Crimson Banners Fly: The Rise of the American Left Revisited

[Pyro]

The Campaigns of Bryan and Harrison (left to right) - Sources: Wiki Commons and ULIB

Polls opened to the public on the morning of November 3rd. Both Bryan and Harrison campaigned vigorously and down to the wire, with the former concluding his speaking tour in Omaha, Nebraska. Editorial partisans representing both parties assured the public that their preferred candidate would win in a landslide despite inconclusive evidence to that end - although it could be argued that side in this electoral fight had positive signs to point to. German-Americans, by and large, supported the Republican ticket while farmers and unskilled workers in the South planted their flag in the Democratic camp.

Everyone expected a high turnout and throughout Election Day this appeared to be the case. Of those eligible, 79.9% voted. The big question, and perhaps the one which stood to decide this election, was who industrial workers in the Midwest would support. Harrison played to the demand for stability, offering this demographic the promise of protectionism and low prices. Bryan, on the other hand, appealed to their sense of hope, pledging an increased money supply and a more equitable America.

As predicted, Harrison swept the entire Northeastern United States, winning traditional Republican strongholds like Massachusetts and Connecticut with upwards of 60% of the total vote. This far exceeded their numbers in 1892 or 1888 against Grover Cleveland and put a damper on any hopes that the Democrats would make a breakthrough in this region. Similarly, Bryan lost New Jersey, a state won by the Democratic candidates for president since 1876, by a stunning 18%. Harrison conquered New York State as well, earning about 51% of the vote and all but six of its 60 counties. In the aftermath of the election, the rather confident win for the Republicans in the Empire State was attributed to the efforts of Governor Morton and the state machine.

Shifting further down the Mid-Atlantic, we find further bad news for Representative Bryan in his loss of Pennsylvania to former President Harrison. Unlike New Jersey and New York, Pennsylvania had a record for tilting Republican, but in 1896 it awarded Harrison victory with a giant 57% to Bryan's 39%: the party's best margin since Ulysses S. Grant's 62% in 1872. The orator from Nebraska did manage secure majority wins in Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, yet he could not replicate Cleveland's past victories in Delaware and Maryland. West Virginia was more of a nail-biter, however it was called for Bryan with 5,800 votes separating the candidates.

The Solid South remained the South Solid. Bryan, as some conservatives in his party fear-mongered, did not loosen the grip of the Democratic hold over the American South. From the Carolinas to Texas, Harrison suffered defeats identical to those he encountered in 1888 and 1892. Populists broke hard for Bryan and, as such, likely assisted in his majority win in North Carolina (Cleveland only carried the Tar Heel State by a plurality four years prior).

Aside from the traditional Democratic bases in the South, Bryan performed best in the mostly rural American West. Farmers, laborers, and rail workers ensured the Democratic candidate across-the-board wins in every U.S. state west of the Mississippi River other than Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota. This had been detrimental to the Harrison Campaign who was absolutely convinced in their ability to win California and Oregon. Harrison himself defeated Cleveland in California in 1888, yet, because of the strength of the Populists and Bryan's appeal to small farmers in the Central Valley region, history would not repeat itself for the Hoosier's benefit.

In order to win the Electoral Vote, the victorious candidate required a minimum of 224 EVs in 1896. With all of the above figures in tow, Bryan held 206 to Harrison's 153. All that remained was the deeply contested Industrial Midwest. It is notable that four of the remaining five states were rather close - with Wisconsin as the exception. Harrison defeated Bryan in the Badger State, 56% to 41%. The second closest state in the region was Illinois. Leaving aside its aggressive campaign to corral the voters of Chicago, Rockford and Springfield, the Democratic machines in these cities could not withstand the organization of the Harrison Campaign. Harrison was awarded all 24 EVs in Illinois.

Michigan was the next closest in terms of the raw vote count, delivering Harrison 51% to Bryan's 45%. Then, to the extreme embarrassment of former President Harrison, Indiana, his home state, reported a Bryan score by a margin of 20,000 votes. At long last, in Ohio, following a strenuous outreach to industrial laborers and a carefully orchestrated pro-Bryan bombardment by the Cincinnati Enquirer, Bryan won by a tiny margin of 3,506 votes.

[Pyro]

The Election of 1896: Final Results

[Elcaspar]

Can't wait to see what's in store for a Bryan Presidency. Keep up the good work!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Can't wait to see what's in store for a Bryan Presidency. Keep up the good work!

[Orwell]

Can't wait to see what's in store for a Bryan Presidency. Keep up the good work!

I can't agree with this more, Pyro you're writing an excellent timeline, I hope that Morris Hillquit, Meyer London, Emil Seidel, and Eugene Debs make an appearance later in this timeline. 

[Snazzrazz Mazzlejazz]

President WJB is always an exciting thing. I hope he does well in the coming years.

[Pyro]

Can't wait to see what's in store for a Bryan Presidency. Keep up the good work!

Can't wait to see what's in store for a Bryan Presidency. Keep up the good work!

I can't agree with this more, Pyro you're writing an excellent timeline, I hope that Morris Hillquit, Meyer London, Emil Seidel, and Eugene Debs make an appearance later in this timeline. 

President WJB is always an exciting thing. I hope he does well in the coming years.

Thanks, everyone! Always appreciate feedback.

[Pyro]

1896 Congressional Elections      

Senate
Republican: 44 (+2)
Democratic: 34 (-7)
Populist: 5 (+1)
Silver Republican: 5 (+5)
Silver: 2 (0)

House
Republican: 193 (-61)
Democratic: 136 (+43)
Populist: 23 (+14)
Silver Republican: 3 (+3)
Silver: 1 (0)
Independent: 1 (+1)

  House of Representatives Leadership

Speaker Thomas B. Reed (R-MA)
Minority Leader Joseph W. Bailey (D-TX)
Minority Leader John Calhoun Bell (Pop-CO)
Minority Leader John Franklin Shafroth (SR-CO)

The 55th U.S. Congress would remain controlled by the Republican Party. Diverged from the results of the presidential election, the 1896 congressional elections predominantly benefited the Republican Party, albeit with some noteworthy Democratic gains in the House of Representatives and the splinter of pro-Silver Republicans into their own, diminutive party.

Representative Bryan walked away from the presidential election as the winner of the national Popular Vote, and in doing so he picked up states like Ohio and Indiana. The GOP, however, enjoyed uninterrupted majority rule in most Midwest state governments. This endured even after 1896. To the frustration of reformers like Bryan, Constitutional law then determined that only state legislatures were entrusted with the power to appoint representatives to the United States Senate. Therefore, Ohio delivered wins to both Democrat Bryan as well as Republican Joseph B. Foraker.

This phenomenon repeated in a slew of other states that year, further bolstering the Republican Senate majority and too the drive for a Constitutional amendment for the direct election of senators. Republican challengers resoundingly defeated Democratic incumbents including Senators John M. Palmer (IL), copperhead Daniel W. Voorhees (D-IN), and Rules Committee Chairman of the 53rd Congress Joseph C.S. Blackburn (D-KY). Charles W. Fairbanks (R-IN), known for his well-received keynote address at the Republican National Convention, succeeded Voorhees in Indiana.

Senator David B. Hill (D-NY), the Bourbon Democrat once considered a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, failed in his re-election effort, allowing for the re-ascension of Republican Thomas C. Platt to that office. Platt, once a "Stalwart" Republican and a friend to controversial Senator Roscoe Conkling (R-NY), retired the office in 1881 in the midst of a factional disagreement with President James Garfield. He now returned to the Senate intent on disrupting the agenda of President-elect Bryan.

John C. Spooner (R-WI) also won re-election to the Senate, defeating his once-successor, William F. Vilas (D-WI). Spooner, a corporate lawyer and incredibly influential policymaker, previously assisted in developing the Sherman Antitrust Act's powers to prosecute Standard Oil, Co. Although Spooner lost his seat in an 1890 Democratic wave to Vilas, a conservative Democrat and an architect of the National Democratic Party, the Wisconsin statesman re-entered the legislature in March of 1897.

Three individuals were elected to represent the People's Party in the 55th Senate (in addition to two not up for re-election): Confederate veteran William A. Harris (Pop-KS), minister James H. Kyle (Pop-SD), and Henry Heitfeld (Pop-ID). Of these, only Heitfeld, having won a closely contested battle with pro-Silver Senator Fred Dubois (R-ID), would arrive to Washington D.C. as a freshman senator.

