I hesitated to name that possibility. However, if Pyro decides to have the revolutionary branch of the Socialist Party gain credibility and subsequently control of the party, having Stedman get assassinated and the presidency going to Blease would do it.
Crimson Banners Fly: The Rise of the American Left
- Thread starter PyroTheFox
- Start date
- Status
Or Blease clinches it narrowly by promising to be a non-Socialist progressive, but Blease being Blease completely mismanages the coalition and alienates the Northern Democrats to the point they join the Socialist Party, like many of the Progressives are about to do.
I admit I’m partly basing it on the prologue, which says the Socialist party in the 20’s were victims of violence and repression, and it merely says they “outperformed expectations. In the 1920 election.
Johnson certainly won't be remembered fondly by historians in the future that's for sure. Great update. Like everyone else I'm biting my nails waiting for the results of this election.
Blease is elected because Johnson gives up and decides to strike a corrupt bargain to avoid a Socialist Presidency.
Or Stedman is elected but he’s killed by a disgruntled SA member willing to save America from Bolshevism and Folk becomes President (his Secretary of State’s choice would be important given he died in 1923 IOTL).
Or Stedman is elected but he’s killed by a disgruntled SA member willing to save America from Bolshevism and Folk becomes President (his Secretary of State’s choice would be important given he died in 1923 IOTL).
Garbage in, garbage out, and well, once you get started on a course, best to keep going.
Or it's like this.
Now that!
That is an interesting update!
They're all slimy snakes, but they just shed their skin in front of the entire country and the press didn't balk from making sure everyone knew it.
If Stedman doesn't win, the myth (in the sense of it being a story, not that it's untrue) of the stolen election has already been established and it'll only get more and more credibility and gravity the worst the pushback will be. Every maneuver they attempt only creates more legitimacy for Stedman, makes him seem more sensible and honest.
Stedman isn't plotting coups or trying to lock up his opposition, etc.
That is an interesting update!
They're all slimy snakes, but they just shed their skin in front of the entire country and the press didn't balk from making sure everyone knew it.
If Stedman doesn't win, the myth (in the sense of it being a story, not that it's untrue) of the stolen election has already been established and it'll only get more and more credibility and gravity the worst the pushback will be. Every maneuver they attempt only creates more legitimacy for Stedman, makes him seem more sensible and honest.
Stedman isn't plotting coups or trying to lock up his opposition, etc.
Somehow I missed this update so I'm coming to it a little late!
The Johnson Administration refusing to let even the slightest chance of Stedman getting into the highest office would be a massive black mark against them. Particularly interesting to learn that the House Democrats might be the biggest spanner in the works at present, that's a bit of a surprise. My honest opinion is that a ton of people who might otherwise have been persuaded are going to be staunchly anti-Johnson from here out. It's tense stuff to be sure.
The Johnson Administration refusing to let even the slightest chance of Stedman getting into the highest office would be a massive black mark against them. Particularly interesting to learn that the House Democrats might be the biggest spanner in the works at present, that's a bit of a surprise. My honest opinion is that a ton of people who might otherwise have been persuaded are going to be staunchly anti-Johnson from here out. It's tense stuff to be sure.
