Tilden wins
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
After a bit of ferreting I presume your talking about the 1876 US Presidential election? Must admit I don't know enough about the period to say either way but curious as to what you were talking about. Very, very close election given what Wiki says about it.
Steve
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Both Hayes and Tilden were for sound money and for civil service reform. Both men also had a reputation for honesty. The Democrats already had the House, would retain it in '78, and would gain the Senate in '78, too. The Republicans actually made some gains in the House in '78 because the economy improved a bit under Hayes, though. (But not enough to get a majority) We may safely expect that under Tilden as well (they endorsed similar economic and fiscal policies), so the Democrats would reap the glory (such as it was) and presumably perform better (meaning: probably no Republican gains at all).
This means that the Democrats will have a full majority as of '78, which in turn means that Reconstruction is dead anyway. Long-term advantage for the Republicans: they won't be accused of surrendering Reconstruction just to get the White House. Conversely, due to controlling Congress, Tilden and the Democrats will be able to really enact some civil service reform. Due to lacking congressional majority, Hayes could only pave the way for it to be really implemented later. So the Democrats get to put "we started the overhaul of the corrupt spoils system" on their record of achievements.
Anyway, Tilden's victory proves the Democrats are viable (and specifically as a 'sound money, anti-corruption' party). He presumably gets re-elected in 1880, although he might opt to retire. (He died in '86.) This probably means that my favourite of all historical Presidents -- yes, Grover Cleveland -- doesn't get elected. I'd expect the Republicans to take back the White House in '84, given the above scenario.
In the somewhat longer term, this probably means William Bryan Jennings can forget about his chances of taking over the Democratic party, which will follow the course set by Tilden.
This means that the Democrats will have a full majority as of '78, which in turn means that Reconstruction is dead anyway. Long-term advantage for the Republicans: they won't be accused of surrendering Reconstruction just to get the White House. Conversely, due to controlling Congress, Tilden and the Democrats will be able to really enact some civil service reform. Due to lacking congressional majority, Hayes could only pave the way for it to be really implemented later. So the Democrats get to put "we started the overhaul of the corrupt spoils system" on their record of achievements.
Anyway, Tilden's victory proves the Democrats are viable (and specifically as a 'sound money, anti-corruption' party). He presumably gets re-elected in 1880, although he might opt to retire. (He died in '86.) This probably means that my favourite of all historical Presidents -- yes, Grover Cleveland -- doesn't get elected. I'd expect the Republicans to take back the White House in '84, given the above scenario.
In the somewhat longer term, this probably means William Bryan Jennings can forget about his chances of taking over the Democratic party, which will follow the course set by Tilden.
Last edited:
One interesting thing that comes out of this I feel would actually be a interest to see how the parties turn out. Unlike most alt histories, the Democrats and Republicans were pretty set on economics by Bryan and his group, your not going to get Conservative Democrats (at least economically, Socially yes that could be in flux) but with the Dems hitting a Conservative small goverment line...Of course you still have immigrant political machines who while possibly going in for Small Local Goverment and the like but not the whole hog Small Goverment. Maybe they end up taking the Democrats in a more statist/Keynsian direction.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Parties can do weird flips, of course. Possible scenario:
-- Democrats are the party of sound money, small government, anti-corruption and (generally) social conservatism. They presumably stick to localism, too, albeit initially none too vocally. (They don't want to get smeared as "the party of secession".) They are for free markets, anti-intervenionist (both economically and militarily), but they're not for big business as such. Big business wants government patronage for their oligarchies, the Democrats won't give them that. As such, the Democrats can play themselves up as the party of the "common man", and his right to make an honest living without being at the mercy of the bankers and industrialists.
-- Republicans, meanwhile, are initially also for sound money, but favour more interventionist economics. Also more militarism. Bigger, more activist government in general. They are cosmopolitan and progressive; they favour centralised government. They are for big business, and (therefore!) also for regulared markets. They sell this to the public as being somehow 'social', but in reality, must economic measures simply favour big business. Both the interests of big business and the goal of playing up a certain populist angle ("Democrats and their small government don't do anything for you!") will ultimately swing the Republicans towards debasing the currency and support for an activist central banking institution.