  

Senators Elected in 1896 (Class 3)

Edmund Pettus (D-AL): Democratic Hold
James K. Jones (D-AR): Democratic Hold
George Perkins (R-CA): Republican Hold
Henry M. Teller (SR-CO): Silver Republican Gain
Orville H. Platt (R-CT): Republican Hold
*Stephen Mallory II (D-FL): Democratic Gain
Alexander S. Clay (D-GA): Democratic Hold
Henry Heitfeld (Pop-ID): Populist Gain
William E. Mason (R-IL): Republican Gain
Charles W. Fairbanks (R-IN): Republican Gain
William B. Allison (R-IA): Republican Hold
William A. Harris (P-KS): Populist Hold
William J. Deboe (R-KY): Republican Gain
Samuel D. McEnery (D-LA): Democratic Hold
George L. Wellington (R-MD): Republican Gain
George G. Vest (D-MO): Democratic Hold
John P. Jones (Silver-NV): Silver Hold
Jacob Gallinger (R-NH): Republican Hold
Thomas C. Platt (R-NY): Republican Gain
Jeter Pritchard (R-NC): Republican Hold
Henry C. Hansbrough (R-ND): Republican Hold
Joseph B. Foraker (R-OH): Republican Gain
*Joseph Simon (R-OR): Republican Gain
Boies Penrose (R-PA): Republican Hold
Joseph Earle (D-SC): Democratic Hold
James H. Kyle (Pop-SD): Populist Hold
Joseph Lafayette Rawlins (D-UT): Democratic Gain
Justin S. Morrill (R-VT): Republican Hold
George Turner (SR-WA): Silver Republican Gain
John C. Spooner (R-WI): Republican Gain

*The Florida and Oregon state legislatures failed to elect its senators. They would fill both vacancies in 1897 as noted.

[Pyro]

William J. Bryan, 25th President of the United States - Source: Wiki Commons

Part 2: Virtuous Cause

Chapter III: Temerity and Reaction: The Bryan Presidency

The unthinkable transpired. By a fluke of the gods, it appeared as though William Jennings Bryan would now be President of the United States. Republicans were dumbfounded when reporters called the election for the congressman. How was it that an evangelical orator from the American Prairie able to defeat the mighty alliance of Republican machine politicking and exuberant corporate power?

The prime reaction among Republicans leaders, at first, was pure disbelief. On November 4th and 5th, Republican National Committee Chairman Garret Hobart contested the count in Ohio, alleging widespread fraud and corruption from Democratic-held districts. Publications like The Nation outright refused to refer to Bryan as the president-elect, distributing headlines assuring its readership that the election was growing closer as the count progressed. The fretting only subsided once Governor McKinley firmly opted against declaring his state's vote suspect, to the dismay of the national party. 

On November 6th, Harrison finally conceded the race and Chairman Hobart ended all attempts to contest the legitimacy of the election. Harrison gave no official statement to the press, but Hobart released a brief dispatch. In it, he admitted that the election results were final and, regardless of how narrow the margins proved to be, that he would yield to the voice of the voters. "The nation has selected its next president in Mr. Bryan. [...] As Chief Executive, Mr. Bryan will have earned the trust by the millions of patriotic Americans who cast their votes for Benjamin Harrison. They adhere to the majority of the office and believe in the validity of the result. We shall nonetheless continue our work to secure growth for American markets and encourage enterprise with the restorative properties of protection and sound money."

When the election was said and done, Republicans and Bourbons next convinced themselves that the economy would plummet into a deeper depression. Treasury Secretary John G. Carlisle (D-KY) relayed these fears in a correspondence with President Cleveland, gossiping that men on Wall Street, "expressed immeasurable apprehension at the very idea of [Bryan's] succession." He offered that the nation would erupt into a new banking panic the precise moment of inauguration, "that may well dwarf that of 1893.". However, such calamity never came. The American economy remained weakened in its state of early recovery, but it did not collapse further from the news of Bryan's win. Unemployment rates did not increase and gold specie hovered at the same trading value throughout November. Conservatives later accredited the resilience of the economy to their continued hold on Congress.

For Democrats, this was no less than an astounding victory. Few expected Bryan to pull off this grand upset, and fewer still believed he could carry a plurality in the Popular Vote. Upon the news of Benjamin Harrison's defeat, joyous Democrats held rousing parades in towns and cities all across the nation. From New York City to San Francisco, men and women marched in syncopation with a newfound sense of optimism for the future. Bryan himself was greeted by enormous crowds at his home in Lincoln, Nebraska in the aftermath of his win, to which he cheerfully reiterated portions of his famed Cross of Gold speech. Observers reflected that this sole front-porch display far outmatched, audience-wise, any of the similar events held by Harrison.

On Thursday, March 4th, 1897, William Jennings Bryan was sworn in as the 25th President of the United States. Overlooking a sea of supporters from all corners of the country, Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller administered the oath of office to the newcomer. Bryan, as one may imagine, delivered a memorable inaugural address to the hungry crowd.

I want you to understand the campaign which we have had to fight. They have told us that the great interests of society were against us. Yes, certain great interests have been. The trusts have been against us, but the trusts are no more against me than I am against the trusts. The syndicates which have been selling bonds for the government are against me, but, my friends, they have reason to be, because, from this day, they will no longer bleed the American people. They say that the corporations are against us. Yes, many of them are, and they have reason to be, because we believe that the corporation is a creature of law and that the government which created it is still greater than the corporation and should compel it to obey the law.

I realize that the great corporations, trusts, syndicates and combinations of wealth are against us, but I remember that they were against Andrew Jackson in the same fight that we are making today. They were powerful before the people, but when the time to vote came the people were greater than the combination. My friends, this campaign has demonstrated the desire for to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, not a government of syndicates by syndicates and for syndicates.

I will promise you that no power in this country or in any foreign land will prevent the restoration of the money of the Constitution among our people. The work that lies before a president who goes into the office with a desire to reform the financial policy and to drive the trusts and syndicates from this land, will be hard enough if he is supported by the people; his work would be impossible if he were not supported by the them. Here, today, we know now that the people have chosen to fight for freedom from this curse of gold. They tell us that we must bow down and worship the golden calf. I say, my friends, that the American people did not bow down. They have voted to restore the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and lead in the restoration of bimetallism throughout the world.

My friends, for all that you have done, for all that you have said, for all that you have felt, I beg to thank you and assure you that whatever may come, it shall be my desire, and I shall prize it, to know that I have obtained your respect, your confidence and your esteem; and it shall be the saddest day of my life if any word or act of mine shall make any person in this vast throng to regret a single kindly thought that he has felt toward me.

          William Jennings Bryan, Inaugural Address Excerpt, March 4th, 1897

[Pyro]

President Bryan Inaugural Ceremony - Source: Wiki Commons

Mr. Bryan, Mrs. Bryan, and their three children moved into their new, executive living quarters upon inauguration - a far cry from the Bryan residence in Nebraska. Not one to be enthused with the opulent comforts granted to him by his new title, Bryan impatiently, yet graciously, endured the ceremonies traditionally associated with inauguration. During this, he introduced himself, and his family, to the White House staff. As described by presidential historian H. William Ackerman, Bryan adapted quickly to his new surroundings and fostered a fond relationship with the domestic workers of the Executive Mansion.

The replacement of a tired and fat Grover Cleveland with the young, determined Bryan perfectly encapsulated the shifting from one age in American politics to the next. Cleveland was said to have ran the Executive Branch much like a boss runs a factory. That is, demanding the unquestioning respect and obedience of his workforce. Bryan led differently. He did not find comfort in barking orders nor being treated like royalty by members of staff. By all accounts, he saw himself as one of them, only lifted to his new role by the grace of God with the divine purpose of delivering justice to America. That, and not the title of president, garnered him the sort of respect Cleveland never had.

         H. William Ackerman, Presidents of the Gilded Age, 2016

Regardless of his strength as a presidential candidate to repel mudslinging and name-calling by the Republican opposition, Bryan could not argue against the claim that he was not a seasoned veteran of the complex affairs of Washington. The Nebraskan served only a short while in Congress, and in that position found the task of networking beyond his own sect of Silver Democrats nigh impossible. To make matters worse, many of the Democrats who served alongside Bryan in the 53rd House of Representatives, like his close ally Representative William M. Springer (D-IL), had been shuffled out since 1894.

President Bryan's solution lied in his next problem: the Cabinet. When it came to filling the array of vacant positions allocated to the Cabinet, Bryan focused not only on suitable policy chops as a base prerequisite for his candidates, but their capability to build bridges with those who otherwise opposed his objectives. "He had no other choice," writes O'Conner. "You would be hard pressed to find any Bryan measure finding passage through the 55th Congress without compromise. Not only did Republicans hold insurmountable majorities in both the House and Senate, but the Bourbons remained a prominent obstacle as well."

Bryan, with Vice President McLean and Chairman James K. Jones (D-AR) of the Democratic National Committee, finalized their plan for a suitable, conciliatory Cabinet and began the process of submitting the candidates to Congress. In an effort to demonstrate his willingness to accommodate bipartisanship, Bryan composed his Cabinet as such. To reward the Populists for their choice to cross-nominate Bryan, he presented Congressman William A. Harris (Pop-KS) with the position of Agriculture Secretary. For the purpose of placating Southerners eager to see themselves represented in the new administration, the president appointed former Governor James S. Hogg (D-TX) as Secretary of the Interior. Meant as an olive branch to the Old Guard, Bryan retained Bourbon Democrat William L. Wilson as Postmaster General and granted gold-bug Representative George B. McClellan, Jr. (D-NY) with the position of Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Finally, Representative George Washington Steele (R-IN), a Republican and Civil War veteran, was designated Secretary of War.

