PC: William J. Bryan backs Roosevelt in 1912

The Democratic Convention in 1912 was highly contentious, requiring 46 rounds of voting to nominate their candidate. As Wikipedia notes:

It proved to be one of the more memorable presidential conventions of the twentieth century. Initially, the frontrunner appeared to be Champ Clark of Missouri, the Speaker of the House, and Clark did receive the largest number of delegate votes early in the balloting. However, he was unable to get the two-thirds majority required to win the nomination. His chances were hurt when Tammany Hall, the powerful and corrupt Democratic political machine in New York City, threw its support behind Clark. Instead of helping him, this led William Jennings Bryan, the three-time Democratic presidential candidate and still the leader of the party's liberals, to turn against Clark as the candidate of "Wall Street". Bryan instead threw his support to New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson, who had consistently finished second to Clark on each ballot, and who was regarded as a moderate reformer. Wilson had nearly given up hope that he could be nominated, and he was on the verge of having a concession speech read for him at the convention that would free his delegates to vote for someone else. Bryan's defection from Clark to Wilson led many other delegates to do the same, and Wilson gradually gained strength while Clark's support dwindled. Wilson finally received the nomination on the 46th ballot.

Now if Clark is able to defeat Wilson (for example lets say that Wilson concedes before Bryan can throw his support behind him), might Bryan decide that with the Democrats backing a Wall Street candidate (at least in his eyes) and the Republicans backing the unpopular and conservative Taft, the best hope for the country lies with Roosevelt's Progressives? In addition, given that the Progressive national convention was held over a month later, might it be possible for Bryan to be nominated as Roosevelt's running mate? Finally, how would this affect the election?
 
No, there is no way Bryan is going to support TR. He had supported Democratic nominees *much* more conservative than Clark (who in fact had a progressive voting record in Congress). In 1904 he backed the conservative, gold-standard Alton Parker over TR. He backed Cox in 1920 even though Cox was a "wet" on Prohibition, and was too conservative for Bryan's taste. In 1924, when the Democrats nominated the conservative corporation lawyer John W. Davis, Bryan not only supported him but approved his own brother Charles as Davis's running mate. As Richard Hofstadter wrote in *The American Political Tradition*:

"Bryan's old principles were represented that year by Robert M. La Follette on an independent progressive ticket, but La Follette got no support from the man whose followers had so often united with him in Congressional fights. The Commoner could no more think of leaving the Democratic Party than of being converted to Buddhism. He had never failed to support a Democratic nominee. The party, he confessed to the 1924 convention, was a great passion of his life; he owed it an unpayable debt, for it had taken him out of obscurity, a young, penniless man, and had lifted him to exalted heights, three times honoring him with nominations.." https://books.google.com/books?id=fVnnj0RmdhoC&pg=PA262

As I once posted here:

***

Really, the reasons Bryan gave for opposing Clark were pretty flimsy. Clark had a progressive record in Congress when Wilson was still a Cleveland Democrat. Furthermore, Clark had the support of Samuel Gompers of the AFL. Bryan's attempt in 1912 to portray Clark as conservative because of the latter's support (allegedly as part of a deal with Tammany Hall) of Alton Parker as temporary chairman of the Democratic convention is unconvincing. The temporary chairmanship hardly meant control of the convention; its function consisted primarily of making the keynote speech and handing the gavel over to the permanent chairman. Bryan had been offered the temporary chairmanship himself and declined it. And as Gompers pointed out, Parker had actively supported Bryan in 1908. (The same point was made by Governor Thomas Marshall of Indiana in a response to a Bryan telegram urging all progressives to oppose Parker: "Parker came to Indiana in 1908 to advocate your election and mine. I do not see how his election as temporary chairman will result in a reactionary convention.")

