An American Labor Party?

Why was there never a big-tent Labor Party formed in America in the late 19th Century like in Britain or Germany? You'd think with the Democratic Party in shambles after the ACW and the domination of pro big-business Republicans, the American Labor movement would have put something together.

How can you have such a Labor Party form and perhaps displace the Democrats? I was thinking a more severe 1873 depression combined with President James G. Blaine. What do you think?
 
There were quite serious local labor parties: see my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/chicago-swells-the-surging-throng-1886-87.426871/ on Chicago and Milwaukee labor parties in the 1880's. On the national level, there were all sorts of obstacles, though. First, the combination of first-past-the-post and the presidential system made it hard for any third parties. Second, when workers did see a need for action outside the two-party system, they often backed candidates who eventually returned to the major parties--e.g. Henry George in New York, who drew a large number of votes for mayor, but soon abandoned third party politics to support Cleveland in the interest of free trade. Third, American workers were a heterogeneous group from many different nationalities, many of them could not communicate with their fellow workers except those who spoke their particular language--also many were non-citizens and thus ineligible to vote. Fourth, the American Federation of Labor under Gompers rejected the idea of a labor party in favor of working within the two-party system to "reward labor's friends and punish its enemies."

The Populists did show some promise of developing into a famer-labor, even a socialist, party. As I wrote in a post some time ago:

***
If the Democrats had nominated a more conservative candidate than Bryan in 1896, it is very likely that the Populists would have nominated Eugene Debs for President. Even in OTL there was considerable pro-Debs sentiment among the Populists. The so-called middle-of-the-road faction of the Populists (those opposed to fusion with the Democrats) consisted largely of future Socialist Party leaders like Victor Berger (who had formerly been part of Daniel De Leon's Socialist Labor Party). Jack Ross writes in his recent *The Socialist Party of America: A Complete History* that 'At least one newspaper account of internal populist politics declared that 'most of the middle-of-the-roaders of the Populist Party are socialists.' It would not, therefore be an exaggeration to say that the nucleus of the future Socialist Party existed in the Populist Party as early as 1895.' https://books.google.com/books?id=fud1BwAAQBAJ&pg=PP64 But Debs took his name out of contention for the Populist nomination, and supported Bryan.

The Populist Party was not a socialist party, but it is conceivable that if nominated Debs could have led it in a socialist direction. IMO there was a definite socialist potential in the party." I then cited a letter of Colorado's Populist Governor Davis H. Waite to the American Federation of Labor national convention in Denver in 1894, where he quoted Karl Marx's son-in-law Paul Lafargue... https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-socialist-america-by-1900.389566/#post-12463178
 
Fourth, the American Federation of Labor under Gompers rejected the idea of a labor party in favor of working within the two-party system to "reward labor's friends and punish its enemies."

Was Gompers' person a huge factor in itself, though?
 
Top