Death to the Democratic Party

Between the years of 1860-1932 the Republican Party was the number one party in the United States. There was only two Democratic Presidents during that time, them being Clevland and Wilson. I heard talk arounf the board about how Wilson could have been the last Democratic President. How could they collaspe. What would the impact be on mordern American Polictics. Would the Republican Party be the only major party today with the Primaries being the real election?
 
Sorry, ASB. Until LBJ delivered the South to the Republicans (by his own admission) through the Civil Rights Act of 1965, there was always a Solid South for the Democratic Party to rely on. Combined with Irish based machines in large eastern cities, former Populists in the west, and ex-Copperhead butternuts in the the states immediately above the Mason-Dixon line there was always a 40%+ base for the Democrats. All they needed for national success was either a GOP split (1912) or a national calamity (1932). The splits or calamities always come. The only conceivable 'death' to the Democratic party was in the 1890's, when the Greenback/Populist movement might have supplanted the Democrats, but a James Watson or W J Bryan lead Populist Party would have been no more than a re-named and re-oriented Democrat party.
 
Political machines successfuly subverted by the Socialist Labor party who manage to take over as the party of the industrialized cities. From there Socialists and Republicans work together create comprehensive civil rights bills which destroys the democratic stranglehold on the south across the black belt. Effectively limiting them to being a fringe party mostly supported by racists in the white majority parts of the south.
 
Between the years of 1860-1932 the Republican Party was the number one party in the United States. There was only two Democratic Presidents during that time, them being Clevland and Wilson. I heard talk arounf the board about how Wilson could have been the last Democratic President. How could they collaspe. What would the impact be on mordern American Polictics. Would the Republican Party be the only major party today with the Primaries being the real election?

Walter Lippmann in "Why I Shall Vote for Davis," in the *New Republic,* October 29, 1924, pretty much summarizes the extreme difficulty of destroying the Democrats or replacing them as the main anti-Republican party in the US during this period--the great obstacle is the South:

"First, the practical politics of the La Follette movement. Here in the East its supporters, the New Republic among them, are arguing that the new party is to destroy and supplant the Democratic party as the opposition to conservative Republicanism. This seems to me impossible. *The Democratic party is more or less indestructible because of the solid South.* [My emphasis--DT] A party which enters every campaign with roughly half the electoral votes [I assume that what Lippmann meant was "half of the electoral votes necessary for victory"--DT] is not in my opinion going to disappear. It seems extremely unlikely that La Follette will break the solid South, and almost as unlikely that the Southern Democrats will coalesce, as the New Republic has suggested, with the Eastern Republicans. If the Democratic party survives, and if the Republican party survives, there is not under the presidential system of government any permanent future for a third party..."
 
Well, since this in "Before 1900," the 1890s ws brought up, but the early 1870s was also a possible time.

If Ben Butler had become President and Reconstuction really gotten nasty, it could hve happened, if at the same time you have so much guerilla warfare by the South that the North just puts up with the cost of fighting, as the animosity grows.

Then, you might get a series of 1872s, where Horace Greeley was nominated by the Liberal Republicans and the Democrats. imagine Tilden losing bigger in '76, maybe Cleveland loses in 1884 becasue Garfield survives to bring an end to the fighting and finally get Civil Rights enforced.

The Democrats will hve been out of office for only 28 years this point, only 4 more than OTl, but th Democrats would be blamed not only for the Civil War but also for the guerilla movements. Have them go till 1900 without winning, and it would still survive as a minor party in the South, but the GOP would have stranglehold on power and the Dixiecrats would hve likely fled if the guerilla fighting got to bad.

Then, instead of the Democrats being a major party, it's more likely the GOP splinters into its conservative and liberal factions, and those become the 2 major parties, possibly with this beginning in 1872.

i don't know if jsut the death of Greeley does it, though - you probably hve to back to 1864.
 
