WI: Grover Cleveland loses the 1892 election

[David T]

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 many Republicans who favored lower tariffs were there, though? The most prominent was Walter Q. Gresham but by 1892 he had abandoned the GOP and even flirted with Populism before coming out for Cleveland--and by 1895 he was dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Q._Gresham

I just don't see any way the Republicans win in 1896 in this ATL. I don't agree that the Democrats would be likely to nominate a Bourbon in this ATL--after all, they had now lost with Cleveland twice in a row. OTOH, they won't necessarily nominate Bryan, either. But even if they do, he would win--he came closer to winning even in OTL than is sometimes realized, as I noted at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...jennings-bryan-president.331064/#post-9808368

(How would Harrison have handled the Pullman strike? Well, this gives a clue: "Harrison's cause was gravely injured by a strike at the Homestead Works of the Carnegie Steel Company when twenty men were killed in a battle between locked-out workers and armed Pinkerton detectives. A military force was posted to guard the nonunion labor that was brought in. Harrison's image with labor worsened when he dispatched federal troops to the Coeur d'Alene mines in Idaho in July 1892 at the governor's request. The strike was crushed, and union miners retreated into the mountains." https://www.presidentprofiles.com/Grant-Eisenhower/Benjamin-Harrison-Election-of-1892-and-retirement.html Granted, the Pullman strike was different in that the state and local authorities didn't want federal intervention. But I doubt that this would have made a difference to Harrison--like Cleveland, he could get around the states'-rights arguments by saying that the delivery of the mails, a federal function, was involved. And in any event Republicans were in general less states'-rights oriented ideologically than Democrats and at least as solicitous of the rights of private capital as even the most conservative Democrats.)

 

[Thomas1195]

How many Republicans who favored lower tariffs were there, though? The most prominent was Walter Q. Gresham but by 1892 he had abandoned the GOP and even flirted with Populism before coming out for Cleveland--and by 1895 he was dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Q._Gresham

I just don't see any way the Republicans win in 1896 in this ATL. I don't agree that the Democrats would be likely to nominate a Bourbon in this ATL--after all, they had now lost with Cleveland twice in a row. OTOH, they won't necessarily nominate Bryan, either. But even if they do, he would win--he came closer to winning even in OTL than is sometimes realized, as I noted at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...jennings-bryan-president.331064/#post-9808368

Still, being blamed for the Panic of 1892 would likely force the Republicans to change their tariff position by 1896 and later, especially with a Democrat winning the 1896 one with a lower tariff platform and taking credit for subsequent recovery. I think in 1896, Henry Cabot Lodge or George Hoar (I can see these two changing their tariff stance ITTL) or another former Liberal Republicans/Mugwumps/Half-Breeds might become compromise candidate. By 1900, Robert LaFollete could emerge as a Republican star who favours lower tariff.

I don't agree that the Democrats would be likely to nominate a Bourbon in this ATL--after all, they had now lost with Cleveland twice in a row. OTOH, they won't necessarily nominate Bryan, either. But even if they do, he would win--he came closer to winning even in OTL than is sometimes realized, as I noted at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...jennings-bryan-president.331064/#post-9808368

I don't think the Bourbon Democrats are doomed like IOTL. Cleveland would likely still win popular vote in 1892. However, any Democrat would win in 1896 by the way.