One need not be a cynic to suggest that Bryan's real motive in portraying Clark as a conservative was to stop a front-runner and thereby increase the chances that he himself would win the Democratic nomination--and for once in a year the Democrats could win!--despite his disavowals of interest. (Indeed, one reason that party bosses like Roger Sullivan of Illinois in the end decided to support Wilson was that they feared that a prolonged Wilson-Clark deadlock would lead to a fourth Bryan nomination.) Bryan's argument that anyone with Tammany backing could not be a real progressive is a bit hard to accept when you recall that he himself avidly courted Tammany in 1908. Not to mention the famous incident in 1900 when Bryan, making a campaign speech in New York City, "impulsively held his hand over [Tammany boss Richard] Croker's head and intoned, 'Great is Tammany and Croker is its prophet.'" http://books.google.com/books?id=W1A6VZs1nNMC&pg=PA172

https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showpost.php?p=11044201&postcount=4

***

Once he had failed to stop Clark, Bryan would have no choice but to back him in the general election. This is especially true because of the prominent role played by George W. Perkins, of US Steel and JP Morgan Co. in TR's campaign. Democrats suspected that under TR's "don't break the trusts up, regulate them" plan, it would be the trusts that controlled the government rather than the other way around. Also, the Bull Moose platform strongly defended the protective tariff--another thing anathema to Bryan and other Democrats. Even on issues where the Progressive platform was undoubtedly "advanced" like labor and direct democracy, Bryan and other Democrats thought that it contrasted with TR's actual record in office. Bryan observed that TR was eighteen years late on direct election of senators...
 
Last edited:
One need not be a cynic to suggest that Bryan's real motive in portraying Clark as a conservative was to stop a front-runner and thereby increase the chances that he himself would win the Democratic nomination--and for once in a year the Democrats could win!--despite his disavowals of interest. (Indeed, one reason that party bosses like Roger Sullivan of Illinois in the end decided to support Wilson was that they feared that a prolonged Wilson-Clark deadlock would lead to a fourth Bryan nomination.)

How plausible would you say Bryan winning the 1912 nomination would be if that's what he was going for?
 
How plausible would you say Bryan winning the 1912 nomination would be if that's what he was going for?

it's unlikely, after three failed candidacies. My guess is that if the Wilson-Clark deadlock lasts long enough, the convention will turn to some other candidate, like Thomas Marshall. It will probably not be Oscar W. Underwood or Judson Harmon--the convention was in a "progressive" mood, and both men were considered too conservative. But I doubt that the deadlock will go on too long--the very possibility of a Bryan nomination was enough to put bosses Roger Sullivan of Illinois and Tom Taggart of Indiana in Wilson's camp.

Bryan's problem was similar to Henry Clay's--it was precisely in those years when his party was most certain of winning (like 1840) that it would not nominate him...
 
it's unlikely, after three failed candidacies. My guess is that if the Wilson-Clark deadlock lasts long enough, the convention will turn to some other candidate, like Thomas Marshall. It will probably not be Oscar W. Underwood or Judson Harmon--the convention was in a "progressive" mood, and both men were considered too conservative. But I doubt that the deadlock will go on too long--the very possibility of a Bryan nomination was enough to put bosses Roger Sullivan of Illinois and Tom Taggart of Indiana in Wilson's camp.

Bryan's problem was similar to Henry Clay's--it was precisely in those years when his party was most certain of winning (like 1840) that it would not nominate him...


For my money, Bryan in 1912 requires a PoD four years earlier. For whatever reason, he has to not get the 1908 nomination.

Even then he's still a two-time loser, but those defeats are now a decade old, since when the Party has also suffered two more defeats without him. Indeed, if the 1908 result is similar to OTL's, the defeats without Bryan are substantially heavier than the defeats with him. In those circs his appeal is that much greater, and 1912 might be "third time lucky" for him.

(One point - does anyone know when Bryan's diabetes was diagnosed? If he knew of it in 1908, he may have feared that by 1912 he might be too ill to run, or at least unable to live out two terms. 1908 may have seemed like his last chance.)

As for TR, we've been here before. His only chance of election is to win the Republican nomination. That's a very tough call, given Taft's control of patronage and LaFollette's opposition, and even if achieved, the returns in CA and SD, where Taft was not on the ballot, suggest that he might well have lost even in a straight fight. As a third party candidate, a TR win is about as likely as a successful Sealion.
 
Top