Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1892
- Thread starter Nerdlinger
- Start date
Voting for Harrison because of this little nativist gem from the Populist Party platform:
emphasis mine. source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5361/
emphasis mine. source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5361/
As long as the path to citzenship is open an welcoming I have no problem with that. Otherwise NO.
I certainly wouldn't call it "open and welcoming" - especially if you are an Asian American in the 1890's. The populists may be many things, but friendly to non-White or non-Christian immigrants is not one of them.
You see I kinda figured the path to citizenship wouldnt be the way Id have it, so I was quick to make sure people knew I would not support it otherwise. But if anyone who wants to be an American is allowed to, then I dont see the reason to allow foreign nationals to buy up our country. If you come here with the intention of putting down roots more power to you. No matter who you are (not a serious criminal).
Japhy
Banned
Basicly this. There is a reason that the Ex-Populist voters eventually started being the folks to wear White Hoods. And before the Biracial South they wanted gets mentioned, as opposed to Harrison who fought for Civil Rights, the Populist governments down in Dixie never actually delivered, they stood aside as the 1890's saw the complete end of Black Civil Rights that had been building since the end of Reconstruction.
Unfortunately there has never been a canidate or a party that 100% endorsed everything I believe in on every issue. I really wish there was. I can't vote for anybody else though this election even if I could change my vote. Issue for issue I end up on the Populist side this election.
Heres a question I would like answered. Were some asian groups brought to the US under indentured servitude? I read that somewhere and want to know if its BS or not.
Heres a question I would like answered. Were some asian groups brought to the US under indentured servitude? I read that somewhere and want to know if its BS or not.
Fun fact: This will be only the second election in the project (third if you count 1912) in which the top two vote-getters aren't from the major parties of OTL. The first instance was in 1848, when "Libertian" Gerrit Smith and Free Soiler Martin Van Buren led the pack. In 1912, Progressive Teddy Roosevelt and Socialist Eugene Debs placed first and second, respectively, but I consider the Progressives to have been a major party because they finished ahead of the Republicans in OTL that year.
I'm split in this election. The Populists have a lot of good proposals in this election - municipal ownership of utilities, government-owned (or at least regulated) railroads, greenbacks, the sub-treasury system to emancipate the farmer, etc. However, they also have a lot of baggage - white, Southern populists opposed the last-ditch Republican civil rights act of 1890, a lot of its members became white supremacists (I'm looking at you, Tom Watson), etc... while somehow framing it as a populist attack against the elites. (Watson did that in OTL - he first argued against white supremacy because getting rid of it would destroy the southern Democratic Party, and then he argued in FAVOR of white supremacy because it would destroy the elite rulers of the southern Democratic party... that man was the king of cognitive dissonance 
)...
so I think I am going to have to vote for Benjamin Harrison, as much as I admire Weaver and the Populist movement. Harrison stood up for civil rights, was more of a friend to labor than Cleveland ever was, and would probably have been more open to public-works projects to deal with the coming recession... (fellow socialists, don't disown me for voting for the Man ... -- I can't for for Wing, he's a joke. )
)... so I think I am going to have to vote for Benjamin Harrison, as much as I admire Weaver and the Populist movement. Harrison stood up for civil rights, was more of a friend to labor than Cleveland ever was, and would probably have been more open to public-works projects to deal with the coming recession... (fellow socialists, don't disown me for voting for the Man ...
-- I can't for for Wing, he's a joke. )
Buh-- whaaah?
They're both American men who have served as president and who aren't Asian, Hispanic, or Native American. Plus, their first names both start with the letter "B." How could they be any more similar?
so I think I am going to have to vote for Benjamin Harrison, as much as I admire Weaver and the Populist movement. Harrison stood up for civil rights, was more of a friend to labor than Cleveland ever was, and would probably have been more open to public-works projects to deal with the coming recession... (fellow socialists, don't disown me for voting for the Man ...
The problem with Harrison was that his economic policies, granted it was not his intention but rather rewarding political supporters (silver, manufacturing, and , caused the 1893 Depression. The problem is that both parties during this time are extremely economically conservative. The role of the government is too do nothing as was illustrated by the Cleveland (though he was forced to borrow gold from JP Morgan to replenish the US gold supply and thus attempt to counteract deflationary pressure) and McKinley Administration (one of the most conservative president ever. Campaigned on a platform of change nothing, won, and then got lucky that gold was discovered in the Yukon effectively ending the depression without anything being done, gold having inflationary pressures on money). I would think a second term of Harrison would continue his conservative policies and probably follow similarly to the second Cleveland administration.
Long story short time to disown you
And Harrison sure helped the blacks out, didn't he?
Harrison's most significant accomplishment was causing a Depression, which Cleveland did nothing to fix. They are the two worst Gilded Age Presidents.
It is no surprise even Socialist during this time had a nativist streak running through its platform but less so then the Progressives. What one has to understand was that during this time both parties were made up of white laborers many of whom had been displaced by immigrant workers and forced to internally migrate west (tis why Oklahoma during this time was a big socialist hotbed). Laborers faced intense competition for their jobs and like the critiques today migrants drive wages down because they are willing to work for less. Also, like the modern day, most immigrants were young, unwed males, that immigrant families would send to the United States to work then to come back to the home country. This economic competition led to an immigrant backlash resulting in many immigrant exclusion acts, also starting the illegal immigration trend.
If you were a white voter in the South at this time you supported white supremacy (of course always exceptions to the rule). Republicans could only count on black voters but as dis-enfranchisement took its toll this number dwindled. Harrison and his 1890 bill, which was pretty much the 1960 Civil Rights Act, represented the last time the Republicans would count on black votes. The next election season McKinley would court instead the white voters in the South and threw the black voters under the bus. This was inevitable given how the lack of will and the Supreme Court had neutered Reconstruction and ending enfranchisement.
Harrison is closer to Bush II then Obama I would argue
That explains why the Populists are racists, but I still don't think that excuses them. I'll still support the man who at least campaigned for civil rights, and failed to deliver them, than the one who campaigned for seizing the property of immigrants.