Could Bryan Have Been Nominated in 1912?

Hi all,

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but what would be needed in order to make William Jennings Bryan the Democratic nominee in 1912? Would he need to have foregone the 1908 nomination (and the defeat at Taft's hands) to make this possible? If so, who could have been the Dem's nominee in 1908?

Assuming Bryan gets the Nomination in 1912, who's his Running Mate?

Finally, what does a Bryan presidency from 1913-1917 (or 1921) look like, in comparrison to Wilson in OTL? He'd probably be more isolationist, but what other differences are we looking at here?

In 1916, is Hughes still the GOP nominee? and would Bryan be able to beat him, like Wilson did?


Discuss.
 
Hi all,

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but what would be needed in order to make William Jennings Bryan the Democratic nominee in 1912? Would he need to have foregone the 1908 nomination (and the defeat at Taft's hands) to make this possible? If so, who could have been the Dem's nominee in 1908?

This is certainly the best way. Assuming that his replacement does no better than he himself did, then the Dems have lost twice with Bryan, but also twice without him, and the latter defeats have been heavier than the former. In such circs he has every chance.

However, he could possibly have won in 1912 even after losing 1908, had he swallowed his pride and gone into the Primaries. He had vastly more name recognition than any of his rivals. Basically, I feel he wanted to be "drafted" - he had come to think of the Democratic Party as "belonging" to him, and felt it a little beneath his dignity to just fight for the nomination like any common or garden aspirant. If so, pride went before a fall.

If he "passes" on 1908, the alternative is anybody's guess. William R Hearst might try for it, but his 1906 defeat for Governor of NY would tell against him. John W Kern, Bryan's OTL runnning-mate, might be chosen, or possibly Judson Harmon of Ohio. It probably makes little difference in November.


Assuming Bryan gets the Nomination in 1912, who's his Running Mate?

Since 1900 he had shown a preference for Midwestern running-mates, Stevenson of Illinois and Kern of Indiana, apparently regarding the Northeast as hopeless for him. So it could be Kern or Harmon, whichever of them hadn't got the 1908 Presidential spot. OTOH it could still be Marshall. He might also make courtesy offers to Wilson or Clark. Wilson probably wouldn't accept, but Clark might, as TTL they won't have become estranged at the Convention.



Finally, what does a Bryan presidency from 1913-1917 (or 1921) look like, in comparrison to Wilson in OTL? He'd probably be more isolationist, but what other differences are we looking at here?

He'd be dead set against entry into WW1, come what may. If worst came to worst, he'd probably advise American merchant ships to stay out of the German "barred zone" albeit under protest. He might also have resisted pressure to allow loans to belligerant powers, holding as he did that "Money is the worst of all contrabands because it commands all the rest".

Domestically - labor legislation etc - he's probably not much different from Wilson. I gather a lot of the initiative in that area came from Congress anyway.

The biggest possible change is to the Presidential term of office. In Feb 1913 the Senate, with the Republicans split and only one Democrat opposed, passed a Constitutional Amendment limiting the POTUS to a single six-year term. It would have easily passed in the heavily Democratic House, had Pres-Elect Wilson not intervened and persuaded the relevant Committee Chairman (Iirc it was A Mitchell Palmer) to prevent it coming to a vote. This was one of Bryan's pet reforms, so he would certainly not have done this, and indeed would have pushed for speedy passage. If it is passed and ratified, then he and his VP would serve until March 1919, and the next President would be elected in 1918, not 1916.

In 1916, is Hughes still the GOP nominee? and would Bryan be able to beat him, like Wilson did? Discuss.

Well, if the 1916 election is still held (see above) Hughes makes just as much sense as OTL. Basically the Reps need someone in the middle of their party, who didn't bolt in 1912, but can hold enough of the Progressive vote to be elected, and Hughes is about the best available.

Bryan probably wins by a similar electoral margin to Wilson, or slightly greater. Most of the "swing" states - IN, MN, OR and the crucial CA - are in the Midwest and West, where Bryan's isolationist views are popular, and his domestic programme is likely to be similar to Wilson's, so no votes lost there. Being weaker in the Northeast than Wilson, he will probably lose NH, but that's only four electoral votes, so he can afford to. WV went for Hughes by less than 1%, so he might pick that up as well, but I don't know enough about it to say whether Bryan would be more or less popular there than Wilson.
 
Interesting analysis-I think Bryan sitting out 1908 is probably the best scenario-perhaps an "adviser" persuades him that Taft (as Teddy's hand-picked successor) is unbeatable.

From there, Bryan could well be the favourite for the nomination in 1912-like you say, the 2 prier defeats would have been greater than Bryan's losses in 1896 and 1900. Having Bryan pass on 1908 also means he's seen as more "fresh", having been absent from presidencial politics for 12 years.

I heard a lot about this 6-year term amendment-I heard from somewhere that Clark was a major supporter of it, but I didn't know Bryan was especially keen.

I wonder what Bryan would do in regard to race relations? He can't do much worse than Wilson there. One thing he may well do is try and push for earlier prohibition-he was definitely keen on that, though I'm not sure if he'd go ahead with it. It may actually be a good thing if he does-as I understand it, the wartime spirit lead to the amendment passing congress-without the war, it could well fail. If it does pass, that leads to it being discreddited earlier.

I wonder what happens come 1918, then. Bryan may go for another term, but I think that TR may be drafted for the GOP nomination here-he's had an extra 2 years to patch up his differences with the GOP. I think TR wins that-but it'd be important to know who his Running Mate is, because if TR dies on schedule, that person will be president come March, 1919...
 