Part 7: Chapter XXVII - Page 194 - 1920 Election Results II
1920 Congressional Elections
Senate
Democratic: 45 (+3)
Progressive: 27 (-2)
Republican: 19 (-3)
Socialist: 5 (+2)
House
Democratic: 129 (-2)
Socialist: 129 (+36)
Progressive: 118 (-9)
Republican: 59 (-25)
Senate Leadership
Senate President Not Yet Determined
President pro tempore John W. Smith (D-MD)
Caucus Chairman Robert L. Owen (D-OK)
Conference Chairman Albert B. Cummins (P-IA)
Conference Chairman Warren G. Harding (R-OH)
Caucus Chairman Ashley G. Miller (S-NV)
House of Representatives Leadership
Speaker Champ Clark (D-MO)
Minority Leader Meyer London (S-NY)
Minority Leader Wesley L. Jones (P-CA)
Minority Leader Porter H. Dale (R-VT)
Democratic: 45 (+3)
Progressive: 27 (-2)
Republican: 19 (-3)
Socialist: 5 (+2)
House
Democratic: 129 (-2)
Socialist: 129 (+36)
Progressive: 118 (-9)
Republican: 59 (-25)
Senate Leadership
Senate President Not Yet Determined
President pro tempore John W. Smith (D-MD)
Caucus Chairman Robert L. Owen (D-OK)
Conference Chairman Albert B. Cummins (P-IA)
Conference Chairman Warren G. Harding (R-OH)
Caucus Chairman Ashley G. Miller (S-NV)
House of Representatives Leadership
Speaker Champ Clark (D-MO)
Minority Leader Meyer London (S-NY)
Minority Leader Wesley L. Jones (P-CA)
Minority Leader Porter H. Dale (R-VT)
If the events surrounding the presidential election stood out in bold atop every newspaper's headline, congressional election reports appeared right below. Control of Congress was unpredictable and capricious in every regard, not the least of all because of the innate complexity of the multi-party system and the abundance of entangling cross-party alliances and nemeses. Once the specter of a follow-up, contingent race became incontestable, media analysts and political forecasters closely examined each shred of new information regarding the legislative matches. It would fall to the newly elected representatives, not the outgoing class, to engage in the contingent process, meaning these generation-defining elections were of colossal significance. In mid-December, as the country watched the unfolding of the Anti-Socialist Plot, an article in the New York Times foreshadowed, "We sit on the point of a needle, at risk of losing our nationhood and rule of law. [...] Restore the confidence of the people. Restore the people's rule."
State-by-state down ballot results turned out to closely resemble the presidential race. In terms of pure Popular Vote totals, just like on the top-line, the top three or four candidates were oftentimes neck-and-neck with one another. This trend did not equate to welcome news for all parties involved. On the contrary, it meant absolute disaster for many incumbents, and especially the governing party. Progressive officeholders staved off catastrophe in 1918 due in part to the perceived triumph of the United States on the international front and soaring sympathy for the new president in the wake of Theodore Roosevelt's sorrowful demise. Despite those advantages, the ruling coalition faced blowback for the Red Summer and lost seats in both the upper and lower chambers. Now, in 1920, with zero remaining sympathy votes and discernably lessened tolerance for an out-of-touch administration, the Party of Johnson not only proved incapable of regaining those seats lost in 1918 but slipped even further down the rung. It now held 118 seats in the House, a far cry from their 1914-16 highs.
Sitting Progressives endured immense scrutiny during the election season by left-leaning publications for declining to stand up against President Johnson and the unjust treatment of American citizens over the past two years. Apart from the rare occasion, men of the president's party refused to remark plainly their true sentiments on the administration and its controversies. Nationalist Progressives steadfastly defended their leader and profusely derided faultfinders while the leftmost wing skirted around any disputations in hopes of emerging from the ordeal empowered. Neither faction was spared a pummeling at the polls. Samuel D. Nicholson of Colorado was nominated by the Progressive and Republican parties to contend with Senator Charles S. Thomas (D-CO) in November. As a staunch critic of U.S. entry in the war and of its ongoing occupation of Toronto, Thomas was viewed by men like Nicholson as particularly vulnerable. The challenger, an associate of the wartime United States Energy Commission and a Liberty Loan state chairman, catapulted onto the scene and relentlessly attacked Senator Thomas' record on foreign policy and the military. Yet, in the same vein as Johnson, Nicholson spoke very little about legislative remedies to address governmental shortcomings, instead remarking how government must broadly "establish nobler standards of life and conduct." Thomas, on the other hand, put forward a laundry list of socio-economic ideas he thought necessary to be implemented; urging the Selective Service Act be repealed, the Locomotives Act be reinstated, and women's suffrage be amended to the Constitution. Whereas Johnson beat the odds and topped the field on Colorado's presidential stage, Nicholson could not hope to do so. Senator Thomas secured re-election, 40% to 33% (to 27% for the Socialist contender).
Democrats fared well across the board as a middle-ground alternative to the austere nationalists in areas less amenable to the proposals offered by Stedman and the Socialists. Frank Brandegee (R-CT), a multi-term senator from a traditionally Republican state, managed to be felled by prominent DNC official and Fairfield County attorney Homer Stille Cummings (D-CT). Not since the days of Reconstruction had a Democrat been elected to the Senate from Connecticut, signifying Brandegee's fierce opposition to universal suffrage and "labor radicalism" must have broken an unspoken contract with the very constituents he swore to represent. Oregon Senator William Hanley (P-OR) also faced a tough re-election bout versus former Senator George Chamberlain (D-OR) and regional Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers organizer Fred T. Johns (S-OR). Hanely was, of course, known as the prime author of the Security and Loyalty bills, two sedition-related propositions which were irreversibly impeded by President Roosevelt's veto pledge. In the course of the campaign, the incumbent bent over backwards in defense of his forever-stalled legislation as Johns and Chamberlain dug into the senator's shortsightedness, but Hanley was simply overshadowed by his competition. Eventually, Chamberlain, upon frequently highlighting his service as Chairman of the Committee on Public Lands and past opposition to the peacetime use of USIC, squeezed ahead of Johns and regained his congressional seat.
