Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1880

[Nerdlinger]

I plan to run through every US presidential election, two per week. The 28 elections from 1789-1896 will be run simultaneously with the 28 elections from 1900-2008. Be sure to vote in each election!

For 1789-1800, I will include in the poll everyone who received at least 5% of the electoral vote. From 1804-2008, I will include everyone who received at least 0.05% of the popular vote. Results for each election will be posted on the dedicated Retrospective US Presidential Election Results Thread (here) and compared to the actual results. The thread for general project discussion is here.

Here's the link to the 1992 election.

[Dean501]

I'm holding my vote until later. Not sure about any of. The candidates...

[RogueBeaver]

Garfield's a reformer and would have been a good POTUS had he served out his term. Plus the Dems nominated a white supremacist, so not getting my vote this cycle.

[Dean501]

Ehh I think 4 years of Hyperinflation is good enough. I'll go for Chester A. Arthur.

[Komodo20]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

Garfield's a reformer and would have been a good POTUS had he served out his term. Plus the Dems nominated a white supremacist, so not getting my vote this cycle.

Agreed. And Arthur isn't too bad, either. A good man who fell to corruption, but then redeemed himself as President. And he at least made an attempt to stand up for Chinese-American rights and dignity - something that I doubt the Greenbacks will do.

Although I will say that I like Weaver (much more than Cooper), and it's a shame that he didn't run in 1876 or 1884 - I'd certainly vote for him then. But as it is, I simply like Garfield/Arthur better.

[Japhy]

Garfield/Arthur is probably one of the best tickets the country every put into office. Strong on Corruption (Well not that we knew that about Arthur going in), strong on Civil Rights, strong on US defense, the economy, international affairs...

Hancock being the Democratic nominee is the last hurrah of those terrible racial elements in the party that Cleveland will soon squash. His nomination is in fact pandering to those whom were unenthusiastic about Barnburning Tilden, a cheap, soul-selling ploy to win the unreconstructed Confederate vote.

And I've already made my case many a time about how idiotic the Greenback/Populist platform is. And they're not a liberal party. Weaver is good on Civil Rights for blacks but thats the only thing, hyperinflation as the central plank and party goal, the racism of the know-nothings, the rural reactionary world view of proto-fascists, its not a good cocktail.

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by Japhy

And I've already made my case many a time about how idiotic the Greenback/Populist platform is. And they're not a liberal party. Weaver is good on Civil Rights for blacks but thats the only thing, hyperinflation as the central plank and party goal, the racism of the know-nothings, the rural reactionary world view of proto-fascists, its not a good cocktail.

You can define "liberal" however you want, but the Populists were certainly the rural precursor to the Progressive movement. Of course, it's not like the United States was going through any deflation at the time, and that inflation would be best for everyone. And the party that has the only solution to breaking Jim Crow, creating an alliance of poor whites and blacks, are now racist proto-fascists. Lovely.

That said, I'll be voting for Garfield, since Garfield/Arthur are two good Presidents.

[Abhakhazia]

Neal Dow seems good, but I'll vote for Republican non the less.

[Emperor Norton I]

Garfield. Because we all hate Mondays.

Btw, why not have Democrat and Republican at top in these polls instead of "Independent" then "Republican" then "Democratic" then "Independent 2"?

[Komodo20]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

Garfield. Because we all hate Mondays.

Btw, why not have Democrat and Republican at top in these polls instead of "Independent" then "Republican" then "Democratic" then "Independent 2"?

I think it's an alphabetical by last-name list?

[Japhy]

Originally Posted by Plumber

You can define "liberal" however you want, but the Populists were certainly the rural precursor to the Progressive movement.

No their not, the Populist and Progressive movements are opponents, the Populists are the folks who become Klansmen in the 1920's, the Progressives are the folks in the cities that the Populists painted as the evil rich, decadent, corrupt and Un-American. The Populists are the radical mob that the Progressives sought to restrain with their reforms.

Of course, it's not like the United States was going through any deflation at the time, and that inflation would be best for everyone.

No it wouldn't. The Populist goal was to increase the amount of currency in circulation 16 times in their stated platform (In fact the goal could have been 50 times), the Greenbacks wanted even more. Thats not healthy inflation, that goes even beyond Shock Therapy Inflation. Thats hyperinflation on a level rarely seen (Maybe not Hungarian or German levels but still intense) that will destroy American growth, savings, and in turn the farmers who short-sightedly hoped it would be a help, because after it eleminates their debts, it will eliminate any profits they can make from their crops. It just destroys the urban worker first.

And the party that has the only solution to breaking Jim Crow, creating an alliance of poor whites and blacks, are now racist proto-fascists. Lovely.

A bi-racial society that many of its promoters (Tom Watson being the most prominent example of) did not believe in at all. When you take into account their know-nothing attitude towards European and Asian Immigrants, Urban populations, Jews, Catholics, and Unitarians they've negated their value on Civil Rights.

That said, Proto-facism is not entirely dependent on them being racist you see, they meet quite a few other requirements, they meet at least 9 of Eco's 14 points of Ur-Facism which is disturbingly high for an American Political Party. And if we want to reject that label the are undoubtedly reactionary in their world view.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

Btw, why not have Democrat and Republican at top in these polls instead of "Independent" then "Republican" then "Democratic" then "Independent 2"?

Alphabetical order.

Besides, for the time being I suspect that the GOP and Greenbacks are the two major parties, with the Dems in spoiler position...

