AHC: Democrats stay in their circa-1905 rut

The Nadir of the Democratic Party--Circa 1905?

IMO, Democrats were much worse off then than during the 1920's--if you look beyond presidential elections. They were practically a southern-accent regional party, except for some strength in New York City.

When the 60th Congress was elected in 1906, were there *any* Democratic US senators who did not speak with a drawl?

My guess is at most *two*--Henry M. Teller of Colorado (who spent his youth in Upstate New York) and *maybe* Francis G. Newlands of Nevada (he was born in Mississippi but raised in Illinois and Washington, DC).

Other than Teller and Newlands, *every* Democratic senator was from a southern or border state--two each from AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, and VA and one from MO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60th_United_States_Congress

That summarizes the status of the Democratic Party in the early twentieth century. (Actually, 1906 marked the beginnings of the Democrats' comeback in House elections, but they did not gain control of any additional legislatures to allow them to elect additional senators, while two western senators elected in 1900 were not re-elected. The 59th Congress, elected in 1904, was the low point of northern Democratic representation in the House. In it there was not a single Democratic Representative from Ohio and only one from Illinois and one from Pennsylvania... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_United_States_Congress)

As for governors, northern Democratic governors were so rare that when they were elected (like John A. Johnson of MN) they automatically were talked about as potential presidential nominees...

If there's a what-if here, it's whether there is any way things might have stayed that way. On the surface, 1908 may have looked almost as bad for the Democrats, with Bryan only carrying NE, NV, and CO outside the South and border states--but in Congress and the governorships, the Democrats continued the slow improvement that had started in 1906, electing governors in IN (Thomas Marshall) and OH (Judson Harmon) and slightly adding to their 1906 gains in the House.
 
Last edited:
I think if you want the Democrats to become a purely regional party, the situation in the 1920s is a better POD. It pretty clearly came about for a hard reason, WIlson taking the United States into World War II, and there was a potential of an alternative Progressive Party. Plus they needed the Great Depression to get out of that rut.

The situation in 1904-06 seems mainly due to a one off event, the nomination of Alton Parker in 1904. Obviously if they keep on nominating candidates like Parker they will have problems. One way to do this is that the Bourbons take completely control of the party, and Hearst succeeds in organizing a new party (and others, though I think Hearst is the only prominent person who would actually think of trying this and have the resources to do it).

Another way to do this is that the nomination of Bryan and others like him is completely blocked in 1896 and 1900, but Bryan, who had the Populist nomination, runs as a Populist third party candidate and leaves the party, along with similar minded figures. The big problem here is how to get the city machines on board.

The Democratic Party is basically a machine politics party, so to get rid of it you either have to figure out how to break the machines, or to get some of the machines to leave for the alternative party. What happened is that FDR was able to get the machines on board with him when the party pivoted to liberalism in the mid twentieth century.
 
On the differences between the Democrats' weaknesses in the nineteen-aughts (which didn't start with Parker--there were few northern Democratic governors or senators in 1900-04) and the twenties, see David Sarasohn, The Party of Reform, pp. 234-5:

ScanImage001.jpg

ScanImage002.jpg
 
Imo the 1900-1910 rut was bound to be temporary - a lot of it was because memories of the Panic of 1893 still remained; Republican operations were much more well-financed and well-organized; Democratic control over the cities was not as strong (in New York County, which had gone for the Democrats by landslide margins since 1844, the Republicans were able to come within 10% of the vote); and the party itself was divided between its agrarian populist wing and the more conservative Southern wing + urban machines. The Republicans were also aided by the widespread prosperity, which people aligned them with. Lastly, ethnic voters never supported the Democrats the way they would later.

The Democrats were really bound to improve upon their performances. The Progressive Era gave a boost to left-wing sentiment, and the Republicans began to divide between their more progressive & conservative factions as early as 1906 (with Roosevelt's Square Deal proposals having more support amongst Democrats than Republicans, and an anti-business attitude that was becoming more prominent).
 
I don't know if its possible unless you can find a way to get a progressive party to start earlier and steal their thunder in the northern states, or have the Socialist Party take off outside of Milwaukee and actually be successful. I think this can work if you find a way to make the Socialist Party more palatable outside of urban ethnic enclaves. Maybe have it take more of a direction like it did in Oklahoma where it appeals to a more rural and religious demographic. Heck combine it with the social gospel and make it seem American as apple pie, especially in the great plains and the west and even some areas in the south where it could be a third party to the democrats and that'd be interesting. I'm not as familiar with the socialist party and why it become a little successful in Oklahoma.
 