In the Minnesota gubernatorial race, Joseph A. A. Burnquist (P-MN) opted to run in defiance of his exceedingly poor polling figures. Burnquist and his ambitions did not survive the foray and was promptly conquered by labor attorney Peter J. Sampson (S-MN) in a three-way contest. The governor made national headlines for egregiously suppressing antiwar May Rallies in the Twin Cities, and since made a name for himself as a staunch enemy of the IWW. At a time when the IWW was likely garnering higher favorability scores than the incumbent president, Burnquist was doomed to fail. Sampson, as a Socialist governor-elect, was joined by Wisconsinite William Coleman in making history. Coleman too rose to challenge a marginally unpopular governor and prevailed in an uncomfortably tight race. Fellow Socialists came quite close in California, New York, and West Virginia, but were ultimately unable to rise above the field. The Supreme Court of West Virginia went as far as to rule the 70-year-old SP gubernatorial candidate, Matthew S. Holt, ineligible on the grounds of breaking the state's strict Criminal Syndicalism law by celebrating revolution in France and Russia. This decision was made, coincidentally, in light of two polls that had placed the UMWA official in a close second to the incumbent Democrat. Holt, nevertheless, emerged from the legal battle determined to see the law changed and the court's decision appealed.
Socialist Party candidates for the House and Senate surpassed expectations, thereby keeping in tune with the similar overperformance of Seymour Stedman. Only a handful of incumbent House Socialists failed to be re-elected in 1920, and even these defeats were washed away with gains elsewhere in the country. The Golden State elected two additional SP members to Congress, attorney Thomas Conway in California's 5th District and activist-author Upton Sinclair in the 10th. Sinclair, the novelist known for uncovering poor working conditions in The Jungle, ran a sponsor-free campaign backed solely by Stedman and an IWW local. The adept lecturer knocked-out two-term Republican Henry Osborne to win the seat with a 3% margin, ridding his home state of its final GOP incumbent. Things had fallen so miserably for the California Republicans that the state organization formally joined its offices with the Progressives, and by 1921 essentially disappeared as a formidable political operation. Senator George Pardee (P-CA), recipient of a presumably undefeatable Republican-Progressive cross-endorsement, found himself on the losing end of his senatorial re-election big. Representative George Ross Kirkpatrick (S-CA), noted anti-war advocate and outspoken critic of William Stephens, won Pardee's seat in a close match-up with former San Francisco Mayor James D. Phelan (D-CA).
A string of Republican retirements may have been the catalyst needed by the Socialists to do as well as they did. Dozens saw the writing on the wall and, rather than be humiliated by some radical upstart, chose to leave their seats open in a more respectable manner. This was indeed true of the New York Senate seat up for grabs in 1920, when the incumbent, Elihu Root, declared his intent to retire instead of running for a second term. Root won the seat from an uninspiring Democrat at a time when Progressivism was at its apex and Hearst's Civic League severed the Democratic base in two. He achieved his ends by taking advantage of the perfect storm - evidently a one-off political miracle. The Republicans and Columbians settled on an inoffensive moderate named James W. Wadsworth, Jr., whose campaign ended just as soon as it began. Somewhat narrowly vanquishing both Wadsworth and Democrat Harry C. Walker was the next senator from New York: Municipal Court Judge Jacob Panken of the Socialist Party. This embarrassment, doubled by Assemblyman Alfred Smith's win in the simultaneous gubernatorial race, was a definitive blow to the solar plexus. The Republican Party walked away from these elections in utter agony. Senate results left the GOP with 3 wins out of 24: Reed Smoot in Utah, William Dilingham in Vermont, and Warren Harding in Ohio. In conjunction with their 25-seat loss in the House and 10 lost governorships, it was time for the RNC to re-evaluate its existence as a divorced entity from the far more resilient Progressive Party. Its losses paved the way for a much smoother contingent election process, opening the doors for the Progressive left-wing to breakaway and seal the deal for a novel era in American history. For this unintended consequence, in the words of historian Jacob Alister, "Credit is due."
