1884 Western Alliance Convention

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Due to the results of the last few elections, many establishment figures in the Whigs and the Radicals had hoped to run a unity ticket, to have a better chance at ending the Union Party's hegemony over the White House. However, their efforts at both respective conventions would be rebuffed - the Whig Party selected James Weaver by plurality, and Joseph Smith prevailed over Benjamin Harrison by a nose at the Radical convention.

This made the general election seem fraught for defeat. Setting aside their differences, the Whigs and Radicals agreed to a last minute convention, under the name "Western Alliance." Joseph Smith, Benjamin Harrison, and Walter Gibson were eager to attend. James Weaver was tempted to walk out, accusing the Whigs and Radicals of circumventing the result of the Whig convention, but relented and put his name forth on the ballot.

Three days.

[Zioneer]

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

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Voted for Harrison, though they all have their strengths: Weaver's the strongest economic lefts AFAIK, Gibson dies so that'll be fun, and Smith will get Zioneer to calm down about Mormons and he looks funny.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

"In 1881, the major issue confronting Senator Harrison was the budget surplus. Democrats wished to reduce the tariff and limit the amount of money the government took in; Republicans instead wished to spend the money on internal improvements and pensions for Civil War veterans. Harrison took his party's side and advocated for generous pensions for veterans and their widows.[42] He also supported, unsuccessfully, aid for education of Southerners, especially the children of the freedmen; he believed that education was necessary to help the black population rise to political and economic equality with whites. [43] Harrison opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which his party supported, as he thought it violated existing treaties with China.[44]
In 1884, Harrison and Gresham competed for influence at the 1884 Republican National Convention.;[45] the delegation ended up supporting James G. Blaine, the eventual nominee.[45] In the Senate, Harrison achieved passage of his Dependent Pension Bill, only to see it vetoed by President Grover Cleveland.[46] His efforts to further the admission of new western states were stymied by Democrats, who feared that the new states would elect Republicans to Congress" - Wikipedia on Harrison.

BTW, I think we should go with either a Mormon/Non-Mormon or Non-Mormon/Mormon ticket. And I support Zioneer's idea, stated in the original conventions thread, about giving ourselves a long-winded name that we can abbreviate. The People's New Freedom Alliance?

[Gass3268]

How about Weaver/Smith?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's dreadfully long. How about People's Alliance?

For the record, this isn't necessarily a permanent party - just a temporary alliance (think National Union in 1864.)

Western Alliance Conventions will be an option in 1888, but that's not to say that the Whigs and Radicals will simply vanish.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

How about Weaver/Smith?

Weaver supports immigration restrictions, so I've got reservations about him. Perhaps Smith/Weaver or some combination of Harrison and Smith? We could make Weaver Secretary of the Treasury.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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

[Dr. Cynic]

We Want Weaver!

[Zioneer]

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

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

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

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

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Smithmentum!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Weaver/Smith

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Weaver/Smith

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

[Dereich]

Anyone but Weaver, please. He's atrocious.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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

[Zioneer]

Anyone but Weaver, please. He's atrocious.

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

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

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Anyone but Weaver, please. He's atrocious.

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

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

All right then. As of now it's looking good, though.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Weaver/Smith

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

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

[Zioneer]

Weaver/Smith

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Weaver/Smith

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

While that is pretty interesting and Mormons are/would be extremely welcome members of the AT progressive coalition, I still don't they're the right ones to lead this particular type of fight.

[Deus Naturae]

Weaver/Smith

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

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

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

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

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Weaver/Smith

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

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

I think Harrison and Smith are pretty economically leftist/populist, and Bryan and Debs will come along in about ten years or so. Perhaps we could have Bryan serve 1897-1901 and Debs ascend to the Presidency upon his tragic death, with some random one-termer chosen to fill the gap between Harrison and Bryan? Also, Altgeld was born in Germany, though he does sound cool.

[Deus Naturae]

Weaver/Smith

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

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

I think Harrison and Smith are pretty economically leftist/populist, and Bryan and Debs will come along in about ten years or so. Perhaps we could have Bryan serve 1897-1901 and Debs ascend to the Presidency upon his tragic death, with some random one-termer chosen to fill the gap between Harrison and Bryan? Also, Altgeld was born in Germany, though he does sound cool.

A key difference between Harrison and the populists of the time was that Harrison favored sharp tariff hikes, whereas populists like Bryan wanted to do the opposite. In addition, Harrison supported an imperialist foreign policy. He had more in common with William McKinley than William Bryan.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Weaver/Smith

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

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

I think Harrison and Smith are pretty economically leftist/populist, and Bryan and Debs will come along in about ten years or so. Perhaps we could have Bryan serve 1897-1901 and Debs ascend to the Presidency upon his tragic death, with some random one-termer chosen to fill the gap between Harrison and Bryan? Also, Altgeld was born in Germany, though he does sound cool.

A key difference between Harrison and the populists of the time was that Harrison favored sharp tariff hikes, whereas populists like Bryan wanted to do the opposite. In addition, Harrison supported an imperialist foreign policy. He had more in common with William McKinley than William Bryan.

Didn't Harrison say that "we have no commission from God to police the world" or something like that?

[Zioneer]

Weaver/Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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