WI The first Adlai Stevenson became President

Derek Jackson

I believe that Grover Clevland's Vice President was the grandfather of the guy who lost two Presidential elections in the 50s.

I also believe that Cleveland had surgery for cancer (but this was covered up)

What sort of a Presient would Stevenson have been. What posiiton would he have taken on the great Silver issue.

Would he have had any chance of winning the 1896 Democrat nomination. If he did would the Party have stayed United or would there have been a stronger but separate Populist party.

I actually do not know that much about the guy but I hope some Americans using this will?
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
From the pdf file

"As a supporter of using greenbacks and free silver to inflate the currency, and alleviate economic distress in the rural districts, Stevenson balanced the ticket headed by Cleveland, the hard-money, gold-standard supporter. "

Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
A selection of quotes from the pdf

"Stevenson's presence as next in line to the presidency frightened Cleveland's more conservative supporters

As a staunch advocate of limited government, Cleveland disapproved of any government programme to reduce economic suffering. By contrast, Vice President Stevenson represented the 'populist doctrines' of currency reform that were creeping into the Democratic party.

In June 1893, after Cleveland proposed repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and a return to the gold standard, one of his hard-money supporters wrote (to) Cleveland saying "I wish you had Congress in session now. You may not be alive in September. It would make a vast difference to the United States if you were not.

The president insisted that the surgery be kept secret to avoid another panic on Wall Street over the thought of a silverite like Stevenson in the White House.

Repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act only contracted the currency and further weakened the economy. Silverites called it the 'Crime of 1893'. The Democrats became tagged as the party of the 'empty dinnerpail' and suffered sweeping congressional defeats in 1894"

Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
Derek Jackson said:
Might Stevenson have beaten McKinley in 1896?
Click to expand...

The way I read it is only if they hadn't screwed the economy in 1893 - for Stevenson to say he was against the policies which did it to them may well be both true and easy to prove, but never the less he was a member of the administration which did it so he is tarred with the same brush and will be associated with it

IMVHO
Grey Wolf
 

Derek Jackson

Just to clarify I am assuming that Stevenson had become President following the death of Cleveland so that different policies would have been followed. So it would been as President he would have run against McKinley
 

Derek Jackson

I now have a bit more information about Stevenson. Had Cleveland died in 1893 his succession would have marked a rather radical change in policy. He would have pleased Populists and annoyed Business interests.

If he were nominated in 1896 - especially if his silver policies actually did make people feel better- would he have beaten McKinley.

I also note that other 19th Century VPs who succeeded to the office did NOT seek election in their own right.

If Stevenson were elected I am assuming he would NOT have started the Spanish American war. How much would that change attitudes to international affairs?
 

Derek Jackson

I have found out a bit more. In OTL Stevenson was willing to be Bryan's VP candidated in 1900 despite not liking the VP office when he had previously had it.

That and several other factors suggest that he would have been quite populist.

If Sliver and Greenbacks had been allowed would the US Economy have been good enough for him to win in 1896, and perhaps 1900?

How different would America's view of the World be if there had been no Spanish American War?

I also note that in the 1850s Stevenson's father actually freed his slaves according to one encyclopaedia on the net. Might Stevenson have been less racist than most Democrats of his time?


By the way I am surprised that this is not a more popular ATL
 

Bill Cameron

Banned
Derek Jackson said:
By the way I am surprised that this is not a more popular ATL
Click to expand...


Derek,

It's a rather obscure era in US politics. Many people haven't read about it, so many people don't feel comfortable adding ideas.

FWIW, I think it would have taken a remarkably strong president to resist the popular sentiment to 'free' Cuba. The yellow press had been flogging the idea for years prior to 1898 as seen by Heart's famous "You supply the pictures and I'll supply the war" quote. Public opinion at the time was extremely anti-Spanish. Read a few of O.Henry's short stories that are set in the period or one of Caleb Carr's Alienist novels for a glimpse of it. Populist or not, I don't believe Stevenson could have prevented to coming train wreck.

Whether there would have been a Maine in Havana harbor to suffer a bunker explosion at the inopportune time or not, I believe there would have been a diplomatic rupture of some sort between the US and Spain by the end of the 1890s. The US was finally building a steam navy, "white mans' burden" imperialism was in full flood, the Manifest Destiny crowd was looking beyond the North American continent, and Spain was an easy, high profile target. Whether this ATL Span-Am War would finish up with the US in possession of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines, etc. is another question entirely.

Check out McKinley some time. As a Civil War vet, he was very hesitant about going to war. Despite the yellow press and other pressures, he had successfully avoided the issue until the Maine and a series of diplomatic blunders by both sides tipped his hand.

