The American System: A Henry Clay TL
- Thread starter TheHedgehog
- Start date
Well, you should consider it because the Democrats are the small government party and the Whigs are the big governmenr party ITTL, and MA always favours big government economic policies IOTL.
IMO it (and the rest of the Northeast) should swing back to the Whigs after economics and more modern social issues (like feminism) supersede religion and (white) ethnicity with numerous Irish Americans deserting the Democrats due to economic issues.
Fair point, I will amend that to MA being a swing state that leans Whig until the 70s when it becomes solidly Whig after the collapse of the Boston machine over civil rights and Irish Catholics shifting towards the Whigs.
It should be noted that this is a wider trend in New England, which has always been more "European" in a sense than the rest of the United States; more supportive of government intervention in the economy and in society, for good (public schooling) or ill (established religion, morality codes). Dan1988 has written extensively on this here and there elsewhere on the forums. This dates back to the colonial era, so the amended plan definitely looks more in-line with history.
I agree with that and that's why I wrote my comment, since the OP confirmed the Whigs ITTL were more interventionist economically. But the Democrats would have their time thanks to urbanization and machine politics in Boston.
In 1884 New York Republicans described the Democrats as the party of “Rum, Romanism, and rebellion” which angered Catholics and those who drank alcohol to the point it drived people towards the Democrats in New York and thus handed the election to Cleveland.
I’ve already expressed that I think this timeline is real interesting, and I’ll reiterate- you’ve got some cool stuff going on here. If I may, I would like to ask about something Clay started during his presidency that, iirc, is still around; How is the National Bank doing? Does it differ in function from the second bank, and has it changed over time? Who’s the current president?
Given the context, I assume Merica means president of the bank, not of the United States itself.
That’s correct- I’m referring to the current President of the National Bank.
Thanks!
Glad you like it!
The Bank functions as the second one did, and is therefore not a true central bank (though as the progressive era develops, that will change). I hadn't given a lot of thought to the president, but I'll say it is currently Theodore Roosevelt Sr. The bank currently sticks to its charter and focuses on regulating the amount of currency and restraining over-speculation by keeping local banks from being able to lend out too much money. The president of the US traditionally reappoints the incumbent president of the bank unless there's gross incompetence, death, or retirement.
Yes. It will have to eventually, because the gold standard isn’t sustainable for a globally integrated highly industrialized economy. There will be a crisis sometime where the state needs to get off the gold standard in order to have adequate access to funds, and more than likely economic crises that will severely punish those who try to stay on the gold standard.
Pretty much this. I’d also add that the Gold Standard was such an inflexible system that it has to go at some point. Probably sometime in the 30s-40s TTL.
47. A Shot of Bourbon
47. A Shot of Bourbon
“Following the long-standing precedent, President Blaine declined to seek a third term in 1888. Up until the disastrous 1886 midterms, Speaker Garfield had been viewed as the prohibitive frontrunner. However, with the Democratic landslide majority, Garfield’s political stock had sunk, and he announced early on that he would not seek the presidency. Both President Blaine and Secretary of State Sherman had quietly supported Garfield’s candidacy, but with him out of the picture Blaine moved to put forward Sherman as his successor. Throughout Blaine’s presidency, the two had worked well together, from the Peru crisis with Britain to the underwhelming First Hemispheric Amphictyony (which would in turn lead to a more forceful version under the presidencies of Elkins and McGovern.)
Sherman was opposed by Russell Alger of Michigan, a millionaire lumber and railroad merchant who later won election to the Governorship. However, despite Alger’s wealth and statewide influence, he lacked the institutional support Sherman had. With Garfield, Blaine, and other high-ranking Whigs pushing for Sherman from behind the scenes, Alger stood little chance. Sherman took the nomination on the first ballot, with Alger winning the support of only Michigan and Indiana. His strong ties to the Blaine administration carried a lot of weight with delegates, and the convention nominated another Blaine administration insider, Postmaster General and patronage king Leonidas C. Houk, for vice-president. There was some opposition to Houk from ref0rm-minded Whigs, who rallied behind Attorney General Harrison, but Harrison declined to contest the nomination, all but handing Houk the nomination.
