WI Populist Republicans?

OTL, the Populist Party merged with the Democrats in 1896, which resulted in the Democratic Party generally becoming the left-wing party for the rest of history. Could the Populists have merged with the GOP instead? It will probably require a POD a few years back (maybe having the crash of 1893 happen under a Republican so they get desperate enough to nominate a radical), and will require getting rid of Bryan, but I think it can be done. For one thing, the western plains and rocky mountain states, the base of the Populist Party, had gone Republican in every election prior to the rise of the Populists, and the Republican ticket in 1892 was the main competition for western votes against the Populists, so clearly they had a base of support there.
 

Japhy

Banned
Have Cleveland win his first try at reelection. Harrison's term was when the Silver Republicans took their shot and found out that Silver politics don't work. In 1896 they were absolutely sidelined in the party and the stage was set for the Progressive Republicans to come in a few years later. With Cleveland having a second term, in 1892 you put another Democrat in office, Palmer being a leading contender, you see a smidgein of "reform" that does little as the Economy collapses and in 1896 the GOP falls in the hands of the Radicals who nominate a Teller or a DuBois or some such and cause the party to split in two, with a National Republican ticket running John Sherman.

No need to kill Bryan, here he's a barely noticed Congressmen who follows the Great Commoner and Leader of the Silver Democrats, Richard P. Bland off into the wilderness.
 
OTL, the Populist Party merged with the Democrats in 1896, which resulted in the Democratic Party generally becoming the left-wing party for the rest of history. Could the Populists have merged with the GOP instead? It will probably require a POD a few years back (maybe having the crash of 1893 happen under a Republican so they get desperate enough to nominate a radical), and will require getting rid of Bryan, but I think it can be done. For one thing, the western plains and rocky mountain states, the base of the Populist Party, had gone Republican in every election prior to the rise of the Populists, and the Republican ticket in 1892 was the main competition for western votes against the Populists, so clearly they had a base of support there.

The biggest issue to the Populist-Republican merger was a simple one, Wall Street. The Republicans had been the party of Business (and corruption and patronage) for over 20 years by the time the Populists showed up. The only 2 options for the Populists were to stay independent and hope they could stay afloat, or merge with the Democrats, who were the opposition party to the Republicans. They opposed them for different reasons, but it was a choice of fight them separately for different reasons, or fight on a united front, for different reasons. The Populists-Republican idea would work about as well as a Democratic-Socialist fusion during Woodrow Wilson's term.

No need to kill Bryan, here he's a barely noticed Congressmen who follows the Great Commoner and Leader of the Silver Democrats, Richard P. Bland off into the wilderness.

Whether you consider Bryan a snake or a hero, he had two things going for him: Youth, and oration. At 36 he was the youngest presidential nominee, and assuming good health he would have had 40-50 years to live, and my 30-40 in office. Bryan could draw crowds, and get people swept up in something, he was a true salesman politician. He might not have been the smartest man, the most handsome man, or even that good of a politician, but he was charismatic and inspirational.

Also, technically Bland did not go "off into the wilderness", he served for 25 years in the House, wrote some successful legislation, and died in 1899, a couple of years after the Pop-Dem merger. Not exactly Millard Fillmore levels of suck.
 

Japhy

Banned
The biggest issue to the Populist-Republican merger was a simple one, Wall Street. The Republicans had been the party of Business (and corruption and patronage) for over 20 years by the time the Populists showed up. The only 2 options for the Populists were to stay independent and hope they could stay afloat, or merge with the Democrats, who were the opposition party to the Republicans. They opposed them for different reasons, but it was a choice of fight them separately for different reasons, or fight on a united front, for different reasons. The Populists-Republican idea would work about as well as a Democratic-Socialist fusion during Woodrow Wilson's term.

The Bourbon Democrats were just as much the organization of Wall Street, and yet, look what happened. The Republican Party is just as capable of being split in two, they have the right potential leaders, they have the right membership in parts of the country, they have as big a divide internally as the Democrats did. They just had already tried it half-heartedly during Harrison and the Silver Republicans had fizzled.

Whether you consider Bryan a snake or a hero, he had two things going for him: Youth, and oration. At 36 he was the youngest presidential nominee, and assuming good health he would have had 40-50 years to live, and my 30-40 in office. Bryan could draw crowds, and get people swept up in something, he was a true salesman politician. He might not have been the smartest man, the most handsome man, or even that good of a politician, but he was charismatic and inspirational.

Also, technically Bland did not go "off into the wilderness", he served for 25 years in the House, wrote some successful legislation, and died in 1899, a couple of years after the Pop-Dem merger. Not exactly Millard Fillmore levels of suck.

I'm sorry if you didn't understand this correctly. When I said "off into the Wilderness" I mean in 1896 going off and being a "Silver Democrat" in the context of a Populist-Republican Merger. Bland was the pre-1896 clear leader of the Silver faction in the Democrats, in a situation where the Democrats are firmly under Bourbon Control and the GOP is the one with an internal revolt taking over it would be he leading his faction to cross over.

And as for Bryan the fact of the matter is for all of his talents 1896 was a freak occurrence, his rise and defeat that year were based on a very specific set of circumstances that it takes very little to change, not that he can't be viewed as an up and comer but in the situation I proposed he's more likely to just be another congressmen for the time being.
 
Have Cleveland win his first try at reelection. Harrison's term was when the Silver Republicans took their shot and found out that Silver politics don't work. In 1896 they were absolutely sidelined in the party and the stage was set for the Progressive Republicans to come in a few years later. With Cleveland having a second term, in 1892 you put another Democrat in office, Palmer being a leading contender, you see a smidgein of "reform" that does little as the Economy collapses and in 1896 the GOP falls in the hands of the Radicals who nominate a Teller or a DuBois or some such and cause the party to split in two, with a National Republican ticket running John Sherman.
My one question here is how would the Democrats win 1892? As the economy was already on a downturn by that time. If the GOP wins 1892, then they are the ones to take the hit for the economy instead, which could lead to them being on the verge of landslide defeat like the OTL Democrats and willing to nominate a radical.
 

Japhy

Banned
My one question here is how would the Democrats win 1892? As the economy was already on a downturn by that time. If the GOP wins 1892, then they are the ones to take the hit for the economy instead, which could lead to them being on the verge of landslide defeat like the OTL Democrats and willing to nominate a radical.

The economy was as bad as it had been for years, the actual crash didn't happen until after the election. Its not impossible for Palmer or Vilas or Hill or a "Moderate" to win the election for the Democrats. If you want to have the GOP be the incumbents with a first term president, there's not going to be a Convention Coup in 1896, but a party split.
 
The economy was as bad as it had been for years, the actual crash didn't happen until after the election. Its not impossible for Palmer or Vilas or Hill or a "Moderate" to win the election for the Democrats. If you want to have the GOP be the incumbents with a first term president, there's not going to be a Convention Coup in 1896, but a party split.
Ah, OK.

So if the Republicans go silver, I wonder how many Silver Democrats would switch parties. Definitely none of the Southerners would switch for that reason. Perhaps Horace Boies, who has been a Republican before he was turned off by prohibition and tariffs.
 
Top