Have Theadore Rosovelt win in 1912 on the Progressive ticket. Leftists enter the Progresive party. Norther Democrats either enter the Republican or Progressive Party based on ideology.
 
One possibility is for TR to be nominated for a "second elective term" in 1908. (My POD is that he doesn't repudiate that reasoning in 1904.) If he defeats Bryan even more soundly than Taft did in OTL, his coattails could prevent the slight gains Democrats made in Congress and the governorships in OTL.

As I mentioned, 1908 showed the Demcorats' first victories in major northern gubernatorial races (other than John A. Johnson's in MN and John M. Pattison's very short-lived administration in OH for a few months in 1906) in many years. Those were Judson Harmon's in OH and Thomas Marshall in IN. Both were close:
Harmon defeated Republican Andrew L. Harris 552,569 to 533,197 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_gubernatorial_elections
and Marshall defeated Republican James E. Watson in an especially close race: 348,439 to 338,262 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_gubernatorial_elections

It is possible that both Harmon and Marshall could lose in 1908 if TR ran. (Taft's "home state advantage" in OH should not be exaggerated; in 1912 he finished just slightly ahead of TR there, and TR's 59.75-34.32 victory in the state over Parker was considerably over TR's national average whereas Taft's 51.03-44.82 victory over Bryan in the state in 1908 was below Taft's national average.) More important, it is unlikely TR would be as politically maladroit as president as Taft was, so it is doubtful the Democrats would score their massive wins of 1910 (though they would probably make *some* gains as usually happens in midterm elections).
 
Have Theadore Rosovelt win in 1912 on the Progressive ticket. Leftists enter the Progresive party. Norther Democrats either enter the Republican or Progressive Party based on ideology.
There is just no way TR can win as a Progressive in 1912. (As a Republican, if he got the nomination, maybe, but even then, the bitterness of the defeated Taftites would make it difficult.) Wilson, Clark, or any other plausible Democratic nominee would get the core Democratic vote, and that is all that is needed in a three-way race.
 
I can see a new party system with the Republicans and the Socialist-Progressives being the two parties. In this scenario, FDR would be in the latter
 
One possibility is for TR to be nominated for a "second elective term" in 1908.
This is really the only option that seems to have legs. Having looked at the New York Times and the articles over the '04 to '07 period, it simply wasn't tenable for a candidate other than Bryan to be nominated by the Democrats; the arguments that the Bourbon Democrats had been making against the Bryanites had been thoroughly repudiated by the results of the '04 election, and that in and of itself virtually handed the nomination in 1908 to him. If Bryan had for whatever reason opted not to seek the nomination, he'd be in position to essentially endorse any candidate and ensure they were named by the Democrats; I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't run however with the conditions as they were.
As for the Republican nomination the only other I'm aware that Roosevelt ever considered was Elihu Root, and Root would have likely alienated more voters than he won over in comparison to Taft. Roosevelt, even if injured by those who opposed him perceptively pursuing a third term for President, would outperform anybody else.
 
I started writing a TLIAW but didn't finish it (or post any) several months ago about Woodrow Wilson not getting to Princeton, staying in the South, winding up as Governor of Maryland and Presidential candidate in 1904. Then in 1908 again The Democrats splinter in 1912... and that's where I stopped, unsure if Clark or Bryan would end up as the ost logical Democratic nominee, but not the 2-time loser Wilson, who lost to TR and then worst to taft

I'm not sure if that would be enough, but if he - as a pretty poor candidate overall who nearly lost in 1916 despite having "kept us out of war" - gathers too many Democrats around him, controls the party, and drives others away by his stubbornness (he would never get Bryan's endorsement in this 1912, he might cause enough of a train wreck to cause the Progressives to win, or maybe a Champ Clark who runs on a separate ticket.

One out of power in 1912 and 1916, the Democrats might slowly wither away.
 
To give some idea of how sectional a party the Democrats were in 1905: In the 59th Congress, of the 136 Democrats, only 21 of them were not from southern and border states--and of those 21, 10 were from New York City! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_United_States_Congress One was from just across the Hudson in Jersey City. Three were from the Boston area (presumably Irish). So outside the South (including border states) and the NYC and Boston areas, there was a grand total of seven Democrats in the House. Exactly one of them was from west of the Mississippi.
 
Last edited:
Top