed law bringing the share in Gaz de France owned by the French state from 80% to 34% in order to allow for the merger between Gaz de France and Suez. Normal parliamentary procedure would require 10 years to vote on all the amendments.

The French constitution gives the government two options to defeat such a filibuster. The first one was originally the use of the article 49 paragraph 3 procedure, according to which the law was adopted except if a majority is reached on a non-confidence motion (a reform of July 2008 resulted in this power being restricted to budgetary measures only, plus one time each ordinary session – i.e. from October to June – on any bill. Before this reform, article 49, 3 was frequently used, especially when the government was short a majority in the Assemblée nationale to support the text but still enough to avoid a non-confidence vote). The second one is the article 44 paragraph 3 through which the government can force a global vote on all amendments it did not approve or submit itself.

In the end, the government did not have to use either of those procedures. As the parliamentary debate started, the left-wing opposition chose to withdraw all the amendments to allow for the vote to proceed. The "filibuster" was aborted because the privatisation of Gaz de France appeared to have little opposition amongst the general population. It also appeared that this privatisation law could be used by the left-wing in the presidential election of 2007 as a political argument. Indeed, Nicolas Sarkozy, president of the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP – the right wing party), Interior Minister, former Finance Minister and campaigning for President, had previously promised that the share owned by the French government in Gaz de France would never go below 70%.

Hong Kong

The first incidence of filibuster in the Legislative Council (LegCo) after the Handover occurred during the second reading of the Provision of Municipal Services (Reorganization) Bill in 1999, which aimed at dissolving the partially elected Urban Council and Regional Council. As the absence of some pro-Establishment legislators would mean an inadequate support for the passing of the bill, the Pro-establishment Camp filibustered along with Michael Suen, the then-Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, the voting of the bill was delayed to the next day and that the absentees could cast their votes. Though the filibuster was criticised by the pro-democracy camp, Lau Kong-wah of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) defended their actions, saying "it (a filibuster) is totally acceptable in a parliamentary assembly".

Legislators of the Pro-democracy Camp filibustered during a debate about financing the construction of the Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link by raising many questions on very minor issues, delaying the passing of the bill from 18 December 2009 to 16 January 2010. The Legislative Council Building was surrounded by thousands of anti-high-speed rail protesters during the course of the meetings.

In 2012, Albert Chan and Wong Yuk-man of People Power submitted a total of 1306 amendments to the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill, by which the government attempted to forbid lawmakers from participating in by-elections after their resignation. The bill was a response to the so-called 'Five Constituencies Referendum, in which 5 lawmakers from the pro-democracy camp resigned and then joined the by-election, claiming that it would affirm the public's support to push forward the electoral reform. The pro-democracy camp strongly opposed the bill, saying it was seen a deprivation of the citizens' political rights. As a result of the filibuster, the LegCo carried on multiple overnight debates on the amendments. In the morning of 17 May 2012, the President of the LegCo (Jasper Tsang) terminated the debate, citing Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure of LegCo: In any matter not provided for in these Rules of Procedure, the practice and procedure to be followed in the Council shall be such as may be decided by the President who may, if he thinks fit, be guided by the practice and procedure of other legislatures. In the end, all motions to amend the bill were defeated and the Bill was passed.

To ban filibuster, Ip Kwok-him of the DAB sought to limit each member to move only one motion, by amending the procedures of the Finance Committee and its two subcommittees in 2013. All 27 members from pan-democracy camp submitted 1.9 million amendments. The Secretariat estimated that 408 man-months (each containing 156 working hours) were needed to vet the facts and accuracy of the motions, and, if all amendments were admitted by the Chairman, the voting time would take 23,868 two-hour meetings.

As of 2017, filibustering is still an ongoing practice in Hong Kong by the pan-democratic party, but at the same time, the pan-democratic party are undergoing huge amounts of fire from the pro-Beijing camp for making filibustering a norm in the Legislative Council.