Senators Elected in 1920 (Class 3)
George Huddleston (D-AL): Democratic Hold, 68%
*J. Thomas Heflin (D-AL): Democratic Hold, 70%
George W.P. Hunt (D-AZ): Democratic Hold, 34%
Thaddeus H. Caraway (D-AR): Democratic Hold, 65%
George R. Kirkpatrick (S-CA): Socialist Gain, 35%
Charles S. Thomas (D-CO): Democratic Hold, 40%
Homer Stille Cummings (D-CT): Democratic Gain, 38%
Duncan U. Fletcher (D-FL): Democratic Hold, 71%
Thomas E. Watson (D-GA): Democratic Hold, 90%
Paul Clagstone (P-ID): Progressive Hold, 40%
Ira C. Copley (P-IL): Progressive Hold, 35%
Thomas R. Marshall (D-IN): Democratic Hold, 41%
Albert B. Cummins (P-IA): Progressive Hold, 44%
Joseph L. Bristow (P-KS): Progressive Hold, 42%
James D. Black (D-KY): Democratic Gain, 41%
Edwin S. Broussard (D-LA): Democratic Hold, 89%
John W. Smith (D-MD): Democratic Hold, 41%
Joseph W. Folk (D-MO): Democratic Hold, 40%
Ashley G. Miller (S-NV): Socialist Hold, 38%
Sherman E. Burroughs (P-NH): Progressive Gain, 40%
Jacob Panken (S-NY): Socialist Gain, 34%
Lee Overman (D-NC): Democratic Hold, 55%
James F.T. O'Connor (D-ND): Democratic Gain, 32%
Warren G. Harding (R-OH): Republican Hold, 41%
Thomas Gore (D-OK): Democratic Hold, 38%
George E. Chamberlain (D-OR): Democratic Gain, 32%
Gifford Pinchot (P-PA): Progressive Hold, 37%
Coleman L. Blease (D-SC): Democratic Hold, Unopposed
Peter Norbeck (P-SD): Progressive Hold, 45%
Reed Smoot (R-UT): Republican Hold, 40%
*Carter Glass (D-VA): Democratic Hold, 90%
William P. Dilingham (R-VT): Republican Hold, 50%
Louis F. Hart (P-WA): Progressive Hold, 33%
Victor Berger (S-WI): Socialist Hold, 43%
* Special Election
George Huddleston (D-AL): Democratic Hold, 68%
*J. Thomas Heflin (D-AL): Democratic Hold, 70%
George W.P. Hunt (D-AZ): Democratic Hold, 34%
Thaddeus H. Caraway (D-AR): Democratic Hold, 65%
George R. Kirkpatrick (S-CA): Socialist Gain, 35%
Charles S. Thomas (D-CO): Democratic Hold, 40%
Homer Stille Cummings (D-CT): Democratic Gain, 38%
Duncan U. Fletcher (D-FL): Democratic Hold, 71%
Thomas E. Watson (D-GA): Democratic Hold, 90%
Paul Clagstone (P-ID): Progressive Hold, 40%
Ira C. Copley (P-IL): Progressive Hold, 35%
Thomas R. Marshall (D-IN): Democratic Hold, 41%
Albert B. Cummins (P-IA): Progressive Hold, 44%
Joseph L. Bristow (P-KS): Progressive Hold, 42%
James D. Black (D-KY): Democratic Gain, 41%
Edwin S. Broussard (D-LA): Democratic Hold, 89%
John W. Smith (D-MD): Democratic Hold, 41%
Joseph W. Folk (D-MO): Democratic Hold, 40%
Ashley G. Miller (S-NV): Socialist Hold, 38%
Sherman E. Burroughs (P-NH): Progressive Gain, 40%
Jacob Panken (S-NY): Socialist Gain, 34%
Lee Overman (D-NC): Democratic Hold, 55%
James F.T. O'Connor (D-ND): Democratic Gain, 32%
Warren G. Harding (R-OH): Republican Hold, 41%
Thomas Gore (D-OK): Democratic Hold, 38%
George E. Chamberlain (D-OR): Democratic Gain, 32%
Gifford Pinchot (P-PA): Progressive Hold, 37%
Coleman L. Blease (D-SC): Democratic Hold, Unopposed
Peter Norbeck (P-SD): Progressive Hold, 45%
Reed Smoot (R-UT): Republican Hold, 40%
*Carter Glass (D-VA): Democratic Hold, 90%
William P. Dilingham (R-VT): Republican Hold, 50%
Louis F. Hart (P-WA): Progressive Hold, 33%
Victor Berger (S-WI): Socialist Hold, 43%
* Special Election
Last edited:
As an editor's note, next week's post will be the final part in what I'll be referring to as "Book 1," but don't worry, this is far from the end of the story.
