1884 Western Alliance Convention

[Zioneer]

I will relent in my policy of always voting for Mormons if the rest of my fellows prefer Weaver or Harrison. Otherwise, I'm going with Smith, though as of now I haven't voted yet.

[Zioneer]

People's Alliance is good to me. What does Zioneer think?

Sounds good to me. If this becomes a formal thing, we can come up with a different name latter.

EDIT: Also, voted Smith, though I would be alright with Harrison, or even Gibson. I would prefer a Mormon/Non-Mormon, or a Non-Mormon/Mormon ticket.

Weaver I dislike for his immigration stance and his potential racism (though yes, glass houses and all that).

[Zioneer]

Anyone but Weaver, please. He's atrocious.

Shall we flip a coin, Zioneer? Smith/Harrison vs. Harrison/Smith? Or shall we wait and see how this plays out?

I believe Dereich has my answer right there. But I'd prefer to see how this goes for now, and only do a coin-flip if Weaver is getting too much support.

[Zioneer]

Weaver/Smith

Is Smith/Harrison or Harrison/Smith not an acceptably liberal ticket for you? Weaver is a nativist, after all.

Weaver would help push one of the major parties in a more economically liberal populist direction.  However, I'll abide by the results of the convention, at the end of the day what matters is beating Cleveland not petty partisan differences  I will admit that Weaver's position on immigration is unfortunate, but I think his positives outweigh his negatives.  We're probably going to be entering an era in which the political debate will be dominated by liberal populism vs. corporatism.  I think folks like Weaver, Bryan, Debs, and especially John P. Altgeld (who will hopefully become President at some point) are better suited for that fight than men like Gibson, Harrison, and Smith (and I don't mean that has a knock on any of those individuals).  On a different note, will present-day Mormons be really liberal in this timeline?  That'd certainly be an interesting (and welcome) development.  I suppose time will tell

Well, the Mormons turned economically conservative basically because the Feds told them that that would be one of the requirements for Utah's admittance as a state and the re-opening of the LDS temples (as they had been closed during the 1870s-80s due to the Feds legally dissolving the church for illegal practice of polygamy). Up until then, the Mormons had a ton of economically progressive programs (such as the United Order, and similar ideas).

In fact, Joseph F. Smith was part of the LDS Leadership when they said this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they didn't have to give up economic progressiveness in order to free their church and make Utah a state, Mormons would've remained incredibly economically leftist.

[Zioneer]

Weaver/Smith

Is Smith/Harrison or Harrison/Smith not an acceptably liberal ticket for you? Weaver is a nativist, after all.

Weaver would help push one of the major parties in a more economically liberal populist direction.  However, I'll abide by the results of the convention, at the end of the day what matters is beating Cleveland not petty partisan differences  I will admit that Weaver's position on immigration is unfortunate, but I think his positives outweigh his negatives.  We're probably going to be entering an era in which the political debate will be dominated by liberal populism vs. corporatism.  I think folks like Weaver, Bryan, Debs, and especially John P. Altgeld (who will hopefully become President at some point) are better suited for that fight than men like Gibson, Harrison, and Smith (and I don't mean that has a knock on any of those individuals).  On a different note, will present-day Mormons be really liberal in this timeline?  That'd certainly be an interesting (and welcome) development.  I suppose time will tell

Well, the Mormons turned economically conservative basically because the Feds told them that that would be one of the requirements for Utah's admittance as a state and the re-opening of the LDS temples (as they had been closed during the 1870s-80s due to the Feds legally dissolving the church for illegal practice of polygamy).

How exactly did that work? The feds literally just told them to "become economically conservative?"

Well, essentially the Feds told the Mormons to stop the quasi-socialistic practices that separated them from the rest of America, and to tone down on cooperative/communitarian efforts like ZCMI. The Mormons further distanced themselves from socialism after the first Red Scare (the 1910s one), and by the time the famous Red Scare happened, they became fiscally conservative and very anti-communist (see Ezra Taft Benson for an example).

