WI: Chester A. Arthur Runs in 1884?

Stolengood

Banned
Was looking at Chester A. Arthur's page on Wikipedia the other night, and came across something I'd never heard before about Arthur:

Like his Republican predecessors, Arthur struggled with the question of how his party was to challenge the Democrats in the South and how, if at all, to protect the civil rights of black southerners. Since the end of Reconstruction, conservative white Democrats (or "Bourbon Democrats") had regained power in the South, and the Republican party dwindled rapidly as their primary supporters in the region, blacks, were disenfranchised. One crack in the solidly Democratic South emerged with the growth of a new party, the Readjusters, in Virginia. Having won an election in that state on a platform of more education funding (for black and white schools alike) and abolition of the poll tax and the whipping post, many northern Republicans saw the Readjusters as a more viable ally in the South than the moribund southern Republican party. Arthur agreed, and directed the federal patronage in Virginia through the Readjusters rather than the Republicans. He followed the same pattern in other Southern states, forging coalitions with independents and Greenback Party members. Some black Republicans felt betrayed by the pragmatic gambit, but others (including Frederick Douglass and ex-Senator Blanche K. Bruce) endorsed the administration's actions, as the Southern independents had more liberal racial policies than the Democrats. Arthur's coalition policy was only successful in Virginia, however, and by 1885 the Readjuster movement began to collapse with the election of a Democratic president.

Considering how fragile civil rights reform was even under Republican governance, the last part of that last sentence is quite telling, to me. The Readjuster Party was led by one William Mahone, a former Confederate who became a liberal reformer following the war and was elected to the U.S. Senate on the Readjuster platform in 1880. This band of reformers seemed very important to Arthur, as did most of the reforms he accomplished while President, but they did not survive once he left office.

Arthur knew he was dying of Bright's Disease since shortly after he took office as President; he also knew the sudden nobility the office could impose upon a Vice President upon ascending -- it'd happened to him, after all. Most importantly, he knew, as did many others, that Grover Cleveland was the very clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination -- but it's telling that even Cleveland the reformer barely won against a scandal- and gaffe-prone James G. Blaine.

After leaving office, Arthur lived over a year longer, albeit in a limited condition due to his declining health; had he done so in office, with a reformist Vice President under him, the policies he'd have wanted would have no choice but to continue under the new man, but with even more vigour -- even Arthur was cautious, after all.

It'd almost be a plotted gambit version, actually, of how liberal reformer Theodore Roosevelt got into the White House.

Therefore, I propose:

Rather than Arthur putting only a token effort into running, he puts all of his declining energies into getting votes, easily besting the corrupt Blaine at the convention. Upon nomination, he surprises the assembled delegates by naming William Mahone for Vice President. Although surprised, the men are eager enough that they quickly give in and support Mahone for the post -- but only Arthur knows that, should he win, he will die in office, giving the Presidency to Mahone.

So... Chester A. Arthur runs in 1884. What happens next?
 
I believe Arthur had Walter Gresham in mind for the Vice-Presidency, but I'm not sure.

This thread does expose how Grover Cleveland was a terrible President.
 

Stolengood

Banned
I think a more decisive Arthur would want Mahone, but that's just me. :)

Regardless, just how bad do you think Cleveland was, by comparison? Curious to hear...
 
Economically the most right-wing President ever. During the second worst Depression ever. That's his second term though. His first was the death knell for a non-Solid South, though that's more his party's fault than his.
 

Stolengood

Banned
Do you think Arthur could beat Cleveland, though? Pretty sure he could avoid a "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion"-sized gaffe... couldn't he?
 

Stolengood

Banned
How would they react to William Mahone, though? With Arthur's energies declining, even though he's still putting 99% into the campaign, Mahone's going to have to bear a good amount of the weight, there...

I'd say, due to the stresses of the office, Arthur dies earlier in 1886 than he did OTL; May or June, let's say.

Also... with an incumbent leading the Republican pack in 1884, how do you think the House elections would swing?
 
