VP in the Election of 1896

  • Thread starter Deleted member 9338
  • Start date

Deleted member 9338

Would a different Vice President on the GOP ticket in 1896 (a VP that lives thru his term) butterfly away TR as the next President. I was thinking of Rep H Clay Evans as the VP. Any thoughts or additions on a different VP.
 

Rstone4

Banned
Would a different Vice President on the GOP ticket in 1896 (a VP that lives thru his term) butterfly away TR as the next President. I was thinking of Rep H Clay Evans as the VP. Any thoughts or additions on a different VP.

Based ONLY on a single segment of a lecture by a single US history professor (who had made noticeable mistakes involving Republican politics in other eras) the reason for TR being VP in 1900 was that he was a war hero and a loud mouth and went against the party leadership. (this i can confirm by studying his actions in New York City and his fights with the party boss in NY state.) My professor stated that he was buried in the VP to silence him, get him away from things. Of course, no one suspected that McKinley should be shot, (even though it happened to Garfield and Lincoln) and land him in the perfect place to do things the party bosses didn't want done.

If this is correct, then the VP nod in 1896 would not change the nod in 1900 because unless TR was less of a loudmouth, or less of a living war hero then he would still be buried in the VP slot.
 
It is unlikely that the GOP would dump a living Vice-President in 1900 for re-nomination unless said VP was either tainted by scandal (like Colfax) or voluntarily wished to retire for personal reasons. With an open vice-Presidency that was a convienent place for the NY bosses to push TR to get him out of the state, especially given that since McKinkey was an Ohioan the VP needed to be a Northeasterner (as I recall the late VP Hobart was a New Yorker). Putting a war hero on the ticket didn't hurt either, but I still don't think the bosses would push the issue if the VP slot was not already open.
 
It is unlikely that the GOP would dump a living Vice-President in 1900 for re-nomination ...

Eight VPs were dropped or left the ticket in the 1800s: Burr, Calhoun, Dallas, Breckinridge, Hamlin, Colfax, Wheeler, and Morton. Only four were renominated (Clinton, Tompkins, Calhoun, and RM Johnson).

Monroe-Tompkins was the only re-elected ticket.

Tyler, Fillmore, A Johnson, and Arthur became President; Clinton, Gerry, King, Wilson, and Hendricks all died in office.

Since 1900, five VPs have been dropped (Fairbanks, Dawes, Garner, Wallace, and Barkley), while twelve have been renominated (Sherman, Marshall, Curtis, Garner, Nixon, Agnew, Mondale, Bush, Quayle, Gore, Cheney, and Biden).

So it seems more likely than not that Republicans would replace the VP in 1900, even if Hobart was not dead.

...as I recall the late VP Hobart was a New Yorker...
New Jerseyite.
 
Last edited:
It is unlikely that the GOP would dump a living Vice-President in 1900 for re-nomination .../QUOTE]

Eight VPs were dropped or left the ticket in the 1800s: Burr, Calhoun, Dallas, Breckinridge, Hamlin, Colfax, Wheeler, and Morton. Only four were renominated (Clinton, Tompkins, Calhoun, and RM Johnson).


Indeed it caused newspaper comment in 1912 when the GOP repeated its ticket for the first time in its history.
 
It is unlikely that the GOP would dump a living Vice-President in 1900 for re-nomination .../QUOTE]

Eight VPs were dropped or left the ticket in the 1800s: Burr, Calhoun, Dallas, Breckinridge, Hamlin, Colfax, Wheeler, and Morton. Only four were renominated (Clinton, Tompkins, Calhoun, and RM Johnson).

Monroe-Tompkins was the only re-elected ticket.

Tyler, Fillmore, A Johnson, and Arthur became President; Clinton, Gerry, King, Wilson, and Hendricks all died in office.

Since 1900, five VPs have been dropped (Fairbanks, Dawes, Garner, Wallace, and Barkley), while twelve have been renominated (Sherman, Marshall, Curtis, Garner, Nixon, Agnew, Mondale, Bush, Quayle, Gore, Cheney, and Biden).

So it seems more likely than not that Republicans would replace the VP in 1900, even if Hobart was not dead.


New Jerseyite.

Excellent analysis but not sure Barkley counts for dropped, considering the circumstances of the '52 election.
 
It is unlikely that the GOP would dump a living Vice-President in 1900 for re-nomination .../QUOTE]

Eight VPs were dropped or left the ticket in the 1800s: Burr, Calhoun, Dallas, Breckinridge, Hamlin, Colfax, Wheeler, and Morton. Only four were renominated (Clinton, Tompkins, Calhoun, and RM Johnson).

Monroe-Tompkins was the only re-elected ticket.

Tyler, Fillmore, A Johnson, and Arthur became President; Clinton, Gerry, King, Wilson, and Hendricks all died in office.

Since 1900, five VPs have been dropped (Fairbanks, Dawes, Garner, Wallace, and Barkley), while twelve have been renominated (Sherman, Marshall, Curtis, Garner, Nixon, Agnew, Mondale, Bush, Quayle, Gore, Cheney, and Biden).

So it seems more likely than not that Republicans would replace the VP in 1900, even if Hobart was not dead.

But there were special considerations for all the VP's who were dropped *when the president under whom they served was renominated.* (That excludes Dallas, Breckinridge, Wheeler, Fairbanks, Dawes, and Barkley.) Burr? His failure to rule out accepting the presidency in 1800 was fatal. Calhoun? Jackson had learned that he had not supported his actions in Florida under Monroe--and to make things worse, there were the snubbing of Peggy Eaton and finally Calhoun's open support of nullification. Hamlin? In the midst of a civil war with Lincoln's chances of re-election seemingly dim, it was essential to get someone who could appeal to War Democrats and slave-state Unionists. Colfax? Tainted by scandal. Morton? Harrison blamed him for the failure of the Lodge bill to enforce the voting rights of black southerners. Garner? Opposed to the third term. Wallace? Big city bosses and southerners just wouldn't accept him, and then there were the "guru letters."

Hobart was popular among Republicans, and his one possible liability in 1896--he was a little too dogmatic on gold for McKinley's taste--would no longer be a problem in 1900, with the increase in the gold supply (due to technological advances and the discovery of new gold fields) and the return of prosperity. I therefore tend to think that if healthy he would be renominated--notwithstanding Platt's understandable desire to kick TR upstairs...
 
Top