Cleveland's third term, 1896

Let's say that he runs again or fixes the DNC to gain renomination. Is there any way he can defeat McKinley or any other Republican nominee?
 
Or he can delay sending in the troops till after the DNC is concluded, and I doubt that McKinley would make an issue of it, though the Democratic left will go apeshit as per OTL. Why did he use federal troops and not have the IL governor use the National Guard, which seems more appropriate?
 

mowque

Banned
Or he can delay sending in the troops till after the DNC is concluded, and I doubt that McKinley would make an issue of it, though the Democratic left will go apeshit as per OTL. Why did he use federal troops and not have the IL governor use the National Guard, which seems more appropriate?

Wiki puts it best, really.

Altgeld, however, refused to authorize President Grover Cleveland to send in Federal troops to quell the disturbances. But on July 4, 1894, Cleveland went ahead and sent several thousand troops to Chicago without Altgeld's approval, an action later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Altgeld's opposition was seen as a highly unusual stance for a state governor at that time

I think Cleveland was worried that left-wing Atlgeld couldn't be trusted.
 
So if a different IL governor is elected- a conservative (McKinley) Republican or fellow Bourbon Dem, then he gets the authorization and things go better? Plus have WJB conveniently KOed in an accident.

So, how does the election turn out? It seems that the Rose Garden strategy works best since trade is far too explosive at the tail end of a severe recession and the biggest midterm massacre in American history.
 

mowque

Banned
So, how does the election turn out? It seems that the Rose Garden strategy works best since trade is far too explosive at the tail end of a severe recession.

Well, the Populists (and the Silverites, not quite the same thing) are going to be angry. Will we ignore them or...?
 
They can be angry, but if they don't have a candidate it doesn't mean anything: same goes for other insurgent candidates like Goldwater, Buchanan, Reagan, etc.
 
Cleveland's popularity had cratered in 1896. If he somehow got the nomination, he may well have come in third in the electoral college behind McKinley and the Populist candidate - probably Tom Watson.

In fact, it's an interesting POD, because it's possible this would have lead to Democrats getting largely replaced by Populists. (Democrats might survive for awhile as one half of a two-party Populist/Democrat system in the South.)
 

mowque

Banned
Cleveland's popularity had cratered in 1896. If he somehow got the nomination, he may well have come in third in the electoral college behind McKinley and the Populist candidate - probably Tom Watson.

In fact, it's an interesting POD, because it's possible this would have lead to Democrats getting largely replaced by Populists. (Democrats might survive for awhile as one half of a two-party Populist/Democrat system in the South.)

I don't think it'll be this bad, but the Democrats will certainly look out of touch! I mean, they are ignoring the strong platforms (economics, bimeltaism). How can they compete with the Republicans on anything else? Without the fire that Bryan (and his supporters) brought, it'll be a big shellacking.
 

Japhy

Banned
Atlgeld was basically for the Strikers. If you look at the 1896 Platform for the Democrats which he basically wrote you can see why Cleveland went over his head. You'd also have to get rid of Richard "Silver Dick" Bland who was the Anti-Cleveland front runner in 1896, Bryan was just an insurgent up until that point.

Cleveland can't "rig" the convention, if only for the fact that as a Classical Liberal, Reformist (Well up until the Panic of 1893) Bourbon Democrat he's not on good terms with either the Populistic Democrats or the Political Machines. Cleveland has no base with which to rig a convention.

But lets say for the sake of Argument that Cleveland somehow is able to control the Convention, perhaps by delaying the crackdown. I don't think he can but lets hand wave that away for the sake of discussion.

What Happens? Democratic Party Implosion. IOTL we had Bourbon Classical Liberals run their National "Gold" Democratic Ticket. They even offered the nomination to Cleveland.

They got less then 1% of the vote, it certainly didn't help that they ran Generals Palmer and Buckner who represent the oldest ticket in presidential history, but it goes to show how much support the Bourbons were running with at the time. Cleveland will do fantastic in comparison, with the official party and his relative youth, but its not going to be enough.

Because while he's got his Bourbons (The Bourbons were never that great a movement in the Democratic Party in regards to voter loyalty/blocs) the Political Machines are going to sit out, Tammany Hall and the like the "Old School" Democrats took beatings under Cleveland and they're not going to really push for him. Not when he's got no chance.