I really don't see how the Democrats owning the south means they are invulnerable long term. The Democrats are just as capable of ending up a bloc-quebecois style regionalist party if they loose their political machines to some other party. Sure it's gonna be problematic for national politics for awhile especially with the electoral college but if they become effectively controlled by the dixiecrats they have little appeal outside the south and several parties are waiting in the wings to take their place. Socialist Labor is my favorite pick as the ones who take over the urban machines if only because their entire strategy has the potential to undermine the very foundations of the political machines.
 
I really don't see how the Democrats owning the south means they are invulnerable long term. The Democrats are just as capable of ending up a bloc-quebecois style regionalist party if they loose their political machines to some other party. Sure it's gonna be problematic for national politics for awhile especially with the electoral college but if they become effectively controlled by the dixiecrats they have little appeal outside the south and several parties are waiting in the wings to take their place. Socialist Labor is my favorite pick as the ones who take over the urban machines if only because their entire strategy has the potential to undermine the very foundations of the political machines.

The SLP under De Leon was a mere sect. If you mean the Socialist Party, even it is unlikely to undermine the Democrats' hold on the cities very much. Its appeal was largely to farmers and miners in the West--Debs' eight best states (in percentage of the vote) in 1912 were all western or southwestern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912 Trade unions were weaker than in Europe, and mostly opposed to socialism in any event. Socialist influence among urban workers was largely limited to those who had emigrated from countries with strong socialist traditions.
 
The SLP under De Leon was a mere sect. If you mean the Socialist Party, even it is unlikely to undermine the Democrats' hold on the cities very much. Its appeal was largely to farmers and miners in the West--Debs' eight best states (in percentage of the vote) in 1912 were all western or southwestern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912 Trade unions were weaker than in Europe, and mostly opposed to socialism in any event. Socialist influence among urban workers was largely limited to those who had emigrated from countries with strong socialist traditions.

Which to be fair is most of the immigrants. And yes I mean the Socialist party, I'm just a fan of the Socialist Labor name.
 

Japhy

Banned
Enable the continuation of Reconstruction or at least, a cementation of economic and civil rights aspects of it and the Democratic Party dies unmourned a few cycles after their old rivals. That more or less requires a real collapse of the party in the North.
 
Enable the continuation of Reconstruction or at least, a cementation of economic and civil rights aspects of it and the Democratic Party dies unmourned a few cycles after their old rivals. That more or less requires a real collapse of the party in the North.

The OP requires, apparently, the Republicans being the only major party though. Even with the success of reconstruction, would not some other issue be brought up and split the parties once again as has always happened with major collapses and shifts?
 
If Ben Butler had become President and Reconstuction really gotten nasty, it could hve happened, if at the same time you have so much guerilla warfare by the South that the North just puts up with the cost of fighting, as the animosity grows.

Benjamin Butler would have turned the Deep South states into African-American/carpetbagger Radical Republican strongholds and coopted the labor movement in the cities. I have a hard time seeing how the Democrats would survive after that.
 
The OP requires, apparently, the Republicans being the only major party though. Even with the success of reconstruction, would not some other issue be brought up and split the parties once again as has always happened with major collapses and shifts?

Given the ways in which other major parties have declined, as well as the largely non-ideological character of U.S. parties historically, this is actually achievable, though not easy.
 

Japhy

Banned
The OP requires, apparently, the Republicans being the only major party though. Even with the success of reconstruction, would not some other issue be brought up and split the parties once again as has always happened with major collapses and shifts?

Well he asked about it, the answer to the question of if thats possible is no, not even a one party dictatorship has the longevity necessary to do what he wants to have happen in that regard. But there is a possibility that you can have the GOP develop as the "Natural Party of Government". I doubt though that (Or a triumphant Reconstruction) offers the scenario he might be hoping for.
 
Enable the continuation of Reconstruction or at least, a cementation of economic and civil rights aspects of it and the Democratic Party dies unmourned a few cycles after their old rivals. That more or less requires a real collapse of the party in the North.
Specifically, do it with Ben Butler because he was in favor of labor rights that, if successfully implemented, would have killed the Northern Democratic machines.

