AHC WI: Bryan Wins 1896

What if William Jennings Bryan defeated William McKinley in 1896? Would this result in an independent Cuba and the Philippines? What about Hawaii? Also, how would the economy go in a Bryan presidency? Would he be re-elected in 1900 or would McKinley or another Republican win? What if?
 
First: good luck with that. The key states at the time (NY, PA, OH, NJ, MA) were comfortably in the hands of the GOP, as I recall.

Now, let's assume that Bryan somehow manages to pull it off. As inept as the Cleveland administration was at foreign affairs (recall that the ham-handedness of Cleveland's SecState Richard Olney almost bought the US a shooting war with the UK over a border dispute in South America), Bryan's would be worse yet. Bryan proved to be hopelessly naive when serving as Wilson's SecState; he was even less well schooled in that area in the late 19th century.

Likely the Maine would not have gone to Havana; pacifist Bryan wouldn't have allowed it. Thus, the Spanish grip on Cuba would have continued until conditions became intolerable for the locals, resulting in a nasty, mostly-guerilla-fought revolution of sorts. Cuba would probably become a nation run by a succession of dictators of one stripe or another, with conditions too volatile to encourage much investment. Puerto Rico might have followed a similar path. On the other hand, the Phillippines might have become the crown jewel of Germany's colonies.

I doubt Hawaii would have remained a sovereign nation for too much longer given the overwhelming US influence/presence: maybe until Bryan left office, but that's it.

Probably Bryan would have been a one-term president: his naivete and self-righteousness (he wasn't called the fundamentalist pope for nothing) would have made him annoying and a laughingstock to most voters. I suspect McKinley would have been elected in 1900, beginning a significant run of GOP presidents as a backlash to Bryan's ineptitude.
 
Likely the Maine would not have gone to Havana; pacifist Bryan wouldn't have allowed it.

Was Bryan a pacifist? Iirc he supported the Spanish-American War and Wilson's Mexican intervention.

I suspect McKinley would have been elected in 1900, beginning a significant run of GOP presidents as a backlash to Bryan's ineptitude.

McKinley again? Would the GOP be likely to renominate a loser?
 
Was Bryan a pacifist? Iirc he supported the Spanish-American War and Wilson's Mexican intervention.

Straw Bryan, aka Bryan McBrady, is. He is stupid, and a religious fanatic, and everything unawesome, as opposed to good old Teddy Roosevelt.

The actual William Jennings Bryan is a more complicated figure.
 
Bryan was one of the strongest supporters of the Spanish-American War and could well have entered the war earlier. Maybe even in 1897. What Bryan was against was the US ruling the Cuba and the Philippines.
 
Bryan was one of the strongest supporters of the Spanish-American War and could well have entered the war earlier. Maybe even in 1897. What Bryan was against was the US ruling the Cuba and the Philippines.

That's pretty much what happened in my old TL.
 
First: good luck with that. The key states at the time (NY, PA, OH, NJ, MA) were comfortably in the hands of the GOP, as I recall.

McKinley's victory in his home state of Ohio was by no means overwhelming--51.9-47.1 http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1896.txt If Bryan had carried Ohio, Indiana (50.8-48.0 for McKinley in OTL) and the twelve votes (out of thirteen) of Kentucky that McKinley very narrowly won, he would have won. See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/JdGV9CyfZu4/kJGvh2rxv3wJ for an argument that Bryan could have defeated any Republican candidate except McKinley or *possibly* Senator William Allison of Iowa.
 
This thread so far seems to be mainly devoted to Bryan's foreign policy. I think we should pay attention to his domestic policy as well. I wrote some years ago in soc.history.what-if that one problem is that he would be trying to introduce free silver *at the wrong time.* There was a case for it throughout the long, generally deflationary period between the "Crime of 1873" and 1896. But now with the cyanide process and the discovery of gold in South Africa, the Klondike, etc., gold production was increasing, and free silver would only add to inflation. But see https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/vxT1Tnekdlk/YCKGYhy-wRkJ for an argument that the inflationary effects would be mild and not terribly harmful to the economy.
 
Bryan was one of the strongest supporters of the Spanish-American War and could well have entered the war earlier. Maybe even in 1897. What Bryan was against was the US ruling the Cuba and the Philippines.

For me, my understanding of Bryan in OTL is a bit different. In OTL, he did vote for in favor of treaty of paris. Then, after that, was against Philippine annexation.

Politics has more into it than anything else especially you consider his stand changes. His vote for treaty of paris, which was in favor of Philippine annexation, was more of in support of his supporters. Then after, his stand against Philippine annexation was because of his party's stand or his ally's stand.
 
What would be the most plausible winning margin for Bryan?

Very hard to say. GOP controlled key states. More importantly, the businesses supported McKinley over Bryan which in turn means campaign financing. The free silver was unpopular to the business community as well as dividing his party. He was also unpopular to the middle class and labor unions even though he was popular to the farmers.

If Bryan didn't support silver, he wouldn't have won the democratic nomination.

The popular vote was close but the electoral college was just too big a difference in otl. Changing this would have required changing the stand of one or the other or both.
 
Top