WI: Democratic Party splits in 1924

Snowstalker

The 1924 Democratic National Convention was the longest and one of the most contentious in American history, and took place at the height of the Ku Klux Klan's influence in both parties. The pro-Klan faction, led by former Treasury secretary William G. McAdoo (who was also Woodrow Wilson's son-in-law) butted heads with the anti-Klan and anti-Prohibition faction led by New York governor Al Smith (whose Catholic faith made him even more toxic to the pro-Klan Democrats). After two weeks and 103 ballots, the convention settled on an obscure compromise candidate, diplomat and former House member John W. Davis of West Virginia, an anti-Klan conservative who would go down to the worst popular vote performance of any major-party candidate since 1860, with many former progressives supporting the third-party candidacy of Robert M. La Follette.

Speaking of 1860--that convention saw the Democratic Party split and nominate two separate, opposing tickets over the issue of slavery, as the Southern delegations withdrew from the Baltimore convention to hold their own in Charleston. Similarly, McAdoo wanted to adjourn the New York convention to hold a second one in another city. What if Smith and/or McAdoo remain intransigent, Davis fails to gain traction as a dark horse, and the Democratic party once again splits into two tickets, one pro-Klan and one anti-Klan? The outcome of the election is even less in doubt, of course, but can this permanently break the Democrats?
 

Wendell

I think it would take more than this to upend the Democratic Party in the medium to long term. Really interesting idea though.
 

David T

IMO if Davis didn't gain traction some other compromise candidate would. The name most often mentioned was Samuel Ralston of Indiana but he declined to run for health reasons. Carter Glass (who managed to maintain good relations with both the Smith and McAdoo forces) was the most likely alternative to Davis: "Sometime on July 9, Davis met with Senator Glass, and they agreed that Glass would temporarily release half of Virginia's delegates . If the next round of balloting did not produce victory for Davis, then Davis would withdraw and support Glass..." https://books.google.com/books?id=ltusveXdODUC&pg=PA96 "

McAdoo and Smith were both desperate to get the nomination and would not withdraw until they had finally concluded they could not get it, but still what they wanted was the nomination of a united party, not a party split. I think it is significant that the only times the Democrats actually did split--1860 and 1948--involved the status of African Americans, which was not really a major issue in 1924 (the Klan was more controversial for its anti-Catholicism than for its racism, which it shared with many anti-Klan Democrats like Underwood.)
 

Ficboy

Banned
If the pro-Klan faction of the Democratic Party does split and become its own political party my guess is that it would be the Dixiecrats/American Independents only much more extreme.
 

David T

Ficboy said:
If the pro-Klan faction of the Democratic Party does split and become its own political party my guess is that it would be the Dixiecrats/American Independents only much more extreme.
Click to expand...

I think that even in the unlikely event that Smith won the nomination, much more likely than a pro-Klan splinter Democracy is for anti-Smith Democrats to vote for Coolidge as they would for Hoover in 1928.
 

Comte de Geneve

The Party was not going to splinter officially. Contentious nomination battles were a feature and not a bug in those days thanks to the 2/3 requirement for the nomination. No matter what happens in 1924 the party would not split, the disgruntled would just sit out or quietly vote for someone else. In 1924 the party progressives had LaFollette as an option. There is a good book on the Democratic Party of the 20's called "After Wilson".
 

Deleted member 94680

What would be their other differences, apart from the Klan? What kind of ticket would the two parties run on, outside support or opposition to the KKK?
 

David T

Stenz said:
What would be their other differences, apart from the Klan? What kind of ticket would the two parties run on, outside support or opposition to the KKK?
Click to expand...

And the thing is that the platform battle on the Klan was not a straightforward "pro-Klan" vs. "anti-Klan" fight. Many of those who opposed the minority plank which would have denounced the Klan by name made clear their own disapproval of the Klan--most notably Bryan. And the majority plank was an implicit rebuke to the Klan:

"The democratic party reaffirms its adherence and devotion to those cardinal principles contained in the constitution and the precepts upon which our government is founded, that congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercises thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that the church and the state shall be and remain separate, and that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States. These principles, we pledge ourselves ever to defend and maintain. We insist at all times upon obedience to the orderly processes of the law and deplore and condemn any effort to arouse religious or racial dissension. " https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1924-democratic-party-platform

If the minority plank had passed, McAdoo would have been unhappy but neither he nor any other prominent Democrat would have bolted the party as a result. "After all, his principal benefactors, James Phelan and Bernard Baruch, were Catholic and Jewish respectively ..." http://www.kevincmurphy.com/uatw-1924-schism.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top