Congress typically did not spar with the president over Cabinet appointments, but Bryan, nonetheless, desired to avoid instigating any early battles with the legislature. Therefore, although he did procure congressional approval for pro-Silver Governor Horace Boies (D-IA) as Treasury Secretary, he resisted calls from Silver Democrats to appoint former Governor Sylvester Pennoyer (D-OR) to the office of Attorney General. The pro-labor Pennoyer, more so than any other potential choice, would have practically guaranteed a drawn-out battle in the House. Bryan instead chose the oft-agreeable, moderate Senator George Gray (D-DE).

By tradition and as a show of admiration, Bryan initially planned to offer the role of State Secretary to Democratic runner-up, Representative Richard P. Bland, however, perhaps considering his potential as a leader in the House, he ultimately did not. He also briefly considered Populist leader Thomas E. Watson, the candidate chosen by the People's Party for vice president, for that role in his Cabinet, but this too he opted against. He eventually settled on Missouri Governor William Joel Stone (D-MO): a DNC member and an opponent of expansionism. Stone accepted and took his place in the president's premier committee.

The Bryan Cabinet

Office		Name
President		William J. Bryan
Vice President		John R. McLean
Sec. of State		William J. Stone
Sec. of Treasury		Horace Boies
Sec. of War		George W. Steele
Attorney General		George Gray
Postmaster General		William L. Wilson
Sec. of the Navy		George F. Williams
Sec. of Interior		James S. Hogg
Sec. of Agriculture		William A. Harris

[Pyro]

Puck Magazine Anti-Silver Cartoon - Source: Wiki Commons

President Bryan won his seat on a platform of federal regulation and currency modification, and he considered achievement on both fronts paramount to long-term progress. The young president demanded it be done, and his base was no less enthusiastic. Letters addressed to "The Great Commoner" poured in, congratulating Bryan on his new role and noting support for the Democratic platform. Some desired prompt action on immigration. Others recommended a clean tariff bill. Nearly all Bryan supporters hoped for new bimetallism legislation.

The Nebraskan chose the latter as his first major challenge and intended to utilize as much political capital as was necessary to see it through. Pressing the silver issue would be no easy task for Bryan, however. The Republicans leading Congress would not waver in their staunch opposition to ending the gold standard. Every last GOP congressman worth a modicum of relevance in the 1890s marched in lockstep with RNC Chairman Hobart's call to resist Bryan's reform efforts. They had certainly conceded the White House, but surrendering the power of the legislature was another matter entirely.

Speaker Reed reportedly corresponded with the president regarding this very issue shortly following the inaugural ceremonies. Reed, according to historians familiar with his head-space in early 1897, plainly expressed to Bryan that passage of his coinage reform measure would prove impossible. It mattered little to the House speaker that Bryan won the national vote on a platform of Free Silver. Reed, like his Republican colleagues, decided that the rightful defense of 'sound money' superseded the will of the voters.

There was no talking him out of something when he had his sights set. I think "stubborn" would be putting it lightly. I remember he spent days at a time in the Oval Office speaking with different men. And by different, I mean it was almost never the same person twice. They were always much older than my father was, probably men thirty, forty years his senior, yet he still equipped his authoritative, paternal voice and never once shrunk down.

         Ruth Bryan Roosevelt (as cited in David Bergman, The First Families: Bryan & Roosevelt , 1969)

President Bryan did not back down from his campaign pledge, and orchestrated the creation of novel currency legislation in July of 1897. Co-written by Henry M. Teller (SR-CO), one of eight Silver Republican congressmen, and Representative Bland, the Coinage Restoration bill detailed the integration of a 16-to-1, silver-to-gold, bimetallist policy into the American system and the repeal of the pro-gold Coinage Act of 1873. Silverites universally applauded the endeavor and urged its swift passing when it was formally introduced in the House that summer.

Prospects for the bill's success were dim from the get-go, but the Bryan Administration believed its chances to be far greater in Czar Reed's House than the vitriolic and unorganized Senate. Perhaps meaning to humiliate President Bryan, Reed eventually allowed for debate. Representative Bland spoke at length to the pros of the coinage legislation, as did Representatives Nicholas Cox (D-TN) and John Shafroth (SR-CO). House Republicans were not unanimous in their disapproval, with Western Republicans like Shafroth indicating their intention to vote in favor of the measure. The entire Eastern establishment was opposed, however, and Bourbon Democrats proved just as uninterested.

Even including supportive Republicans, Bryan learned that the numbers simply did not support the agenda for Free Silver in either house of Congress. Senator Augustus Bacon (D-GA) influenced several Democrats in the upper house to move closer to Bryan's point of view, in addition to those rallied by Teller on the Republican side of the aisle, but the sheer extent to which pro-gold sentiment permeated Congress was overwhelming. It was detrimental news to the once-optimistic president, for if he could not secure passage of this, then how well could his other legislative plans fare?

[Elcaspar]

The propects for passing almost any legislation is looking dim for Bryan.

[Orwell]

Could Bryan relent on 16:1 and move to 30:1?

[Pyro]

The S.S. Excelsior Departing San Francisco, July 28th, 1897 - Source: Wiki

The Free Silver Movement, in the decade leading to Bryan's inauguration, spurred not only the rise of the Silver Democrats and their consolidation of power in the national party, but it boosted the popularity of the Populists and tore at Republican unity in the Western U.S. Those promoting the expanded coinage of silver toppled the legacy of Grover Cleveland and managed to propel one of their own into the White House in one of the greatest political upsets in the modern era. After all of this, few expected it to collapse as suddenly as it did.

From the wealthiest executives on Wall Street to the tenant workers in the agrarian South, the reality of Free Silver seemed inevitable with Bryan's victory over Harrison. Critics of the ruling class blamed the gold standard, and the mineral's extreme scarcity, for the terror brought on by the financial panics. Famed labor activist Eugene V. Debs, known best for his role in the Pullman Strike, delivered speeches in support of then-Candidate Bryan and his call to abolish the present coinage system in the autumn of 1896.

This is a conflict between American manhood and British gold, between man and the dollar. The dollar has ruled long enough. Under the gold standard, born in 1873, 2 million American workingmen have been reduced to the condition of beggars. [...] It is the corporation that is everything and nothing. They are the ones who think they are interested in the maintenance of the existing gold standard. It is that element which is endeavoring to coerce you. The Republican Party says it is cooperation. Yes, it is the cooperation of the lamb and the wolf.

         Eugene V. Debs, Campaign Speech on Behalf of William Jennings Bryan, Cleveland, October 27th, 1896

At around the same time Debs was equating currency imbalance to class struggle, an American prospecting group along the Klondike River, just short of the Alaskan border, discovered an enormous, untouched gold deposit. Local miners traversed the winter landscape and hastily established impromptu mining colonies along river inlets. Word reached California in mid-July of 1897 when a handful of these pioneers returned with gold in-hand worth an estimated $1.1 million.

News of the prospectors' return assailed the press and provoked a stampede of West Coast residents to the Klondike. Gold-hungry Americans flooded licensing offices with a sudden interest in the mining game, and subsequently scattered to Alaska-bound vessels. The former Governor of Washington, John McGraw (R-WA), and Seattle Mayor W.D. Wood (R-WA) abandoned their homes in search of newfound wealth. Seattle and San Francisco, especially, were hot spots for "Klondicitis," as the phenomenon was named. Today, this event is more commonly referred to as the Klondike Gold Rush.

The natural outcome of this discovery was a major influx of hard gold specie into the U.S. Treasury starting in 1897. Not only was the substance itself now far more plentiful, thus sabotaging the argument that it was only reserved for investors and banking elites, but a recent breakthrough in gold cyanidation simplified the extraction technique and allowed for the growth of refining plants in the United States. This, in conjunction with a steady increase in crop prices over the course of the year, greatly diminished public interest in the concept of Free Silver.

Even with William J. Bryan, the standard bearer for silver coinage, as the sitting president, the pressure on Congress to deliver a radical change in the currency policy diminished with each passing day. Bryan needed to adapt if he wished to garner any sort of worthwhile legacy. Prompted by his Cabinet, the president hesitatingly issued a temporary retreat from his assault on 'sound money' and instead announced plans to combat the mushrooming hegemony of trusts and, more generally, the exploitation of the poor.

[Pyro]

U.S. Capitol, Washington D.C., 1896 - Source: Wiki Commons

Bryan allies in Congress introduced two new pieces of legislation in early December of 1897. The first, known as the American Safeguards bill, was written mostly in response to President Cleveland's notorious treatment of the Pullman strikers (which had been denounced in the 1896 Democratic platform). The legislation flatly stated that federal courts could no longer issue injunctions against nonviolent workers. Initially, this bill included provisions banning anti-union 'yellow-dog contracts' as well as the utilization of private agencies to instigate labor violence, but these were stripped away in a conservatively-bent committee. Other than the most virulent Bourbons, Democrats accepted this bill and unified to defend it.

