Survival of North Carolina Republican-Populist coalition

In 1894, a coalition of the Republican and Populist parties took control of the North Carolina General Assembly, ending 20 years of Democratic rule and becoming the first post-Reconstruction Southern state to elect a predominantly Republican legislature. At the next election in 1896, the coalition extended its majority and put Daniel Russell in the Governor's mansion, shutting the Democrats completely out of power in the state. The fusion government - again, uniquely in the post-Reconstruction South - enlarged the franchise and instituted protections for minority voters. More than 1000 black officeholders served during this period, including the last of the Reconstruction-era Republican congressmen, George Henry White.

In the 1898 election, the Democrats united behind the banner of white supremacy. Through a combination of demagoguery and Red Shirt electoral terrorism, they took a commanding majority in the 1899-1901 General Assembly, winning 93 of 118 House seats and a substantial majority in the Senate. A few days after the election, white supremacists violently overthrew the city government of Wilmington. The incoming legislature enacted Jim Crow laws and drafted a new constitution which effectively disenfranchised African-American voters (and many poor whites). Some black officeholders such as White survived the 1898 election, but they were all gone by 1901.

Is there any way to reverse the 1898 election result and keep the fusion government in power? One possible POD is suggested here:
One of the most significant events of the campaign was the appearance of an editorial in the Wilmington Daily Record on August 18, 1898. The Daily Record was an African American newspaper published by Alex Manly. The editorial was a response to a speech by a Georgia woman who had called for the widespread lynching of African American men in order to protect white women. The Daily Record suggested that consensual relationships between African American men and white women were common and that often the man was accused of rape only after the relationship was discovered. Once the Democratic papers got hold of the editorial there was an uproar. Under headings such as "Vile and Villainous" and "A Horrid Slander," the editorial was reprinted throughout the state. Some Democratic papers continued to run it in almost every single issue up to election day.
So let's assume this galvanizing event never happens - either the Georgia woman (identified as "Mrs. Felton") never makes that speech, or Alex Manly decides the time isn't right to write something so provocative. Would this be enough?

I'm not sure. On the one hand, the article pushed almost every Southern Redeemer button it's possible to push, and seems to have had a genuinely catalytic effect. On the other hand, if the editorial didn't run, the Democrats would probably have ginned up another outrage - their election team, which included such master demagogues as South Carolina's Pitchfork Ben Tillman, was well up to the challenge - and they had the Red Shirts to create facts on the ground. I suspect that what would really be necessary is for the Populists and/or Republicans to have their own self-defense organizations capable of standing up the Red Shirts.

Anyway, if the fusion government can hang onto power in 1898 and survive the probable rematch in 1900, would this result in white supremacy being regarded as a failed electoral tactic, at least in North Carolina? Would the black middle class in Wilmington be able to establish itself? Would a long-lasting electoral alliance between black and poor white voters emerge, enabling state politics to at least partially transcend race? Would the Populist Party survive as a political force in NC, somewhat like Minnesota's Farmer-Labor party? It seems that a North Carolina for which 1894 rather than 1898 was the watershed would have changed the political and social history of the South profoundly.
 
Very interesting scenario. First thing that came to my mind is that a surviving Republican Party in North Carolina in 1898 and onward coincides with Theodore Roosevelt's rise to power. If the North Carolina Republicans can take advantage of that, then NC becomes in play in future presedential elections, and also boosts the progressives in the Republican Party and acts as a model for future Republican growth in the South.

The Deep South will still be off limits and so is Virginia since it was the home to Lee. But Tennesse potentially comes into play as well if the success can be replicated.

It won't affect TR's terms of office nor Taft's. The question is whether it has any impact on the TR-Taft split in 1912 and affect the elections where Woodrow Wilson won.

If not, I don't see any ultimate changes because it's still an aberration, and one likely to be repealed at some point in the future if the NC Democrats ever get back into power (which is going to happen at some point). US involvement in WWI and the Great Depression (assuming they aren't butterflied away, which is possible but not likely from the POD) will be the major event in US politics not in working GOP majority in NC. Any GOP growth in NC or elsewhere in the South is likely to be destroyed in the election of 1932. But it may provide the basis for a new politics after WWII if Ike and Nixon (or whoever) make an effort to build the GOP in the South on a similar coalition.