-- This means the populists get split, with the more rural/conservative types going with the Democrats (and grudgingly accepting the gold standard while they're at it), and the urban/radical types going with the Republicans (and grudgingly accepting all sorts of favouritism for big business while they're at it).
-- The Republicans thus evolve directly into and outright progressive big-government party, which relies on currency devaluation and raised taxes to enact "redistribution populism" and get the urban workers to vote for them. You may as well call this the Rooseveltian Party.
-- The Democrats become the conservative small-government party, which sticks to the gold standard, enjoys rural support, as well as enticing the middle-class populace that ultimately has to pay the bill for everything the Republicans wish to enact. Basically: just as the Republicans segue right into Rooseveltianism without any hickups, the Democrats evolve into what we (in OTL) know as the Old Right in one smooth evolution.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Now that’s an interesting inversion of what we’re used to IOTL. Not just given how as a Yank, I naturally associate the Republicans with conservatism and the Democrats with liberalism, but also because of the motley implications this opens the door for going forwards. I will, however, admit that I know little about 19th century American politics off the top of my head, just as a quick disclaimer.
First, big businesses aligning with the Republicans due to how it’s become ideologically friendly towards regulatory capture makes a sort of sense to me (with Standard Oil and its fellow monopolies exempting themselves from the most stringent legislation, of course). In the long term, though, I’m also concerned about the possibility that infighting between the GOP’s corporate elites and urban and populist “every-men” hamstrings its viability compared to the Democrats (who seem to have a more unified and consistent platform). So, while I can see corporatist candidates throwing scraps to its populist faction every now and then, the fact that more redistributionist neophytes who gain traction will be beholden to—or at least undermined by—crony business interests strikes me as a potential fissure there. Exactly what this means down the for any Teddy/Franklin R. analogues who are forced to play a weird game of syncretism to enact their desired legislation, I don’t know. Maybe more Keynesian-leaning figures who distrust rich industrialists and small-government conservatism alike will form a third-party, if they’re unable to remake the GOP in their image?
The Democrats, while without internal divisions that are quite as obvious to me, also have some interesting things going for them here. Being more isolationist and framing themselves as the party of the “common man”, I’m wondering where they stand on international trade? Since you also sum them up as the Old Right if it were its own political party, my impression is that they’d be more open to a similar kind of “business nationalism” that weds deregulation and free markets at home with receptiveness to tariffs abroad. At the very least, I imagine it’d provide another fascinating contrast with cosmopolitan, internationalist Republicans who are big fans of global trade (even if that’s not the most plausible path forward).
What these preliminary party-flips mean for American politics headed into the twentieth century and beyond is a subtopic worth discussing as well, I think.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Naturally, this is all conjecture regarding a possible way things could turn out, given the premise we're discussing. And even then, things could go in multiple directions. So the scenario I have proposed definititely isn't "the way things would go". But that being said... here's some thoughts regarding the points you have raised:
-- In OTL, being an elite-serving groups has not being a factor that has prevented parties from also claiming to be for the working class. Indeed, look at... well, the establishment politicians of both US parties (but I'd say more prominently the Democrats), or every single centre-left party in Europe. 100% establishment, fully dedicated to globalist pseudocapitalism, very much in the pocket of the multinational megacorps... but to a fault, they advance populist redistribution plans, and claim to do "nice things for the people".
-- Granted, this system evolved over time. It may not gel in the ATL, at hat relatively early juncture, resulting in a Populist Party arising. To have success, though, it would have to appeal to more than the OTL Populists' Western/agrarian electorate. This means embracing socialist ideas and becoming a sort of hard left farmer-labour party. This would create a three-party contest between the Republicans (the establishment party), the Democrats (advocate proto-libertarian ideas as an alternative) and the Populists (advocate redistributionist/socialist ideas as an alternative).
-- Presumably, one of those parties would eventually fail, since the US system inherently favours a two-party model.
-- Historically, socialism hasn't caught on in the USA. It had to be... basically smuggled in. A march through the institutions, indeed! (And, it must be said, a damned successful one. Albeit not to the extent as is seen in Europe.) The point is: without that process, in an 'open contest' in the earliest decades of the 20th century... I don't see the Populists winning out. My money would be on a Populist Party being a temporary success that eventually fades out. Because the people prefer the more traditionally "American" ideas of the Democrats, and because the Republicans will still be using their institutional advantage to keep a lot of urban voters loyal.