The Sulzer-Hepburn Bill, named for its co-authors, Representatives William 'Plain Bill' Sulzer (D-NY) and William P. Hepburn (R-IA), called for an expansion of the Interstate Commerce Commission in order to more stringently control the formation of trusts, curtail the consolidation of railroad systems, institute bookkeeping standards, and set maximum rail rates. Members of all three major political factions in Congress seemed to agree on the necessity to implement these regulatory measures. Now their actions needed to match their words.

Just prior to the opening of the second session of Congress on December 6th, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen Johnson Field retired from the bench. Having reached the ripe old age of 80, the rather traditionalist Lincoln appointee decided to vacate his seat on the court and allow for President Bryan to name a successor. "Attorney General Gray," wrote Ackerman, "insisted Bryan conserve his political capital and present Congress with a middle-of-the-road nominee. Boies concurred, concerned with the fate of the trust-busting initiative. Even Rep. Bland wrote to the president, urging he deny any instinct to reshape the highest court. Bryan listened to their advice, but could not be swayed."

To Congress, Bryan floated a name they could not have anticipated: Joseph M. Carey. This individual, then retired, served from 1885 to 1895 as a Republican congressman from Wyoming. Prior to this, he was an associate justice to the Wyoming Territory Supreme Court. Carey was unlike most Republicans of his time, often disputing the mainstream party line on issues of federalism and social issues. In one instance, during the course of congressional debate pertaining to admitting Wyoming to statehood, Carey declared, "Wyoming would wait 100 years for statehood rather than join without women's suffrage." For lack of stronger terminology, the former senator could fairly be described a 'Progressive' before Progressivism.

The president believed that Carey was the perfect candidate, and the Wyomingite took Bryan up on his offer. Some Democrats fumed over what they saw as Bryan's incredulous betrayal of party allegiance. To them, the nomination of a Republican senator was indefensible. Bryan, nonetheless, worked to persuade his party, confiding in them his belief that Carey would further the goals outlined in the Chicago platform. Congressional Republicans, having long since deemed Bryan an inept fool, happily agreed to admit Carey to the bench. Within weeks, Congress near-unanimously approved of Bryan's pick and granted Joseph Carey permission to sit alongside new colleagues on the Fuller Court.

Speaker Reed, considering himself twice victorious in defeating President Bryan, thereafter allowed for the introduction and debate of the Sulzer-Hepburn and American Safeguards bills. The merits and Constitutionality of both measures were discussed at length by members of the House, with support for passage far exceeding that of the Coinage Restoration bill. Conservative Republicans objected to a stipulation in the injunction bill protecting the rights of workers to organize collectively, a conviction shared with the Bourbon minority. An amendment gutting the Safeguards legislation of the pro-union language passed with ease, 225 to 132. Bryan was discouraged by this news, but still sought to pass what he could.

The House passed both measures, in the end. Upon its arrival, the legislation found less resistance in the Senate, where the bulk of its members exhibited favor of passage. A handful of staunch conservatives did remain opposed to Sulzer-Hepburn on the grounds that regulating rates could disrupt the railroad industry. Others, like Senator Platt, remarked that the Supreme Court would simply strike down the anti-trust portions, as they recently managed to do with the Sherman Antitrust Act in United States v. E. C. Knight Co. To the latter charge, Senators Spooner and Cullom, proponents of the Interstate Commerce Act, retorted that the federal government had the power regulate monopolies, trusts and pools since it meant the protection of interstate commerce. The Senate did not alter either bill, passing both with few defections in early April.

[We Live in Black and White]

Wyoming represent.

[Pyro]

Anti-Spain Publication, 1898  - Source: Wiki Commons

Chapter IV: Cuba Libre!: The War and How it Ended

In his final address to Congress in December of 1896, President Grover Cleveland dedicated a section specifically to foreign policy. In response to a recent uprising taking place on the Caribbean island of Cuba, a province held by the sputtering Spanish Empire, the mustachioed president stated that the United States may be forced to intervene if Spain was unable to exercise its authority. In his words, the U.S. acted on behalf of its "higher obligations [...] which is by no means of a wholly sentimental or philanthropic character. [...] It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30 to $50 millions of American capital are invested in the plantations and in the railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island."

Liberty-starved Cuban "insurrectos" rebelled against Spanish colonialism starting in 1895. They, as well as thousands of Cuban workers and peasants, were subsequently brutalized in a series of abhorrent human rights abuses, including indefinite detention in concentration camps. The American yellow press, led by Hearst's New York Journal and Pulitzer's New York World, intensely cataloged this behavior by the Spanish and called for the federal government to forcibly intervene. Initially, neither Grover Cleveland, William Jennings Bryan nor the Republican Congress held the slightest interest in moving toward armed conflict overseas, and both presidents frequently corresponded with Spain in order to sort out the situation in a diplomatic fashion. Likewise, lucrative overseers of American corporations, albeit eager to expand beyond the nation's borders, too feared that war would impede the tenuous economic restoration.

Regardless of their government's anti-war sentiments, Hearst and Pulitzer incessantly pressed the issue all throughout 1896 and 1897. Hearst, especially, derided the conditions faced by the struggling Cuban people in great detail and specificity, garnering a reputation for exaggerated headlines and fictionalized accounts of women prisoners. The mass of these reports centered on the treatment of Cubans by the villainous Governor-General Valeriano Weyler, cited by Hearst as "The Butcher." Hundreds of thousands of Cubans died, and many more suffered, under Weyler's reign. In addition to his crimes against Cuba itself, the general authorized the internment of American citizens residing on the island, thus further incensing the United States citizenry.

Weyler's term finally came to an end with the rise of Spanish Prime Minister Práxedes Mateo Sagasta in October of 1897, but much of the damage had already been done. Even with Weyler's replacement and the reversal of his most malevolent policies, Cuba and its people remained unwillingly married to the Spanish throne. Hearst's reporting continued, undeterred by Weyler's sacking, capitalizing on an exponential rise in sales of the Journal. Sales exploded for the World as well, in addition to the sea of other publications mimicking anti-Spain sentiment.

Some politicians shared Hearst's feelings and directly called on the president to act. Senator Lodge of Massachusetts strongly supported U.S. intervening in the conflict, as did the outspoken former police commissioner of New York City, Theodore Roosevelt. Both found it the responsibility of the nation to protect Western Hemispheric countries at any cost. Roosevelt declared, "We will have this war for the freedom of Cuba in spite of the timidity of the commercial interests," and in confidence famously relented that, "A slice of Boston cream pie has more courage than [Bryan] could care to muster."

President Bryan, like nearly every other American, steadily grew enraged by the management of Cuba under Spanish rule.

Bryan was not immune to the revulsion. He saw the crisis as a moral issue. Cubans pined to win their freedom from a tyrannical European power. They were slaves. Captives of Pharaoh. The capitalists of Spain starved the people of Cuba, ground them down and enslaved them for profit. It was the burden of the United States, Bryan thought, to liberate. To break the chains that bound and scarred the wrists of a downtrodden population.

Spain ignored his plea to grant Cuban autonomy, time and time again. (Spanish Ambassador Enrique) Dupuy de Lôme publicly mocked his naivety and guffawed at the notion that the peasants were worthy of self-rule. Diplomacy was silenced -- drowned out by the reverberating boom of the war drum.

         Benjamin McIntyre, The Workers' Struggle: The Birth of a Columbian International, 2018

Bryan had had enough. Empathizing with the Cuban cause and recognizing his duty to speak with the voice of an outraged public, the president implored Congress pass a formal ultimatum to Spain demanding it relinquish control of its colonial possessions. On February 11th, Bryan spoke directly to the legislature. He proclaimed, "Universal peace cannot come until justice is enthroned throughout the world. Until the right has triumphed in every land and love reigns in every heart, government must, as a last resort, appeal to force."

The House and Senate concurred, passing a joint-declaration by the month's end. President Bryan proudly signed the measure on February 25th and immediately authorized Navy Secretary Williams' issue to blockade Cuba. Spain refused the order and declared war on the United States. For the first time since the Civil War, the U.S. mobilized for armed entanglement.

[Pyro]

Frederic Remington's "Charge of the Rough Riders at San Juan Hill," 1909 - Source: Wiki Commons

The United States was at war. Bryan, firmly believing the conflict a mission to spread democracy, heartily accepted his duties as commander in chief. In his address to Congress, the president pledged that the U.S. would seek engagement in the affairs of Cuba insofar as the rights of its people were concerned. He delivered a blanket repudiation of mistreatment and his glorified Lockean ideals of liberty and freedom, but noticeably did not highlight the plight of commerce, the protection of property, nor the ambitions held by pro-expansion jingoists to establish American protectorates in place of Spanish colonies. Sugar plantation owners and other commercial interests were displeased by the speech, but they had grown accustomed to disappointment under President Bryan and thoroughly expected a bungled overseas efforts.