So I'm not sure if it will have any lasting impressions, but it's still very interesting.
 
Very interesting scenario. First thing that came to my mind is that a surviving Republican Party in North Carolina in 1898 and onward coincides with Theodore Roosevelt's rise to power. If the North Carolina Republicans can take advantage of that, then NC becomes in play in future presedential elections, and also boosts the progressives in the Republican Party and acts as a model for future Republican growth in the South.

The Deep South will still be off limits and so is Virginia since it was the home to Lee. But Tennesse potentially comes into play as well if the success can be replicated.

Virginia did have an interval of populist government in the late 1870s and early 1880s under the Readjuster party. On the other hand, the Readjusters were the Readjusters because nobody would vote for them as Republicans. So you're probably right about Tennessee being the most likely state other than NC to come into play - unless it's Texas, where there was also a period of Populist-Republican cooperation somewhat earlier and where black voters weren't totally disenfranchised yet.

It won't affect TR's terms of office nor Taft's. The question is whether it has any impact on the TR-Taft split in 1912 and affect the elections where Woodrow Wilson won.

I'm not sure there would be much effect on internal Republican Party dynamics, given that the Southern Republicans participated in party conventions even though they were shut out of elected office. On the other hand, if NC votes for Hughes rather than Wilson in 1916, then Wilson would be a one-term president (assuming all other things to be equal). There's something poetically just about Wilson being kicked out of office by black NC voters.

If not, I don't see any ultimate changes because it's still an aberration, and one likely to be repealed at some point in the future if the NC Democrats ever get back into power (which is going to happen at some point).

Yeah, the Democrats will get back into power at some point, especially if the Populist and Republican wings of the coalition continue to disagree on policy issues. But would it necessarily be the same Democratic Party as it was before 1894? If the Democrats lose the 1898 and 1900 elections on a white-supremacist platform, having gone all-out and failed, is there a chance that some of the party activists will start thinking of white supremacy as bad politics? Obviously not all of them would think so, but would there be enough intra-party dissent on racial issues to make the new Democratic majority hold back on Jim Crow and disenfranchisement?
 
keeping them separate from the Republicans would be a good thing for them. the world Republican was on pare with Judas and Satan in many areas. also i love it when people realizes that NC is not just southern VA:D. as for segregation it is more likely that it will just stay de factio instead of de jure. it would help with industrialization NC was flirting with it in furniture and cigarettes. it would take a few successful terms before i think it would vote against a democratic president and for a Republican. actual representatives belonging to the progressive party would be a good start to a multiple party system.
 
keeping them separate from the Republicans would be a good thing for them. the world Republican was on pare with Judas and Satan in many areas. also i love it when people realizes that NC is not just southern VA:D. as for segregation it is more likely that it will just stay de factio instead of de jure. it would help with industrialization NC was flirting with it in furniture and cigarettes. it would take a few successful terms before i think it would vote against a democratic president and for a Republican. actual representatives belonging to the progressive party would be a good start to a multiple party system.

A minor quibble; this was the Populist Party, rather than any of the myriad organizations that used the Progressive Party name. And while the Republicans were often pro-business, the Populists as far as I know rather emphatically weren't. That may (Or may not) have an effect on industrialization.
 
A minor quibble; this was the Populist Party, rather than any of the myriad organizations that used the Progressive Party name. And while the Republicans were often pro-business, the Populists as far as I know rather emphatically weren't. That may (Or may not) have an effect on industrialization.
It's not like being anti-corporation is the same thing as anti-business or anti-prosperity ... the Populists were anti-trust, opposing corporate domination of American politics. They sought to protect the workers and farmers of America against companies that used deceitful business practices, but they were not anti-commerce in any sense.
 
I think it WOULD be the same racists.

Remember, as we have seen from losses in our own time, the instinctual reaction for a loss is "we haven't been pure enough!" regardless of whether that's true or not. It often in the modern era takes several electoral losses to break enough of the party of that belief. And especially if they see racists winning in other states they'll just try harder.
 
