Benjamin Harrison Second Term in 1896?

What if Benjamin Harrison won election to a second term as president of the United States? Specifically, what if he won election to a second term in 1896, AFTER he had lost re-election to Grover Cleveland in 1892?

What could the effects of such an outcome be? Could the Republicans even be convinced to nominate the Former President after his '92 loss?

Could Benjamin Harrison be remembered as more than the guy who served between Grover Cleveland's terms?

It could be an interesting quirk of history to have had a Cleveland-Harrison-Cleveland-Harrison administration.
 
The problem was that by 1892 he wasn't very popular with the party or the country as a whole. one of the party leaders even called him the "breaded iceberg".
 
In two straight elections he didn't even command a majority of the popular vote. Cleveland beat him in the popular vote in both 1888 and 1892.
 
This actually seems like a good way to get a President Bryan TL. The contrast to voters would be pretty stark (accurate or not) - on the one hand there's the cold, detached Harrison responsible for the financial troubles, on the other, the eloquent Bryan, who seeks to be the people's president.

(Forgive me, I'm a WJB partisan. It pains me so many see him as just a crazy religious nutjob loser; in a way, he was that, yet he was very much more.)
 
This actually seems like a good way to get a President Bryan TL. The contrast to voters would be pretty stark (accurate or not) - on the one hand there's the cold, detached Harrison responsible for the financial troubles, on the other, the eloquent Bryan, who seeks to be the people's president.

(Forgive me, I'm a WJB partisan. It pains me so many see him as just a crazy religious nutjob loser; in a way, he was that, yet he was very much more.)


And even on that front, not as nutty as sometimes alleged. He disliked Darwinism, not just on fundamentalist grounds, but because he feared its possible effects. To his ears "Survival of the fittest" sounded altogether too much like "Might is right". Had he lived another twenty years, and seen the Third Reich, he would probably have said "I told you so".

For my money, his biggest mistake, in hindsight, was seeking the 1908 nomination. I often wonder how history would remember him had he passed it up on some excuse and waited until 1912.
 
This actually seems like a good way to get a President Bryan TL. The contrast to voters would be pretty stark (accurate or not) - on the one hand there's the cold, detached Harrison responsible for the financial troubles, on the other, the eloquent Bryan, who seeks to be the people's president.

(Forgive me, I'm a WJB partisan. It pains me so many see him as just a crazy religious nutjob loser; in a way, he was that, yet he was very much more.)


Actually quite a good idea- I hadn’t thought about that. I mostly just wanted to see if Harrison could come out with a better legacy but scratch that. If Harrison retained his nominal role as leader of the Republicans and ran in 96, that would be a way to let Bryan snatch the presidency without disparaging my guy McKinley
 
Actually quite a good idea- I hadn’t thought about that. I mostly just wanted to see if Harrison could come out with a better legacy but scratch that. If Harrison retained his nominal role as leader of the Republicans and ran in 96, that would be a way to let Bryan snatch the presidency without disparaging my guy McKinley
According to Harrison's wiki page, some of his friends were encouraging him to seek the Republican nomination in 96 - thing is, it was his friends asking him to do this, he might get a few votes, but securing the nomination will be trickier. I think a POD somewhere in his presidency may be needed here, something that will leave him with a better reputation. Maybe the conservative elements of the Republicans reject McKinley and rally behind Harrison?
 
I had a post on this a few years ago at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/harrison-in-1896.300618/

***
"Because of the strong probability of victory in 1896, several prominent Republicans eagerly sought the presidential nomination. Among the foremost contenders were William B. Allison of Iowa, Thomas B. Reed of Maine, and William McKinley of Ohio. Former President Harrison also had some backing, but he withdrew from consideration early in the year."
Gilbert C. Fite, "Election of 1896," in Volume II, *History of American Presidential Elections 1789-1868* [Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Fred L.Israel, and William P. Hansen, eds], p. 1798.

Suppose Harrison stayed in the race, and actually got nominated. See http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F0DEED81730E033A25753C2A9659C94679ED7CF for an interesting March 1896 New York Times article about "The Hopes of Harrison." I'll admit that it will be hard to beat the Hanna-McKinley organization, but Harrison would have some advantages. After all, he could point out how much better the economy was after four years of his administration (even if it didn't look that great to voters at the time) as compared with four years of Cleveland. For moderate silverites who might otherwise be attracted by Allsion, Harrison could point out that he signed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and never urged its repeal. For tariffites, he could point out that while McKinley may have written the tariff bill, it was Harrison who had urged Congress to enact higher tariffs. Moreover, Harrison was from Indiana--always a crucial state in Gilded Age elections. Anyway, if necessary, we could make our POD the accidental death of McKinley or Hanna.

I think that if nominated, Harrison would beat Bryan, though narrowly (unlike McKinley he might not carry Ohio, but the Republicans could beat Bryan without Ohio). Even without Hanna's help, big business is going to lavishly finance whoever runs against Bryan.