I heard a lot about this 6-year term amendment-I heard from somewhere that Clark was a major supporter of it, but I didn't know Bryan was especially keen.


It was one of his early hobby horses. Wilson, iirc, dismissed it as "another bit of Bryan nonsense" or words to that effect. Clark was another strong supporter, and indeed, given that it was actually included in the Democratic platform, one wonders whether any other POTUS-elect would have had the brass neck to behave as Wilson did.


I wonder what happens come 1918, then. Bryan may go for another term, but I think that TR may be drafted for the GOP nomination here-he's had an extra 2 years to patch up his differences with the GOP. I think TR wins that-but it'd be important to know who his Running Mate is, because if TR dies on schedule, that person will be president come March, 1919...

Neither Bryan nor TR could have run again. The Amendment (unless altered in the House) barred anyone who had already been POTUS. $64,000 question is whether the Republicans will still go for Hughes (and whether he will accept, if the European war is over by then) or if they are doing well enough to get away with nominating Harding or the like.

One long shot would be Governor Charles Whitman of NY. OTL he was defeated for reelection in 1918, but TTL that hasn't had a chance to happen. Unfortunately I don't know much about him.

One more general point. I get the impression that the sixth year of an administration often tends to be a low point in its popularity, so this Amendment may well lead to parties alternating in power at six year intervals. If a Republican gets in in 1918, he could well be followed by a Democrat (Cox?) in 1924.
 
Last edited:
I question whether, even if a sitting president were for it a 6 year one term amendmen would have passed,

If it did how does it apply to a sittin president in their first time, as Bryan would have been.

Is his term extended 2 years, or does he get a chance to run for a 6 year term in 1916
 
I question whether, even if a sitting president were for it a 6 year one term amendmen would have passed,

If it did how does it apply to a sittin president in their first time, as Bryan would have been.

Is his term extended 2 years, or does he get a chance to run for a 6 year term in 1916

As passed by the Senate, it would take effect immediately and apply to all present, future or former Presidents. So Bryan and his VP would have served an additional two years. Bryan would not be eligible for another term.

For the details, see the NYT article at
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9505E4DD133BE633A25751C0A9649C946296D6CF

Regarding its chances of passage, the Amendment already had made it through the Senate, albeit only just. However, even had it failed by the odd vote in the lame-duck (Republican) Senate, Bryan could have called the new, comfortably Democratic one into early session, and there it would certainly have passed.

As for the House, the current HoR was Democratic by almost two to one, and the new one by more than that. Given its lopsided Democratic support (only one Dem Senator voted nay) and the almost equal division of the Republicans, its passage there would seem a foregone conclusion, esp as Speaker Clark would be using his (considerable) influence in support.

So it's all down to the State legislatures. I'm a bit vague about their political makeup, but after two successive landslides in 1910 and 1912, I should imagine that most were Democrat. Many of the others were controlled by Regular (ie anti-TR) Republicans, so were also likely to ratify. Basically, the Dems plus half the Reps is a combination pretty hard to beat. I also str that when the Republicans made a comeback in the 1914 midterms, it was largely the Regular wing who benefited, so if three-fourths hasn't been reached already, it may well be soon after that.

In the past century, it has been most exceptional for an Amendment to win two thirds majorities in both Houses and then fail of ratification. Of the thirteen submitted to the States since 1909, only two - the Child Labor Amendment in the 1920s and the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s - have been rejected. In both those cases, the defeat was achieved by near-solid opposition in particular regions - the South in both instances, plus about half of the Northeast in that of the CLA. There seems no particular reason to expect such regional opposition to the Single Term Amendment, so my guess is that it is ratified without too much trouble, and in plenty of time to cancel the 1916 election.
 
Getting back to Bryan, one question is whom he might appoint to the Supreme Court.

Wilson made three appointments, James C MacReynolds in 1914, then Louis Brandeis and John H Clarke in 1916. However, the last vacancy was created by Charles E Hughes resigning to run for President, so that Bryan may only get two appointments. MacReynolds may well be too conservative for his taste, but Brandeis (Bryan was not antisemitic) and Clark are both possible. This could make more difference than you'd think, since Clark's resignation from theCourt in 1922 was at least in part due to his inability to get on with MacReynolds, so if the latter isn't appointed, Clarke may stay on until his death in 1945.

Final thought. If Bryan does somehow get to pick a third Justice, might he go for one of his rivals for the 1912 nomination? Could we get a Justice Woodrow Wilson?
 
Getting back to Bryan, one question is whom he might appoint to the Supreme Court.

Wilson made three appointments, James C MacReynolds in 1914, then Louis Brandeis and John H Clarke in 1916. However, the last vacancy was created by Charles E Hughes resigning to run for President, so that Bryan may only get two appointments. MacReynolds may well be too conservative for his taste, but Brandeis (Bryan was not antisemitic) and Clark are both possible. This could make more difference than you'd think, since Clark's resignation from theCourt in 1922 was at least in part due to his inability to get on with MacReynolds, so if the latter isn't appointed, Clarke may stay on until his death in 1945.

Final thought. If Bryan does somehow get to pick a third Justice, might he go for one of his rivals for the 1912 nomination? Could we get a Justice Woodrow Wilson?

I don't feel that Bryan would have put someone like McReynolds on the Court. Bryan could certainly have chosen any other number of available people. At the time, Bryan was still close friends with Clarence Darrow.... Just a playful thought...
 
Top