Roosevelt took eight electoral votes in 1912. 8. I know he's something of a god to AH.com, but I don't think people understand how completely shut out of the Republican party the progressives were in 1912.

Really the biggest butterfly here is the survival of the progressives as an outside political force, carried on by reformist Republicans, rural Populists, and Democrats who are outside of the party norm, with a scattering of moderate socialists. Basically the New Deal coalition several decades earlier.

But we're likely getting too ahead of ourselves. Let's look at the 1898 election. If the fusion progressive republican/populist party hangs on in South Carolina, then the state likely is up for grabs in the 1900 Presidential election. That's going to have a huge impact. The populists had already been split by the 1896 election in which Bryan, a Democrat, was elected to the ticket, but only at the cost of having the pro-Gold Arthur Sewall named as his VP by party bosses, leaving several populists and progressives to leave the Democrats. These votes, and perhaps more importantly, the organizations that rally them, would be up for the taking. Byran likely doesn't get the Democratic nod again, which likely goes to George Dewey; in this case Bryan himself might turn to the Republicans, or a 'native' progressive Republican-populist, such as Nils P. Haugen, or Samuel M. Jones would get the VP slot. The Republicans, with their new populist support, likely win an even more so overwhelming victory than they did IOTL in 1900 (TN, CO, NV, ID, MT, and possibly NC, WV, TN, and MO all flipping to the Republicans from OTL), and if McKinely is assassinated as per OTL than that leaves a massive mandate from the people in our new progressive-populist President's lap.
 
Hmmm, maybe have a situation where the Federal Government cracks down on election violence in the South post 1876. As part of the 1876 deal, the National Government stopped being as aggressive as it had been in dealing with election violence. That gave the powers that be in the South at time (read Racist White Democrats) a free hand to impose their rule by force. If they coudln't do so, it stands to reason that the people they were worried about (Republicans & Populists) would be able to win more elections and retain power.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
I just want to re-emphasize that the Progressives and the Populists were NOT the same thing. They were often antagonistic and had fundamentally different, sectional bases. A gain for the populists is not necessarily a gain for the progressives.
 
I just want to re-emphasize that the Progressives and the Populists were NOT the same thing. They were often antagonistic and had fundamentally different, sectional bases. A gain for the populists is not necessarily a gain for the progressives.

It might not even be a gain for where they had the same goals, especially if their antagonism weakens their respective positions.
 
Roosevelt took eight electoral votes in 1912. 8. I know he's something of a god to AH.com, but I don't think people understand how completely shut out of the Republican party the progressives were in 1912.
Before I respond to anything else: you're getting it wrong: Roosevelt took eighty-eight electoral votes in 1912, along with ~27% of the popular vote. The unlucky man with eight electoral votes was Mr. Taft, who only managed ~23% of the popular vote. I'm not sure if that indicates that the Progressives were the stronger faction of the Republican Party, or if it merely allowed Wilson such a landslide by splitting the vote of traditional Republicans...

Hmmm, maybe have a situation where the Federal Government cracks down on election violence in the South post 1876. As part of the 1876 deal, the National Government stopped being as aggressive as it had been in dealing with election violence. That gave the powers that be in the South at time (read Racist White Democrats) a free hand to impose their rule by force. If they coudln't do so, it stands to reason that the people they were worried about (Republicans & Populists) would be able to win more elections and retain power.
IIRC the Republicans tried to pass a bill around 1890-91 which would have allowed federal supervision of elections, especially in the South. Had it been passed (and enforced, as the Republicans might have a vested interest in doing so), it would have broken the back of the Democratic party in the "Solid" South...

I just want to re-emphasize that the Progressives and the Populists were NOT the same thing. They were often antagonistic and had fundamentally different, sectional bases. A gain for the populists is not necessarily a gain for the progressives.
To make things worse, it is my understanding that, while the Populists were progressive (with a little p), while the Progressives (capital P) were not populistic. The populists tended to be farmers and workers fighting for their own self-interest, while the Progressives were largely middle-class politicians seeking to institute reforms to prevent radical agitation.
 
Top