In some ways, Harrison's second term will be similar to the McKinley administration, but here is one important difference: Harrison opposed the acquisition of the Philippines:

"While assembling a case [as counsel for Venezuela] that challenged British imperial pretensions, Harrison grew increasingly uncomfortable with such pretensions on the part of his own country. He accepted the Spanish-American War launched by McKinley as a 'war for humanity' to rescue Cuba from oppressive Spanish rule, but he denied that the United States had God's commission to deliver the oppressed the world around. Less than three months after Commodore George Dewey's victory in Manila, Harrison expressed concern over American ambitions in the Philippines. He excused his own administration's attempted annexation of Hawaii on the grounds that it was something offered to, not sought by the United States. Taking the Philippines, however, would violate the long-standing policy, embodied in the Monroe Doctrine, that the United States should 'leave the rest of the world alone.' 'Why should we do anything more than to secure a snug little harbor for a coaling station?' he asked. 'We must have coaling stations in various parts of the world, but I do not think we want, with these, extensive territories.' In the 1898 midterm elections, Harrison did not campaign for Republican candidates. He pleaded that the Venezuela case left him no time, but, he wrote to a friend, 'I am not right sure that I find myself in sympathy with the extreme expansion views that are being advocated.'" Charles W. Calhoun, *Benjamin Harrison,* pp. 162-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=5mLuIx6z1qcC&pg=PA162&sig=8V-9SzIXB414an85jMGcC2FnvCg

Any thoughts? Harrison's attempt to distinguish Hawaii may seem disingenuous, but George W. Baker has argued (in an article of which only the first page is available online for non-subscribers) http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103151461731 that Harrison, unlike Blaine, was not an expansionist until 1893, and then was cautious, inward-looking and determined to be proper and avoid imputations of imperialism. http://books.google.com/books?id=rCQsQdqFyMYC&pg=PA462 In any event, it is a fact that some people who favored annexation of Hawaii opposed that of the Philippines, so we need not doubt the sincerity of Harrison's opposition to Philippine annexation, whether or not he was being consistent.
 
I had a post on this a few years ago at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/harrison-in-1896.300618/

***
"Because of the strong probability of victory in 1896, several prominent Republicans eagerly sought the presidential nomination. Among the foremost contenders were William B. Allison of Iowa, Thomas B. Reed of Maine, and William McKinley of Ohio. Former President Harrison also had some backing, but he withdrew from consideration early in the year."
Gilbert C. Fite, "Election of 1896," in Volume II, *History of American Presidential Elections 1789-1868* [Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Fred L.Israel, and William P. Hansen, eds], p. 1798.

Suppose Harrison stayed in the race, and actually got nominated. See http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F0DEED81730E033A25753C2A9659C94679ED7CF for an interesting March 1896 New York Times article about "The Hopes of Harrison." I'll admit that it will be hard to beat the Hanna-McKinley organization, but Harrison would have some advantages. After all, he could point out how much better the economy was after four years of his administration (even if it didn't look that great to voters at the time) as compared with four years of Cleveland. For moderate silverites who might otherwise be attracted by Allsion, Harrison could point out that he signed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and never urged its repeal. For tariffites, he could point out that while McKinley may have written the tariff bill, it was Harrison who had urged Congress to enact higher tariffs. Moreover, Harrison was from Indiana--always a crucial state in Gilded Age elections. Anyway, if necessary, we could make our POD the accidental death of McKinley or Hanna.

I think that if nominated, Harrison would beat Bryan, though narrowly (unlike McKinley he might not carry Ohio, but the Republicans could beat Bryan without Ohio). Even without Hanna's help, big business is going to lavishly finance whoever runs against Bryan.

In some ways, Harrison's second term will be similar to the McKinley administration, but here is one important difference: Harrison opposed the acquisition of the Philippines:

"While assembling a case [as counsel for Venezuela] that challenged British imperial pretensions, Harrison grew increasingly uncomfortable with such pretensions on the part of his own country. He accepted the Spanish-American War launched by McKinley as a 'war for humanity' to rescue Cuba from oppressive Spanish rule, but he denied that the United States had God's commission to deliver the oppressed the world around. Less than three months after Commodore George Dewey's victory in Manila, Harrison expressed concern over American ambitions in the Philippines. He excused his own administration's attempted annexation of Hawaii on the grounds that it was something offered to, not sought by the United States. Taking the Philippines, however, would violate the long-standing policy, embodied in the Monroe Doctrine, that the United States should 'leave the rest of the world alone.' 'Why should we do anything more than to secure a snug little harbor for a coaling station?' he asked. 'We must have coaling stations in various parts of the world, but I do not think we want, with these, extensive territories.' In the 1898 midterm elections, Harrison did not campaign for Republican candidates. He pleaded that the Venezuela case left him no time, but, he wrote to a friend, 'I am not right sure that I find myself in sympathy with the extreme expansion views that are being advocated.'" Charles W. Calhoun, *Benjamin Harrison,* pp. 162-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=5mLuIx6z1qcC&pg=PA162&sig=8V-9SzIXB414an85jMGcC2FnvCg

Any thoughts? Harrison's attempt to distinguish Hawaii may seem disingenuous, but George W. Baker has argued (in an article of which only the first page is available online for non-subscribers) http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103151461731 that Harrison, unlike Blaine, was not an expansionist until 1893, and then was cautious, inward-looking and determined to be proper and avoid imputations of imperialism. http://books.google.com/books?id=rCQsQdqFyMYC&pg=PA462 In any event, it is a fact that some people who favored annexation of Hawaii opposed that of the Philippines, so we need not doubt the sincerity of Harrison's opposition to Philippine annexation, whether or not he was being consistent.

Wonderful! That- is exactly what I was looking for. I had no idea about any of that, not as far fetched as I originally thought then.
 
Would Hearst have hoped to influence Harrison in 1898 (in the latter scenario not the OP) or was Hearst wedded to the Republicans?

If the Hearst newspapers, instead of driving to drive the president to war with Spain, were instead attacking him for not having the balls, or whatever, then can Spain hang on there?

The Maine itself might be butterflied, but even so let's say there might well be something that the imperialist interventionist press consider able to serve as a casus belli
 
I would think Bryan could present himself as a third option: Harrison failed, Cleveland failed, it's time there was a bresh of economic fresh air. Of course, you could have the POD be the Panic of 1893 being a little better, causing the Democrats to have a better chance.

My apologies to the OP, I can see I need to take my Silverite Populism elsewhere.
 
Top