-- Going back to point one: the elite is quite capable (and willing) to accept and partially pay for "moderate" social security schemes, if this keeps radical socialists out of power. Bismarck famously did this in Germany. It was likewise done in the Netherlands, and the far left (seeing their future evaporate) tried an armed revolution. It became a total joke, and is historically known as "Troelstra's Error" (after the name of the would-be socialist leader). There are many other such examples. Rule of thumb: revolutionary socialism only succeeds where the elites are too poor or too stupid to pay the off with a pittance.
-- So my money would be on a continued Republican-versus-Democrat paradigm, with the Republicans being the party of 'big government' in all its forms.
-- Who pays? As always, the hinterland pays for the cities and the working people (which includes the middle class) pay for the bulk of everything. This makes them the natural electorate for the Democrats of this ATL.
-- You speak of "Keynesian-leaning figures who distrust rich industrialists". No such animal exists. Keynesians love the elite, and the elite loves Keynesianism. (Note that it's Lord Keynes to us filthy commoners.)
-- Concerning trade, I could see a sort of 'mini-flip' occurring in this ATL, as opposed to the whole-sale reversal of party beliefs in OTL. In the late 19th century, the Democrats are the free trade party and have been since fucking always. The Republicans inherited (via the elaborate geneology of the party) the old Federalist doctrine of protectionism. We must keep in mind, that (bullhit propoaganda of the day notwithstanding), at that time free trade still favoured the common man and functionally all agrarians. Protectionism favoured, and had always favoured, North-Eastern money men and (proto-)industrialists, and absolutely nobody else. But that would not stay the case forever...
-- ...because as a global interconnected market arose with advances in transportation and communication, using cheap foreign production increasingly became highly profitable. At which point you see the elite becoming the free trade party, and the common man clamouring for economic protectionism. This would happen in the ATL as well, so I'd expect the 20th century to witness a 'mini-flip' of party beliefs on the issue. As such, what you have outlined about that is actually what I would consider the most plausible path forward in this particular scenario.
Last edited:
Well, I dont think theyd call themselves Socialists. Far More likely theyll try to play A Chrisitan Populist Campaign. Now that might not work as it will mainly resound with the South but if they can get a few good Catholics to try and bridge the gap, I could see the Populists building a coalition. Now how likely is it? Not too likely but Its still possible I feel.
In this scenario the Democrats would essentially be reduced to a Southern Interests Party, How long this surrvives? I dont know really
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I doubt this would work. To be effective nationally, you need a broad base. A lot of the conservative, Christian electorate isn't going to vote for high taxation and redistribution. So either you become more moderate (in which case you're just *Democrats-lite), or you try to draw in the urban poor to vote for you. Which means you need to start saying pretty socialist stuff (even if you don't call it that).
Long story short: there's a reason the Populists didn't break through in OTL. They were essentially a regionalist phenomenon. The divisions as suggested in this scenario would make it harder for them, not easier.
I mean that describes most of the country at this point, their are diffrences in fervor but We were most certainly a religous society and appealing to that could have alot of broad appeal. But as I said, you have the denominatiol problem (Dirty Papists) to breaking into cities and as you said saying socialist stuff. That said i do doubt your conviction that Social Democratic style politics would not work. Theres a reason that Teddy was one of the most popular Presidents, alot of it was indeed his bluster and general bad assery but his Policies did carry the day with Millions. If neither party adopts them ITTL (which is possible) then the Populists have room to fill.
Yeah thats essentially true. As said with the denominatiol issue, its going to be very hard for them to break out there.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Where are the Democrats and Republicans likely to stand on other issues, so long as different party politics emerge here? @Skallagrim projects their platforms "mini-flipping" on global trade, and my guess is that immigration would meet a similar fate. That is, the cosmopolitan GOP styling themselves as the party of immigrants and multiculturalism (by late nineteenth and early twentieth century standards anyway), while the conservative Democrats want more restrictions in the interest of preventing mass-voter importation and promoting assimilation of those who do come here. At least IOTL, I think that immigration laws were threadbare before the twentieth century rolled around. And I assume it'd start out pretty much the same way here, albeit with the parties taking inverted stances.