Even with the industrialist and financier backers he had, McKinley wasn't able ignore opinions and avoid the war. IMHO, Stevenson would have had less of a chance. As a populist, he would have been more at the mercy of the populace and the populace wanted a war.


Bill
 

Derek Jackson

William Randolph Hearst wanted war. We do not know what the people wanted.

Of course after a SUCCESSFUL war opinion was different. However people did NOT know exactly what would happen in such a war. There were actually millions of Civil War veterans- many of whom may have been less than totally in favor of yet another war.

MAYBE a President could have influenced thing differently.

One factor that would be fighting Hearst would probably be Vice President Bryan- allegedly one of America's greatest speakers.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
Bill Cameron said:
Derek,

It's a rather obscure era in US politics. Many people haven't read about it, so many people don't feel comfortable adding ideas.

FWIW, I think it would have taken a remarkably strong president to resist the popular sentiment to 'free' Cuba. The yellow press had been flogging the idea for years prior to 1898 as seen by Heart's famous "You supply the pictures and I'll supply the war" quote. Public opinion at the time was extremely anti-Spanish. Read a few of O.Henry's short stories that are set in the period or one of Caleb Carr's Alienist novels for a glimpse of it. Populist or not, I don't believe Stevenson could have prevented to coming train wreck.

Whether there would have been a Maine in Havana harbor to suffer a bunker explosion at the inopportune time or not, I believe there would have been a diplomatic rupture of some sort between the US and Spain by the end of the 1890s. The US was finally building a steam navy, "white mans' burden" imperialism was in full flood, the Manifest Destiny crowd was looking beyond the North American continent, and Spain was an easy, high profile target. Whether this ATL Span-Am War would finish up with the US in possession of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines, etc. is another question entirely.

Check out McKinley some time. As a Civil War vet, he was very hesitant about going to war. Despite the yellow press and other pressures, he had successfully avoided the issue until the Maine and a series of diplomatic blunders by both sides tipped his hand.

Even with the industrialist and financier backers he had, McKinley wasn't able ignore opinions and avoid the war. IMHO, Stevenson would have had less of a chance. As a populist, he would have been more at the mercy of the populace and the populace wanted a war.


Bill
Click to expand...


I don't see this as inevitable - proving that despite contrary opinions something still happened in OTL doesn't prove that it would have happened come what may

Cuba had been in rebellion for most of the years from the 1860s onwards, the USA had tried to negotiate for it in the later 1850s during the Crimean War, and naval opinion at the time did not know what we know now, that much of the Spanish fleet was a white elephant. I have an article by a US oficer from 1897 saying they expected the Spanish to defeat the US, impose a blockade etc, and be impossible to break down in a fleet engagement. It loks laughable now only because we know what no one knew then

Grey Wolf
 

Bill Cameron

Banned
Derek Jackson said:
William Randolph Hearst wanted war. We do not know what the people wanted.
Click to expand...


Derek,

Uh, yes we do know what the people wanted. We're not dealing with ancient history here, there are thousands of primary sources from the ear that still exist. There are many, many diaries, books, newspaper editorials and articles (from papers other than those Hearst controlled) songs, pre-vaudeville acts, and countless other cultural artifacts that attest to what the people wanted. They wanted Cuba's problems settled in one manner or another.

MAYBE a President could have influenced thing differently.
Click to expand...

Of course. Another president may have not sent a time bomb of a warship to Havana. Until the Maine episode, war was a something only those on the fringe wanted. After the Maine even McKinley couldn't stop the war.

It may not have come to war, I did mention a diplomatic rupture of some sort, but Spain and the US were going to settle their differences over Cuba by one method or another. Both sides wanted the problem 'solved' and events led both sides to choose war. The different events found in an ATL may very well lead to a different solution, but a solution will occur soon. The US and Spain had simply been jawing too much for too long for a solution not to occur soon.


Bill
 

Bill Cameron

Banned
Grey Wolf said:
I don't see this as inevitable - proving that despite contrary opinions something still happened in OTL doesn't prove that it would have happened come what may.
Click to expand...


Grey,

Sorry, poor prose on my part. You are correct, war wasn't inevitable, but a solution of some sort to the Cuba problem between the US and Spain was inevitable. As you point out, the US and Spain had been entangled off and on over Cuba for nearly a half century and both sides were tired of what they percieved was an impasse with regards to the other. Something was going to happen, maybe not a war, but something was going to happen and happen soon. IMHO, after over forty years of Cuban sparked tensions between the US and Spain, a different president from a mid-1890s POD isn't enough of a butterfly to prevent that something from occurring.

I have an article by a US oficer from 1897 saying they expected the Spanish to defeat the US, impose a blockade etc, and be impossible to break down in a fleet engagement. It loks laughable now only because we know what no one knew then.
Click to expand...