The Whig platform doubled down on the policies of Blaine’s presidency, endorsing the continued expansion of the fleet, greater diplomacy with the other nations of the western hemisphere, and, most controversially, the 14th amendment. This resolution sparked heated debate among the delegates and, as one reporter noted, “the convention hall, already hot from the Philadelphia summer, grew even more heated once the plank was put forth.” Many delegates, led by Virginia Congressman Coleman B. Elkins [1], viewed doubling down on the amendment that many blamed for the landslide defeat in 1886 as political suicide, but the view that to downplay the amendment was cowardly and weak took the majority…”
-From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986
“After winning a surprisingly large majority in the 1886 House elections, the Democrats had a large coalition of disaffected German Americans that they had to retain. Just four years after President Blaine’s sweeping reelection, the Whig majorities had either dissipated or been thinned significantly, and the 1888 Democratic Convention hoped to extend these successes to retaking the Presidency after eight years. Held in Cincinnati as a direct appeal to German American voters, the convention was designed to showcase a “new Democratic party” that was no longer defined as the party of southern slaveholders.
Among the men who sought the nomination, Arthur Gorman, John G. Carlisle, and David B. Hill were widely viewed as the most likely to win the nomination. Of these three, Gorman and Hill were known as machine men with a tight grip on their respective states’ Democratic parties. Gorman, a young and popular Senator from Maryland, was also the undisputed leader of the Maryland Democratic Party, with full control over patronage. His conservative, pro-business policies made him popular with industrialists, while his service as a key surrogate during Thomas Hendricks’s successful 1876 presidential campaign raised Gorman’s profile within the national Democratic party. He also had cordial relations with the powerful courthouse cliques of the south, and at the convention he had the tacit endorsements of Texas boss Richard Coke and South Carolina Governor Martin Gary.
Hill, the Governor of New York, was another powerful boss. His Albany Machine operated in tacit alliance with the much more famous Tammany Hall in New York City but dominated statewide Democratic politics. Hill had become governor in 1883 [2] after narrowly defeating the pro-reform William Whitney at the state convention and had used his tenure to ruthlessly consolidate power into his machine, placing allies at the helm of regulatory bodies and powerful statewide agencies such as the Public Works Department. Even before Senator Tilden’s retirement due to ill health in 1886, Hill had been able to secure assembly support for one of his own, state assemblyman Alton Parker. Hill had close ties with several northern machine bosses, especially Illinois Congressman Adlai E. Stevenson.
Then, there was the reformist John G. Carlisle. A Senator from Kentucky, Carlisle was a prominent leader of the reformist, pro-business faction of the Democratic party. He had been a soft unionist during the Civil War [3] and won election to the House in 1864. After a stint as the leader of House Democrats from 1869 to 1872, he had won election to the Senate in 1872. There, he established himself as a staunch supporter of free trade and, in contrast to the older echelons of Jacksonian Democrats, a supporter of the National Bank. He was enormously popular in his home state and had a reputation for honesty and integrity.
The convention was likely to be a contest between the neo-Jacksonian boss Hill [4], pro-business boss Gorman, and pro-business reformist Carlisle.
…because of Hill’s Tammany connections. Hill took a lead on the first ballot, followed closely by Carlisle and Gorman. A slew of minor candidates, including Virginia Congressman William Wilson and Texas Congressman William Silas Weldon [5], captured the rest of the delegates. By the third ballot, Wilson had endorsed Carlisle and Weldon Gorman, winnowing the field down further. The split between Gorman and Hill increasingly alienated business interests, who began to coalesce behind the cleaner Carlisle. On the fifth ballot, Martin Gary broke from Gorman and endorsed Carlisle, calling him the party’s “best chance” to win. This provoked a general shift of the southern delegates towards Carlisle, who took the nomination on the seventh ballot. Hill, who had come in a narrow second place, was angered at his defeat and not even the selection of his ally Adlai Stevenson as Carlisle’s running mate assuaged his disappointment.
