"The Footsteps of Illustrious Men"- USA GC AAR

The Election of 1892
~~

The Republicans now, for the first time, found themselves on the defensive. The Populists were making a heavy drive at the White House in 1892. The Republicans had to stop the bleed and put up someone to sweep the North and defeat the Populists and Democrats. Benjamin Harrison had already announced his decision not to run again, following in the footsteps of his predecessor Rutherford B. Hayes. The real reason for his decision may have been his failures in stopping the strikes of 1890-91, which put a dark mark on the Republican party's pro-business stance. Harrison, though successful abroad, was taking a great deal of heat for his failures at home, and when the anger started to leak back to the Republicans started to turn against him. The problem was, Harrison had no true successor.

Harrison's vice President, William Windom, died in 1891, which left James G. Blaine as the most likely candidate. But Blaine had already run and failed to win office, which caste him as a black sheep in the party. Charles Foster, Harrison's Secretary of the Treasury, was another popular name. But another Ohio born Republican was the last thing most of the party wanted. The rise of big-business hawk Republicans was stunted, and many felt that a return to the east coast would be best for the party. So it was that the party swung behind James Addams Beaver, the governor of Pennsylvania. Beaver was a civil war veteran and a very popular and successful governor. Beaver had helped end the strikes in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and many within the party felt he could bring the same stability to the nation. Beaver chose Vermont Senator George Franklin Edmunds, who had risen to prominence working against big business and authoring Antitrust legislation.


James Addison Beaver

The choice of Edmunds as a running mate sent many western Republicans into a frenzy. Their treasured Republican Party was turning into a worker's party, and many refused to see that happen. Taking up the mantle of the long dead "Whig" party, these "Whig Republicans" promoted their own candidate for office. Russell A. Alger from Michigan became their leading candidate, calling for the status quo and a continued pro-business policy. He chose for his running mate an Ohioan named William McKinley, further promoting the pro-big business stance of the government. Although they spent most of their attention on the mid-west, the two Republicans also started making headway in the east, hoping to cut the Republican lead in Pennsylvania. Congress was still dominated by big business Republicans and would clearly support Alger and McKinley if the country was held from a majority.

The Democrats found themselves in a quandary. The Populist party was rapidly steeling control of the South, especially in the large population states of the South. The long time dominance of Republicans in Texas and the rise of Populists in Virginia drove the Democrats into the Deep South. Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana were really the only sources of Democratic strength still left. Aided by the exodus of blacks into the west, these states became dominated by Democratic politicians. In an attempt to expand that influence, the Democrats chose the charismatic rabble-rouser Henry Watterson. Called by some the "Successor to Jackson", Henry Watterson swept into the South like a whirlwind, winning support across the board for his pro-south, pro-agriculture proposals. For his vice president he chose Robert Lowry as his vice president.


Henry Watterson

The final candidate selected would come from the Populist party. William Cameron was lauded and proclaimed the obvious success to James Weaver. But Cameron felt his own success was tied to his refusal to enter the political arena. In Cameron's view, Washington corrupted the true beliefs of political reformers. Instead he called for another, refusing to accept the nomination. Unfortunately for Cameron, most of his fellow Populists were too young to successfully run a campaign. Men like James Paul Clarke and William Jennings Bryant were too inexperienced in the political field to win high office. Instead Cameron turned to a fellow Virginian, civil war veteran John W. Daniel, the "(Lame) Lion of Lynchburg". A fiery proponent of worker's rights, Daniel had risen to famous first as a civil war wounded veteran-turned-politician, but as the tide turned towards Populists, he crossed party lines from Democrat to Populist.

Daniel was a clever politician, and immediately turned to the Georgian orator Thomas E. Watson for support. Watson easily won the vice president nomination, proudly shouting from the mountaintops about the great future of the Populist Party. It was Watson who drove the party to fame. With Watson, the Populists were able to carry all of the South-East coast, excluding Florida. He took Texas and Arkansas as well, and carried most of the west including Colombia. The Republicans carried New England, while the Whigs stole Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. The Democrats carried what remained, but came in 4th in the election. In the end, by only 12 electoral votes, the Populist Party had succeeded in taking the White House.


John Daniel and Thomas Watson- Populist- 238
James Beaver and George Edmunds- Republican 117
Russell Alger and William McKinley- Whig- 49
Henry Watterson and Robert Lowery- Democrat- 43

RGB said:

I think Blue is Republican and Red is Democrat in this map....

And by only 12 electoral votes? I'm not sure I'm understanding. 238 >>> 117?


Anyhow - hah, Populists. But I bet they won't have political unity for too long. And a split between big-business and New England Republicans seems interesting too.

The Democrats look like history.

Click to expand...