I agree. For those at the time, victory was thought to be by no means certain. A maternal great-grandmother of mine attended a Fourth of July dance in 1898 at Fort Knox across the Penobscot River from Bucksport, Maine. We still have her dance card from the event in a scrapbook of her's. A Connecticut militia artillery company had been mobilized and stationed there to protect city of Bangor which is ~15 miles upriver. They were in all seriousness manning a still incomplete stone fort designed in the 1840s and armed with muzzle loading Rodmans against a then plausible Spanish naval raid. It sounds truly idiotic to us now, but it was deadly serious to the people of the time.

War had been an unlikley solution to the problem until the Maine episode. However, both sides were tired of there being a problem and both sides were looking to resolve it in one manner or another. Something was going to occur and occur soon. That something needn't have been a war, of course.


Bill
 

Derek Jackson

President Stevenson did NOT send the Maine to Cuba.

For sure America is sympathetic to Cuban rebellions.

At some stage the colonial war might have some consequences for Spanish politics. Perhaps indeed some time in the first decade of the 20th Century a Cuba which has defeated Spain itself might freely either seek alliance with the USA or in fact statehood.


At the same time other things might be different. There would be much more effort by the Federal Government (at least the Executive Branch) to deal with the power of the Rail road corporations.

Maybe there would be a different and less pro corporate Supreme Court?

Overall American Capitalism might be slightly less brutal in the run up to WW1 than in OTL.

I am assuming that in 1900 Vice President Bryan would be the Democrat candidate. I do not know if he would win.
 

Derek Jackson

I know bumping my own thread is a bit naughty but still I think this is an interesting and credible POD.

It also occurs to me that even if by some means an Adlai Stevenson I President had been forced into the Spanish American War he might have treated the Philipino people better and perhaps he might not have wanted Guantanamo bay.

If, as I imagine, he might have been a successful President might US Politics in that era have been significantly further to the left than in OTL.

Any thoughts?
 

xchen08

Bill Cameron said:
I agree. For those at the time, victory was thought to be by no means certain. A maternal great-grandmother of mine attended a Fourth of July dance in 1898 at Fort Knox across the Penobscot River from Bucksport, Maine. We still have her dance card from the event in a scrapbook of her's. A Connecticut militia artillery company had been mobilized and stationed there to protect city of Bangor which is ~15 miles upriver. They were in all seriousness manning a still incomplete stone fort designed in the 1840s and armed with muzzle loading Rodmans against a then plausible Spanish naval raid. It sounds truly idiotic to us now, but it was deadly serious to the people of the time.
Click to expand...

I'm curious; why would military officers think this? I can understand the popular press being stupid, like the scare in the Civil War about the Virginia bombarding Washington, but you would think the professional military types to be fully aware of the balance of forces.
 

Tom_B

xchen08 said:
I'm curious; why would military officers think this? I can understand the popular press being stupid, like the scare in the Civil War about the Virginia bombarding Washington, but you would think the professional military types to be fully aware of the balance of forces.
Click to expand...

Maybe because it was not completely stupid. The Spanish were trying to set up a naval raid against New England using the French possession at St.Pierre as a coaling base but never went ahead with it.
 
Fearless Leader

Fearless Leader

Donor
First off, let me just say this is an excellent idea.

However I'm not sure Stevenson would be all that effective as a president. If he becomes President in 1893, the Panic of 1893 is unavoidable. If the Panic of 1893 is not avoided the Democrats are still going to lose in the Mid Term elections of 1894. This will give the GOP control of the house of representatives and the Senate (especially considering that not all of the Democrat party's going to back Stevenson's silverite policies.) What you might have is a situation similiar to 1994 with a "Gingrich Congress" and a decline in the power of the presidency compared to the Speaker of the House.

Come 1896 I'd wager that the divide is even more pronounced than OTL. Stevenson easily wins the nomination of the Populists and Free Silverites while the Bourbon Democrats nominate someone to run against Stevenson. As a result of the divide within the Democrat party and the massive war chest of the GOP along with the fact that many people outside the West felt uneasy about the rampant inflation that would be caused by the silverite policies and I think the GOP still wins in 1896.

Basically Stevenson and the Silverite face too many obstacles to implementing their policies in the early 19th century.
 

Derek Jackson

If the conservative Democrats split off as a result of a President Stevenson nomination in 1896 does that not increase the chance of a Democrat Populist trumph because the vote would be split between conservative Dems and Republicans.

I admit I am again bumping this because it does interest me.

It also occurs to me that even if a President Stevenson had declared war on Spain his post war treatment of Cuba and the Phillipines might have been different to McKinley's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top