WI: Elect William Jennings Bryan POTUS

Challenge: Elect William Jennings Bryan POTUS

Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to elect William Jennings Bryan President of the United States AFTER having been defeated in the 1908 Presidential Election. You can use any methods at your discretion, as long as they are not ASB.
 
Last edited:
Seems your first task is to have Bryan win the Democratic Nomination (he's got no chance as a third party candidate) -- the latest opportunity (due to age) is 1920, though 1912 would be a better chance seeing as it had become a three man race OTL.
 
Well, Bryan still held a lot of sway with party leaders in 1912. When he decided to withdraw support from Champ Clark and go for Woodrow Wilson instead, many followed him and it eventually resulted in Wilson being the nominee. Maybe instead of throwing his support behing Wilson, Bryan tries to take the nomination himself? Not sure if he had enough to win the nomination outright, but he had enough backing to be a strong contender. Once he gets the nomination, it would get a lot easier. With the Republicans split, virtually any Democrat could have won.
 
Maybe a POD between 1913-1915 while he was secretary of state. Instead of being against the US entering WW1, he could ride Wilson's bandwagon and set himself up as the man who supported Wilson to the roaring 20s and if he plays his cards right, could potentially be given a seal of approval by Wilson which would carry some weight with voters. He could enter the election in 1921 and i think he might have a chance against Harding. Maybe kick back Prohibition a little so the voters aren't entirely pissed when they think of him?
 
That would go against Bryan's core ideology- IOTL he resigned because he thought Wilson was doing what FDR would do 25 years later in WWII. Namely, a benevolent neutrality towards the Entente & not towards CP. He's not pragmatic or cynical enough to adjust for the sake of electoral success. As a Bourbon critic said in 1896: "he'd rather be wrong than be President."
 
Maybe a POD between 1913-1915 while he was secretary of state. Instead of being against the US entering WW1, he could ride Wilson's bandwagon and set himself up as the man who supported Wilson to the roaring 20s and if he plays his cards right, could potentially be given a seal of approval by Wilson which would carry some weight with voters. He could enter the election in 1921 and i think he might have a chance against Harding. Maybe kick back Prohibition a little so the voters aren't entirely pissed when they think of him?


A close association with Wilson would be an absolute killer in 1920 - even without his other baggage.

Best way would be to have Wilson's stroke come in either 1912 or 1916 - preferably September/October time. Even if Wilson lives, it almost certainly forces the Democrats to choose another candidate, and Bryan would be one of the obvious choices, though Clark or Marshall would also be possibilities.

Alternatively, when Wilson is delivering his State of the Union message in Dec 1914, perhaps some Mexican student gets into the gallery and throws a bomb, killing both him and Vice President Marshall. Bryan, as Secretary of State, succeeds to the Prresidency and is probably re-elected in 1916.
 
Lunatic murders VP- Marshall I think- before 1914. Give Wilson a fatal stroke.

President Bryan wins in 1916 for keeping US out of the Great War.
 
After 1900 is too late for WJB. He either wins in 1896, or he doesn't win at all.

Not necessarily.

I think 1908 was the fatal year. Three defeats was just a bit too many (and the fact that each successive defeat was heavier than the last won't have exactly helped), but had he found some diplomatic illness or other excuse to skip '08, I don't see why he couldn't have had the 1912 nomination - and in the circumstances of that year nomination would have implied election.
 
Last edited:
All we really need is for Woodrow Wilson to put William Jennings Bryan on the ticket in return for his endorsement, which allowed him to defeat Champ Clark for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Reasons for the tickets victory do not need to be given since we are talking about the 1912 Presidential Election.

Woodrow Wilson becomes President in March of 1913, but suffers a deadly stroke the next month. Looking at his health records, I am suprised that he had not suffered a stroke earlier, or one more severe. Regardless, Bryan is now made the Vice President of the United States. There will be conspiracy theories considering HOW he became President, that you can be sure, especially after his previous three electoral defeats. His Presidency would be interesting to say the least.

So is this realistic way for him to gain the Presidency?
 
All we really need is for Woodrow Wilson to put William Jennings Bryan on the ticket in return for his endorsement, which allowed him to defeat Champ Clark for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Reasons for the tickets victory do not need to be given since we are talking about the 1912 Presidential Election.

Woodrow Wilson becomes President in March of 1913, but suffers a deadly stroke the next month. Looking at his health records, I am suprised that he had not suffered a stroke earlier, or one more severe. Regardless, Bryan is now made the Vice President of the United States. There will be conspiracy theories considering HOW he became President, that you can be sure, especially after his previous three electoral defeats. His Presidency would be interesting to say the least.

So is this realistic way for him to gain the Presidency?


I understand he was offered the Vice-Presidency but declined. Of course, the offer may have been somewhat "pro forma" but had he accepted they'd have had to go through with it.

