- Location
- NYC (né Falkirk)
- Pronouns
- he/him
The period from the end of the American Civil War through to the early decades of the twentieth century saw a period of dominance by the Republican Party. In the years from 1860 to 1932, the Democrats only won (per the electoral college anyway) the presidency a grand total of four times (twice with Grover Cleveland in 1884 and 1892; twice with Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916) during those seventy-two years (1864 a bit of a grey area with the National Union ticket). They were a bit more successful with the House of Representatives winning majorities in fifteen of the thirty-six Congresses elected during that period, although they only held a majority in the Senate for five of those.
Could it have been worse for them? Could they have entered a terminal decline where they would eventually be nothing more than a Southern regional party before perhaps fading from existence together?
The South made up the core of the Party support during this period, as well as before and for sometime after. In the North they found support from more recent immigrants and Catholics. What are the possibilities for the Party declining further?
They actually won the popular vote in the presidential election of 1876, Democratic candidate Samuel J. Tilden had more votes than Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, but with results disputed in many states a compromise was struck where the Southern Democrats acquiesced to Hayes election in exchange for an end to Reconstruction. Four years earlier the Democrats hadn't even stood a candidate, and in 1872 sitting Republican President Ulysses S. Grant was challenged by a Liberal Republican opposition gathered around Horace Greeley, who lost in a landslide and the Liberal Republicans disappeared very quickly after the election. What if they had done slightly better and had stuck around as a, however minor, political force? Perhaps Charles Francis Adams as candidate instead of Greeley?
There's zero chance of the Liberal Republicans winning an election in 1876, but if the Democrats don't back their candidate once again they might serve to draw votes away from the anti-Administration forces and not have the election be so closely contested as it was OTL. President Grant considered standing for an unprecedented third term, but his administration was riddled with scandal. Could his running prompt a re-emergence of a Liberal Republican candidate even after they had disappeared four years prior and draw votes away from Tilden in the North?
The Democrats did win the 1884 election with Grover Cleveland, but it was a very close-run thing and might have actually been determined in the closing weeks when Republican candidate James G. Blaine, attending a meeting where Protestant preachers decried his opponents within the Party as joining forces with "rum, Romanism, and rebellion." Neither Blaine nor the reporters present made note of the anti-Catholic jibe, but an operative of the Cleveland campaign did, and the remark was widely publicised and may have cost Blaine New York and its thirty-six electoral votes. Had this been missed, James G. Blaine would have likely have become the 22nd President of the United States. Should Cleveland run again in 1888 against Blaine seeking a second term, and lose again, then twice the Democrats, specifically the Bourbon Democrat strand of the Party, had been defeated which might lead to defections over to the Republicans or even Populists out west.
On the subjects of splits, as well as Grover Cleveland, the Gold Standard would be a divisive issue for the Party throughout the final decade of the nineteenth century. 1896 saw free silver backer William Jennings Bryan nominated as the Democratic candidate, adopting some policies favoured by the Populist Party, and some Gold Standard backing Bourbons wanted to bolt and form their own party. They did, but neither of their preferred candidates, former President Grover Cleveland or Senator William Freeman Vilas would accept the nomination. Had either of them accepted, they might have had a higher profile and the split become ever more acrimonious.
If any one or even all of these things - further Liberal Republican runs, failure of the Bourbon Democrats to capture the White House, a bigger split over coinage - had happened might it have truly spelled the end of the Democratic Party as a national force? Would be nigh impossible to displace them from the South (entirely, the absence of the Corrupt Bargain of 1877 would be interesting for Reconstruction) but might the decline to the point of irrelevance in the North and the West with defections to the Republicans and/or Populists? What would eventually replace them in these locations? Could the Populists and the growing labour movement form the nucleus of a competitive Farmer-Labor Party? Or is a national victory over the Republicans impossible during this era without the South?
In the interests of balance, will be posting another thread tomorrow on the Republicans declining further following the New Deal.
Could it have been worse for them? Could they have entered a terminal decline where they would eventually be nothing more than a Southern regional party before perhaps fading from existence together?
The South made up the core of the Party support during this period, as well as before and for sometime after. In the North they found support from more recent immigrants and Catholics. What are the possibilities for the Party declining further?
They actually won the popular vote in the presidential election of 1876, Democratic candidate Samuel J. Tilden had more votes than Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, but with results disputed in many states a compromise was struck where the Southern Democrats acquiesced to Hayes election in exchange for an end to Reconstruction. Four years earlier the Democrats hadn't even stood a candidate, and in 1872 sitting Republican President Ulysses S. Grant was challenged by a Liberal Republican opposition gathered around Horace Greeley, who lost in a landslide and the Liberal Republicans disappeared very quickly after the election. What if they had done slightly better and had stuck around as a, however minor, political force? Perhaps Charles Francis Adams as candidate instead of Greeley?
There's zero chance of the Liberal Republicans winning an election in 1876, but if the Democrats don't back their candidate once again they might serve to draw votes away from the anti-Administration forces and not have the election be so closely contested as it was OTL. President Grant considered standing for an unprecedented third term, but his administration was riddled with scandal. Could his running prompt a re-emergence of a Liberal Republican candidate even after they had disappeared four years prior and draw votes away from Tilden in the North?
The Democrats did win the 1884 election with Grover Cleveland, but it was a very close-run thing and might have actually been determined in the closing weeks when Republican candidate James G. Blaine, attending a meeting where Protestant preachers decried his opponents within the Party as joining forces with "rum, Romanism, and rebellion." Neither Blaine nor the reporters present made note of the anti-Catholic jibe, but an operative of the Cleveland campaign did, and the remark was widely publicised and may have cost Blaine New York and its thirty-six electoral votes. Had this been missed, James G. Blaine would have likely have become the 22nd President of the United States. Should Cleveland run again in 1888 against Blaine seeking a second term, and lose again, then twice the Democrats, specifically the Bourbon Democrat strand of the Party, had been defeated which might lead to defections over to the Republicans or even Populists out west.
On the subjects of splits, as well as Grover Cleveland, the Gold Standard would be a divisive issue for the Party throughout the final decade of the nineteenth century. 1896 saw free silver backer William Jennings Bryan nominated as the Democratic candidate, adopting some policies favoured by the Populist Party, and some Gold Standard backing Bourbons wanted to bolt and form their own party. They did, but neither of their preferred candidates, former President Grover Cleveland or Senator William Freeman Vilas would accept the nomination. Had either of them accepted, they might have had a higher profile and the split become ever more acrimonious.
If any one or even all of these things - further Liberal Republican runs, failure of the Bourbon Democrats to capture the White House, a bigger split over coinage - had happened might it have truly spelled the end of the Democratic Party as a national force? Would be nigh impossible to displace them from the South (entirely, the absence of the Corrupt Bargain of 1877 would be interesting for Reconstruction) but might the decline to the point of irrelevance in the North and the West with defections to the Republicans and/or Populists? What would eventually replace them in these locations? Could the Populists and the growing labour movement form the nucleus of a competitive Farmer-Labor Party? Or is a national victory over the Republicans impossible during this era without the South?
In the interests of balance, will be posting another thread tomorrow on the Republicans declining further following the New Deal.