Another requirement was to make Utah a swing state (Utah was a staunchly Democratic territory at the time), which the Mormon leader solved by literally dividing congregations down the aisle and telling one side to be Republicans, and the other side Democrats. Utah remained Democratic for a while, but eventually became a mildly swing state until going over entirely to Republicans in 1968.

Yet another requirement was to remove a phrase in the temple rituals that involved vowing to "avenge the prophet Joseph Smith". Obviously that wouldn't be a problem in this TL, as Joseph Smith presumably died of old age here.

Another requirement was to turn over most of Utah's lands to the government, who would make them public lands. Utah is still the most government-owned state, and a promise to never seek ownership of the public lands is still in our state constitution.

And of course, the main requirement was to dissolve the practice of polygamy, which the LDS Church slowly did, first by forbidding new plural marriages (which happened in secret anyway), and then to clamp down on them entirely (which is why people like Warren Jeffs had to live on compounds and start his own church).

As a side note, in this TL, black people being denied the priesthood probably wouldn't happen, as Elijah Abels (the first black priesthood holder) was a Manifest candidate multiple times.

[Zioneer]

Typical problem with left-wingers in this game is they actively & vocally plan out their world domination to an annoying extent. It's understandable that yes, your guys are due for a victory or two about now, but I've always been uncomfortable with you guys lining up your little social democratic ducks in a row & being so open about it.

Sorry Cathcon. I actually would like more randomness and new issues in the game (like a war or two), but that's just me. I'm just thinking about how my end of the Radical party would probably do things.

[Zioneer]

Before this ends, I'd just like to repeat my support for a Harrison/Smith or a Smith/Harrison ticket.

[Zioneer]

Before this ends, I'd just like to repeat my support for a Harrison/Smith or a Smith/Harrison ticket.

What about Harrison/Weaver?

Well, from what I understand Weaver is anti-immigrant... And at this moment in history (which will likely remain the same in this instance), many Mormons are British or Scandinavian immigrants. So I don't know if Weaver would want to reconcile with the Mormon faction within the Radicals. Harrison though, I have no problem with him.

EDIT: Oops, misread your question, I thought you mentioned Smith in your post. I personally would prefer a Mormon somewhere on the ticket, as there has been a Mormon on the ticket for years. And as I said, the Mormons might be queasy with Weaver. Don't know if the Harrisonites would be uncomfortable with that sort of alliance, though.

[Zioneer]

Before this ends, I'd just like to repeat my support for a Harrison/Smith or a Smith/Harrison ticket.

What about Harrison/Weaver?

And at this moment in history (which will likely remain the same in this instance), many Mormons are British or Scandinavian immigrants.

Would you happen to know why this is/was, for curiosity's sake?

Sure: it's where we started preaching first (and were very successful doing so, to the point that there were hundreds of converts for every missionary), and was during the period when LDS leaders advised converts to come to Utah/America as opposed to building communities in their homelands (which is why there are such small British/Scandinavian Mormon communities now; most of the converts left for Utah).

In fact, we had several British and Scandinavian LDS leaders; George Q Cannon, George Teasdale, even prophet John Taylor on the British side, with apostles John A Widtsoe and Anthon Lund on the Scandinavian side, from a quick glance at the Wiki list. Most people in modern Utah either have English or Scandinavian names.

In fact, before the Civil War, the anti-Mormons were afraid that all the immigrants Mormons were bringing in were abolitionists and would vote to abolish slavery in Missouri and Illinois. That was one of the reasons the Mormons were attacked and hated, as the Missourians and Illinoisans were still pro-slavery. Literally, one of the recorded accusations against Joseph Smith was essentially "aaagh he'll convert the slaves and Indians and bring in British abolitionists to get rid of slavery". Of course, Smith wasn't entirely innocent of that accusation, as he did ordain Elijah Abels, a former slave, as a priest.

Also Smith was very, very cagey in dealing with slavery; he claimed that he wouldn't convert slaves without the permission of their masters, and claimed he wasn't an abolitionist, but at the same time ran for president on the platform of buying slaves from their owners and freeing them.