I'm planning for the second stage transition to be as seamless as possible to keep the timeline moving.
As always thank you all for your interest and ongoing support!
I'm planning for the second stage transition to be as seamless as possible to keep the timeline moving.
As always thank you all for your interest and ongoing support!
Are you going to be making a new thread or continuing it here?
I figured it'd be easier to keep it in this thread. What do you think?
Thanks!
In Oklahoma ITTL, the Socialists are the second largest party behind the Democrats. I believe the SP would carry at least two of the eight House seats if they're taking 129 overall. A. A. Bagwell, the agricultural socialist and college professor known as OTL's senatorial candidate in 1920, would be serving as an incumbent congressman. Whether it was Bagwell or another local politician who faced Sen. Gore, I think Gore would've remained the heavy favorite in this environment.
I managed to miss these results somehow, so let's remedy that!
Holy shit, in terms of raw numbers the Democrats and Socialists are tied in the House! The Senate clearly is a different matter, but even so seeing the Socialists gain a bit more of a foothold is terrific.
With regards to the newcomers, Cummings is an interesting ascension to the Senate, particularly considering some of his plans in OTL. Hanley falling to Chamberlain feels like the signal of the end of an era considering his political friends. Huzzah for Minnesota and Wisconsin, and shame on West Virginia. Certainly feels like the Byrd Machine is going to have a harder time coping with the current political climate, if it even gets set in motion. ANd holy shit the California Republicans crashing and burning so spectacularly!? Fuck. And just to confirm, that is the Al Smith as in the OTL Governor, right? Just checking to make sure because that's a pretty generic name. Either way, that's certainyl a big gain for New York.
Holy shit, in terms of raw numbers the Democrats and Socialists are tied in the House! The Senate clearly is a different matter, but even so seeing the Socialists gain a bit more of a foothold is terrific.
With regards to the newcomers, Cummings is an interesting ascension to the Senate, particularly considering some of his plans in OTL. Hanley falling to Chamberlain feels like the signal of the end of an era considering his political friends. Huzzah for Minnesota and Wisconsin, and shame on West Virginia. Certainly feels like the Byrd Machine is going to have a harder time coping with the current political climate, if it even gets set in motion. ANd holy shit the California Republicans crashing and burning so spectacularly!? Fuck. And just to confirm, that is the Al Smith as in the OTL Governor, right? Just checking to make sure because that's a pretty generic name. Either way, that's certainyl a big gain for New York.
Oh Ho! That's an interesting line right there! Well, can't wait to see where we go from here!
At last! The payoff!
Love the heavy foreshadowing at the end of this page. Sounds like a Stedman/Folk selection is becoming more and more likely. Though I am unnerved by what I read as an implication that it will be fleeting, especially given the intro stating persecution in the 20s.
On another note, I put something together for folks who'd like all the election results in one place.
Electoral History of the Crimsonverse
I included some notes for people who haven't read the timeline just to give my non-reader friends an idea of what's happening in this timeline. I also used 270 to Win's map customization to illustrate all the presidential elections. Just for a baseline, I also included the historical results for 1892 and 1894. Note that I kinda fudged with the numbers for the 1894 Senate results simply because Wikipedia displays the gains, losses, and totals weird due to vacant seats being filled later. Should at least be consistent now.
Electoral History of the Crimsonverse
I included some notes for people who haven't read the timeline just to give my non-reader friends an idea of what's happening in this timeline. I also used 270 to Win's map customization to illustrate all the presidential elections. Just for a baseline, I also included the historical results for 1892 and 1894. Note that I kinda fudged with the numbers for the 1894 Senate results simply because Wikipedia displays the gains, losses, and totals weird due to vacant seats being filled later. Should at least be consistent now.
- Status