He justified the refusal by saying he would hurt Wilson's chances through being too controversial, but I suspect his real reason was simply pride. He had headed the party's ticket so often that he couldn't really imagine himself in the second spot. Rather similarly, he could probably have gotten his fourth nomination had he been willing to enter the primaries and fight for it like anyone else, but I suspect he viewed this as somehow beneath his dignity, as the party's Grand Old Man. He wanted to be nominated by acclamation, not after an undignified tussle. Given his Biblical knowledge, he ought to have remembered about pride being a sin.
 
Agreed: after 1908, in what would otherwise be OTL, likely he had no chance to be elected in his own right barring something catastrophic happening to Wilson (e.g., an earlier severe stroke--and don't forget Wilson had a small stroke in 1906, I believe). Had Wilson had a stroke in, say, 1915 or early 1916, perhaps Bryan could have had the nomination for himself in 1916. But he would have faced a steep uphill battle: Wilson the incumbent was on an express track to losing until Hughes and Hiram Johnson couldn't really see eye to eye, and California went to the Democrats. On the other hand, by 1916, Bryan was getting old, and he was yesterday's news with three defeats behind him already. Hughes was no charismatic leader, but he would have offered something fresh--and that's something with which Bryan couldn't hope to compete.

It's just as well. For all his naivete, Bryan would have been a proto-Carter sixty or more years earlier, and would have been even less successful. Today, his presidency would be at or near the bottom with those of Pierce and Buchanan--and Carter.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Perhaps if you make the Panic of 1893 either happen later or last longer and have more severe effects. It will probably corral or help to gut the Gold Democrats and show McKinley (or whoever wins the nomination instead of him) as the corporate shill he is/is likely to be.

California, Oregon, and Kentucky could easily go Democrat, which brings the count to McKinley: 247, Bryan: 200. The Midwest was the key to that election and closer than many think. Indiana could swing Dem, as could McKinley's home state of Ohio: the percentages were 51-48 and 52-47, respectively. A Democratic Indiana brings the EC to 232-215, and Ohio makes it 219-238.

With a worse depression, coupled with the Gold Dems not being strong enough to run their own ticket (expect some compromises and Cabinet positions promised to them), I think we could see Bryan win in '96.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
It's just as well. For all his naivete, Bryan would have been a proto-Carter sixty or more years earlier, and would have been even less successful. Today, his presidency would be at or near the bottom with those of Pierce and Buchanan--and Carter.
Agreed. If he'd gotten his way with free silver the economy would likely have gotten even more fouled up. He'd probably try to pass a lot of blue laws earlier, too. On the one hand we may very well see an earlier prohibition, but we'd also see women's suffrage occur earlier. He'd also delay the birth of the "American Empire" since he was a militant pacifist and the last thing he's going to want to spend money on would be the Army or the Navy. We may very well see the Spanish-American War being butterflied away altogether due to Bryan's refusal to go to war. And even if the USA does end up going to war, it'll be far less prepared than it was IOTL. Perhaps this would be the nail in his coffin, especially with Hearst's raving and riling people up.

Hrmm...perhaps Hearst enjoys a successful political career? That unleashes some delicious butterflies, IMO ;)
 
Agreed. If he'd gotten his way with free silver the economy would likely have gotten even more fouled up. He'd probably try to pass a lot of blue laws earlier, too. On the one hand we may very well see an earlier prohibition, but we'd also see women's suffrage occur earlier. He'd also delay the birth of the "American Empire" since he was a militant pacifist and the last thing he's going to want to spend money on would be the Army or the Navy. We may very well see the Spanish-American War being butterflied away altogether due to Bryan's refusal to go to war. And even if the USA does end up going to war, it'll be far less prepared than it was IOTL. Perhaps this would be the nail in his coffin, especially with Hearst's raving and riling people up.

Hrmm...perhaps Hearst enjoys a successful political career? That unleashes some delicious butterflies, IMO ;)


You could be right on the economy, but Bryan was not a pacifist, militant or otherwise, in 1896. Indeed, he supported the Spanish-American War, saying something to the effect that "We cannot have peace until justice reigns throughout the world", which has a horribly Wilsonian ring. He initially opposed the annexation of Hawaii and the Philippines, but not the war itself.

Even later, as Secretary of State, he seems to have had no problem about supporting Wilson's egregious Mexican intervention. He did, of course, oppose any US participation in WW1, because he regarded this (with considerable justification) as a spat between a set of rival European empires, essentially a "falling out among thieves", which America should stay out of even if this meant some swallowing of national pride; but that doesn't make him a pacifist in any general way - and certainly not within the hemisphere.

Incidentally , pretty much the same was true for Hearst. He also opposed WW1 after supporting the other two.
 