The Western Democrats, under Silver Dick, and WJ Bryan are going to walk out of the Convention just as the Cleveland types walked out IOTL. Now, Bryan might not actually go over himself (He was too much of a Power monger to agree to Walk out of the Democrats, and will try to portray himself as a moderate and had decided if he couldn't get into a nomination as a Democrat he would go try Congress again) The Old Great Commoner, Richard Bland will along with the Western Farmers and Miners of the Democrats go over to the Populists. Giving that party a MASSIVE Boost.

Not being Subordinate to the Democrats here, the Populists are going to make gains in the South (Working with Blacks, Republican Reformers, and now disenchanted not-in-power moderate Democrats), as well as making some ground in the North where they were growing in traditionally Democratic rural areas before the Fusion. They're going to run a ticket probably with Silver Dick on it in fusion with the Silver Republican faction, and the Silver Party. They're going to be making MAJOR ground.

Come election day, the Republicans are going to win in the face of divided opposition, and I would suggest that the Populists are going to make major ground in the Electoral College, growing leads in the West, taking states from the "Solid South", with Cleveland taking the rest of the south. The Populists might even get more Electoral Votes then they do because the Cleveland Democrats arn't carrying any Northern states when McKinley can say that any votes for Cleveland are really votes for Weaver or Bland and Anarchy/Socialism/Communardism.

The Populists are the real winners of Cleveland running, and are on the track to doing very well at Midterms, and the 1900 Presidential Election, if they can be seen here as a viable party they can probably survive the end of the Depression in early 1897. While the Democrats might be on the way to follow their old Whig opponents.

That said, here's my two cents on how Cleveland can win in 1896 RB: Find Yukon or South African Gold Early. Its what ended the Depression IOTL it could nip it in the bud if found two years early here. In that case Clevelands "Sound Policy for Gold" can carry him right to victory.

Edit: RB, if you do want any help on an 1896 POD, while I know cripplingly little about the 1960's (Remember my thread on Kennedy "failing" in the Cuban Missile Crisis that you set me strait on?), this is the era I've spent years researching and is what I write my papers on, so if you want any help beyond this, feel free to ask. Its all fascinating stuff.
 
Last edited:

Japhy

Banned
Cleveland's popularity had cratered in 1896. If he somehow got the nomination, he may well have come in third in the electoral college behind McKinley and the Populist candidate - probably Tom Watson.

In fact, it's an interesting POD, because it's possible this would have lead to Democrats getting largely replaced by Populists. (Democrats might survive for awhile as one half of a two-party Populist/Democrat system in the South.)

Tom Watson was not going to be the Populist Nominee, the only reason he was in 1904 was because he was Bryan's Populist VP in 1896, and he was only that because Bryan was from the Midwest and the Populists wanted to have a balanced ticket (They had been promised Bryan would dump Sewall his Democratic VP and wanted to make sure the South would be carried)

Mowque said:
I don't think it'll be this bad, but the Democrats will certainly look out of touch! I mean, they are ignoring the strong platforms (economics, bimeltaism). How can they compete with the Republicans on anything else? Without the fire that Bryan (and his supporters) brought, it'll be a big shellacking.

No it would be that Bad, the only advantage Cleveland has here over the National Democrats is that he's not in his late 70's. Also, you and I have talked about this before. Bryan wasn't the End all Be all of the populist movement, he was just the man who hijacked it to his own ends. He didn't light any fires, he just used the already lit fire to cook up his own strike out.
 
Never that great a movement? The Bourbons controlled the party for 160 years, from its inception to 1896, plus kept control over fiscal and trade policy, Bryan nominations aside, until FDR.
 

Japhy

Banned
Never that great a movement? The Bourbons controlled the party for 160 years, from its inception to 1896, plus kept control over fiscal and trade policy, Bryan nominations aside, until FDR.

Umm. No.