Congress promptly authorized funding for war mobilization and the Bryan Cabinet began to enact its military strategy. Apart from the tactically successful naval blockage of Cuba, the chief victory for the Navy Department arose when Secretary George Williams dispatched Commodore George Dewey and Rear Admirals Winfield S. Schley and William T. Sampson to lead a precision strike on the Spanish fleet. The vessels in this contingent targeted the Santiago de Cuba port, which had been a major base for the Spanish Caribbean Squadron. On March 24th, when the squadron attempted an offensive maneuver against the American forces, the U.S. Navy caught wind and unleashed their barrage, thus eliminating all six Spanish ships.

Simultaneously, Secretary of War George Steele, alongside President Bryan, plotted a land campaign. They recruited former Confederate General Joseph Wheeler and Major General Wesley Merritt to head the Fifth Army Corps and work toward a full-throttle assault on Santiago. Seemingly inspired by the plight of Cuba and the president's call to action, volunteers joined with the Army by the scores and quickly filled the ranks needed to embark. Among those who enlisted were Theodore Roosevelt and presidential physician Leonard Wood. These two would command the 1st Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, also known as the 'Rough Riders'.

The American forces barreled through Cuba that spring, suffering only minor casualties while inflicting devastating damage to the poorly led and strategically inept Spanish troops. The U.S. and Cuban soldiers trudged through the territory and atop the San Juan heights by April 2nd, overcoming what war historians like John Duka have since deemed,"... a reduced Spanish garrison fighting a two-front war along the perimeter of Santiago. Victorious in their legendary charge up San Juan Hill were Roosevelt, First Lieutenant John J. Pershing, and Captain [Buckey] O'Neill." With morale plummeting, due in part to their defeat at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba, and their infantry overwhelmed by an encircling siege, the Spanish garrison finally capitulated. Guantánamo surrendered shortly thereafter.

The war for Cuban liberty reached its end, and the American-bolstered "insurrectos" had won. An intermediary with the Spanish government approached State Secretary Stone with an offer to negotiate peace, adding that Spain would consider independence options for Cuba in such terms. Stone conscientiously informed Bryan of this information, knowing full well Bryan's inclination to jump at independence as the sole treaty stipulation.

Removing the Spanish influence from Cuba meant a foothold for American commercial interests in the Caribbean. Cuban self-rule, however, meant nothing apart from the endangerment of the U.S. tobacco and sugar markets. Worse still was the prospect of Spain retaining its Pacific holdings in the Philippines when the United States had the opportunity to seize these territories for herself should the war go on. President Bryan listened when Stone expressed this warning, but he found that the war for Cuban liberation could not be justly expanded into a war of conquest.

         Thomas O'Conner, A Radical History of American Politics: Vol. 4, 2014

Stone adhered to Bryan's instruction and responded affirmatively to Spain's request for a ceasefire. Thenceforth, representatives from both belligerent parties gathered together at a Parisian venue to conduct the business of peacemaking. Secretary Stone chaired the negotiating commission, and he was accompanied by former Vice President Stevenson, Senators Teller, Bacon, and Arthur Gorman (D-MD). From May 3rd through June 30th, the opposing delegations discussed terms in drawn-out mediation sessions until the deal was struck, at last.     

In the final Treaty of Paris, Spain agreed to grant complete independence to Cuba as well as Puerto Rico. The Spanish crown would also absorb any debt owed by the two island territories (estimated at around $4 million) and free all remaining American prisoners. Stone was unable to incorporate a fourth segment mandating limited autonomy in Spain's remaining colonies, but the Spanish delegations assured him that the Sagasta Government would gradually phase out its prison policy of indefinite detention. The document was finalized and signed by all parties present on July 1st, formally ending the Spanish-American War.

[Pyro]

Puck Magazine's "Uncle Sam's Picnic", 1898
Children are labeled 'Philippines,' 'Ladrones,' 'Porto Rico,' and 'Cuba'
Man on Right is labeled 'Monroe Doctrine' - Source: Wiki Commons

Once news broke that the U.S. commission in Paris accepted terms of Cuban and Puerto Rican independence, most Americans reacted with celebration. The nation's military succeeded in easily ridding Spain from the Caribbean, and thereby protected the Americas from European interference. "Cuba Libre!" hailed Hearst's Journal, "War in Cuba Ends with Spanish Retreat - Bryan Enshrines American Ideals Abroad". Hearst was overjoyed by Bryan's actions, and he ensured that the president was extensively lauded for his heroism in a series of articles and political cartoons. If sales of the publication were any indication of Bryan's favorability with the public, then he was surely beloved in the summer of 1898.

However, not all viewed the Paris Treaty in a positive light. The fervor of patriotism that took hold with American involvement overseas did so alongside a revived iteration of Manifest Destiny. Egged on by commercial interests aspiring to international growth, a handful of politicians, authors and public orators sought to utilize the tide of idealistic popular concern for their own purposes and beliefs. Such figures disliked the prospect of independence for Spain's colonies, and instead backed widespread annexation. For the capitalist class, permanent U.S. control meant access to swathes of land, the integration of a new workforce, and the production of an extensive amount of goods.

As with westward expansion, imperialism held that it was the God-given right of the United States to expand beyond its existing borders. Those espousing this rhetoric stated that it was for the best interest of the colonized communities to be "saved" by American oversight a la "White Man's Burden." Theodore Roosevelt remarked that fitness for self-government came "to a race only through the slow growth of centuries, and then only to those races which possess an immense reserve fund of strength, common sense and morality." In other words, he believed that the experiment of democracy could only be successful if the quality of the racial stock in question was suitable.

Imperialists like Roosevelt greatly disapproved of Bryan ending the war without establishing protectorates in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and, most significantly, the Philippines. Far more than the Caribbean islands, that Pacific archipelago symbolized a gateway to international markets and a stepping-stone on the road to empire. Over the course of the Spanish-American War, this became the rallying cry of the Republican Party. Mark Hanna, who previously spoke against involvement in Cuba, now stridently supported American ownership of the Spanish colonies. "As long as the nation was entangled with Spain," Hanna stated, "we should seek a strategic point [in the Pacific, to give] the American people an opportunity to maintain a foothold in the [Chinese] markets."

Now, with Secretary Stone's signing of the Treaty of Paris, leading Republicans declared that Bryan betrayed his own economy. They had their chance to grandstand during the congressional ratification process, when a two-thirds majority was required to officially accept the terms. Senate Republicans lambasted the deal at length and profusely disowned the agreement. Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI) warned that passage would "rob us of our just dues" and Lodge accused the president of deliberately ignoring an "irresistible pressure of events." Others like Senators George Hoar and Eugene Hale (R-ME) broke from the party leadership and sided with the Democratic minority supporting ratification, yet they proved to be few and far between. Bryan simply could not acquire the support needed to pass the treaty in the Senate.

Albert J. Beveridge, a historian and political speaker from Indiana, became one of the most prominent individuals advancing the cause of imperialist annexation. He fostered a new faction within the state Republican party and quickly rose through the ranks during the Bryan Administration to the point that he won the GOP nomination for Senate. Like Roosevelt and Lodge, Beveridge spoke regularly against the policies of President Bryan. Once the fine print of the Paris Treaty was accessible to the public, the Hoosier elected to deliver a speech touching on the merits of American exceptionalism, the divine nature of expansionism, and race destiny.

The American Republic is part of the movement of race, the most masterful race in history. The race movements are not to be stayed by the hand of man. They are mighty answers to Divine commands. Their leaders are not only statesmen of peoples - they are prophets of God. The inherent tendencies of a race are its highest law. They precede and survive all statutes, all constitutions... the sovereign tendencies of all our race are organization and government. They are pre-destined to be master organizers for governing savage and senile people.

Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. The power that rules the Pacific is the power that rules the world. With the Philippines that power is and will forever be the American Republic. Either we rise and answer the call, the profound regeneration of the world, or it may collapse into barbarism. We know where this current administration stands - the question is, where do you stand?"

         Albert Beveridge, Indiana University Bloomington Speech, August 4th, 1898

This Beveridge address, dubbed the "March of the Flag" speech, was widely reported and laid down a principle all assumed would guide the postwar doctrine of the Republican Party. It was extensively lauded by the party leaders and, as would come to pass, practically guaranteed his election to the Senate. The allure of the Pacific archipelago breathed new life into racial pseudoscience, a facet which had fallen out of fashion beyond staunch segregationists and anti-Sioux fanatics.

[Pyro]

“Civilization Begins at Home,” Literary Digest, Nov. 26, 1898 - Source: Wordpress

As the Republican Party entrenched itself in limitless expansionism and opportunity, their counterparts in the Democratic Party and elsewhere exclaimed dramatically opposing viewpoints. Contrary to the grandiose oratory espoused by those in favor of imperialism, relatively few Americans in this late Gilded Age period championed the idea of an American Empire. Support for the Spanish-American War was certainly universal, that much is true. Yet, most viewed the war as a heroic endeavor to protect Cuba, not a catalyst for conquest.