Iran

In Iranian oil nationalisation, the filibustering speech of Hossain Makki, the National Front deputy took four days that made the pro-British and pro-royalists in Majlis (Iran) inactive. To forestall a vote, the opposition, headed by Hossein Makki, conducted a filibuster. For four days Makki talked about the country's tortuous experience with AIOC and the shortcomings of the bill. Four days later when the term ended the debate had reached no conclusion. The fate of the bill remained to be decided by the next Majlis.

Italy

In Italy, filibustering has ancient traditions and is expressed overall with the proposition of legal texts on which interventions take place.

Philippines

In the Senate of the Philippines, Roseller Lim of the Nacionalista Party held out the longest filibuster in Philippine history. On the election for the President of the Senate of the Philippines in April 1963, he stood on the podium for more than 18 hours to wait for party-mate Alejandro Almendras who was to arrive from the United States. The Nacionalistas, who comprised exactly half of the Senate, wanted to prevent the election of Ferdinand Marcos to the Senate Presidency. Prohibited from even going to the comfort room, he had to relieve himself in his pants until Almendras's arrival. He voted for party-mate Eulogio Rodriguez just as Almendras's plane landed, and had to be carried off via stretcher out of the session hall due to exhaustion. However, Almendras voted for Marcos, and the latter wrested the Senate Presidency from the Nacionalistas after more than a decade of control.

Poland

Since 2019, the Senate of Poland is controlled by parties opposing the ruling Law and Justice Party. In 2020, this body postponed legislative procedure of a controversial electoral act for 30 days and eventually vetoed it.

South Korea

South Korean opposition lawmakers started a filibuster on February 23, 2016, to stall the Anti-Terrorism bill, which they claim will give too much power to the National Intelligence Service and result in invasions of citizens' privacy. As of March 2, the filibuster completed with a total of 193 hours, and the passing of the bill. South Korea's 20th legislative elections were held 2 months after the filibuster, and the opposite party the Minjoo Party of Korea won more seats than the ruling party, the Saenuri Party.

Spain

During the Spanish Second Republic, Communist Party MP Cayetano Bolívar would allegedly read whole chapters of Karl Marx's Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto during his interventions in order to anger right-wing MP's and encourage them to leave session so that left-leaning policies would then be easier to pass.

Chosen people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people

Throughout history, various groups of people have considered themselves to be the chosen people (Hebrew: עם סגולה / העם הנבחר‎) of a deity, for a particular purpose. The phenomenon of a "chosen people" is well-known among the Israelites and Jews, where the term originally referred to the Israelites as being selected by Yahweh to worship only him and to fulfill the mission of proclaiming his truth throughout the world. Some claims of chosenness are based on parallel claims of Israelite ancestry, as is the case for the Christian Identity and Black Hebrew sects—both which claim themselves (and not Jews) to be the "true Israel". Others claim that the concept is spiritual, where individuals who genuinely believe in God are considered to be the 'true' chosen people. This view is common among most Christian denominations, who historically believed that the church replaced Israel as the people of God.

Anthropologists commonly regard claims of chosenness as a form of ethnocentrism.

Judaism

In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews, via descent from the ancient Israelites, are the chosen people, i.e., chosen to be in a covenant with God. The idea of the Israelites being chosen by God is found most directly in the Book of Deuteronomy as the verb 'bahar (בָּחַ֣ר  (Hebrew)), and is alluded to elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible using other terms such as "holy people". Much is written about these topics in rabbinic literature. The three largest Jewish denominations—Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism—maintain the belief that the Jews have been chosen by God for a purpose. Sometimes this choice is seen as charging the Jewish people with a specific mission—to be a light unto the nations, and to exemplify the covenant with God as described in the Torah. This is first prominently outlined in Genesis 12:2. 

Whilst the concept of "choseness" implies ethnic supremacy, conservative Judaism rejects this interpretation as they claim that as a result of being chosen, Jews also bear the greatest responsibility, which incurs the most severe punishment upon disobedience.