While the term "Bourbon Democrat" was oft thrown around, the movement that Cleveland represents is a very specific and limited movement. The 1870's to basically 1904. If you consider Woodrow Wilson a Bourbon (Really he's not but he certainly had his basis in them but also in Republican Progressivism) you can claim that they moved on to 1932. But they're really not the same movement one just happened to descend from the other according to some and really Wilsonian Democratic Policy is less a continuation of the Bourbon Democrats and more a reaction to Bryanite Populism.

If you're interested in the subject I'd try reading Horace Samuel Merrill his work is from the 50's but Bourbon Leader: Grover Cleveland and the Democratic Party. is a pretty damn good work on the rise and fall of the Bourbons. C. Vann Woodward and his works on Postbellum Southern Politics also tend to be good. Plus any decent bio you could find on men like Senator Vilas or the 1904 (The Bourbon's last hurrah) canidate Alton B Parker. Bryan's own Autobiographies mentions of the Bourbons state when they came into existence. Charles W. Calhoun's Minor Victory spends a lot of time covering the Bourbons for his study on 1888. EDIT: I tried to link a Journal Artical here but I couldn't find any sources besides JSTOR. R. Hall William's Years of Decision is a good overview of 1890's politics and the Bourbon Hayday, while his Realigning America focus' directly on 1896 and how the Bourbon's star was falling.

Also 160 years before 1932 is 1774, so I'm assuming thats a typo? That said you really can't claim that Bourbon Democrats exist at all before say... 1873, they're basis for existance is Machine Corruption in the Party and support for the Coinage Act of that year, while in the South they're the more "Reformist" redeemer governments that is to say Segregationists who tend to be in opposition to (Mostly Republican down there) Political Machines.

EDIT: Also, having posted all of this it's occurred to me that this could be a simple misunderstanding. Classical Liberals of course are a major driving force in the Democrats for most of the parties existence. It would be a mistake though to claim that All Classical Liberals are Bourbon Democrats.
 
Last edited:

mowque

Banned
No it would be that Bad, the only advantage Cleveland has here over the National Democrats is that he's not in his late 70's. Also, you and I have talked about this before. Bryan wasn't the End all Be all of the populist movement, he was just the man who hijacked it to his own ends. He didn't light any fires, he just used the already lit fire to cook up his own strike out.

That is basically what I tried to say, maybe it came out wrong. :eek:


Edit: Japhy, why do you think Cleveland would do so much worse then, say Parker did later on?
 
Last edited:

Japhy

Banned
That is basically what I tried to say, maybe it came out wrong. :eek:


Edit: Japhy, why do you think Cleveland would do so much worse then, say Parker did later on?

Oh alright, apologies if I came off less then polite there. :O

There are though, Several Reasons why Alton B Parker in 1904 would do better then Cleveland 1896.

1- In 1904 the Economy had finally recovered from the wrong depression so when a Bourbon like Alton B Parker ran, he wasn't facing any issues on Bimetallism

2- Parker could rely on the Solid South when he ran, thanks to 1896 all progress of the Southern Populists to bring together Blacks, Liberal Republicans, and Reformist Democrats had been wiped away, in 1904 the Southern Political Aristocracy is safe, in 1896 they're on the defensive and can't stop alot of black voter registration.

3- Populistic Democrats were quiet in 1904. WJ Bryan had co-opted the movement for himself, and understood that having lost two in a row he couldn't go for three, his decision not to run (And having removed all opponents withing the wing of the party) was the only reason the Bourbons were able to take the nomination, it was a 'gift' to them. And come General Election time Bryan's movement just sat on the sidelines and throw their weight to Parker or to Tom Watson's small and clipped Populist revival. In 1896 while WJB is likely to stay with Cleveland's party and run for Congress under their banner, the other Populistic Democrats, being shut up at Cleveland's convention are going to actively fight against him.

4- Parker hasn't been President. He has no Pullman Strike, no JP Morgan, no lack of unemployment aid hanging around his neck when he ran in a prosperous economy 8 years later.

5- The Third term rule. If there was some sort of crisis, or war, or things were going stunningly fine economicly, Cleveland could probably make a run but it would still be an issue, how big of an issue depends on the author. But recall its only been 16 years since Ulysses Grant tried for his third term and he took alot of blows just trying to get the GOP Nomination on it. According to some historians the third term issue was just as big in stopping him as the history of corruption in his government.
 