When Roosevelt and Lodge began guiding their party toward imperial ambitions, resistance was inevitable. As previously mentioned, Senators Hoar and Hale found Cuban independence justified and fought to ratify the Paris Treaty in Congress. Hoar implored his fellow congressmen to adhere to the foundational principles of the nation, warning "we would be descending from the ancient path of republican liberty [...] down into the modern swamp and cesspool of imperialism." The contingent in Hoar's camp was mostly composed of the Old Guard, including men like Speaker Reed, former President Harrison, and railroad executive Charles Francis Adams, Jr.

Speaker Reed, especially, rallied for senatorial passage of the Paris Treaty. Even with his disdain for Bryan and the Democrats, Reed admitted that the administration fared well in the war with Spain and constructed a suitable agreement to end hostilities. He could not sympathize with the imperialists within his party who pressed renewed aggression in the Philippines. "It is inconsolable," Reed remarked, "and unconstitutional for the United States to rule other peoples against their will and without congressional representation." This outburst by the Maine representative, a denouncement of fellow Republicans, effectively ended any talk of his reappointment to the speakership. He would later choose not to run for re-election to the House.

Democrats and Populists fiercely attacked the idea of American imperialism and the potential subjugation of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. However, the lion's share of Democrats (notably in the South) did not oppose American rule over Spain's colonies out of concern for the well-being of the local populations. It was quite the opposite. Most Democratic politicians detested the idea of empire because it meant absorbing new, non-white communities. For some, like Populist Senator William Allen (Pop-NE), the issue was economics. "Should the imperialists have their way," he said, "the Philippines and Cuba would be ours. What, then, would prevent commerce from relocating to these regions? The syndicates could easily build new factories and employ an endless horde of nondescript populations for starvation wages."

With Senator Benjamin Tillman, the problem was not economic, but social.

We of the South have borne this white man's burden of a colored race in our midst. We have already learned the impossibilities of peacefully associating the races. There is no sense in squandering our resources to add these inferior races to our fine nation. Doing so will inject this poisoned blood into the body politic. God Almighty made them inferior and lacking in moral fiber. [...] If I may echo Senator McLaurin, it is indeed peculiar that senators who favored universal suffrage and the full enfranchisement of the negro should now advocate imperialism. If they are sincere in their views as to the Filipinos, they should propose an amendment to the Constitution which will put the inferior races in this country and the inhabitants of the Philippines upon an equality as to their civil and political rights.

         Benjamin Tillman, Speech Before Congressional Hearing | Treaty of Paris Ratification, January 3rd, 1899

Tillman's opinions were not unique to the South Carolinian. His words in Congress received rapturous applause from the entire Southern Democratic delegation, and even a handful of Democrats from the Western states. He articulated exactly what disturbed fellow anti-imperialists most of all: the two-face nature of the Republicans. The GOP dream of an American Empire was hypocritical as it paralleled the racial issues at home. They exhorted absolute rule whilst accepting nonvoting status for the colonized. Therefore, the Republicans validated white supremacy despite their rhetoric favoring non-white suffrage in the South.

Regardless of this, the mainstream Republican press sought to mimic Hearst's accomplishment and drive up public support for their point of view. Publications such as The Washington Post and The New York Times reported little of anti-imperialists like Tillman, other than to deride their callowness, and instead propped up the "righteous' cause of expansionism. One particularly vigorous article in the Post read, "The taste of empire is in the mouth of the people. It is our destiny to pursue an imperial policy. The Republic, renascent, [will take] her place with the armed nations." Editorials like these often concluded with the endorsement of certain 'messengers' to these policies, and as the next presidential election approached, the endorsements included prospective presidential candidates. No more would artifacts of a bygone era like Benjamin Harrison stand a chance at the convention, not when "the hero of San Juan Hill, Rough Rider Theodore Roosevelt" was up for consideration.

[Pyro]

1898 Congressional Elections      

Senate
Republican: 45 (+1)
Democratic: 31 (-3)
Populist: 5 (0)
Silver Republican: 3 (-2)
Silver: 2 (0)

House
Democratic: 181 (+45)
Republican: 163 (-30)
Populist: 8 (-15)
Silver Republican: 2 (-1)
Silver: 1 (0)
Independent: 2 (+1)

  House of Representatives Leadership

Speaker John J. Lentz (D-OH)
Minority Leader Joseph G. Cannon (R-IL)
Minority Leader John Calhoun Bell (Pop-CO)
Minority Leader John Franklin Shafroth (SR-CO)

In his first two years serving as president, William J. Bryan had the displeasure of dealing with the uncooperative, Republican-majority 55th Congress. His legislative agenda had been weakened to the point of nonrecognition. Every single plank put forward by the Nebraskan president - from comprehensive labor protections, to sweeping anti-trust regulations, to the institution of Free Silver - was either watered down to its core or outright defeated. Bryan needed a Democratic Congress to achieve any measure of true success.

The 56th Congress only met him halfway. Taking place in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and just prior to the ratification debate in Congress, the 1898 congressional elections resulted in a noteworthy boost for the Democratic Party. Perhaps it was due to success overseas or the realization that Bryan would not doom the economy, or even straightforward frustration with Republican stonewalling, but it appeared as though the general public favored Bryan more so than it did in 1896. The preceding match for control over the House ended in Republicans losing 61 of its mammoth-sized 253 seats. Now, it lost an additional 30. These losses in conjunction with Populists' fusionist tactics allowed for the Democrats to retake the House of Representatives with one seat to spare.

Minority Leader Joseph W. Bailey, a conservative, states' rights Democrat largely out-of-step with the trajectory of the party, would refuse to stand for the speakership election. The Democrats nominated Ohioan reformer John J. Lentz to to this position, and by the following March he would succeed Thomas Reed as the House speaker. Lentz stood side-by-side with President Bryan and respected his platform (aside from the currency issue). Upon his election, Lentz worked to ensure that his title remained just as powerful as it had been in Reed's hand, and in this he had little trouble. Republicans, meanwhile, eventually designated the colorful, pugnacious Illinois Representative Joseph Gurney Cannon as their minority leader, bucking any speculation that the party would grant its Western delegation a role in leadership.

In the interim since Bryan was elected, pro-reform, populist-like Democrats ousted Bourbon factions across the country in state assemblies and offices. The ruling Bourbonite branches in the Midwest were decimated in the 1897 and 1898 statewide elections, leaving few to resist Bryan's influence. Concurrently, many of these same state legislatures swapped from Republican to Democratic majorities. One may imagine that this amounted to a flashing red danger sign for Senate GOP incumbents, however one would be mistaken.

As fortune would have it, the Class 1 grouping of senators was up for re-election in 1898, and this class did not house many vulnerable Republicans. This group last faced election in 1892, when President Cleveland won his huge electoral victory and brought with him a tenuous Democratic majority in the Senate. Therefore, even with popular support for Bryan reaching new heights and Democrats taking control of state legislatures, the Republican Party ended up expanding its Senate majority.

Democrats retained a swing seat in California, but suffered losses in New York, New Jersey, and North Dakota. One of the more shocking results of these elections was in Pennsylvania, where GOP boss Matthew Quay lost his senate seat to the former Pennsylvania Governor Robert E. Pattison. The governor, an ally of Bryan's, was prodded by local colleagues to run for the Senate once the state government narrowly flipped Democratic. Pattison edged out the incumbent by only two votes in the legislature and provided his party with a rare win in the Keystone State.

His health and memory worsening, Senator John Sherman (R-OH) retired from his legendary place in Congress in the spring of 1898. This provoked a hotly contested special election between Democratic Representative David Meekison (D-OH), a former mayor and banker, and Republican power broker Marcus Hanna. Hanna, who clawed back from the brink of obscurity after the previous presidential race, regained his prominent standing in Ohio politics and subsequently won the nomination of his party to the Senate. Hanna handily defeated Meekison for Sherman's seat.

In Delaware, the seat once held by Attorney General Gray remained vacant due to intense disagreement in the state legislature. Financier J. Edward Addicks and businessmen Henry A. du Pont both controlled factions within the state government, and these sides fought vehemently over the senate appointment. Unable to reach a compromise, Gray's seat stayed empty all throughout the 56th (and 57th) Congress. Similar failures in Florida, Utah and Washington prevented the election of three additional senators until the next congressional elections.

