1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:16:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1896: would the country have survived a bryan presidency?  (Read 4443 times)
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 22, 2006, 09:28:37 PM »

discuss.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2006, 10:04:39 AM »

Yes although we'd be a lot different than we are now.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 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?
Logged
NewFederalist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,143
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 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
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2006, 06:43:04 PM »

True. Watson should also be credited with the 27 Electoral votes that he won.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 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?
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 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.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2006, 10:58:45 PM »

I can't quite see them putting in Arthur Sewall, either, who was equally a goldbug.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 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.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 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?
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 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.
I doubt if Watson would have made the top 2 and the VP choice is limited to just the top 2.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 13 queries.