As it again relates to trade, I'm wondering if small-government-across-the-board Democrats who stay true to their free-trade roots will either become a dissenting faction within their party, or if they'll split off to basically become "Libertarians come early" (or something like that)? Contrariwise, I'm curious as to whether pro-tariff Republicans could break ranks with their increasingly pro-globalization party in a similar fashion?
As it again relates to trade, I'm wondering if small-government-across-the-board Democrats who stay true to their free-trade roots will either become a dissenting faction within their party, or if they'll split off to basically become "Libertarians come early" (or something like that)? Contrariwise, I'm curious as to whether pro-tariff Republicans could break ranks with their increasingly pro-globalization party in a similar fashion?
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Keep in mind that nineteenth century immigration politics were... tricky. The country was also more regionalist, so one party could appeal to Irish immigrants in New York while voicing anti-Catholic rhetoric in staunchly Protestant regions. As far as immigration was concerned, a lot depended on the politician, rather than his party.
Insofar as a general nation-wide party platform goes, I could see things going both ways in the late 19th and early 20th century:
-- The Republicans would certainly be the party embracing the stuff the Progressives did in OTL. That is: vocal nationalism, the idea of the 'unhyphenated American' (a.k.a. "you must assimilate!"), and eugenicist social ideals ("less desirable groups must be pruned out via selection"). They are also the pro-tariff party, proving that barriers to, ah... imports... are well within their policy agenda. This suggests they could become the (more extensively) anti-immigration party. Note also that the proposed Blaine Amendment (a deliberately anti-Catholic measure) was a Republican plan, and that (after it failed federally) it was adopted at the state level... primarily by Republican legislators.
-- The Democrats would be the more decentralist party, defending a small, hand-off government. Policies to re-shape people's identities would be somewhat beyond the scope of their ideal government, and they'd presumably seek to relegate decisions on such policies to the individual states. They are also the free trade party, which in turn suggests they have a natural sympathy to open(ish) borders. Locally, Bourbon Democrats tended to do better with Catholics than Republicans. This didn't damage the Democratic appeal in the Protestant South one bit. (Indeed, the Republicans at one point infamously decried the Democrats as "a party whose antecedents have been Rum, Romanism and Rebellion".)
-- However, the Republicans would also be the party of big business, and big business loves itself some heap immgrant labour. And indeed, we see that by the early 20th century -- in the progressive era -- the Rooseveltians (first as Republicans, later as Democrats) begin stressing the "unhyphenated American" ideal precisely as an attempt to render immigrants' backgrounds irrelevant and make them into an acceptable and useful bloc in support to the Progressive cause. We might expect something similar in the ATL.
-- Meanwhile, the Democrats would always be a bit ambivalent about immigration. Presumably, their attitude would be a response to the Republican one.
So all in all, I'd expect both parties to be luke-warm overall (and flip-floppy as leading figures fluctuate) on the issue initially. Eventually, in the 20th century, I'd expect the moneyed interest to win out for the Republicans, and for them to follow the Progressive line of OTL: yes to immigration, with a focus on rigid assimilation (particularly of Catholics). The Democrats, in turn, would oppose the overbearing governmental attempts to re-shape society and its denizens, and would probably take the opposite position: close the borders (at least to a meaningful extent), and then the limited immigrant groups already present will simply be absorbed soon enough.
This will probably go hand-in-hand with the flip on trade. The changed Republian position goes along with their shift to support free trade (and is informed by the same economic motives), and the new Democratic position goes along with their emerging protectionist and isolationist tendencies.
In short: I think we'd end up at the point you outlined, but I don't think the parties would have inverted stances from the start (or even early on). This would take shape over time.
There will no doubt be such a faction of Democrats, just as there will be protectionist Republicans even after that party becomes primarily a free trade club. These will, I think, be fringe players within their own parties -- who occasionally have a surge of success and gain a bit of influence. Think of Tea Party Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats in OTL.
