DBWI: President William Jennings Bryan runs for a 3rd term in 1904

Info on a DBWI, do not ask what it is on the thread.

In 1904 William Jennings Bryan was still very popular, and still very young, at 44 he left office earlier that any other man had come into the office. Many people were pushing for him to do so, but WJB refused. He still influenced the Democrats long after he left and until his death.

But lets say he felt he had to, assisting out the newly-independent Cuban and Philippine Republics took much longer after he left office, if he felt whoever succeeded him would be insufficient to helping them, or even annexing them as many Republicans wanted, would/could he win?
 
Last edited:
I for one personally feel it was in good form for him to keep the precedent that Washington set.
 
Info on a DBWI, do not ask what it is on the thread.

In 1904 William Jennings Bryan was still very popular, and still very young, at 44 he left office earlier that any other man had come into the office. Many people were pushing for him to do so, but WJB refused. He still influenced the Democrats long after he left and until his death.

But lets say he felt he had to, assisting out the newly-independent Cuban and Philippine Republics took much longer after he left office, if he felt whoever succeeded him would be insufficient to helping them, or even annexing them as many Republicans wanted, would/could he win?

OOC: Bryan later did come out as pro-suffrage later in his life, BTW.

Edit: Retconned my post. I may be a smart guy but nobody's perfect. Apologies for the mistakes. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Can't say I'm sorry he didn't. Bryan wasn't exactly the progressive mind some make him out to be. He was against women's suffrage and immigration for one. Not to mention his warhawkish attitudes not just towards Cuba before the invasion but Mexico as well, and he also supported the first anti-cannabis bill(written exclusively by and for Southern plutocrats), which almost passed, by the way, had it not been the legendary filibustering by liberal Calif. Senator Frank Fremont.

It was Bryan who turned the Democrats rightward, and made them the laughingstock of the Western World. If it hadn't been for FDR's ascent in 1936, what is now the most liberal American Party would be history. :(

OOC: Bryan later did come out as pro-suffrage later in his life, BTW.

Now-a-days we consider Bryan to be right-wing because of his stances on Prohibition and Evolution, forgetting we have 100 years of hind-sight. Back then opposition to those were considered Liberal ideas. Darwinism was thought to justify such things as eugenics and war, and Prohibition would stop drunks from beating their wives and children, and that workplace accidents would be reduced. Their hearts, if not their brains, were in the right place.

If it weren't for his staunch refusal for the US to fight in the World War, he wouldn't be so hated overseas, people in Britain and France hated him personally for that, not for his party. The Cannabis bill is lumped in with the aforementioned Prohibition.

Remember, FDR himself considered Bryan the father of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
OOC: There is so much wrong with this,

1.) Bryan started the Bourbon Democrats on the leftward spiral, from the party of Grover Cleveland (who would do nothing in response to an economic emergency, and staunch isolationism) to idea's like Free Silver, and a rather nuanced use of force, fighting Spain to liberate Cuba and the Philippines (at least it was idealistically) and Bryan personally wrote to Wilson asking to be put in the First World War as a private solider, as he felt unright letting others men fight and die while he didn't as Secretary of State.

2.) He championed direct elections of Senators (which some say is against States Rights), workers compensation, an 8 hour work day, and government regulation of food and radio to name a few. All of which are things conservatives disapprove of today

3.) He inspired such men as FDR and Truman, and even Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft took up some of his causes, like Trust busting. Bryan isn't perfectly progressive by today's standard, but he lead and inspired others to take up the mantel

Reference here, You can find more online.
 
Now-a-days we consider Bryan to be right-wing because of his stances on Prohibition and Evolution, forgetting we have 100 years of hind-sight. Back then opposition to those were considered Liberal ideas. Darwinism was thought to justify such things as eugenics and war, and Prohibition would stop drunks from beating their wives and children, and that workplace accidents would be reduced. Their hearts, if not their brains, were in the right place.

If it weren't for his staunch refusal for the US to fight in the World War, he wouldn't be so hated overseas, people in Britain and France hated him personally for that, not for his party. The Cannabis bill is lumped in with the aforementioned Prohibition.

Remember, FDR himself considered Bryan the father of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
OOC: There is so much wrong with this,

1.) Bryan started the Bourbon Democrats on the leftward spiral, from the party of Grover Cleveland (who would do nothing in response to an economic emergency, and staunch isolationism) to idea's like Free Silver, and a rather nuanced use of force, fighting Spain to liberate Cuba and the Philippines (at least it was idealistically) and Bryan personally wrote to Wilson asking to be put in the First World War as a private solider, as he felt unright letting others men fight and die while he didn't as Secretary of State.

2.) He championed direct elections of Senators (which some say is against States Rights), workers compensation, an 8 hour work day, and government regulation of food and radio to name a few. All of which are things conservatives disapprove of today

3.) He inspired such men as FDR and Truman, and even Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft took up some of his causes, like Trust busting. Bryan isn't perfectly progressive by today's standard, but he lead and inspired others to take up the mantel

Reference here, You can find more online.

Hmm....okay then, looks like I was mistaken. I assumed that most of his OTL progressive views had formed after 1900 or so, and I also assumed we could operate with a POD of around 1892, or thereabouts......but I guess not huh? :)
 
I wonder how Bryan will ride out the Panic of 1906. It's possible that the more charismatic Bryan avoids being blamed for it, as Watson was. If Bryan can do this effectively, it's possible that Watson succeeds Bryan in 1908 even though he was defeated IOTL. If this happens, the Lochner era comes to a swift end since Foraker won't be appointing the successors to Peckham, Fuller, Brewer, Brown, Harlan, and Shiras. All of them, except Shiras, died IOTL, and a Watson 1909-1913 term would leave Shiras as the sole economic. Quite different from them being double the economic populists.

Other than a possible different approach to the Panic of 1906, the biggest difference between the Bryan and Watson Administrations was that Bryan avoided the race issue, while Watson was the first Democratic President to be in favor of civil rights. Assuming Foraker wins like OTL, Plessy will still be gone, but without Watson, there is no Voting Rights Act of 1908. While Watson's biracial working class coalition failed during his presidency, it was the backbone of FDR's Square Deal Coalition. Like in OTL, Foraker will try get Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, but without a Democratic President leading the way, Populist Democrats aren't going to push civil rights reform over the top. Republicans can't do it alone.
 
Top