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Japhy

No it wouldn't. The Populist goal was to increase the amount of currency in circulation 16 times in their stated platform (In fact the goal could have been 50 times), the Greenbacks wanted even more. Thats not healthy inflation, that goes even beyond Shock Therapy Inflation. Thats hyperinflation on a level rarely seen (Maybe not Hungarian or German levels but still intense) that will destroy American growth, savings, and in turn the farmers who short-sightedly hoped it would be a help, because after it eleminates their debts, it will eliminate any profits they can make from their crops. It just destroys the urban worker first.

Cite? The only reference I could find to this is the 16:1 ratio for free coinage of silver, which is not remotely the same thing.

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by Japhy

No their not, the Populist and Progressive movements are opponents, the Populists are the folks who become Klansmen in the 1920's, the Progressives are the folks in the cities that the Populists painted as the evil rich, decadent, corrupt and Un-American. The Populists are the radical mob that the Progressives sought to restrain with their reforms.

The first sentence is partially true, but not completely. The second sentence is true, because most Progressives only wanted reform to stop the Socialist Party in its tracks. The Populists were more radical than the Progressives and more genuine in their efforts for reform.

No it wouldn't. The Populist goal was to increase the amount of currency in circulation 16 times in their stated platform (In fact the goal could have been 50 times), the Greenbacks wanted even more. Thats not healthy inflation, that goes even beyond Shock Therapy Inflation. Thats hyperinflation on a level rarely seen (Maybe not Hungarian or German levels but still intense) that will destroy American growth, savings, and in turn the farmers who short-sightedly hoped it would be a help, because after it eleminates their debts, it will eliminate any profits they can make from their crops. It just destroys the urban worker first.

The country was experiencing severe deflation at the time, and you've misinterpreted the 16:1 ratio (it had been abandoned by this time anyways IIRC).

A bi-racial society that many of its promoters (Tom Watson being the most prominent example of) did not believe in at all. When you take into account their know-nothing attitude towards European and Asian Immigrants, Urban populations, Jews, Catholics, and Unitarians they've negated their value on Civil Rights.

They were the last politicians to abandon blacks to Jim Crow because they lost IOTL. ITTL, they're doing pretty well so far. Their know-nothing attitude is disturbing, but no more than the Republicans' racial attitudes and obviously the Democrats'. As a whole they're the least racist party.

However, Grant and maybe Arthur are the only Presidents between Grant and Truman that really cared for civil rights I would say. With Hayes' sellout being avoided, they're a good vote to continue bipartisan, friendly race relations.

That said, Proto-facism is not entirely dependent on them being racist you see, they meet quite a few other requirements, they meet at least 9 of Eco's 14 points of Ur-Facism which is disturbingly high for an American Political Party. And if we want to reject that label the are undoubtedly reactionary in their world view.

What points? I'm curious.
What the Populists and Greenbacks wanted didn't get implemented until the New Deal. Truly reactionaries.

[QuoProQuid]

Garfield is my bro. That guy is pretty boss.

[Van555]

Originally Posted by QuoProQuid

Garfield is my bro. That guy is pretty boss.

I feel the same way plus he also dislikes mondays

[Japhy]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Cite? The only reference I could find to this is the 16:1 ratio for free coinage of silver, which is not remotely the same thing.

You do understand that the ratio means that for everyone one gold dollar you have 16 silver dollars? That is inflating the currency 16 times its previous value right there.

The issue with that is that the 16:1 ratio was based on what the rate had been in 1873, the year the US went off Paper and Silver. Between then and 1896 there were no major gold finds (which increased scarcity) and several silver finds (which increased supply) add into that people holding onto their gold and you can see why the ratio went up. We don't actually know how high it would have been, 45-55:1 is an educated guess based on what several historians have written.

Now there were major elements in the Greenback party that didn't even care for that, they wanted a "Fiat" currency not in the sense of it being controlled but simply, printed en mass to create quicker inflation. They weren't pushing for a central bank to control it either.

Sources for this and those other points of mine, which I can think of off the top of my head:

Realigning America : McKinley, Bryan, and the remarkable election of 1896 by R. Hal Williams

William Jennings Bryan and the campaign of 1896 by George Whicher

The climax of populism:the election of 1896 by Robert Durden

Also, I can go JSTOR diving if you'd like, there are more sources then that.

[Justin Green]

This election several labor unions and socialist parties ran in the industrial states as Greenback Labor. They were dominated by immigrant Germans, so obviously they werent true know nothings.

Thomas Watson started out infavor of pro-black relations and abandoned it when he became embittered by the poor showing the Greenbacks had in the south. Thats a poor excuse, but its certainly was the main reason he decided to appeal to white supremacists towards the end of his career. He blamed his failed career on his early appeal to poor white-black solidarity.

Another thing Id like you to explain is why Americas proto socialist would throw in with the Greenbacks.

[Van555]

Hancock voters best explain themselves!

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Japhy

You do understand that the ratio means that for everyone one gold dollar you have 16 silver dollars? That is inflating the currency 16 times its previous value right there.

Wrong. 16:1 meant that 16 ounces of silver would be worth one of gold.

Originally Posted by Japhy

Now there were major elements in the Greenback party that didn't even care for that, they wanted a "Fiat" currency not in the sense of it being controlled but simply, printed en mass to create quicker inflation. They weren't pushing for a central bank to control it either.

You're aware that greenbacks had been printed during the Civil War? The main goal of the "Greenbacks" was to prevent them being removed from circulation, driving deflation.