Agreed: after 1908, in what would otherwise be OTL, likely he had no chance to be elected in his own right barring something catastrophic happening to Wilson (e.g., an earlier severe stroke--and don't forget Wilson had a small stroke in 1906, I believe). Had Wilson had a stroke in, say, 1915 or early 1916, perhaps Bryan could have had the nomination for himself in 1916. But he would have faced a steep uphill battle: Wilson the incumbent was on an express track to losing until Hughes and Hiram Johnson couldn't really see eye to eye, and California went to the Democrats. On the other hand, by 1916, Bryan was getting old, and he was yesterday's news with three defeats behind him already. Hughes was no charismatic leader, but he would have offered something fresh--and that's something with which Bryan couldn't hope to compete.


I wouldn't say Wilson was ever on an express train to losing in 1916, though it was widely recognised that the election would be close. His domestic reforms were popular, and "He kept us out of war" (not his slogan, btw - it caught on spontaneously) certainly didn't do him any harm.

Incidentally, Wilson is reported to have said that one reason he ran again in 1916 was to make sure Bryan wasn't nominated. He may have been joking, of course, but Bryan did get a rapturous reception at the 1916 Convention.

One final complication. If Bryan is elected in 1912, there may very well not be a 1916 election. In Feb 1913 the Senate passed an Amendment limiting the POTUS to a single six-year term. President-elect Wilson opposed it, despite it's having been part of the Democratic platform, and wrote to the Chairman of the relevant Committee to ensure that it never came to a vote in the House. Since it was one of Bryan's pet projects, he would certainly have supported it, so it would probably have passed, in which case the next presidential election isn't till 1918.

An unanswerable question is whether Bryan could or would have tried to revive the Amendment had he become POTUS, as I suggested earlier, in Dec 1914 by assassination. Some might have taken this as an insult to the late President Wilson, but OTOH Bryan is probably enjoying something of a "honeymoon" after coming to office in such tragic circs, so may well get it if he still wants it.
 
One final complication. If Bryan is elected in 1912, there may very well not be a 1916 election. In Feb 1913 the Senate passed an Amendment limiting the POTUS to a single six-year term. President-elect Wilson opposed it, despite it's having been part of the Democratic platform, and wrote to the Chairman of the relevant Committee to ensure that it never came to a vote in the House. Since it was one of Bryan's pet projects, he would certainly have supported it, so it would probably have passed, in which case the next presidential election isn't till 1918.

An unanswerable question is whether Bryan could or would have tried to revive the Amendment had he become POTUS, as I suggested earlier, in Dec 1914 by assassination. Some might have taken this as an insult to the late President Wilson, but OTOH Bryan is probably enjoying something of a "honeymoon" after coming to office in such tragic circs, so may well get it if he still wants it.
OK. Feb '13 Senate passes its version of a constitutional amendment changing the term of the presidency. House debates it, passes its own version in ?April?. The two versions get reconciled in ?May?. You now have to get a supermajority of states to ratify it. 1) how likely is this, at all, and 2) can it possibly be done fast enough to change the set-up of the presidential election?

I suspect strongly that the '16 election goes ahead as planned and the '20 election is the first one under the new rules IF the amendment passes.
 
OK. Feb '13 Senate passes its version of a constitutional amendment changing the term of the presidency. House debates it, passes its own version in ?April?. The two versions get reconciled in ?May?. You now have to get a supermajority of states to ratify it. 1) how likely is this, at all, and 2) can it possibly be done fast enough to change the set-up of the presidential election?

I suspect strongly that the '16 election goes ahead as planned and the '20 election is the first one under the new rules IF the amendment passes.


Actually, the chances are quite good on both counts, due to the special circumstances of the time.

The Democrats, whose Amendment this is [1], comfortably control the HoR and most of the State Legislatures. They are shy of two-thirds in the outgoing House, but well over it in the new. The Republicans, for their part, are split right down the middle, with Taftites supporting the Amendment (as it will eliminate TR from the Presidential stakes [2]) while Roosevelt Reps, plus of course the handful of Progressives, oppose it.

In such circs, the House vote looks like a pure formality, and if the voting pattern in the Statehouses mirrors that in Congress, so does ratification. There are probably a few Western States where Progressives and TR Republicans have control on their own, and will therefore reject, but nowhere near the 13 required to block it. It could easily be in effect by the end of 1914.

Things get a lot more iffy in the case of an incoming President Bryan trying to revive it in 1914/15. By then much of the heat has gone out of the issue, with the Progressive Party clearly a busted flush, not requiring such drastic measures, and TR having no hope of the Republican nomination. In those circs, it might indeed not be ratified in time for 1916, and maybe not at all.

[1] OTL only one Democrat voted aginst it in the Senate, though several abstained or were absent. The Republicans and Progressives (one or two Senators were elected on both tickets, so the distinction is blurred) were almost evenly divided, with 19 voting yea and 22 nay.

[2] It will of course eliminate Taft as well, but he is out of the game anyway.
 
Last edited:
Top