Woops, flipped the colors, I'll fix that. As to the 12 electoral votes. 238 is only 12 over the number needed to win the election. If it had been under 226 the election would not have been a true majority and so the election would have gone to the House.

I wouldn't be too worried. The Whigs are far more like the Independant Democrats of 1884 or the Independant Democrats of 1840 who ran Van Buren, a one time throwback that likely wont be around much longer.

PrawnStar said:

That's an interesting looking map you've got there!

Could we have some analysis of the political makeup of your pops and what their issues are, please? Numbers, pie charts and your thoughts on how things are developing, that sort of thing.

(I get a bit number happy about RL elections - there are very few Brits who stayed up watching CNN to get the exit polls on the Democratic primaries March 2004, to give just one example o )

Click to expand...

Ask and ye shall receive. I'll get working on them, probably get an update up for you to look at tomorrow. As to the Democratic primary numbers: there were very few Americans who stayed up to watch them either,. :wacko:

Sorry for the way late update, it will come tomorrow or tonight. I've become distracted by a CK Saxony game.

Mirror
~~

With the election of 1892 there was a significant shift in political ideology within the United States. Much like the rise of the American Party in the 1850's or the Republicans in the 1860's, the Populist Party's rise signaled that a new political reign had arrived. And, for the first time, a significant ideological representation was present in the United States. While often, in the first 80 years of the 19th century, one's ideology and one's party vote were different, in the 1890's the shift to ideologically based parties was completed. For the first time in decades, the Midwest and the South saw a political unity. Southerners, both black and white, voted en mass for the same parties. The Populist Party was a national party.

There were three major factors contributing to the success of the Populist party in the United States. The population of late 19th century was defined by three interests, that of the economic influence of the government, trade regulation and a socio-religious consciousness. The first was the most contentious of the three, while socio-religious beliefs and trade concerns were often defined by geographic location, economic policy demands were tied more to the local economy and racial build up of regions in the United States.


Intervetionism
Laissez Faire
State Capitalism

The Deep South, namely the cotton-belt states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and the anomaly that is Florida, is surprisingly one of the most diverse portions of the country. Most of the area was dominated by the Interventionist Democrats of the South. Most felt that industry needed to be toured and controlled, specifically to keep it out of the hands of the socialists and away from the Populist workers of the South. These politicians were at heavy odds with their Laissez Faire allies on the South-East coast and in the South West. There was a large number of these traditional democrats in the Deep South, but even most of these politicians believed that Industry did not belong in the Deep South. Florida is the oddity, where the long ago German immigrants had come to dominate and rule of the state. Freesdat, the capital was the capital of American radical politics, both on the far right and the far left.



The Midwest was split down the middle. The more southern states, like Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois were dominated by Populists and Populist-Republicans. The further northern states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were still primarily controlled by Republicans. Republicans likewise ruled the population centers of Pennsylvania, although Democrats still held a great deal of sway among the farmers and rural population of Pennsylvania and Kentucky. New England was still dominated by the Republicans and their Pro-business laissez faire policies. Only small portions of the far North fell into the interventionism demands of the Populist Party.



The South, primarily Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas, was dominated by the Interventionist Populists. While Laissez-Faire Democrats and Republicans still made some impact on the political scene, they were a dieing breed. Delaware, much like Florida, presented an oddity in politics. On a national scale, it was still staunchly Democrat, proudly clinging to its Southern pro-slavery heritage. On a local scale, the American party, in a bastardized form, controlled the state. Governor Robert J. Reynolds was heavily involved in the development of industry in the state, and had a wide reach in controlling the economy of the state. In the west, another strange curve emerged. Although most westerners still identified themselves as Republicans, they had overwhelmingly supported and voted for the Populists, whose interventionist policy towards economics was not a concern they shared.


Pluralism
Moralism
Secularism
Atheism

In the North, the pluralistic post-religious communities of the city had developed rapidly. The old moralistic domination of political parties was, for the most part, gone. Although religion was still an issue, it had fallen away. The election of a man with a Catholic mother (Thomas Ewing Jr.), helped drive open religious non-interference. The concept of America as a land of many faiths was developing. Likewise, a growing number of Secular Humanists and Atheists were seen taking root in the North East and North West. In all the religious conditions of the North were mobile, while those in the South were segregated, and above all else, stagnant. Pluralistic beliefs were common among black workers in the west and east, while the Deep South was dominated by a kind of Moralist conservatism, except in the case of Florida, which once again stood a stark contrast to her Southern neighbors thanks to the German immigration.


Republican Party
Democrat Party
Populist Party
The Free Party*
The Metis Party
*A radical party dominated by German immigrants in the south.

In the end the party success was as seen above, on a national level.