The Democratic platform sought to continue the theme of a “New Democratic Party” that had dominated the convention’s speeches and decision-making. The “excessive spending” of the Blaine administration was criticized, a resolution demanded the repeal of the 1883 and 1886 tariffs approved by the Whigs, and “affirming the right of states to determine their respective franchises,” in effect supporting southern Democrats in their efforts to impose neo-slavery after abolition. In most respects, the platform reflected the envisioned “rejuvenated” Democratic party…”
-From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012
“The general election campaign was a rather boring affair, save for one major scandal. A Philadelphia lawyer of unsavory reputation and with ties to the Quay Machine was alleged by the Democrats to have schemed in buying votes for Sherman and the Whigs. Though the scandal had little effect electorally in Pennsylvania, it helped mobilize Democrats nationwide to counteract any supposed Whig fraud. This, combined with Democratic use of canvassers and youth groups to generate Catholic turnout, posed a great threat to the Whigs.
However, the Democrats were hampered in New York by David Hill, who directed his considerable patronage network not to support Carlisle. Meanwhile, the Whigs mobilized their network of supporters and Wide Awakes to try and hold on to the key swing state. Despite the platform endorsing the 14th Amendment (and the Democrats brought that up frequently), Sherman and the Whigs downplayed that in the general. In fact, almost no mention was made of the amendment or any of the English-only laws passed in 1886. Instead, the party focused on fostering the continued industrialization of the country…
Despite holding on to New York by a narrow margin, Sherman performed poorly elsewhere, even losing his home state of Ohio to Carlisle by less than 2,000 votes. Carlisle was able to ride the lingering anger of German Americans to victories in nine of Wisconsin’s eleven congressional districts, as well as the statewide vote [6]. He also won support from the Mormons of Missouri and Illinois, who were angry that the Whigs had prevented their schools from receiving state aid.
After eight years out of the White House, the Democrats returned, this time with a large House majority and a 40-40 tied Senate. It was hoped to be a new era for the Democratic party, although the events of the next four years would dampen that enthusiasm…”
-From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003
[1] Next chapter, I’ll go into a bit more about this guy who I’ve mentioned twice in this TL so far.
[2] TTL New York has its state elections on the same quadrennial off-year schedule as Virginia and New Jersey do OTL.
[3] OTL, Carlisle supported Kentucky’s neutrality. TTL, with less secessionism in the Upper South, he’s more unionist.
[4] Hill strikes me as a political chameleon of sorts, so TTL he adopts the trappings of Jackson and Douglas and positions himself as a sort of pseudo-populist.
[5] Fictional. I will also discuss him in more depth later on…
[6] The Democratic-controlled Wisconsin state government distributed the state’s electoral votes via congressional district, similar to Michigan in OTL 1892.
“Following the long-standing precedent, President Blaine declined to seek a third term in 1888. Up until the disastrous 1886 midterms, Speaker Garfield had been viewed as the prohibitive frontrunner. However, with the Democratic landslide majority, Garfield’s political stock had sunk, and he announced early on that he would not seek the presidency. Both President Blaine and Secretary of State Sherman had quietly supported Garfield’s candidacy, but with him out of the picture Blaine moved to put forward Sherman as his successor. Throughout Blaine’s presidency, the two had worked well together, from the Peru crisis with Britain to the underwhelming First Hemispheric Amphictyony (which would in turn lead to a more forceful version under the presidencies of Elkins and McGovern.)