Benjamin Butler would have turned the Deep South states into African-American/carpetbagger Radical Republican strongholds and coopted the labor movement in the cities. I have a hard time seeing how the Democrats would survive after that.
Oho, ninja'd.


Or is the OP talking about Democratic collapse after Wilson? Thande I were discussing how 30 more seats in the 1920 election were very marginal for the Democrats. Had there been no Russian Revolution, that would have been enough for the Socialists to grow in the 1920s, redeemed by their opposition to WWI and to Wilson. I could see a Socialist breakthrough in 1920 that is overshadowed by the Republican hegemony. Over the course of the 1920s, it's only a matter of time until the Democrats fall behind the Progressive Labor Party, which is composed of various Socialist, Farmer-Labor, and Progressive state parties. Perhaps Bob LaFollette's 1924 run forms the nucleus of this party.
 
Last edited:
Huey Long survives and his "Share Our Wealth Movement" takes off, spinning off into a national party. He's able to split the left-wing vote throughout America in 1936, leading to a Republican presidency and an aborted New Deal.

The Democrats are in absolute disarray, with most of their best and brightest party officials outside the South defecting to SOW, (also: liberal Democratic southerners, like Claude Pepper)

By the 1950s, the Democrats are an exclusively conservative party active only in the South(everywhere else the GOP is the dominant conservative party) and SOW has replaced the Dems as the national center-left party. The Democrats and GOP generally work together on everything except civil rights.

(EDIT: Crap, didn't see the 1932 limit. This is only 3 years later, though)
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
Yes, the Democratic Party could have been brought to the collapse point--by the actions of Republicans in the South during Reconstruction. If the Radical Republicans had treated the South as conquered territory, they could have combined white Southern states to reduce their congressional representation, split off unsettled areas such as most of Texas and southern Florida into either new territories to be settled by African Americans and immigrants or combined with northern and western states and territories. Western Texas and New Mexico, for example, could have been combined with Colorado by 1876 and South Texas split off into a new territory, while East Texas gets combined with Louisiana. Unionist North Alabama could be split from more confederate South Alabama, which could be combined with Georgia and West and north Florida. The Carolinas can be merged and even fused with Virginia (Virginialina?). While the heavily African-American Mississippi Valley can be pulled together in one, overwhelmingly African-American and thus safe Republican state comprising West Mississippi, West Tennessee, East Arkansas and East Louisiana, leaving West Arkansas and east Mississippi to be combined with West Louisiana into Texas and Alabama respectively.
And House Districts can be drawn on the basis of votes actually cast in the last general election in the decade, rather than the census of all PEOPLE, thus making any state which limits it's franchise in doing so, severely limit it's congressional representation, at least unless it either grossly stuffs it's ballot boxes or opens up the franchise with all the risk that entails every eight to twelve years.
This won't make the Southern Democrats disappear completely, buit will limit them severely, at least on the Congressional and Senatorial and Electoral Vote level.
If the Republicans, during the Gilded Age think that this will guarantee them permanent control of the nation, they are wrong, though. Because if the Democratic Party collapses as an effective political force, the Democrats will be replaced in the 1880s by the People's Party---the Populists---and possibly in the 20th Century by the Socialist Party. The US may wind up with Socialist Party urban machines, just like those of the German Social Democrats by the 1920s. While the rump Democrats have no choice but to become Southern Republicans--80 years earlier than IOTL. and who are the Tory alternative to Socialist Labor.
In short, a more honest political system with less pretense in which the parties mean what they say and say more of what they mean. Southerners who really stand for oligarchy will be calling themselves what they are--Republicans---just as they do now; since a republic is another name for government by oligarchy, be it a capitalist Republic or a Communist Party ruled nomenklatura oligarchy in a People's Republic. While Social Democrats or Socialists or Labor parties or Farmer Labor parties ala Minnesota and Wisconsin make no bones about what they want, both in terms of policy and voter participation. In short, a more honest if more polarized political system much earlier. :)
 
Top