  

Senators Elected in 1898 (Class 1)

James D. Phelan (D-CA): Democratic Hold
Joseph R. Hawley (R-CT): Republican Hold
Vacant (-DE): Democratic Loss/Legislature Failed to Elect
Vacant (-FL): Democratic Loss/Legislature Failed to Elect
Albert J. Beveridge (R-IN): Republican Gain
Eugene Hale (R-ME): Republican Hold
Arthur P. Gorman (D-MD): Democratic Hold
Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA): Republican Hold
Julius C. Burrows (R-MI): Republican Hold
Cushman Davis (R-MN): Republican Hold
Hernando Money (D-MS): Democratic Hold
Francis Cockrell (D-MO): Democratic Hold
William A. Clark (D-MT): Democratic Gain
William V. Allen (Pop-NE): Populist Hold
William M. Stewart (SR-NV): Silver Republican Hold
John Kean (R-NJ): Republican Gain
Chauncey M. Depew (R-NY): Republican Gain
Porter J. McCumber (R-ND): Republican Gain
Mark Hanna (R-OH): Republican Hold
Robert E. Pattison (D-PA): Democratic Gain
Nelson W. Aldrich (R-RI): Republican Hold
William B. Bate (D-TN): Democratic Hold
Charles Allen Culberson (D-TX): Democratic Hold
Vacant (-UT): Silver Republican Loss/Legislature Failed to Elect
Redfield Proctor (R-VT): Republican Hold
John W. Daniel (D-VA): Democratic Hold
Vacant (-WA): Republican Loss/Legislature Failed to Elect
J.F. McGraw (D-WV): Democratic Hold
Timoth E. Ryan (D-WI): Democratic Hold
John Eugene Osborne (D-WY): Democratic Gain

[Pyro]

The White House, Washington, D.C., 1900 - Source: Wiki Source

Chapter V: The Empire Strikes Back: Shattering the Triple Alliance

President Bryan's lone motive for involving the United States in the conflict with Spain was to remedy the profound ills facing Cuba. In the beginning, he could not anticipate that men like Beveridge would capitalize on war patriotism for their own ends. Once hostilities reached an end and Stone signed the treaty, the president considered the war, and all discussion of annexation, over. Yet, with the Republican majority in the Senate unwilling to pass the Treaty of Paris in its current form, the door to empire remained open.
 
Bryan began to believe that if this new breed of jingoistic Republicans were to gain control over the White House, they would seek re-engagement with Spain in order to capture her territories - as well as unleash total war upon the newly independent island nations of Cuba and Puerto Rico. Congressional midterm elections were all Bryan had to settle the matter once and for all, but the existing system prevented senatorial results from matching the will of the voters. The unconventional president had little inclination to roll the dice on the next presidential election, and instead sought to enact an alternative strategy. Bryan would not allow for reckless fantasies of vast American conquests to overshadow the domestic injustices he cared so deeply for.

The 56th United States Senate had several vacant spots as a direct result of state government gridlock. Three of these four seats were expected to lean Democratic, and the fourth, an amenable Silver Republican. Should Bryan have had these votes in the Senate, along with the support of the People's and Silver parties, he would have reached 45. With 45 Republican votes to 45 Bryan votes, Vice President McLean would be the tiebreaker on all legislation. Furthermore, a tied or Democratic-led Senate perhaps would have amassed enough pressure on the GOP to fold on the ratification issue. Bryan and his cohorts thereabouts challenged the source of the troubles: the senatorial election process."

         H. William Ackerman, Presidents of the Gilded Age, 2016

He may have been unable to assist in the effort to silence imperialist Republican grandstanding in this legislature, but Bryan's multi-pronged method intended to save the proceeding Congress (and administration) from a similar fate. The president personally communicated a heavily circulated address to his legislative colleagues once its first session began in December of 1899. This 'State of the Union' speech, as some historians have ruled, set the stage for his platform in the upcoming election. Bryan began with a general commendation of war veterans and the role of the U.S. as a protector of freedom abroad before shifting to the need to ratify the Treaty of Paris.

In this, Bryan softly made his way to anti-imperialism. He only touched on it briefly, comprehending the reality that his words would fall on deaf ears, but the president could hardly resist condemning a concept he so intensely despised. "The fruits of imperialism," Bryan beckoned, "be they bitter or sweet, must be left to the subjects of monarchy. This is the one tree of which the citizens of a republic may not partake. It is the voice of the serpent, not the voice of God, that bids us eat." He offered that the Republic must never repeat the mistakes of the Old World. "Imperialism might expand the nation's territory, but it would contract the nation's purpose. It is not a step forward toward a broader destiny; it is a step backward, toward the narrow views of kings and emperors."

If the intrinsic doctrine of American republicanism, government representative of the people, could be torn to slivers in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba, then perhaps it first required reinforcement back home. Here, Bryan deviated from foreign policy to domestic reform, remarking, "As the first republic founded in this hemisphere, is our fate to lead by example. In unison, we must denounce tyranny and pillar democracy." Bryan then alluded to the absolute necessity to pass two weighty reforms: Allocating Congress with the power to levy an income tax and providing for the direct election of U.S. senators. Considering that the income tax was, for all intents and purposes, ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court during Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. and that the process to elect senators is outlined clearly in Article 1 of the Constitution, both of these reforms required constitutional amendments.

Bryan's speech was received warmly by his fellow Democrats, Populists, and clan of supportive publishers. Members of the People's Party especially applauded the reforms, with elder Representative James Weaver promising Bryan that the House would pass both amendment proposals by the year's end. William R. Hearst ran a series of headlines hailing Bryan's initiatives and echoing his evangelist sentiment, such as "Bryan to Congress: Revive Democracy." Even some congressional Republicans nodded along at the mention of electoral reform. It seemed Bryan struck a chord that rose above party lines.

[Pyro]

Proposal for the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - Source: Wiki Commons

As predicted by Congressman Weaver, the House of Representatives passed joint-resolutions proposing amendments regarding the income tax and for the direct election of senators on December 23rd and December 29th respectively. Speaker Lentz enthusiastically backed both of these, later stating, "It is essential to the longevity of our republic that we modernize our political system in the coming century. If we fail to rise to the task, we have no business governing." House Majority Whip Oscar Underwood (D-AL) ensured complete Democratic backing for both proposals, reportedly insisting to reluctant Bourbons that the implementation of the income tax would end economic reliance on the tariff. Republican representatives were somewhat split on the initiatives, but enough moderates broke from Cannon's conservative faction to allow passage.

The Senate reacted with far less warmth. Although Bryan steadily gained support from even hardliner Cleveland Democrats (a far cry from their staunch opposition in the 55th Congress), leading Republicans rallied hard against the two amendments and seemed intent on stonewalling progress just as they had with the Paris Treaty. The minority Democrats chose first to focus in on the electoral reform resolution, and fought heartily, against all odds, for the Republican leadership to concur on its introduction.

Uninterested, Old Guard leaders, predominantly from the Northeast, waved away the notion that the resolution would be brought before the legislature. Senator William E. Chandler (R-NH) stated, "The Senate, as it did in [1893], shall not consider it." "The responsibility for the election of senators," exclaimed Senator Hoar in his denouncement, "would pass from honored state delegates to the whims [of the] mob." Chandler and Hoar, accompanied by Thomas Platt, Henry C. Lodge, Chauncey Depew, and Joseph Hawley (R-CT), composed the core of the opposition.

Democrats, Populists, and a handful of Western Republicans encouraged prompt action in the upper house, but the Republican majority disapproved. Outraged by constant senatorial inaction, pro-Bryan newspapers and magazines appealed straight to the electorate, urging them to write Congress with their opinion on the amendments. Pulitzer and Hearst sparked the call, but other state and local publishers - even some who supported Harrison in 1896 - amplified it in a rare nonpartisan engagement. In response, the people roared back. It took until March for the reports to be released, but letters addressed to resistant senators indeed poured in by the tens of thousands. The overwhelming majority of these fervently favored passage. Public sentiment, evident through these letters and a slew of pro-reform editorials in the mainstream press, sided with Bryan.

Faced with the bitter reality that this shift in the zeitgeist could serve to assist in Bryan's re-election, Senate Republicans somberly allowed for the resolutions to reach the floor. Proponents in the legislature struck hard and fast when debate ensued, explicitly referring to the inexcusable actions by "corrupt" and "aristocratic" multi-term senators. "The state appointment system," blustered Populist Senator Allen, "is an affront to democracy as we know it. Jurisdiction over this body mustn't be decided through villainous means." Allen charged, accurately so, that the present system was leading to unjust bribery and extortion of the state legislatures. Nefarious behavior, he found, was utilized by influential politicians as a gateway to the Senate. Reform-minded senators generally concurred.

Not one single amendment managed to successfully pass through Congress since 1869. The idea basically fell into the realm of impossibility. With debate over the Senate election process, however, it was likely a combination of widespread dissatisfaction following two congressional elections with vastly disparate Senate/House results, and collective embarrassment over Senate vacancies. Obviously, Bryan being president accelerated public support to a discernible degree. [...] It all came together by June (of 1900).

         Bruce K. Tedesco, The Constitution: A Living Document TV Miniseries, 2002

Shortly before the end of the congressional session, the Senate voted on the resolution. Jubilant Bryan Democrats corralled the entirety of their party in addition to a sufficient number of tepid Republicans to secure the necessary two-thirds vote. Unmoved opponents like Hoar voted against passage, but the bulk of the Midwestern and Western delegations complied with public demand. The final vote for the proposal tallied 70 Aye to 17 Nay. With that, Congress adjourned.

The Senate thereafter resumed its stonewalling of Bryan's legislation. Aside from the aforementioned resolution, no other measures passed through the 56th Congress. Bryan allies hoped to gather enough support to simultaneously push for the income tax amendment, but it ultimately failed to manifest that year.

