WI: No Cross of Gold Speech

TinyTartar

Banned
The overthrow of the Bourbon Democrats and Cleveland faction was something that was instrumental in US history in ensuring the two party system would survive long term.

The Democratic party was firmly taken control of by its agrarian populist wing in the 1896 Convention, with William Jennings Bryan being nominated after giving his famous Cross of Gold Speech.

But what if Jennings did not give that speech?

Or what if the cause of bimetallism was, through good ol' convention shenanigans, taken up on the national level not by a popular man like Bryan, but rather by Pitchfork Ben Tillman, a notorious populist racist from South Carolina, who was hated by vast sections of the country. Maybe, this could come about from having Tillman be the only pro-silver man to speak.

The Bourbons were unpopular and hated by much of the party. They were seen as borderline illegitimate, having relied on Classically Liberal Republicans disgusted with the GOP's 1880s corruption to gain power. It seems to me that they were on their way out.

But a less resurgent Democratic bimetallist movement may have deep reaching consequences, particularly for the Western Regionalist Populist Party, and any others that may come afterwards.

Basically, do you see it possible for third parties to survive because the Democrats drop the ball with Western voters in 1896?
 
My understanding is that the mathematics of the first past the post system means that in the long run a two-party system is the only stable configuration.
 
My understanding is that the mathematics of the first past the post system means that in the long run a two-party system is the only stable configuration.

Yep, and in this case the populists would likely replace the democrats after their rapid collapse.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
My understanding is that the mathematics of the first past the post system means that in the long run a two-party system is the only stable configuration.

Who says it has to be stable, or even national? The idea of regionalist parties vying for support, with the South staying Democrat, the West going Populist, and the North staying Republican, with the middle of the country being up for grabs, is something that I think is possible, with many elections going to the House.

Also, don't discount the Socialists in such a scenario. With the two traditional parties obstinately backing gold, and the Populists having such a rural character, an Urban Socialist Party might get stable following in Congress. Debs will function as their Farage; he can never win, but he will give them chances in local and congressional elections.

The Two party system works best for FPTP, but regionalism is something that could stay important for a long time.
 
Last edited:

TinyTartar

Banned
Yep, and in this case the populists would likely replace the democrats after their rapid collapse.

For what its worth, the South stayed solid even at the height of Bourbonism for a few reasons. Besides Ben Tillman, there were almost no obstinately racist and bimettalist Southern Politicians with Populist followings during this point in time, and the Bourbon faction was tacitly fine with outright racism and Southern regionalism as long as they got support in national elections.

The rank and file of the party in the south held bimetallism as second place to the continued white ascendancy, unlike the West. The Bourbons did not threaten White Power, and in fact, came to power arguably because of it as they had a major presence in the Redeemer Revolutions of 1876.

I see the South staying Democrat, even if it means they are crucified on a Cross of Gold. :p
 
If the Populists survive, it would most likely be as a stronghold Western party and as a more viable alternative to the Republicans in the South. With a national Populist Party lasting after 1896, you could see more politicians like Thomas E. Watson and Marion Butler keeping some traction for a Southern Populist wing, especially if they swing parts of Appalachia away from the Republicans.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The Cleveland Democrats were a hopeless minority in their party in 1896. If the party didn't nominate Bryan, it would have nominated another silverite like Richard B. Bland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_P._Bland

The Democrats may have been mostly pro-Silver, but the Cleveland wing of the party was technically in control of things, and many of the party bosses wanted a pro-Gold candidate, seeing it as the only way to start competing in NY and New England. Remember that the entire west was worth less electorally speaking than New York and Massachusetts was. The Democrats had Tammany Hall going for them, and the sachems were always more successful at getting the decisive votes when they could take a policy like the gold standard and say that it was their own, allowing them to make inroads with the Republican middle class.

The Democrats very well could have nominated a gold man again. They did in 1904, even after Bryan had his moment, and in the 20s nominated some very conservative types who had their start in the Bourbon wing of the party.

The possibility of a Populist survival shouldn't be totally discounted.
 
The Democrats very well could have nominated a gold man again. They did in 1904, even after Bryan had his moment

The reason the conservative "reorganizers" were able to do so in 1904 is precisely that Bryan had run and lost on free silver twice. (Also, it had become obvious that the increased production of gold had made free silver obsolete. And it also helped the conservatives that with Bryan not running, the only "radical" candidate was William Randolph Hearst, whose personal morality was questioned...) The situation in 1896 was entirely different. Look at the major rivals to Bryan on the first ballot. "Silver Dick" Bland was in first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_Democratic_National_Convention The strongest pro-gold-standard Democrat, Robert E. Pattison of Pennsylvania, was a poor third. In fourth place was Joseph Blackburn of Kentucky, "Loosely associated with the free-silver wing of the Democratic party" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Clay_Stiles_Blackburn In fifth place was Horace Boies, who was also pro-free-silver. In sixth place was John R. McLean; a delegate nominating him said, " I say to you when the cause of free silver was weak, when them embers supporting it were few, JOHN R. MCLEAN was one of the bravest soldiers, and the noblest pioneer of them all." https://books.google.com/books?id=dy0_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA290 In seventh place was Claude Matthews of Indiana, "like William Jennings Bryan a free-silver supporter" http://in.gov/governorhistory/2356.htm

No, there is just no way the Democrats would have nominated a gold Democrat in 1896. The only one whose name was even placed in nomination was Pattison, and he never got more than 100 delegates' votes. Even if you add to Pattison's delegates all the delegates who abstained (as many "sound money" men did) you still have a hopeless minority of the delegates.
 
I've been flirting with an idea of a "Populists survive" TL for a while now, and I think something like this (maybe killing off WJB outright) is the way to go. Bryan gave the various Silverite groups a huge force of personality to unite behind. While the Democratic party would have gone pro-silver with or without him, they wouldn't necessarily get Populist support, especially if they went with someone like Tillman. The Populists would then be free to run their own ticket. To keep from being a regional party, the they would have to build a stronger coalition with Midwestern socialists like Victor Berger and Henry D. Lloyd, who were members, but whose faction never wielded much influence in the party. That could keep McKinley from winning the labor vote so handily. He would still likely win, I think, but things would certainly go a lot differently from there.
 
Top