Sherman was opposed by Russell Alger of Michigan, a millionaire lumber and railroad merchant who later won election to the Governorship. However, despite Alger’s wealth and statewide influence, he lacked the institutional support Sherman had. With Garfield, Blaine, and other high-ranking Whigs pushing for Sherman from behind the scenes, Alger stood little chance. Sherman took the nomination on the first ballot, with Alger winning the support of only Michigan and Indiana. His strong ties to the Blaine administration carried a lot of weight with delegates, and the convention nominated another Blaine administration insider, Postmaster General and patronage king Leonidas C. Houk, for vice-president. There was some opposition to Houk from ref0rm-minded Whigs, who rallied behind Attorney General Harrison, but Harrison declined to contest the nomination, all but handing Houk the nomination.
| Presidential vote | 1 | Vice-Presidential vote | 1 |
| J. Sherman | 537 | L. Houk | 706 |
| R. Alger | 211 | B. Harrison | 27 |
| Other | 17 | Other | 32 |
The Whig platform doubled down on the policies of Blaine’s presidency, endorsing the continued expansion of the fleet, greater diplomacy with the other nations of the western hemisphere, and, most controversially, the 14th amendment. This resolution sparked heated debate among the delegates and, as one reporter noted, “the convention hall, already hot from the Philadelphia summer, grew even more heated once the plank was put forth.” Many delegates, led by Virginia Congressman Coleman B. Elkins [1], viewed doubling down on the amendment that many blamed for the landslide defeat in 1886 as political suicide, but the view that to downplay the amendment was cowardly and weak took the majority…”
-From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986
“After winning a surprisingly large majority in the 1886 House elections, the Democrats had a large coalition of disaffected German Americans that they had to retain. Just four years after President Blaine’s sweeping reelection, the Whig majorities had either dissipated or been thinned significantly, and the 1888 Democratic Convention hoped to extend these successes to retaking the Presidency after eight years. Held in Cincinnati as a direct appeal to German American voters, the convention was designed to showcase a “new Democratic party” that was no longer defined as the party of southern slaveholders.
Among the men who sought the nomination, Arthur Gorman, John G. Carlisle, and David B. Hill were widely viewed as the most likely to win the nomination. Of these three, Gorman and Hill were known as machine men with a tight grip on their respective states’ Democratic parties. Gorman, a young and popular Senator from Maryland, was also the undisputed leader of the Maryland Democratic Party, with full control over patronage. His conservative, pro-business policies made him popular with industrialists, while his service as a key surrogate during Thomas Hendricks’s successful 1876 presidential campaign raised Gorman’s profile within the national Democratic party. He also had cordial relations with the powerful courthouse cliques of the south, and at the convention he had the tacit endorsements of Texas boss Richard Coke and South Carolina Governor Martin Gary.
Hill, the Governor of New York, was another powerful boss. His Albany Machine operated in tacit alliance with the much more famous Tammany Hall in New York City but dominated statewide Democratic politics. Hill had become governor in 1883 [2] after narrowly defeating the pro-reform William Whitney at the state convention and had used his tenure to ruthlessly consolidate power into his machine, placing allies at the helm of regulatory bodies and powerful statewide agencies such as the Public Works Department. Even before Senator Tilden’s retirement due to ill health in 1886, Hill had been able to secure assembly support for one of his own, state assemblyman Alton Parker. Hill had close ties with several northern machine bosses, especially Illinois Congressman Adlai E. Stevenson.
Then, there was the reformist John G. Carlisle. A Senator from Kentucky, Carlisle was a prominent leader of the reformist, pro-business faction of the Democratic party. He had been a soft unionist during the Civil War [3] and won election to the House in 1864. After a stint as the leader of House Democrats from 1869 to 1872, he had won election to the Senate in 1872. There, he established himself as a staunch supporter of free trade and, in contrast to the older echelons of Jacksonian Democrats, a supporter of the National Bank. He was enormously popular in his home state and had a reputation for honesty and integrity.
The convention was likely to be a contest between the neo-Jacksonian boss Hill [4], pro-business boss Gorman, and pro-business reformist Carlisle.