[Pyro]

Richard Olney, 34th U.S. Secretary of State - Source: Wiki Commons

Conventional wisdom pointed to the coming presidential election as a long-shot for the Republicans. The Bryan Administration's incumbency advantage contained all the keys necessary to secure re-election. Economically, the nation was sluggishly, though undeniably, recovering to a state of relative prosperity. Gross national product increased from $13 billion in 1896 to nearly $19 billion in 1900. Wages and employment were on the rise, as was the commonality of electricity and telephones in technologically developed homes.

Trade unions grew rapidly at the turn of the century. The improved economic conditions and trust in the current administration's stance on unionism influenced a notable rise in labor union membership. The American Federation of Labor, a reformist union organization headed by the cautious Samuel Gompers, became the largest such organization in the country during President Bryan's tenure. The AFL refused to directly engage in political activities or outright affiliate with any one party out of uneasiness over alienating half of its members, but it did, in effect, ally itself to Bryan's policies regarding worker protections.

Bryan's presidency disproved the fear mongering so omnipresent during his initial campaign. Not only did the nation's economy not collapse, but the administration's willingness to compromise on legislation and Secretary Stone's successful management of foreign affairs earned Bryan a reputation for sensible governance. His reforms seemed to fall in line with general public opinion, and his coalition of Democrats and Populists looked to be insurmountable. The GOP needed to move fast if it desired a win.

RNC Chairman Garret Hobart had died of a heart ailment in November of 1899, prompting the election of his successor, former Governor William McKinley to that post. McKinley, having stepped down from his three-term governorship in January of 1898, briefly retired from political life whilst remaining a guiding force in the Ohio Republican Party. The chair election itself was unevenly tilted to McKinley's favor due to Mark Hanna's handiwork - considered a returned favor following the governor's backing of Hanna's Senate campaign - and the race was over and done with rather fast. When he took up his new position as chairperson of the national party, McKinley deviated from Hobart's strict oppositionist direction and charted a novel course.

Alongside state and federal party leaders, Chairman McKinley plotted to decimate Bryan's momentum before it became unstoppable. To accomplish this task, the Republicans sought dissolution of the president's so-called 'triple alliance' of Silverites, Populists and anti-imperialists. They could no longer result to demeaning Bryan's mental fitness to serve as president, but they could, conceivably, dissuade his allies from committing their unrelenting support. These factions would only dedicate full loyalty to Bryan insofar as he spoke to their core issues. Therein lied the opportunity.

For all of his eloquent speaking abilities and stellar political instincts, William Jennings Bryan lacked the capacity to define himself on his own terms. It has been argued that Bryan's victory against Harrison was a natural result of the legendary oratory spree embarked by the former candidate. Yet, the 'Great Commoner' likely only grasped victory with the help of the liberal press - McLean, Hearst, etc. They cataloged his speeches and re-formed and edited his tone to match the target demographic of each paper. 'Free Silver' did not arise in the Cincinnati Enquirer just as Bryan's condemnation of lynching never appeared in the Montgomery Advertiser. The electorate may indeed have been swayed by Bryan's words, but the deceptive filtering of his language is what led to his taking office.

         Russell Kirk, American Politics Reconsidered: A Conservative Critique of the Twentieth Century, 1967

McKinley understood that the Republicans needed to control the narrative. The GOP fumbled the ball in this arena up to this point, but the RNC was now willing to risk experimenting with the Ohioan's hypothesis. A bargain was struck, and the die was cast.

On May 20th, 1900, just before the Senate's final vote on the amendment, Harper's Weekly released a contentious editorial regarding President Bryan. It alleged that Bryan's retreat on the currency issue was planned beforehand, and that he did not intend on bringing up the issue in Congress in the case of his re-election. The article cited specific statements from several prominent Gold Democrats, including former Representative William B. Cockran (D-NY) and Cleveland's State Secretary, Richard Olney. It seemed, according to these individuals, that the Bryan Administration agreed to back off on Free Silver in exchange for the support of the Bourbon faction of the party.

Olney reiterated various consultations with Bryan men and presented the arrangement in black-and-white. "[Bryan], of course, personally supported bimetallism, and I have no reason to doubt his aim to implement it. The facts were, as thus. [The Coinage Restoration bill] was doomed to fail in Washington. It is, and was, a dead concept. Olney continued, alleging that Bryan's associates, knowing the bill could not be saved, pushed Speaker Reed to proceed with debate as a deliberate false front. "Thereabouts, the party unites and moves on. Bryan is permitted to claim, 'I gave it my all,' and his radical supporters are none the wiser."

Tactically, the described conspiracy made sense. In one fell swoop, the Bryan Administration stood to eliminate both the People's Party as well as the National Democratic Party as worthwhile threats. He could speak just enough about Populistic measures to retain their support from 1896 and leave no risk of generating apathy, while simultaneously delivering so little that the Bourbons could endure supporting him. Giving credence to the idea, Gold Democrats did certainly support all of Bryan's legislation beyond the Coinage Restoration bill, and there was no indication that the conservatives planned on challenging his nomination. "Bryan could thread the needle," Cockran stated. "Everyone sees the president they wish to see."

[Pyro]

New York Herald Headline, November 11th, 1898 - Source: Wiki Commons

The Harper's article proved a significant blow to President Bryan. Political historians have since largely concurred that, although there may have been an element of truth behind the tale, the details from Olney's perspective were fabricated. Today we have little evidence to prove the validity of the claim one way or another, yet knowing the moral character of Bryan it is unlikely that he fostered a corrupt bargain with Gold Democrats. The rise of postwar imperialist sentiment already bound business Democrats close to the standard bearer for anti-imperialism, so, by 1900, Bryan could have gone full-throttle for Silver and retained their begrudging support. Not to mention, Olney also had reason to spite Bryan, considering the American Safeguards Act particularly humiliated the former state secretary.

In the moment, however, the accusations printed in that editorial rattled the Bryan Coalition to its core. No longer was currency the most pressing national issue for the Democratic Party, yet agrarian Silverites remained central components to Bryan's base. The president could not afford the disenchantment of this group nor allow for his character to be violated. Pro-Silver clubs and state party factions across the country led the effort to elect Bryan in 1896. Should these forces abandon their leader out of a sense of distrust and either swap party allegiance or abstain from voting altogether, Bryan would be hard-pressed to win the Western United States.

Dampening of Silver Democrats' allegiance to Bryan was worrying, but losing the vote of the Populists would be devastating. The People's Party itself actually dissipated dramatically since the last general election. Weaver and the Populist congressional delegation advocated fusionist tactics so fiercely by 1898 that it became more attractive to run as a populist-leaning Democrat than a pure Populist. The election of "the People's President" was viewed by many of the fusionists as a vindication of their ideology, and they fervently supported coalescing around the Democratic president, even when doing so jeopardized or countered the very policies espoused in the Omaha Platform.

Membership of the People's Party halved between 1896 and 1900, despite Bryan's presidency. Many Southern Populists gravitated back to the Democrats, and hundreds of the party's representatives were resoundingly booted out if they refused to fuse. The cross-racial economic policies applauded by some in the People's Party and Farmer's Alliance became out-favored by white supremacist reaction. Nowhere was this quite so apparent than in Wilmington, North Carolina, when an insurgent white militia, specifically citing a defense of "Anglo-Saxon... civilization" forcibly overthrew the democratically elected Populist city government and violently intimidated and assaulted black neighborhoods. Dozens of black men and women were killed. Detestable racist sentiment overshadowed all else in Wilmington, as it would do so throughout the South as the region delved deeper into 'Jim Crow' segregationist policies. Of this, Bryan spared few words and refused to intervene.

Those on the left-wing of the People's Party who passionately disagreed with the leadership's decision to advocate for involvement in the Democratic Party were also attracted to other, more radical, political organizations and affiliations. Burgeoning ideas concerning collective ownership of property progressively supplanted the Populists' nineteenth century vision of agrarian republicanism as the leading Leftist tendency in the United States. Class inequality ran just as rampant under Bryan as it had under Cleveland and Harrison, and any halfway reforms were craven, or even heretical. For this group, it mattered not whether Bryan supported Silver or Gold. Capitalism was definitively irredeemable and the president had not fundamentally challenged the economic status quo.

The nucleus of the Populist movement, however, backed the president and his brand of Democracy thus far. The Harper's piece tested their support as no other recent political development yet had. RNC officials managed to plant this seed in the mind of the electorate, and if McKinley's hypothesis was correct, any subsequent move from Bryan could serve to exacerbate the problem. Either allow for the contamination of his reputation and hope the issue is forgotten during the course of the election, or risk a formidable third party threat from the conservatives. "Damned if you do and damned if you don't," wrote O'Conner. "[Bryan] did not see a path which allowed him to escape unscathed. He concluded that the best, and only, option was to tell the truth."

To those who maintain that this administration has abandoned (Free Silver), I say we will secure bimetallism. To those who affirm our sight has blurred, I say we shall seek fair currency until the glorious day it is done. To those who say do not press the issue of silver, I can say to bimetallism at sixteen to one as Ruth said to Naomi: 'Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God.'

         William Jennings Bryan, Speech in Cleveland, Ohio, June 18th, 1900