I think he would be too "junior" in 1896. But potentially a dark horse.How about William O. Bradley then?
This is the million dollar question, and it's one for which we don't have an answer until we figure out the 1896 tickets in a timeline wherein the Lodge Bill may not be dead, Hawaii is annexed sooner, and the Panic of 1893 occurred on the watch of the GOP. I see multiple possibilities.@Wendell How do you think ITTL realignment after 1896 would differ from OTL?
Yeah, this is quite an underrated PODWhy not nominate Mr. Lodge Bill himself? He's young, supported Blaine in 1884, had mugwump sympathies, and a good record on civil rights....
There would be a majority Democrat Congress during 1892-1896. I can see someone trying to push through the bill once more but he would likely fail. But a successful Lodge Bill would change the direction of the GOP.the Lodge Bill may not be dead,
There was Allison. In addition, the OTL 1896 Nomination runner-up was Reed, who IMO had certain progressive records.This list aiming to do something else includes other potential 1896 Republicans.
What if Grover Cleveland lost the 1892 presidential election? How might things be different?
Yep, another good candidate for TTL 1896, likely a dark horse, although Reed would remain the biggest front-runner ITTL, as Reed had higher national standing (Speaker of the House).What about George Hoar as the GOP nominee in 1896 in this timeline?
It's not just a matter of being the biggest name, as 1880 showed.Yep, another good candidate for TTL 1896, likely a dark horse, although Reed would remain the biggest front-runner ITTL, as Reed had higher national standing (Speaker of the House).
Maybe Henry Cabot Lodge as well if The Lodge Bill was somehow passed even just temporarily, which would elevate his national standing.
So, who do you think would be the Republican Nominee in 1896? It cannot be McKinley for sure.Will McKinley even be re-elected governor of Ohio in 1893 in this ATL? Sure, he won fairly easily in OTL, running 9.69 percent ahead of his Democratic opponent. https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=89817 But that was with the Democrats in the White House and widely blamed for the depression that started with the Panic earlier that year. In this ATL the Republicans will have been in the White House for almost five years in November 1893, and it is hard to see how they can avoid blame for hard times...
So, who do you think would be the Republican Nominee in 1896? It cannot be McKinley for sure.
However, since the Republicans were in power ITTL, they would have certainly been blamed for the Panic. And it is very likely that the Democrats would have blamed Harrison's protectionist policies. In this case, nominating the Napoleon of Protectionism is a non-starter, and Allison's biography seems to suggest that he was a hard tariff man as well. I think the most plausible candidate would be someone with more nuanced trade policy stance, similar to that of James Blaine. I mean, maybe a less pro-tariff one in the GOP manages to pull an equivalent of WJB's Cross of Gold on protectionism and steals the Nomination.If McKinley loses in 1893 (and I am not totally sure of that; his personal popularity in Ohio might be enough to narrowly save him even in a bad year for Republicans) probably the strongest candidate the GOP could find for the presidency in 1896 would be Senator William B. Allison of Iowa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Allison (he head been re-elected by the Iowa legislature in 1890 so he wouldn't be up for re-election in 1894 which in this ATL would probably be as bad a year for the Republicans as it was for Democrats in OTL. Kevin Phillips argued that even in OTL Bryan could have defeated any Republican except McKinley or possibly Allison (who like McKinley was a Midwesterner and not too rigid about the gold standard). "Among those favored by the machine chiefs, the most plausible winner was Iowa Senator William B. Allison. Respected in the Senate, he had coauthored major silver
legislation in 1878 with Missouri Democratic Congressman 'Silver Dick' Bland. Despite his age (sixty-seven) and lackluster public persona, he might have been able to hold most of the Midwest. If so, Quay, Platt, and the other Eastern leaders presumably could have carried their own bailiwicks for Allison against a Bryan caricatured as a lineal descendant of Marat and Robespierre." https://books.google.com/books?id=MkCuAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 Nevertheless Phillips believed that Allison would not have as much appeal as McKinley to Civil War veterans and labor union members and would of course lack McKinley's home state advantage in Ohio.
Or could even a McKinley who lost in 1893 be nominated? It is not totally unknown for a party to nominate a presidential candidate who has lost his most recent state election. James K. Polk had lost two elections in a row for governor of Tennessee to James C. Jones! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Jones (And of course Richard Nixon had lost the California governorship race in 1962 as well as the presidential race of 1960.)
However, since the Republicans were in power ITTL, they would have certainly been blamed for the Panic. And it is very likely that the Democrats would have blamed Harrison's protectionist policies. In this case, nominating the Napoleon of Protectionism is a non-starter, and Allison's biography seems to suggest that he was a hard tariff man as well. I think the most plausible candidate would be someone with more nuanced trade policy stance, similar to that of James Blaine. I mean, maybe a less pro-tariff one in the GOP manages to pull an equivalent of WJB's Cross of Gold on protectionism and steals the Nomination.
Besides, ITTL, a Bourbon Democrat could have been still nominated, and in that case, the candidate choices might have been more than just Mid-Westerners.
Also, how would Harrison have handled the Pullman Strike ITTL?
How far back does Congress.gov go?I can’t seem to find a record of who specifically voted for and against the 1890 tariff, does anyone have any clue if a single Republican voted against it?