Some will no doubt split off, too. I give them the same odds of success I give the Libertarian Party in OTL. That is: none at all. By existing, they can influence public views and public debate to some extent -- but, much like (say) a Ron Paul, they will only have electoral success on a national scope by hitching their ride to one of the big parties. And even then, they're just going to be "that quirky fringe Congressman with the pet obsession" to most of the populace.
The American system for political parties, at the end of the day, is much like the Sith: "Always two, there are. No more, no less."
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
I rather doubt that events to follow would go down this way, since Tilden winning in 1876 would let lots of unpredictable butterflies loose. But, since it's relevant insofar as American politics to come go...
Alternate History - Samuel Tilden Wins 1876 Election
Personally, I found it a fun (but implausible) video. Albeit, one hinged on some dubious key assumptions--certain OTL presidential candidates even being born, the Democrats and GOP adopting platforms like those of their OTL counterparts, and so on.
Alternate History - Samuel Tilden Wins 1876 Election
Personally, I found it a fun (but implausible) video. Albeit, one hinged on some dubious key assumptions--certain OTL presidential candidates even being born, the Democrats and GOP adopting platforms like those of their OTL counterparts, and so on.
Definitely agree that many of the latter candidates wouldn't exist with a POD in 1876 and also its likely that wider political and economic issues would have changed. Your unlikely to have a world depression in 2008 or and Iranian hostage crisis in 1980 and quite possibly WWI and the 1929 depression could well have been avoided or greatly altered in terms of their date and course. Think its basically that without a lot of wild guesses as to what might be happening in any period you can't really say anything so they go with historical figures and events to give it a grounding that most people would understand.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
I was thinking about something like that, especially in regards to how the Average Joe probably doesn’t understand the butterfly effect. But if it’s realism you’re looking for, then the above scenario is too modeled off of OTL history to sound plausible to me.
Beyond the party-flipping prognosis above, though, I’d still guess p that TTL will share similarities with ours in the broad strokes—America still becoming a formidable world power, tensions still growing between European nations, and so on. The precise minutia of how these trends differ and what they’ll lead to down the road is best left up to some mix of logical guesswork and impressionism to sketch out, I suppose. Though, barring ROB providing us a window into a “Tilden wins” TL or something like that, we’ll never know with perfect accuracy.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
I don't think Tilden would be able to push his policies because he's facing a major threat within his own party: the Dixiecrats, i.e. the Southern Democrats aka the group that went for succession and caused the civil war.
Tilden would likely have to stop pushing for bureaucratic reform so hard as the Dixies don't want a part of it and want it to keep their stranglehold in the former CSA. Given that the Dixies are -up until Nixon and Reagan during the late '60s and early '70s respectively, after which the Dixies switched parties and became part of the GOP- the power base for the Democrats in the South... I wouldn't be surprised that if Tilden actually tried to push for his reforms he might get the good ol' Huey Long treatment...
Tilden would likely have to stop pushing for bureaucratic reform so hard as the Dixies don't want a part of it and want it to keep their stranglehold in the former CSA. Given that the Dixies are -up until Nixon and Reagan during the late '60s and early '70s respectively, after which the Dixies switched parties and became part of the GOP- the power base for the Democrats in the South... I wouldn't be surprised that if Tilden actually tried to push for his reforms he might get the good ol' Huey Long treatment...
Skallagrim
Well-known member
The Southern Democrats voted for Tilden enthousiastically, knowing full well that he'd kill Reconstruction as soon as he could. They'd be all for reform policies, because for the Democrats, the ideal of federal reform went hand-in-hand with "leave to the states whatever can be left to the states". There's absolutely no reason for them to clash with Tilden, because his reforms only involved the federal government, and not only left the states alone, but actively aimed to reduce federal power over the states.
I see no conflict of interest there. The Democratic Southerners didn't see Tilden as "one of ours", but they certainly saw him as politically aligned with their interests.
I wonder if Charles Guiteau decides to kill Tilden in 1881 if Tilden wins reelection in 1880 due to Guiteau possibly believing that the 1880 election absolutely had to have been rigged in such a scenario since he couldn't possibly imagine how the Republicans could lose in 1880 after he gave such a great speech in favor of their candidate!
Do you think that Tilden gets reelected in 1880 in this TL? And who would his GOP opponent have been in 1880 in this TL?
Which Republican do you think wins in 1884? Garfield?