He could take other party nominations in addition to the Democratic, but not run in opposition to the Democrats. In 1924 he supported the conservative Davis once the latter was nominated and even lent the ticket his brother Charles as Davis' running mate--even though the third party candidate La Follette was surely closest to his own political views.
WI: Cleveland wins another term in 1888
- Thread starter TimTurner
- Start date
He could take other party nominations in addition to the Democratic, but not run in opposition to the Democrats. In 1924 he supported the conservative Davis once the latter was nominated and even lent the ticket his brother Charles as Davis' running mate--even though the third party candidate La Follette was surely closest to his own political views.
Big question: who would the Democrats nominate in 1892? Would the Populists still rise separately, or join with other silverites to wrest the Democrat nomination from the Bourbon faction? ISTM that an outright silverite campaign by the Democrats could lose very badly.
Another point, perhaps not real but to be considered: the Republican 51st Congress of 1889-1891 created six new states in the Northwest: Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming. South Dakota, and North Dakota. I doubt if the Democrats would do that; the new states elected 12 new Senators and 7 new Representatives, all Republicans.
Before the admissions, the House was Republican by just four seats OTL; the Senate by just 1, making these bills hard to pass, I think. The 1% shift in votes required to flip NY would almost certainly flip a few House seats. In any case, statehood bills must be signed by the President or passed over his veto. Cleveland would not sign the statehood bills and Congress would not override the vetoes.
Except I'm wrong. Statehood for South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Washington was passed in the last days of the 50th Congress (22 February 1889), when the House had a Democrat majority (167-161) and Cleveland was President. Those four states were formally admitted later in the year, but statehood was already a done deal, and apparently with Democrat support. (Idaho and Wyoming were granted statehood and formally admitted later in 1889-1890.) So the process would not have been affected by Cleveland's re-election in 1888.
Oh well.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
I would be curious about the effects of 8 more years of lower tariffs under Bourbon Democrats would be on US industry and both the health of US firms and consumer standards of living at this crucial time at the turn of the century.
anyone with some sort of expertise on the topic have any ideas as to the economic butterflied from this?