A new political party rising in the US is always interesting and a name like the Readjusters isn't half bad. But its not Bull Moose though :D
 

Stolengood

Banned
I know, but even Bull Moose didn't last after Roosevelt lost; a dual-party ticket might give Arthur's election a cachet that 1864's National Union clearly didn't have, in hindsight -- at least you'd know in advance that Mahone and his President would agree on more than the broad strokes... :D

Obviously, Arthur needs to win in order to give Mahone's party lasting currency; question is, do you think he could?
 
You're going to have a real tough time advancing civil rights without drastically changing the Supreme Court. Despite being appointed by Republicans the Waite court was extremely recalcitrant in applying the various civil rights laws passed by congress. Despite being a "republican" court it was the one that refused to prosecute anti-negro vigilantes in the United States vs. Cruikshank (1876) and denuded the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883.

Unless you have an earlier POD which alters the composition of the court to allow Arthur to appoint more pro-Civil Rights judges you're not going to be able to alter the court enough to greatly change things. Even if Arthur manages to get two dedicated pro-minority/African American judges added to the court instead of his OTL nominations (that's a big if...) you've still got 6 other justices that are going to vote against any kind of change re: civil rights cases.
 

Stolengood

Banned
I suppose it depends on whether nine old men get scared by a court packing scheme a few decades earlier than OTL... but that's just a thought. ;)

What are your thoughts on a possible resolution, then, Fearless?
 
I suppose it depends on whether nine old men get scared by a court packing scheme a few decades earlier than OTL... but that's just a thought. ;)

What are your thoughts on a possible resolution, then, Fearless?

The bigger problem is the fact that there are precious few people in the time period that would be willing to propose such a matter nevermind support it. The US of the late 19th century was very much in favour of a limited federal government and any attempts to grossly increase federal power are going to be met with a good deal of resistance. Court packing was controversial enough in the 1930's after a massive expansion of Federal power in the first quarter of the 20th century, in the 1880's it's going to be a much harder sell. This hesitancy to increase the power of the federal government and then utilize it to promote civil rights is the biggest hurdle to any kind of effective Civil Rights legislation in the latter quarter of the 19th century.

Furthermore one needs to consider the political attitudes of the time. In OTL's 20th century you had a fairly large constituency pushing for Civil Rights, with both the GOP and the Northern Democrats one was able to create the political environment necessary for OTL's Civil Rights Legislation. In the 19th century, especially in the aftermath of Reconstruction this atmosphere doesn't exist the southern Democrats are determined to undo Reconstruction and the Northern Democrats and GOP are desperate to return to the status quo. You're going to need an earlier POD, because by the time Arthur's in office the political will is simply not there to produce any type of racial progress. In fact the political current is flowing in precisely the opposite direction...
 

Stolengood

Banned
Hmmmm... certainly not a Tilden win in '76, I guess.

I mean... even if a president was forceful enough, or even just took a long time very subtly, he couldn't get anything done, even remotely reformist? :(

Actually... actually... what sort of butterflies would an Arthur run and win produce, or even just a forceful Arthur run?
 
Hmmmm... certainly not a Tilden win in '76, I guess.

I mean... even if a president was forceful enough, or even just took a long time very subtly, he couldn't get anything done, even remotely reformist? :(

Actually... actually... what sort of butterflies would an Arthur run and win produce, or even just a forceful Arthur run?


Iirc there was quite a bit of reform, esp of the Civil Service. Just not in the direction of a revived Reconstruction. Even the Progressive Era didn't take that course.
 
What if, instead of forcing him to resign and then doing nothing, Grant "kicks Amos Akerman upstairs," so to speak, so he can only make rulings about proesecution of the Klan. I suppose we could also butterfly things so that George Williams, Ackerman's successor, is never in position to take the bribe so he could also be appointed. So, if those 2 replace 2 of Grant's appointees from OTL, and Harlan is appointed a few years early...

This is getting pretty tricky. I think you could get butterflies for a couple of thsoe but I'm not sure about all 3. I think you could get a bare majority of Court appointees but I'm not sure.

Another thought - what about Joshua Chamberlain as Garfield's VP so even if he is shot it's not a problem. Of course, I don't know which side of the Republicans he was on.
 
Last edited:

Stolengood

Banned
Interesting, interesting... but I still think another (albeit cut short) term for Arthur has a lot of potential -- maybe not in the way I thought before, but still... ;)
 
Top