…because of Hill’s Tammany connections. Hill took a lead on the first ballot, followed closely by Carlisle and Gorman. A slew of minor candidates, including Virginia Congressman William Wilson and Texas Congressman William Silas Weldon [5], captured the rest of the delegates. By the third ballot, Wilson had endorsed Carlisle and Weldon Gorman, winnowing the field down further. The split between Gorman and Hill increasingly alienated business interests, who began to coalesce behind the cleaner Carlisle. On the fifth ballot, Martin Gary broke from Gorman and endorsed Carlisle, calling him the party’s “best chance” to win. This provoked a general shift of the southern delegates towards Carlisle, who took the nomination on the seventh ballot. Hill, who had come in a narrow second place, was angered at his defeat and not even the selection of his ally Adlai Stevenson as Carlisle’s running mate assuaged his disappointment.
| Presidential vote | 1 | 2 | 3 | … | 7 | Vice-Presidential vote | 1 |
| J. Carlisle | 211 | 223 | 237 | 401 | A. Stevens | 759 | |
| D. Hill | 233 | 241 | 252 | 234 | |||
| A. Gorman | 208 | 215 | 205 | 127 | |||
| Other | 113 | 86 | 71 | 3 | Other | 6 |
The Democratic platform sought to continue the theme of a “New Democratic Party” that had dominated the convention’s speeches and decision-making. The “excessive spending” of the Blaine administration was criticized, a resolution demanded the repeal of the 1883 and 1886 tariffs approved by the Whigs, and “affirming the right of states to determine their respective franchises,” in effect supporting southern Democrats in their efforts to impose neo-slavery after abolition. In most respects, the platform reflected the envisioned “rejuvenated” Democratic party…”
-From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012
“The general election campaign was a rather boring affair, save for one major scandal. A Philadelphia lawyer of unsavory reputation and with ties to the Quay Machine was alleged by the Democrats to have schemed in buying votes for Sherman and the Whigs. Though the scandal had little effect electorally in Pennsylvania, it helped mobilize Democrats nationwide to counteract any supposed Whig fraud. This, combined with Democratic use of canvassers and youth groups to generate Catholic turnout, posed a great threat to the Whigs.
However, the Democrats were hampered in New York by David Hill, who directed his considerable patronage network not to support Carlisle. Meanwhile, the Whigs mobilized their network of supporters and Wide Awakes to try and hold on to the key swing state. Despite the platform endorsing the 14th Amendment (and the Democrats brought that up frequently), Sherman and the Whigs downplayed that in the general. In fact, almost no mention was made of the amendment or any of the English-only laws passed in 1886. Instead, the party focused on fostering the continued industrialization of the country…
| John Carlisle | John Sherman | |
| Electoral Vote | 232 | 186 |
| Popular Vote | 4,233,519 | 3,485,563 |
| Percentage | 48.3 | 47.8 |
Despite holding on to New York by a narrow margin, Sherman performed poorly elsewhere, even losing his home state of Ohio to Carlisle by less than 2,000 votes. Carlisle was able to ride the lingering anger of German Americans to victories in nine of Wisconsin’s eleven congressional districts, as well as the statewide vote [6]. He also won support from the Mormons of Missouri and Illinois, who were angry that the Whigs had prevented their schools from receiving state aid.
After eight years out of the White House, the Democrats returned, this time with a large House majority and a 40-40 tied Senate. It was hoped to be a new era for the Democratic party, although the events of the next four years would dampen that enthusiasm…”
-From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003
[1] Next chapter, I’ll go into a bit more about this guy who I’ve mentioned twice in this TL so far.
[2] TTL New York has its state elections on the same quadrennial off-year schedule as Virginia and New Jersey do OTL.
[3] OTL, Carlisle supported Kentucky’s neutrality. TTL, with less secessionism in the Upper South, he’s more unionist.
[4] Hill strikes me as a political chameleon of sorts, so TTL he adopts the trappings of Jackson and Douglas and positions himself as a sort of pseudo-populist.
[5] Fictional. I will also discuss him in more depth later on…
[6] The Democratic-controlled Wisconsin state government distributed the state’s electoral votes via congressional district, similar to Michigan in OTL 1892.
Last edited:
How did I miss that? Thanks for pointing it out.
Man, tables can be a real pain sometimes.