Last edited:
Cleveland's popularity had cratered in 1896. If he somehow got the nomination, he may well have come in third in the electoral college behind McKinley and the Populist candidate - probably Tom Watson.

In fact, it's an interesting POD, because it's possible this would have lead to Democrats getting largely replaced by Populists. (Democrats might survive for awhile as one half of a two-party Populist/Democrat system in the South.)
This. The Panic of 1893 destroyed Cleveland.
 

Japhy

Banned
This. The Panic of 1893 destroyed Cleveland.

Well the Long Depression had been going on for years. Had things turned around before 1896 Cleveland would take the credit for it. Being as the Depression ended when the amount of Gold in circulation rose, and we know where those new finds were located, we can simply save Cleveland by having South African and Yukon gold be found say in 1894.

In that instance, he would have a higher then decent shot of being elected again, and the Populistic side of the Democats will have far less strength to go on come the convention, and the populists will be in the same position come the General Election.
 
Well the Long Depression had been going on for years. Had things turned around before 1896 Cleveland would take the credit for it. Being as the Depression ended when the amount of Gold in circulation rose, and we know where those new finds were located, we can simply save Cleveland by having South African and Yukon gold be found say in 1894.


I think the Third Term barrier would still scuttle any chance Cleveland has.

Ackerman's book "Dark Horse" about Garfield's election discusses how concerns about a third term effectively prevented Grant's chances at the GOP convention in 1880. While he didn't have the votes to win on the first ballot, Grant was the favorite when the convention began.

The opposition to Grant didn't rest on the corruption of his two administrations, that was blamed Grant's appointees rather than Grant himself. Instead, those opposed to Grant were concerned about the very open way he had campaigned for the nomination and violating the Third Term precedent. Grant's opponents eventually coalesced around Garfield, who was only at the convention to support John Sherman's bid.

If Third Term concerns helped prevent the GOP from nominating a favorite son like Grant, the Democrats aren't going to nominate Cleveland for a third term no matter what the economy is doing.
 

Japhy

Banned
I think the Third Term barrier would still scuttle any chance Cleveland has.

Ackerman's book "Dark Horse" about Garfield's election discusses how concerns about a third term effectively prevented Grant's chances at the GOP convention in 1880. While he didn't have the votes to win on the first ballot, Grant was the favorite when the convention began.

The opposition to Grant didn't rest on the corruption of his two administrations, that was blamed Grant's appointees rather than Grant himself. Instead, those opposed to Grant were concerned about the very open way he had campaigned for the nomination and violating the Third Term precedent. Grant's opponents eventually coalesced around Garfield, who was only at the convention to support John Sherman's bid.

If Third Term concerns helped prevent the GOP from nominating a favorite son like Grant, the Democrats aren't going to nominate Cleveland for a third term no matter what the economy is doing.

You're probably right, but I'd say finding gold is essential to Cleveland even having a chance.

Most likely if the Economy is continuing to go well for Cleveland come 1896 he'd move towards going for a third term but as opposed to Grant in 1880 or Wilson in 1920, he might back down in time for another member of his camp to step up and win the nomination before the Machines or the Western Democrats can rally against him.
 
Most likely if the Economy is continuing to go well for Cleveland come 1896 he'd move towards going for a third term but as opposed to Grant in 1880 or Wilson in 1920, he might back down in time for another member of his camp to step up and win the nomination before the Machines or the Western Democrats can rally against him.


I've been failing to explain this clearly. :eek:

The machine and the bosses aren't imposing a Third Term barrier for their own philosophical reasons. They're imposing that barrier because they don't believe the general electorate will vote a man into the Presidency for a third term and those fears are somewhat justified. It's all about winning the election and not about honoring Washington's precedent.

Grant took a huge amount of flack from the press when he kicked off his campaign for a third nomination and many of the party bosses felt that would cost the GOP the general election. They were so concerned about losing the White House if Grant won the nomination at the convention, something he came within a handful of votes doing early on, they abandoned their own candidates and rallied behind a nearly nationally unknown Congressman called Garfield.

If the men and political machines who ran the national elections of this period were so afraid of the consequences of running a war hero like Grant for a third term, Cleveland doesn't have a chance of either being nominated or winning.
 
Top