|
Title: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: WalterMitty on July 22, 2006, 09:28:37 PM discuss.
Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: Dr. Cynic on July 22, 2006, 09:58:48 PM Oh without a doubt it would survive. I think Bryan being a radical is way overblown. Silver was a problem, sure, but I doubt seriously that Bryan would've destroyed the country... Hell, we survived plenty of bad Presidents such as Nixon. I hardly think that if Bryan was bad, the U.S. would collapse. That theory makes no sense to me.
Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 23, 2006, 01:57:18 AM Free coinage of silver wouldn't have sparked all that much inflation, tho it would have made silver mine owners very happy. There even would have been a slight offset as the government switched from priniting United States Notes backed by nothing to Silver Certificates backed by silver. We also probably wiould have seen a revaluation of the official gold to silver ratio as had happened in 1834, as that would have been necessary to preserve bimetallism.
Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: MasterJedi on July 23, 2006, 10:04:39 AM Yes although we'd be a lot different than we are now.
Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: WalterMitty on July 23, 2006, 06:30:19 PM atlas question: in the states where bryan ran under the populist party, shouldnt his running mate be listed as tom watson, rather than arthur sewall?
Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: NewFederalist on July 23, 2006, 06:34:39 PM atlas question: in the states where bryan ran under the populist party, shouldnt his running mate be listed as tom watson, rather than arthur sewall? yup Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: Dr. Cynic on July 23, 2006, 06:43:04 PM True. Watson should also be credited with the 27 Electoral votes that he won.
Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: Erc on July 26, 2006, 09:10:21 AM Would have been interesting had Bryan won enough electoral votes to win the Presidency, but enough of the South voted for Watson to deny Sewall a majority...
Who had control of the Senate in '96 anyway? Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: WalterMitty on July 26, 2006, 09:47:23 AM Would have been interesting had Bryan won enough electoral votes to win the Presidency, but enough of the South voted for Watson to deny Sewall a majority... Who had control of the Senate in '96 anyway? republicans, i think. the gop gained seats in the midterms of 1894. Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 26, 2006, 05:21:10 PM Would have been interesting had Bryan won enough electoral votes to win the Presidency, but enough of the South voted for Watson to deny Sewall a majority... Who had control of the Senate in '96 anyway? republicans, i think. the gop gained seats in the midterms of 1894. Not quite. The Republicans had a minority majority. Republicans:44 Democrats:40 Populists: 4 Silver Republicans: 2 I can't see those two Silver Republicans from Nevada voting to put Garret Hobart in as Vice President. Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: Erc on July 26, 2006, 10:58:45 PM I can't quite see them putting in Arthur Sewall, either, who was equally a goldbug.
Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: Dr. Cynic on July 27, 2006, 02:46:23 PM I don't think they would have put Tom Watson in either, who was quite the lunatic.
Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: WalterMitty on July 27, 2006, 04:29:14 PM I don't think they would have put Tom Watson in either, who was quite the lunatic. and bryan wasnt? Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: Dr. Cynic on July 27, 2006, 05:39:41 PM I mean personally. If you've ever read anything about Watson, you'd know that he was mean-spirited, rascist, narrow, shallow, egotistical, and callous.
Read up on the Leo Frank lynching to find out how fanatical Watson was... Comparitively, Bryan wasn't so bad. Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 27, 2006, 05:54:41 PM I don't think they would have put Tom Watson in either, who was quite the lunatic. Title: Re: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency? Post by: Erc on July 27, 2006, 11:17:32 PM I mean personally. If you've ever read anything about Watson, you'd know that he was mean-spirited, rascist, narrow, shallow, egotistical, and callous. Read up on the Leo Frank lynching to find out how fanatical Watson was... Comparitively, Bryan wasn't so bad. Watson...is an interesting character. Very interesting character. Quite a different man in 1896 than in 1913, in certain respects. C. Vann Woodward wrote a very good book on the guy back in the day that I've been meaning to read. |