"Few beliefs have been subject to as much misunderstanding as the 'Chosen People' doctrine. The Torah and the Prophets clearly stated that this does not imply any innate Jewish superiority. In the words of Amos (3:2) 'You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth—that is why I will call you to account for your iniquities.' The Torah tells us that we are to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" with obligations and duties which flowed from our willingness to accept this status. Far from being a license for special privilege, it entailed additional responsibilities not only toward God but to our fellow human beings. As expressed in the blessing at the reading of the Torah, our people have always felt it to be a privilege to be selected for such a purpose. For the modern traditional Jew, the doctrine of the election and the covenant of Israel offers a purpose for Jewish existence which transcends its own self interests. It suggests that because of our special history and unique heritage we are in a position to demonstrate that a people that takes seriously the idea of being covenanted with God can not only thrive in the face of oppression, but can be a source of blessing to its children and its neighbors. It obligates us to build a just and compassionate society throughout the world and especially in the land of Israel where we may teach by example what it means to be a 'covenant people, a light unto the nations.'"

Likewise, Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits views Jews as a group that has been divinely chosen by Yahweh to contribute to the world in a unique way. Even further, he believes that God has done a similar thing for other groups.

"Yes, I do believe that the chosen people concept as affirmed by Judaism in its holy writ, its prayers, and its millennial tradition. In fact, I believe that every people—and indeed, in a more limited way, every individual—is "chosen" or destined for some distinct purpose in advancing the designs of Providence. Only, some fulfill their mission and others do not. Maybe the Greeks were chosen for their unique contributions to art and philosophy, the Romans for their pioneering services in law and government, the British for bringing parliamentary rule into the world, and the Americans for piloting democracy in a pluralistic society. The Jews were chosen by God to be 'peculiar unto Me' as the pioneers of religion and morality; that was and is their national purpose."

Christianity

Seventh-day Adventism

Mormonism

In Mormonism, all Latter Day Saints are viewed as covenant, or chosen, people because they have accepted the name of Jesus Christ through the ordinance of baptism. In contrast to supersessionism, Latter Day Saints do not dispute the "chosen" status of the Jewish people. Most practicing Mormons receive a patriarchal blessing that reveals their lineage in the House of Israel. This lineage may be blood related or through "adoption;" therefore, a child may not necessarily share the lineage of her parents (but will still be a member of the tribes of Israel). It is a widely held belief that most members of the faith are in the tribe of Ephraim or the tribe of Manasseh.

Christian Identity

Christian Identity is a belief which holds the view that only Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, Aryan people and those of kindred blood are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and hence the descendants of the ancient Israelites.

Independently practiced by individuals, independent congregations, and some prison gangs, it is not an organized religion, nor is it connected with specific Christian denominations. Its theology promotes a racial interpretation of Christianity. Christian Identity beliefs were primarily developed and promoted by authors who regarded Europeans as the "chosen people" and Jews as the cursed offspring of Cain, the "serpent hybrid" or serpent seed, a belief known as the two-seedline doctrine. White supremacist sects and gangs later adopted many of these teachings.

Christian Identity holds that all non-whites (people not of wholly European descent) will either be exterminated or enslaved in order to serve the white race in the new Heavenly Kingdom on Earth under the reign of Jesus Christ. Its doctrine states that only "Adamic" (white) people can achieve salvation and paradise.

Rastafari

Based on Jewish biblical tradition and Ethiopian legend via Kebra Nagast, Rastas believe that Israel's King Solomon, together with Ethiopian Queen of Sheba, conceived a child which began the Solomonic line of kings in Ethiopia, rendering the Ethiopian people as the true children of Israel, and thereby chosen. Reinforcement of this belief occurred when Beta Israel, Ethiopia's ancient Israelite First Temple community, were rescued from Sudanese famine and brought to Israel during Operation Moses in 1985.

Unification Church

Sun Myung Moon taught that Korea is the chosen nation, selected to serve a divine mission and was "chosen by God to be the birthplace of the leading figure of the age" and was the birthplace of "Heavenly Tradition", ushering in God's kingdom.

Nation of Islam

The Nation of Islam teaches that black people constitute a nation and that through the institution of the Atlantic slave trade they were systematically denied knowledge of their history, language, culture, and religion and, in effect, lost control of their lives. Founder Elijah Muhammad called for the establishment of a separate nation for black Americans and the adoption of a religion based on the worship of Allah and on the belief that blacks were his chosen people.

Inequality (mathematics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality...