1896 United States presidential election

Election of William McKinley related races 1896 United States elections January 2026 November 2013 1896 United States presidential election United States 1896 presidential no 1892 United States presidential election 1892 1900 United States presidential election 1900 447 members of the Electoral College 224 electoral 79.6%http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present National General Election VEP Turnout Rates, 1789-Present United States Election Project CQ Press February 21, 2023 July 25, 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20140725110444/http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present live 3.8 pp November 3, 1896 200x200px William McKinley by Courtney Art Studio, 1896 Alt Trim Edit 3x4.jpg William McKinley Republican Party (United States) Ohio Garret Hobart 271 23 7,112,138 51.0% Bryan, Hon. Wm. J 3x4.jpg William Jennings Bryan Democratic font-weight:normal;text-align:left; Parties Populist Silver Silver Republican Nebraska Arthur Sewall(Democratic, Silver)Thomas E. Watson(Populist) 176 22 6,510,807 46.7% 350px Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by McKinley/Hobart, blue denotes those won by Bryan/Sewall and the Democratic/Populist ticket of Bryan/Watson. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state. President Grover Cleveland Democratic Party (United States) William McKinley Republican Party (United States) Presidential elections were held in the United States on November 3, 1896. Former Governor William McKinley, the Republican nominee, defeated former Representative William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic nominee. The 1896 campaign, which took place during an economic depression known as the Panic of 1893, was a political realignment that ended the old Third Party System and began the Fourth Party System.Williams (2010) Incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland did not seek election to a second consecutive term (which would have been his third overall), leaving the Democratic nomination open. An attorney and former congressman, Bryan galvanized support with his Cross of Gold speech, which called for reform of the monetary system and attacked business leaders as the cause of ongoing economic depression. The 1896 Democratic National Convention repudiated the Cleveland administration and nominated Bryan on the fifth presidential ballot. Bryan then won the nomination of the Populist Party, which had won several states in 1892 and shared many of Bryan's policies. In opposition to Bryan, some conservative Bourbon Democrats formed the National Democratic Party and nominated Senator John M. Palmer. McKinley prevailed by a wide margin on the first ballot at the 1896 Republican National Convention. Since the onset of the Panic of 1893, the nation had been mired in a deep economic depression, marked by low prices, low profits, high unemployment, and violent strikes. Economic issues, especially tariff policy and the question of whether the gold standard should be preserved for the money supply, were central issues. McKinley forged a conservative coalition in which businessmen, professionals, prosperous farmers, and skilled factory workers turned off by Bryan's agrarian policies were heavily represented. He was strongest in cities and in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and Pacific Coast. Republican campaign manager Mark Hanna pioneered many modern campaign techniques, facilitated by a $3.5 million budget. Bryan presented his campaign as a crusade of the working man against the rich, who impoverished America by limiting the money supply. He said that silver was in ample supply and if coined into money would restore prosperity while undermining the illicit power of the money trust. Bryan was strongest in the South, rural Midwest, and Rocky Mountain states. His moralistic rhetoric and crusade for inflation (to be generated by the institution of bimetallism) alienated conservatives. Bryan campaigned vigorously throughout the swing states of the Midwest, while McKinley conducted a front porch campaign. At the end of an intensely heated contest, McKinley won a majority of the popular and electoral vote. Bryan won 46.7% of the popular vote and Palmer just under 1%. Turnout was very high, passing 90% of the eligible voters in many places. McKinley became the first Republican to ever carry Kentucky in a presidential election, thereby breaking into the Solid South; while Bryan became the first Democrat to ever carry Nebraska and Kansas, as well as several other Western states that had only recently been admitted to the Union, in a presidential election. The Democratic Party's repudiation of its Bourbon faction largely gave Bryan and his supporters control of the party until the 1920s and set the stage for Republican domination of the Fourth Party System. The four elections from 1884 to 1896 saw the incumbent party defeated each time; the only other such streak was from 1840 to 1852. Nominations Republican Party nomination 1896 Republican National Convention thumb|301px|McKinley/Hobart campaign poster 65px|center|link=Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party (United States)1896 Republican Party ticket white William McKinley white Garret Hobartfor Presidentfor Vice President center|200x200px center|200x200px 39thGovernor of Ohio(1892–1896) 24th President of theNew Jersey Senate(1881–1882)Campaign Other candidates Thomas B. ReedMatthew S. QuayLevi P. MortonWilliam B. AllisonCharles F. MandersonShelby M. Cullomcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120px38thSpeaker of the Housefrom Maine(1895–1899)U.S. Senatorfrom Pennsylvania(1887–1899)22ndVice President of the United States(1889–1893)U.S. Senatorfrom Iowa(1873–1908)U.S. Senatorfrom Nebraska(1883–1895)U.S. Senatorfrom Illinois(1883–1913) Following the defeat of former President Benjamin Harrison at the 1892 election, Ohio governor William McKinley rapidly became the overwhelming favorite to be the party's nominee in 1896, having finished a strong third behind Harrison and veteran candidate James G. Blaine (who had passed away not long after the election) at the party's 1892 convention. The only likely impediment to McKinley's candidacy was seen to be a possible comeback attempt by Harrison, but Harrison made it clear in early 1896 that he had no intention of making a third presidential run, and endorsed McKinley.Calhoun Charles William Charles W. Calhoun 2005 Benjamin Harrison Macmillan 978-0-8050-6952-5 https://books.google.com/books?id=5mLuIx6z1qcC At their convention in St. Louis, Missouri, held between June 16 and 18, 1896, the Republicans nominated McKinley for president and New Jersey's Garret Hobart for vice president. McKinley had just vacated the office of governor of Ohio. Both candidates were easily nominated on first ballots. McKinley's campaign manager, the wealthy and talented Ohio businessman Mark Hanna, visited the leaders of large corporations and major, influential banks after the Republican Convention to raise funds for the campaign. With many businessmen and bankers terrified of Bryan's populist rhetoric and demand for the end of the gold standard, Hanna had little difficulty raising record amounts of money. He raised $3.5 million for the campaign and outspent the Democrats by an estimated 5-to-1 margin. McKinley was the last veteran of the American Civil War to be nominated for president by either major party, and indeed the last Civil War veteran to be on a major party's presidential ticket in any capacity (Henry G. Davis, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1904, took part in the Union war effort, but in a non-combat role). Presidential Nominating BallotVice-Presidential Nominating Ballot1st Unanimous 1st UnanimousWilliam McKinley 661.5 924 Garret A. Hobart 535.5 924Thomas Brackett Reed 84.5 H. Clay Evans 277.5 Matthew S. Quay 61.5 Morgan Bulkeley 39 Levi P. Morton 58 James A. Walker 24 William B. Allison 35.5 Charles W. Lippitt 8 James D. Cameron 1 Thomas Brackett Reed 3 Not Voting 20 Chauncey Depew 3 Do nothing 661.5 John Mellen Thurston 2 Frederick Dent Grant 2 Levi P. Morton 1 Not Voting 29 Democratic Party nomination 1896 Democratic National Convention thumb|300px|Bryan's famous "cross of gold" speech gave him the presidential nomination and swung the party to the silver cause 65px|center|link=Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party (United States)1896 Democratic Party ticket white William Jennings Bryan white Arthur Sewallfor Presidentfor Vice President center|200x200px center|200x200px U.S. Representativefor Nebraska's 1st(1891–1895) President of theMaine Central Railroad(1884–1893)Campaign400px thumb|221x221px|Grover Cleveland, the incumbent president in 1896, whose second non-consecutive term expired on March 4, 1897 Other candidates Candidates in this section are sorted by their highest vote count on the nominating ballots, then by reverse date of withdrawalRichard P. BlandRobert E. PattisonJoseph BlackburnHorace BoiesJohn R. McLeancenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxU.S. Representativefrom Missouri(1873–1895)19thGovernor of Pennsylvania(1891–1895)United States Senatorfrom Kentucky(1885–1897)14thGovernor of Iowa(1890–1894)Publisher of The Cincinnati Enquirerfrom Ohio(1881–1916)291 votes100 votes82 votes67 votes54 votesClaude MatthewsBenjamin TillmanSylvester PennoyerHenry M. TellerWilliam Russellcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120px23rdGovernor of Indiana(1893–1897)United States Senatorfrom South Carolina(1895–1918)8thGovernor of Oregon(1887–1895)United States Senatorfrom Colorado(1885–1909)37thGovernor of Massachusetts(1891–1894)37 votes17 votes8 votes8 votesW Withdrew: June 20https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/06/21/104157630.pdf https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/06/21/104157630.pdf 2022-10-09 live GOLD AND NO SURRENDER; Connecticut Democrats To Fight Hard In Chicago Convention The New York Times June 21, 18962 votesWilliam R. MorrisonJohn W. DanielStephen M. WhiteGrover Clevelandcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|118x118pxU.S. Representativefrom Illinois(1873–1887)United States Senatorfrom Virginia(1887–1910)United States Senatorfrom California(1893–1899)22nd and 24th President of the United Statesfrom New York(1885–1889; 1893–1897)W Withdrew: June 19https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/06/20/104157317.pdf https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/06/20/104157317.pdf 2022-10-09 live NOT AN ACTIVE CANDIDATE; Morrison Will Not Ask the Illinois Convention to Endorse Him. The New York Times June 20, 1896DTBN Declined To Be NominatedDTBN Declined To Be NominatedDTBN Declined To Be Nominated One month after McKinley's nomination, supporters of silver-backed currency took control of the Democratic convention, held in Chicago on July 7–11. Most of the Southern and Western delegates were committed to implementing the Populist Party's "free silver" ideas. The convention repudiated Cleveland's gold standard policies and Cleveland himself. This left the convention wide open: there was no obvious successor to Cleveland. A two-thirds vote was required for the nomination and the silverites had it in spite of the extreme regional polarization of the delegates. In a test vote on an anti-silver measure, the Eastern states (from Maryland to Maine), with 28% of the delegates, voted 96% in favor. The other delegates voted 91% against, so the silverites could count on a majority of 67% of the delegates.Walter Dean Burnham, "The System of 1896: An Analysis," in Paul Kleppner et al., The Evolution of American Electoral Systems (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981), 147—202 at pp. 158–60 The attorney, former congressman, and unsuccessful Senate candidate William Jennings Bryan filled the void. A superb orator, Bryan hailed from Nebraska and spoke for farmers suffering from the economic depression following the Panic of 1893. At the convention, he gave what has been considered one of the greatest political speeches in American history, the "Cross of Gold" Speech. Bryan presented a passionate defense of farmers and factory workers struggling to survive the economic depression, and attacked big-city business owners and leaders as the cause of much of their suffering. He called for reform of the monetary system, an end to the gold standard, and government relief efforts for farmers and others hurt by the depression. Bryan's speech was so dramatic that many delegates carried him on their shoulders around the convention hall afterward. The next day, eight names were placed in nomination: Richard Bland, William J. Bryan, Claude Matthews, Horace Boies, Joseph Blackburn, John R. McLean, Robert E. Pattison, and Sylvester Pennoyer. Despite a strong initial showing by Bland, who led on the first three ballots, Bryan's speech helped him gain the momentum required to win the nomination, which he did on the fifth ballot, after most of the other candidates withdrew in his favor. After Bland's defeat, his supporters attempted to nominate him as Bryan's running mate, but Bland was more interested in winning back his former seat in the House of Representatives, and so withdrew his name from consideration despite leading the early rounds of voting. Arthur Sewall, a wealthy shipbuilder from Maine, was eventually chosen as the vice-presidential nominee. It was felt that Sewall's wealth might encourage him to help pay some campaign expenses. At just 36, Bryan was only a year older than required by the Constitution to be president. He remains the youngest person ever nominated for president by a major party. Presidential Nominating Ballots (1 Thru 5)Vice-Presidential Nominating Ballots (1 Thru 5)1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Unanimous 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th UnanimousWilliam J. Bryan 137 197 219 280 652 930 Arthur Sewall 100 37 97 261 568 930Richard P. Bland 235 281 291 241 11 John R. McLean 111 158 210 298 32Robert E. Pattison 97 100 97 97 95 Richard P. Bland 62 294 255 0 0Joseph Blackburn 82 41 27 27 0 Joseph C. Sibley 163 113 50 0 0Horace Boies 67 37 36 33 0 George F. Williams 76 16 15 9 9John R. McLean 54 53 54 46 0 John W. Daniel 11 0 6 54 36Claude Matthews 37 34 34 36 0 Walter Clark 50 22 22 46 22Benjamin Tillman 17 0 0 0 0 James R. Williams 22 13 0 0 0Adlai E. Stevenson 6 10 9 8 8 William F. Harrity 19 21 19 11 11Sylvester Pennoyer 8 8 0 0 0 Joseph Blackburn 20 0 0 0 0Henry M. Teller 8 8 0 0 0 Horace Boies 20 0 0 0 0William E. Russell 2 0 0 0 0 J. Hamilton Lewis 11 0 0 0 0David B. Hill 1 1 1 1 1 Robert E. Pattison 2 1 1 1 1James E. Campbell 1 0 0 0 0 George W. Fithian 1 0 0 0 0David Turpie 0 0 0 0 1 Henry M. Teller 1 0 0 0 0Not Voting 178 160 162 161 162 Stephen M. White 1 0 0 0 0 Not Voting 260 255 255 250 251 Presidential Nominating Ballots In DetailVice-Presidential Nominating Ballots In Detail1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd center|150x150px center|150x150px center|150x150px center|150x150px center|150x150px center|150x150px4th 5th 4th 5th center|150x150px center|150x150px center|150x150px center|150x150px Third parties and independents People's Party nomination 85x85px|center|link=People's Party (United States)1896 People's Party ticket white William Jennings Bryan white Thomas E. Watsonfor Presidentfor Vice President center|200x200px center|200x200pxU.S. Representativefor Nebraska's 1st(1891–1895)U.S. Representativefor Georgia's 10th(1891–1893) Other candidates Candidates in this section are sorted by their highest vote count on the nominating ballotsSeymour F. NortonEugene V. DebsJacob S. Coxeycenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxcenter|120x120pxWriter and Philanthropistfrom IllinoisTrade Unionist and Labor leaderfrom IndianaBusinessman and Political activistfrom Ohio321 votesDTBN Declined To Be Nominated8 votes1 votes Of the several third parties active in 1896, by far the most prominent was the People's Party. Formed in 1892, the Populists represented the philosophy of agrarianism (derived from Jeffersonian democracy), which held that farming was a superior way of life that was being exploited by bankers and middlemen. The Populists attracted cotton farmers in the South and wheat farmers in the West, but significantly few farmers in the Northeast and rural Midwest. In the presidential election of 1892, Populist candidate James B. Weaver carried four states, and in 1894, the Populists scored victories in congressional and state legislature races in a number of Southern and Western states. In the Southern states, including Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, the wins were obtained by electoral fusion with the Republicans against the dominant Bourbon Democrats, whereas in the rest of the country, fusion, if practiced, was typically undertaken with the Democrats, as in the state of Washington.http://history.missouristate.edu/wrmiller/Populism/Texts/Documents/Bibliography/african_American.htm African History.missouristate.edu July 2, 2010 dead https://web.archive.org/web/20100307005107/http://history.missouristate.edu/wrmiller/Populism/texts/Documents/Bibliography/african_American.htm March 7, 2010 https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E7DF1231E033A2575AC0A9679D94659ED7CF The New York Times Senate and House Secured; Republican control in the next Congress assured. The House of Representatives Repub- lican by More than Two -- thirds Ma- jority -- Possible Loss of a Repub- lican Senator from the State of Washington -- Republicans and Pop- ulists Will Organize the Senate and Divide the Patronage November 9, 1894 May 26, 2010 By 1896, some Populists believed that they could replace the Democrats as the main opposition party to the Republicans. However, the Democrats' nomination of Bryan, who supported many Populist goals and ideas, placed the party in a dilemma. Torn between choosing their own presidential candidate or supporting Bryan, the party leadership decided that nominating their own candidate would simply divide the forces of reform and hand the election to the more conservative Republicans. At their national convention in 1896, the Populists chose Bryan as their presidential nominee. However, to demonstrate that they were still independent from the Democrats, the Populists also chose former Georgia Representative Thomas E. Watson as their vice-presidential candidate instead of Arthur Sewall. Bryan eagerly accepted the Populist nomination, but was vague as to whether, if elected, he would choose Watson as his vice-president instead of Sewall. With this election, the Populists began to be absorbed into the Democratic Party; within a few elections the party would disappear completely. The 1896 election was particularly detrimental to the Populist Party in the South; the party divided itself between members who favored cooperation with the Democrats to achieve reform at the national level and members who favored cooperation with the Republicans to achieve reform at a state level. Bryan's Democratic and Populist supporters organized joint "fusion" tickets in several states with pledged electors drawn from both parties. The New York Times counted seventy-one Populist and six Silver Republican electoral candidates pledged to Bryan. In ten states where the fusion ticket was successful, twenty-seven electors voted for Bryan for president and Watson for vice president. (The remainder of Bryan's 176 electors, including the Populist and Silver Republican electors from Colorado and Idaho, voted for Sewall.)Rosin Michael L. A History of Elector Discretion Northern Illinois University Law Review 2020 41 1 193–95 Presidential Ballot Vice Presidential BallotWilliam Jennings Bryan 1,042Thomas E. Watson 469.5Seymour F. Norton321Arthur Sewall 257.5Eugene V. Debs 8Ignatius L. Donnelly 3Jacob S. Coxey 1 Prohibition Party nomination 1896 Prohibition National Convention 1896 Prohibition Party ticket white Joshua Levering white Hale Johnsonfor Presidentfor Vice President center|200x200px center|200x200pxBaptist leader and businessmanfrom MarylandFormer Mayor ofNewton, Illinois Other candidates Louis C. HughesCharles E. Bentleycenter|200x200pxcenter|200x200px11th Governor of the Arizona Territory(1893–1896)Party State Chairmanfrom Nebraska(1895–1896)W Name Withdrawn:On First BallotTHE COLD WATER TICKET - NATIONAL PROHIBITIONISTS NAME THEIR CANDIDATES https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/29/108234075.pdf The New York Times 7 July 2021 English May 29, 1896 live https://web.archive.org/web/20210904224633/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/29/108234075.pdf September 4, 2021 DTBN Declined To Be Nominated The Prohibition Party went into the convention divided into two factions, each unwilling to give ground or compromise with the other. The "Broad-Gauge" wing, led by Charles Bentley and former Kansas Governor John St. John, demanded the inclusion of planks endorsing the free coinage of silver at 16:1 and of women's suffrage, the former refusing to accept the nomination if such amendments to the party platform were not approved. The "Narrow-Gauge" wing, led by Samuel Dickie of Michigan and rallying around the candidacy of Joshua Levering, demanded that the party platform remain dedicated exclusively to the prohibition of alcohol.A PROHIBITION SPLIT - The Silver Question Cutting a Figure at Pittsburg https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/27/108233659.pdf The New York Times 7 July 2021 English May 27, 1896 live https://web.archive.org/web/20210904225951/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/27/108233659.pdf September 4, 2021 Conflict between the two sides soon broke out over the nomination of a permanent chairman, with a number of presented candidates for the position withdrawing before Oliver Stewart of Illinois, a "Broad-Gauger", was nominated.THE SILVER QUESTION THREATENS TO SPLIT THE PARTY https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/28/108233722.pdf The New York Times 7 July 2021 English May 28, 1896 live https://web.archive.org/web/20210904221328/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/28/108233722.pdf September 4, 2021 A minority report by St. John supported the free coinage of silver, government control of railroads and telegraphs, an income tax and referendums, and was prevented from being tabled, giving "Broad-Gaugers" confidence, but a number of those who voted for the report were merely undecided or against gagging the report. After a majority of 188 brought the report forward, "Narrow-Gaugers" campaigned among wavering delegates of the Northeast and Midwest to convince them of the electoral consequences should it be adopted: that Party gains in states like New York would reverse overnight in the face of free coinage and populism. When St. John's report was brought up to a formal vote the margins had largely reversed; it was rejected, 492 to 310. With the silver delegates still in shock and St. John attempting to move for a reconsideration, Illinois "Narrow-Gaugers" moved to offer as a substitute to both the minority and majority reports a single-plank platform centered on Prohibition. A rising vote was taken in lieu of a roll call, with the "Narrow-Gauge" Platform winning the vote and being adopted. In an attempt to mollify suffragists who were incensed at the lack of a plank endorsing women's suffrage, the plank itself was adopted through a resolution by the convention by a near unanimous vote. When it came to the nomination for president, many "Broad-Gaugers" were already openly considering bolting and running their own candidate as it became increasingly apparent that the "Narrow-Gaugers" had brought a majority of the convention under their influence. Formal action was deferred until after the nomination for president was made. With Charles Bentley refusing to be nominated under the single-plank platform, an attempt was made to nominate the recently retired governor of the Arizona Territory, Louis Hughes, but as it became apparent that Levering was set to receive the support of most of the delegates, they opted to withdraw Hughes's name. Once Levering's nomination was confirmed without any visible opposition, around 200 of those who were suffragists, silverites or populists bolted the convention, led by Bentley and St. John, and joined with the National Reform "Party" to create the National Party. Afterward, the convention unanimously nominated Hale Johnson of Illinois for vice president.HOW THE NARROW-GAUGE PROHIBITIONISTS WON AT PITTSBURG https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/31/108234626.pdf The New York Times 7 July 2021 English May 31, 1896 live https://web.archive.org/web/20210904224323/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/31/108234626.pdf September 4, 2021 National Party nomination 1896 National Prohibition Convention 1896 National Party ticket white Charles E. Bentley white James H. Southgatefor Presidentfor Vice President center|200x200px center|200x200pxParty State Chairmanfrom Nebraska(1895–1896)Party State Chairmanfrom North Carolina(1895–1896) Initially known as the "National Reform Party", the convention itself started only a day before the Prohibition National Convention, also being held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Though initially only a gathering of eight or so delegates, it was hoped that any bolters from the Prohibition Party might find their way there and would support the nomination of Representative Joseph C. Sibley for president. A sizable bolt did indeed occur upon the nomination of Joshua Levering by the Prohibition Party to the presidency, with Charles E. Bentley and former Kansas governor John St. John leading a walkout of "Broad-Gaugers" from their convention, St. John himself exclaiming that the regular convention had been "...bought up by Wall Street." The two groups would reorganize as the "National Party" and swiftly nominated Charles Bentley for the presidency, with James Southgate, the State Chairman for the North Carolina Prohibition Party, as his running mate. The delegates approved the minority report that had been rejected at the Prohibitionist Convention calling for free coinage and greenbacks, government control of railroads and telegraphs, direct election of senators and the president, and an income tax among others.A PARTY WITH A LITTLE P https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/26/108233450.pdf The New York Times 7 July 2021 English May 26, 1896 live https://web.archive.org/web/20210904221325/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1896/05/26/108233450.pdf September 4, 2021 Socialist Labor Party nomination 65px|center|link=Socialist Labor Party of America1896 Socialist Labor Party ticket white Charles Matchett white Matthew Maguirefor Presidentfor Vice PresidentLabor leaderfrom New YorkAlderman inPaterson, New Jerseycenter|400x400px The Socialist Labor Convention was held in New York City on July 9, 1896. The convention nominated Charles Matchett of New York and Matthew Maguire of New Jersey. Its platform favored reduction in hours of labor; possession by the federal government of mines, railroads, canals, telegraphs, and telephones; possession by municipalities of water-works, gas-works, and electric plants; the issue of money by the federal government alone; the employment of the unemployed by the public authorities; abolition of the veto power; abolition of the United States Senate; women's suffrage; and uniform criminal law throughout the Union.https://books.google.com/books?id=svU_AAAAYAAJ&q=election+of+1896+%2B+Matchett&pg=PA78 The New England States February 22, 2008 December 11, 2010 Davis William Thomas Silver Party nomination 1896 Silver Party ticket black William Jennings Bryan black Arthur Sewallfor Presidentfor Vice President center|200x200px center|200x200px U.S. Representativefor Nebraska's 1st(1891–1895) Director of theMaine Central Railroad The Silver Party was organized in 1892. Near the beginning of that year, U.S. senators from silver-producing states (Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Montana) began objecting to President Benjamin Harrison's economic policies and advocated the free coinage of silver. Senator Henry Teller notified the Senate that if the two major parties did not back down on their financial policies, the four western states would back a third party. The Portland Morning Oregonian reported on June 27, 1892, that a Silver Party was being organized along those lines. Nevada silverites called a state convention to be held on June 5, 1892, just days following the close of the Democratic National Convention. The convention noted that neither the Republicans or Democrats addressed the silver concerns of western states and officially organized the "Silver Party of Nevada." Proceeding by itself, the Silver Party swept the state in 1892; James Weaver, the People's Party nominee for president running on the Silver ticket, won 66.8% of the vote. Francis Newlands was elected to the U.S. House with 72.5% of the vote. The Silverites took control of the legislature, assuring the election of William Stewart to the U.S. Senate. The success of the Nevada silverites spurred their brethren in Colorado to action; the Colorado Silver Party never materialized, however. In the 1894 midterm elections, the Silver Party remained a Nevada party. It swept all statewide offices, formerly held by Republicans. John Edward Jones was elected Governor with 50% of the vote; Newlands was re-elected with 44%. Following the Democratic Party debacle in 1894, James Weaver began agitating for the creation of a nationwide Silver Party. He altered the People's Party platform from 1892 and eliminated planks he felt would be divisive for a larger party and began to lobby silver men around the nation. The first major statement by the national Silver Party was an address delivered to the American Bimetallic League, printed in the Emporia Daily Gazette on March 6, 1895. Letterhead for the nascent party promoted U.S. Representative Joseph Sibley of Pennsylvania for president, noting that his endorsement by the Prohibitionists would secure that party's support. Silver leaders met in Washington DC on January 22 to discuss holding a national convention. They decided to wait until after the conventions of the two major parties in case one of them agreed to the 16:1 coinage demands. Just a few days later, however, party regulars convinced the leaders to change course. On January 29, the leaders issued a call for a national convention to be held in St. Louis on July 22. J.J. Mott, the Silver Party National Chairman, went to great lengths to organize state parties, but his efforts did not produce dramatic results. The Silver State convention in Ohio was attended by just 20 people, even though the president of the Bimetallic League, A.J. Warner, lived there. Although most Silverites had been pushing the nomination of Senator Teller, the situation changed with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan. Congressman Newlands was in Chicago as the official Silver Party visitor, and he announced on July 10 that the Silver Party should endorse the Democratic ticket. Chairman Mott, who was in St. Louis making final arrangements for the Silver National Convention, told a reporter five days later "All the Silver Party wants is silver, and the Democratic platform will give us that." I.B. Stevens, a member of the executive committee, told a reporter that the Silver Party "will bring to the support of [Bryan] hundreds of thousands who do not wish to vote a Democratic ticket." On July 25, both Bryan and Arthur Sewall would be nominated by acclamation. National Democratic Party nomination 1896 National Democratic National Convention 1896 National Democratic Party ticket black John M. Palmer black Simon Bolivar Bucknerfor Presidentfor Vice President center|200x200px center|200x200px U.S. Senatorfrom Illinois(1891–1897) 30thGovernor of Kentucky(1887–1891) Other candidates Candidates in this section are sorted by their highest vote count on the nominating ballots, then by reverse date of withdrawalEdward S. BraggHenry WattersonJames BroadheadDaniel W. LawlerGrover Clevelandcenter|200x200pxcenter|200x200pxcenter|200x200pxcenter|200x200pxcenter|198x198pxU.S. Ambassador to Mexicofrom Wisconsin(1888–1889)U.S. Representativefor Kentucky's 5th(1876–1877)U.S. Representativefor Missouri's 9th(1883–1885)Attorney-at-Lawfrom Minnesota22nd and 24th U.S. Presidentfrom New York(1885–1889; 1893–1897)130.5 votesW Withdrew:On First BallotDTBN Declined To Be NominatedDTBN Declined To Be NominatedDTBN Declined To Be Nominated thumb|155px|The National "Gold" Democratic Convention The pro-gold Democrats reacted to Bryan's nomination with a mixture of anger, desperation, and confusion. A number of pro-gold Bourbon Democrats urged a "bolt" and the formation of a third party. In response, a hastily arranged assembly on July 24 organized the National Democratic Party. A follow-up meeting in August scheduled a nominating convention for September in Indianapolis and issued an appeal to fellow Democrats. In this document, the National Democratic Party portrayed itself as the legitimate heir to Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland. Delegates from forty-one states gathered at the National Democratic Party's national nominating convention in Indianapolis on September 2. Some delegates planned to nominate Cleveland, but they relented after a telegram arrived stating that he would not accept. Senator William Freeman Vilas from Wisconsin, the main drafter of the National Democratic Party's platform, was a favorite of the delegates. However, Vilas refused to run as the party's sacrificial lamb. The choice instead was John M. Palmer, a 79-year-old former senator from Illinois. THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET; Palmer and Buckner Nominated at Indianapolis The New York Times 1 September 4, 1896 June 15, 2010 https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D00E0DB1E31E033A25757C0A96F9C94679ED7CF PDF March 14, 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/20120314015419/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D00E0DB1E31E033A25757C0A96F9C94679ED7CF live Simon Bolivar Buckner, a 73-year-old former governor of Kentucky, was nominated by acclamation for vice-president. The ticket, symbolic of post-Civil War reconciliation, featured the oldest combined age of the candidates in American history. thumb|left|155px|Palmer/Buckner campaign button Despite their advanced ages, Palmer and Buckner embarked on a busy speaking tour, including visits to most major cities in the East. This won them considerable respect from the party faithful, although some found it hard to take the geriatric campaigning seriously. "You would laugh yourself sick could you see old Palmer," wrote lawyer Kenesaw Mountain Landis. "He has actually gotten it into his head he is running for office."Paul W. Glad McKinley, Bryan, and the people https://archive.org/details/mckinleybryanpeo00glad registration 1964 Lippincott 187 The Palmer ticket was considered to be a vehicle to elect McKinley for some Gold Democrats, such as William Collins Whitney and Abram Hewitt, the treasurer of the National Democratic Party, and they received quiet financial support from Mark Hanna. Palmer himself said at a campaign stop that if "this vast crowd casts its vote for William McKinley next Tuesday, I shall charge them with no sin."Jones, 1896 p. 273 There was even some cooperation with the Republican Party, especially in finances. The Republicans hoped that Palmer could draw enough Democratic votes from Bryan to tip marginal Midwestern and border states into McKinley's column. In a private letter, Hewitt underscored the "entire harmony of action" between both parties in standing against Bryan.Allan Nevins Allan Nevins Abram S. Hewitt: with some account of Peter Cooper https://books.google.com/books?id=DesuAAAAIAAJ 1935 Harper & Brothers 564 9780598825124 However, the National Democratic Party was not merely an adjunct to the McKinley campaign. An important goal was to nurture a loyal remnant for future victory. Repeatedly they depicted Bryan's prospective defeat, and a credible showing for Palmer, as paving the way for ultimate recapture of the Democratic Party, and this did indeed happen in 1904.James A. Barnes John G. Carlisle, financial statesman https://books.google.com/books?id=WT4NAAAAIAAJ 1931 Dodd, Mead 470 The Palmer-Buckner ticket remains the only third-party presidential campaign in history to have earned the endorsement of the New York Times.2016-09-23 Opinion New York Times Endorsements Through the Ages https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html,%20https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html 2024-05-05 The New York Times en-US 0362-4331 May 14, 2021 https://web.archive.org/web/20210514054216/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html live Presidential ballot Ballot 1st before shifts 1st after shiftsJohn M. Palmer 757.5 769.5Edward S. Bragg 130.5 118.5 Campaign strategies While the Republican Party entered 1896 assuming that the Democrats were in shambles and victory would be easy, especially after the unprecedented Republican landslide in the congressional elections of 1894, the nationwide emotional response to the Bryan candidacy changed everything. By summer, it appeared that Bryan was ahead in the South and West and probably also in the Midwest.Jones, 1896 p. 277Phillips, McKinley pp. 74–75 Bryan ran an aggressive campaign that appealed to lower-class Americans and evangelical Christians. He traveled 18,000 miles by train and made around 600 speeches across the country. He often displayed religious imagery at the site of his speeches. The content of his speeches revolved around progressive policies such as the free coinage of silver and progressive tax reform that appealed to lower-class Americans. On the other hand, McKinley's campaign was much quieter and did not attempt to copy the populist rhetoric that Bryan relied on. However, Bryan's rising popularity worried Republican campaign strategists.Sides John Campaigns and elections: rules, reality, strategy, choice Shaw Daron R. Grossmann Matthew Lipsitz Keena 2023 W.W. Norton & Company 978-1-324-04691-2 Fourth edition, election update New York London An entirely new strategy was called for by the McKinley campaign. It was designed to educate voters in the money issues, to demonstrate silverite fallacies, and to portray Bryan himself as a dangerous crusader. McKinley would be portrayed as the safe and sound champion of jobs and sound money, with his high tariff proposals guaranteed to return prosperity for everyone. The McKinley campaign would be national and centralized, using the Republican National Committee as the tool of the candidate, instead of the state parties' tool.Daniel Klinghard The Nationalization of American Political Parties, 1880-1896 https://books.google.com/books?id=PVwCtvcs3NgC&pg=PA221 2010 Cambridge University Press 221–28 9780521192811 Furthermore, the McKinley campaign stressed his pluralistic commitment to prosperity for all groups (including minorities).William C. Spragens Popular Images of American Presidents https://books.google.com/books?id=vFXHb58t340C&pg=PA159 1988 Greenwood 158–59 9780313228995 Financing The McKinley campaign invented a new form of campaign financing that has dominated American politics ever since.William T. Horner Ohio's Kingmaker: Mark Hanna, Man & Myth https://books.google.com/books?id=LtE1pes-9IYC&pg=PT195 2010 Ohio University Press 195–99 9780821418949 Instead of asking office holders to return a cut of their pay, Hanna went to financiers and industrialists and made a business proposition. He explained that Bryan would win if nothing happened, and that the McKinley team had a winning counterattack that would be very expensive. He then would ask them how much it was worth to the business not to have Bryan as president. He suggested an amount and was happy to take a check. Hanna had moved beyond partisanship and campaign rhetoric to a businessman's thinking about how to achieve a desired result. He raised $3.5 million. Hanna brought in banker Charles G. Dawes to run his Chicago office and spend about $2 million in the critical region.John E. Jr. Pixton Charles G. Dawes and the McKinley Campaign Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 1955 48 3 283–306 40189448 McKinley emulated Benjamin Harrison's 1888 front porch campaign and raised money from various interest and demographic groups from his home in Canton, Ohio. His strategy involved inviting numerous interest and demographic group delegates to his house and giving a short speech to these groups. His strategy led to McKinley earning enormous campaign funds, and he used this money to enlist 14,000 speakers to represent the McKinley campaign. Meanwhile, traditional funders of the Democratic Party (mostly financiers from the Northeast) rejected Bryan, although he did manage to raise about $500,000. Some of it came from businessmen with interests in silver mining. Bryan never obtained the same amount of campaign funds as McKinley because his policies alienated Democratic donors who disagreed with his progressive policies. Without much campaign funds to spend, Bryan could not extend his political outreach and only relied on himself to speak for his policies. The financial disparity grew larger and larger as the Republicans funded more and more rallies, speeches, and torchlight parades, as well as hundreds of millions of pamphlets attacking Bryan and praising McKinley. Lacking a systematic fund-raising system, Bryan was unable to tap his potential supporters, and he had to rely on passing the hat at rallies. National Chairman Jones pleaded, "No matter in how small sums, no matter by what humble contributions, let the friends of liberty and national honor contribute all they can."William Jennings Bryan The First Battle: A Story of the Campaign of 1896 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.153792 1896 W.B. Conkey 292 Republican attacks on Bryan thumb|Conservatives said that Bryan (the Populist snake) was taking over (swallowing) the Democratic Party (the mule). Cartoon from Judge magazine, 1896. Increasingly, the Republicans personalized their attacks on Bryan as a dangerous religious fanatic.Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer A History of the United States Since the Civil War: 1888-1901 https://books.google.com/books?id=ZtZ2AAAAMAAJ 1937 Macmillan 437 The counter-crusading rhetoric focused on Bryan as a reckless revolutionary whose policies would destroy the economic system.William C. Spragens Popular Images of American Presidents https://books.google.com/books?id=vFXHb58t340C&pg=PA159 1988 Greenwood 159 978-0-313-22899-5 Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld was running for re-election after having pardoned several of the anarchists convicted in the Haymarket affair. Republican posters and speeches linked Altgeld and Bryan as two dangerous anarchists.Alice Fahs Joan Waugh The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture https://books.google.com/books?id=V-YxaltOdSEC&pg=PA193 2004 U. of North Carolina Press 193 9780807855720 The Republican Party tried any number of tactics to ridicule Bryan's economic policies. In one case they printed fake dollar bills which had Bryan's face and read "IN GOD WE TRUST ... FOR THE OTHER 53 CENTS", illustrating their claim that a dollar bill would be worth only 47 cents if it was backed by silver instead of gold.Jackson Lears T.J. Jackson Lears Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877-1920 https://books.google.com/books?id=DR2q0wjY7kMC&pg=PA188 2010 Harper Collins 188 9780060747503 Ethnic responses The Democratic Party in Eastern and Midwestern cities had a strong German Catholic base that was alienated by free silver and inflationist panaceas. They showed little enthusiasm for Bryan, although many were worried that a Republican victory would bring prohibition into play.Robert Booth Fowler Wisconsin Votes: An Electoral History https://books.google.com/books?id=VJ5JdhBusWwC&pg=PA80 2008 Univ of Wisconsin Press 80 9780299227401Paul Kleppner The cross of culture: a social analysis of midwestern politics, 1850-1900 https://archive.org/details/crossofcultureso0000klep registration 1970 Free Press 323–35 The Irish Catholics disliked Bryan's revivalistic rhetoric and worried about prohibition as well. However, their leaders decided to stick with Bryan, since the departure of so many Bourbon businessmen from the party left the Irish increasingly in control.Richard Franklin Bensel The Political Economy of American Industrialization, 1877-1900 https://books.google.com/books?id=mWWWbfR4MFYC&pg=PA237 2000 Cambridge University Press 237 978-0-521-77604-2The politics of depression: political behavior in the Northeast, 1893–1896 https://archive.org/details/politicsofdepres0000mcse registration 1972 Oxford University Press 218 Labor unions and skilled workers The Bryan campaign appealed first of all to farmers. It told urban workers that their return to prosperity was possible only if the farmers prospered first. Bryan made the point bluntly in the "Cross of Gold" speech, delivered in Chicago just 25 years after that city had indeed burned down: "Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country."Paul Kleppner The cross of culture: a social analysis of midwestern politics, 1850-1900 https://archive.org/details/crossofcultureso0000klep registration 1970 Free Press 304 Juxtaposing "our farms" and "your cities" did not go over well in cities; they voted 59% for McKinley. Among the industrial cities, Bryan carried only two (Troy, New York, and Fort Wayne, Indiana).William Diamond, American Historical Review (1941) 46#2 pp. 281–305 at pp. 285, 297 in JSTOR https://web.archive.org/web/20220219091603/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1838945 February 19, 2022 The main labor unions were reluctant to endorse Bryan because their members feared inflation.Elizabeth Sanders Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877-1917 https://books.google.com/books?id=_OG54CMBjAIC&pg=PA434 1999 U. of Chicago Press 434 9780226734774Matthew Hild Greenbackers, Knights of Labor, and Populists: Farmer-Labor Insurgency in the Late-Nineteenth-Century South https://books.google.com/books?id=6pe7kaB1TcgC&pg=PA191 2007 U. of Georgia Press 191–92 9780820328973 Railroad workers especially worried that Bryan's silver programs would bankrupt the railroads, which were in a shaky financial condition in the depression and whose bonds were payable in gold. Factory workers saw no advantage in inflation to help miners and farmers, because their urban cost of living would shoot up and they would be hurt. The McKinley campaign gave special attention to skilled workers, especially in the Midwest and adjacent states.William D. Harpine From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign https://books.google.com/books?id=0LANgsuVoBwC&pg=PA117 2006 Texas A&M University Press 117 9781585445592 Secret polls show that large majorities of railroad and factory workers voted for McKinley.Richard J. Jensen Richard J. Jensen The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888–1896 https://books.google.com/books?id=XpCgCNZwpvoC&pg=PA55 1971 U. of Chicago Press 55–56 9780226398259 Influence of the 1896 campaigns Campaign strategies of both sides changed how candidates campaign in elections in the United States, shifting presidential campaigns to be more candidate-focused and reliant on campaign messaging to attract donors. Bryan's campaign was influential because of the populist messaging that Bryan presented in his speeches nationwide. Even though Bryan did not have the same amount of campaign funds as McKinley, his messaging was impactful enough to earn a significant electoral vote, and he only needed a few more states to win the election. McKinley's campaign was influential because of how he earned and used his campaign funds to undermine Bryan's campaign. The front porch strategy was an excellent success for McKinley as he earned massive amounts of campaign funds from donors. Additionally, the way McKinley used the funds to attack Bryan's campaign produced the intended effect of Americans viewing Bryan as a religious fanatic whose policies threatened to ruin the economy. The outcome of the 1896 election shifted party coalitions as Republicans maintained strong relationships with businesses, professionals, skilled workers, and wealthy farmers. Unfortunately for Democrats, they were not able to produce a coalition of lower-class farmers, unskilled laborers, and white southerners. The fall campaign thumb|170px|upright|right|alt=Three-quarters standing portrait of Bryan in a dark suit and white tie, with hands clasped before him, and with a serious and commanding expression|Bryan's imposing voice and height made a deep impression on many who thronged to hear him. Throughout the campaign the South and Mountain states appeared certain to vote for Bryan, whereas the East was certain for McKinley. In play were the Midwest and the Border States. thumb|285px|left|Bryan traveled 18,000 miles in 3 months, concentrating on the critical states of the Midwest. The Republican Party amassed an unprecedented war chest at all levels: national, state and local. Outspent and shut out of the party's traditional newspapers, Bryan decided his best chance to win the election was to conduct a national speaking tour by train. His rhetoric to huge audiences would make his campaign a story that the hostile press would have to cover, and he could speak to the voters directly instead of through editorials. He was the first presidential candidate since Stephen Douglas in 1860 to canvass directly, and the first ever to criss-cross the nation and meet voters in person. The novelty of seeing a visiting presidential candidate, combined with Bryan's spellbinding oratory and the passion of his believers, generated huge crowds. Silverites welcomed their hero with all-day celebrations of parades, band music, picnic meals, endless speeches, and undying demonstrations of support. Bryan focused his efforts on the Midwest, which everyone agreed would be the decisive battleground in the election. In just 100 days, Bryan gave over 500 speeches to several million people. His record was 36 speeches in one day in St. Louis. Relying on just a few hours of sleep a night, he traveled 18,000 miles by railJeffrey G. Mora, "William Jennings Bryan and the 1896 Campaign," Railroad History, (Fall/Winter 2008), Issue 199, pp. 72–80, to address five million people, often in a hoarse voice; he would explain that he left his real voice at the previous stops where it was still rallying the people. thumb|140px|right|The National "Gold" Democratic Party undercut Bryan by dividing the Democratic vote and denouncing his platform. In contrast to Bryan's dramatic efforts, McKinley conducted a "front porch" campaign from his home in Canton, Ohio.Buggle Johannes C Vlachos Stephanos 2022 Populist Persuasion in Electoral Campaigns: Evidence from Bryan's Unique Whistle-Stop Tour http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac056 The Economic Journal 133 649 493–515 10.1093/ej/ueac056 0013-0133 subscription Instead of having McKinley travel to see the voters, Mark Hanna brought 500,000 voters by train to McKinley's home. Once there, McKinley would greet the men from his porch. His well-organized staff prepared both the remarks of the visiting delegations and the candidate's responses, focusing the comments on the assigned topic of the day. The remarks were issued to the newsmen and telegraphed nationwide to appear in the next day's papers. Bryan, with practically no staff, gave much the same talk over and over again. McKinley labeled Bryan's proposed social and economic reforms as a serious threat to the national economy. With the depression following the Panic of 1893 coming to an end, support for McKinley's more conservative economic policies increased, while Bryan's more radical policies began to lose support among Midwestern farmers and factory workers. To ensure victory, Hanna paid large numbers of Republican orators (including Theodore Roosevelt) to travel around the nation denouncing Bryan as a dangerous radical. There were also reports that some potentially Democratic voters were intimidated into voting for McKinley. For example, some factory owners posted signs the day before the election announcing that, if Bryan won the election, the factory would be closed and the workers would lose their jobs. Bryan's midsummer surge in the Midwest played out as the intense Republican counter-crusade proved effective. Bryan spent most of October in the Midwest, making 160 of his final 250 speeches there. Morgan noted, "full organization, Republican party harmony, a campaign of education with the printed and spoken word would more than counteract" Bryan's speechmaking.H. Wayne Morgan From Hayes to McKinley; national party politics, 1877–1896 https://books.google.com/books?id=Aux2AAAAMAAJ 1969 Syracuse University Press 9780608152011 Several of Bryan's advisors recommended additional campaigning in the Upper South States of Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. Another plan called for a coastal tour from Washington State to Southern California. Bryan however, opted to concentrate in the Mid-West and to launch a unity tour into the heavily Republican Northeast. Bryan saw no chance of winning in New England, but felt that he needed to make a truly national appeal. On election day the results from the Pacific Coast and Upper South would be the closest of the election. Results left|thumb|130x130px|1896 campaign lithograph cartoon celebrating McKinley's victory.Let us, as Americans, straightway devote ourselves to the upbuilding of America, to the peace, honor and glory of our common country. Party dissensions should no longer divide or rack the public mind, nor the zeal or temper of either side deter any citizen from patriotic devotion to the good of all. William McKinley Telegram to RNC Chairman Mark Hanna on the results of the presidential election (November 5, 1896)McKinley William Telegram to Chairman Marcus A. Hanna of the Republican National Committee on the Results of the Presidential Election https://ucsb.edu The American Presidency Project November 5, 1896 October 5, 2026 padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 150px; border-left: none;36.8% of the voting age population and 79.7% of eligible voters participated in the election.Abramson Aldrich Rohde 1995 99 McKinley secured a solid victory in the electoral college by carrying the core of the East and Northeast, while Bryan did well among the farmers of the South, West, and rural Midwest. The large German-American voting bloc supported McKinley, who gained a large majority among the middle class, skilled factory workers, railroad workers, and large-scale farmers. This was the first time since 1876 that a candidate won a majority of the popular vote.Sherman 1973 3 The national popular vote was rather close, as McKinley defeated Bryan by 602,500 votes, receiving 51% to Bryan's 46.7%: a shift of 53,000 votes in California, Kentucky, Ohio and Oregon would have won Bryan the election despite McKinley winning the majority of the popular vote, but due to the joint Democratic-Populist ticket, this also would have left Hobart and Sewell short of the 224 electoral votes required to win the vice-presidency, forcing a contingent election for vice-president in the Senate. 11.36% of McKinley's votes came from the eleven states of the former Confederacy, with him taking 35.30% of the vote in that region.Sherman 1973 263 The National Democrats did not carry any states, but they did divide the Democratic vote in some states and helped the Republicans flip Kentucky cracking into the Solid South; Gold Democrats made much of the fact that Palmer's small vote in Kentucky was higher than McKinley's very narrow margin in that state. This was the first time a Republican presidential candidate had ever carried Kentucky, but they did not do so again until Calvin Coolidge in 1924.Counting the Votes; Kentucky https://web.archive.org/web/20171120015058/http://www.countingthevotes.com/kentucky/ November 20, 2017 From this, they concluded that Palmer had siphoned off needed Democratic votes and hence thrown the state to McKinley. However, McKinley would have won the overall election even if he had lost Kentucky to Bryan. The Prohibitionists dropped below a percentage point of the popular vote for the first time since their breakthrough in 1884, though the split in their vote, while sufficient to allow Palmer to finish third in the popular vote, did not prove as severe as they had initially feared. Bentley's breakaway candidacy only attracted 0.1% of the popular vote, and he only even did that well due to the New Jersey chapter of the Prohibition Party rejecting Levering and nominating Bentley as the party's candidate; the state single-handedly accounted for 40% of Bentley's overall vote. Levering largely lost votes to McKinley, as Prohibitionists who were concerned about the prospect of a Bryan presidency moved to support him; conversely, Bentley's candidacy was undermined by the emergence of Bryan, who like Bentley was a free silver supporter and was considered to be at least amenable to prohibition (though he would not publicly emerge as a supporter of it until over a decade later). Mayor Tom L. Johnson of Cleveland, Ohio, summed up the campaign as the "first great protest of the American people against monopoly – the first great struggle of the masses in our country against the privileged classes." According to a 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research paper, Bryan did well where mortgage interest rates were high, railroad penetration was low, and crop prices had declined by most over the previous decade. Using our estimates, we show that further declines in crop prices or increases in interest rates would have been enough to tip the Electoral College in Bryan's favor. But to change the outcome, the additional fall in crop prices would have had to be large.Eichengreen Barry Haines Michael R. Jaremski Matthew S. Leblang David October 2017 Populists at the Polls: Economic Factors in the 1896 Presidential Election NBER Working Paper No. 23932 10.3386/w23932 free A 2022 study found that campaign visits by Bryan increased his vote share by one percentage point on average. McKinley received a little more than seven million votes, Bryan a little less than six and a half million, about 800,000 in excess of the Democratic vote in 1892. It was larger than the Democratic Party was to poll in 1900, 1904, or 1912. It was somewhat less, however, than the combined vote for the Democratic and Populist nominees had been in 1892. In contrast, McKinley received nearly 2,000,000 more votes than had been cast for Benjamin Harrison, the Republican nominee, in 1892. The Republican vote was to be slightly increased during the next decade. As of 2024, this is the last occasion Northampton County North Carolina has voted for a Republican presidential candidate,Menendez, Albert J.; The Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, 1868-2004, pp. 265-271 0786422173 which stands as the longest Democratic streak in the nation. Brooks County, Texas and Jim Hogg County, Texas, as well as Menominee County, Wisconsin and Kalawao County, Hawaii have never voted Republican but were only created in 1911, 1913, 1959, and 1905, respectively. The 1896 presidential election is often seen as a realigning election, in which McKinley's view of a stronger central government building American industry through protective tariffs and a dollar based on gold triumphed.Kevin Phillips, William McKinley (2003) pp 57-85.R. Hal Williams, Realigning America: McKinley, Bryan and the Remarkable Election of 1896 (U Press of Kansas, 2010), pp. xi, 169–170. The new Fourth Party System then displaced the near-deadlock in the Third Party System since the Civil War. The Republicans now usually dominated in the major states and nationwide down to the 1932 election, another realigning election with the ascent of Franklin Roosevelt and the Fifth Party System.Walter Dean Burnham, "The system of 1896: An analysis" in Paul Kleppner et al. he Evolution of American Electoral Systems (Greenwood, 1981) pp. 147-202. Phillips argues that McKinley was the only Republican who could have defeated Bryan—he concludes that Eastern candidates would have done badly against the Illinois-born Bryan in the crucial Midwest. Although Bryan was popular among rural voters, "McKinley appealed to a very different industrialized, urbanized America."Phillips 2014 73–77 Geography of results right|thumb|400px|Results by county explicitly indicating the percentage for the winning candidate. Shades of red are for McKinley (Republican), shades of blue are for Bryan (Democratic), and shades of green are for "Other(s)" (Non-Democratic/Non-Republican).https://books.google.com/books?id=9WaaAAAAIAAJ The Presidential Vote, 1896–1932 – Google Books Stanford University Press August 12, 2014 1934 9780804716963 One-half of the total vote of the nation was polled in eight states carried by McKinley (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin). In these states, Bryan not only ran far behind the Republican candidate, but also polled considerably less than half of his total vote.The Presidential Vote, 1896–1932, Edgar E. Robinson, p. 4 Bryan only won in twelve of the eighty-two cities in the United States with populations above 45,000 with seven of those being in the Solid South. In the states that Bryan won, seven of the seventeen cities voted for McKinley while in the states that voted for McKinley only three of the sixty-five cities voted for Bryan. Bryan lost in every county in New England and only won one county in New York, with Bryan even losing in traditionally Democratic New York City, which had last failed to support a Democratic nominee in 1848.Murphy Paul 1974 Political Parties In American History, Volume 3, 1890-present G. P. Putnam's Sons In only one other section, in the six states of New England, was the Republican lead great; the Republican vote (614,972) was more than twice the Democratic vote (242,938), and every county was carried by the Republicans. The West North Central section gave a slight lead to McKinley, as did the Pacific section. Nevertheless, within these sections, the states of Missouri, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Washington were carried by Bryan. In the South Atlantic section and in the East South Central section, the Democratic lead was pronounced, and in the West South Central section and in the Mountain section, the vote for Bryan was overwhelming. In these four sections, comprising 21 states, McKinley carried only 322 counties and four states – Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky. A striking feature of this examination of the state returns is found in the overwhelming lead for one or the other party in 22 of the 45 states. It was true of the McKinley vote in every New England state and in New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. It was also true of the Bryan vote in eight states of the lower South and five states of the Mountain West. Sectionalism was thus marked in this first election of the Fourth Party System. This was the last election in which the Democrats won South Dakota until 1932, the last in which the Democrats won Utah and Washington until 1916, and the last in which the Democrats won Kansas and Wyoming until 1912. It was also the last time that South Dakota and Washington voted against the Republicans until they voted for the Progressive Party in 1912. This also constitutes the only election since their statehoods when a Republican won the presidency without winning Kansas, South Dakota, Utah, or Wyoming. Today these are solidly Republican states and have not backed a Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide over Barry Goldwater. This is one of two occasions where Idaho and Montana backed a losing Democrat (along with 1900), and one of two occasions where Nebraska did so (along with 1908). This is the first occasion where Republicans won without Colorado. In the South, there were numerous Republican counties, notably in Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, northern Alabama and Virginia, representing a mix of white Southern Unionist counties along with majority black counties in areas where black disenfranchisement was not yet complete (such as North Carolina, where a Republican-Populist fusion ticket had captured the General Assembly in 1894). Even in Georgia, a state in the Deep South, there were counties returning Republican majorities. File: United States Electoral College 1896.svg William McKinley Republican Ohio 7,111,607 51.03% 271 Garret Hobart New Jersey William Jennings Bryan Democratic-Populist-Silver-Silver Republican Nebraska 6,509,052(a) 46.70% 176 2 Arthur Sewall(b) Maine 149 Thomas E. Watson(c) Georgia 27 John M. Palmer National Democratic Illinois 134,645 0.97% 0 Simon Bolivar Buckner Kentucky Joshua Levering Prohibition Maryland 131,312 0.94% 0 Hale Johnson Illinois Charles H. Matchett Socialist Labor New York 36,373 0.26% 0 Matthew Maguire New Jersey Charles Eugene Bentley National Prohibition Nebraska 13,968 0.10% 0 James H. Southgate North Carolina 1,570 0.01% 13,936,957 447 224 (a) Includes 912,241 votes as the People's nominee (b) Sewall was Bryan's Democratic running mate. (c) Watson was Bryan's People's running mate. Source (Popular Vote):History of American Presidential Elections 1789–1968, Volume II, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Source (Electoral Vote): 1896 July 31, 2005 Popular vote 600px 410px McKinley Republican Party (US) 51.02 Bryan (D) Democratic Party (US) 40.07 Bryan (P) #0BDA51 6.54 Palmer #C8B560 0.96 Levering #ff9955 0.90 Matchett #0BDA51 0.26 Bryan (S) Silver Party (US) 0.15 Others #777777 0.01 Electoral vote 600px 410px McKinley Republican Party (US) 60.63 Bryan (D) Democratic Party (US) 31.77 Bryan (P) #0BDA51 6.94 Bryan (S) Silver Party (US) 0.67 Geography of results 650px|thumb|left Cartographic gallery Results by state http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=1896&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0 1896 Presidential General Election Data - National March 18, 2013 States/districts won by Bryan/Sewall or Bryan/WatsonStates/districts won by McKinley/Hobart William McKinleyRepublican William Jennings BryanDemocratic/Populist John PalmerNational Democrat Joshua LeveringProhibition Charles MatchettSocialist Labor Charles BentleyNational Prohibition Margin State Total State electoralvotes # % electoralvotes # % electoralvotes # % electoralvotes # % electoralvotes # % electoralvotes # % electoralvotes # % # Alabama 11 55,673 28.61 - 130,298 66.96 11 6,375 3.28 - 2,234 1.15 - - - - - - - -74,625 -38.35 194,580 AL Arkansas 8 37,512 25.12 - 110,103 73.72 8 - - - 839 0.56 - - - - 893 0.60 - -72,591 -48.61 149,347 AR California 9 146,688 49.16 8 144,766 48.51 1 1,730 0.58 - 2,573 0.86 - 1,611 0.54 - 1,047 0.35 - 1,922 0.64 298,419 CA Colorado 4 26,271 13.86 - 161,005 84.95 4 1 0.00 - 1,717 0.91 - 159 0.08 - 386 0.20 - -134,734 -71.09 189,539 CO Connecticut 6 110,285 63.24 6 56,740 32.54 - 4,336 2.49 - 1,806 1.04 - 1,223 0.70 - - - - 53,545 30.70 174,390 CT Delaware 3 20,450 53.18 3 16,574 43.10 - 966 2.51 - 466 1.21 - - - - - - - 3,876 10.08 38,456 DE Florida 4 11,298 24.30 - 32,756 70.46 4 1,778 3.82 - 656 1.41 - - - - - - - -21,458 -46.16 46,488 FL Georgia 13 59,395 36.56 - 93,885 57.78 13 3,670 2.26 - 5,483 3.37 - - - - - - - -34,490 -21.23 162,480 GA Idaho 3 6,314 21.32 - 23,135 78.10 3 - - - 172 0.58 - - - - - - - -16,821 -56.79 29,621 ID Illinois 24 607,130 55.66 24 465,613 42.68 - 6,390 0.59 - 9,796 0.90 - 1,147 0.11 - 793 0.07 - 141,517 12.97 1,090,869 IL Indiana 15 323,754 50.82 15 305,573 47.96 - 2,145 0.34 - 3,056 0.48 - 324 0.05 - 2,267 0.36 - 18,181 2.85 637,119 IN Iowa 13 289,293 55.47 13 223,741 42.90 - 4,516 0.87 - 3,192 0.61 - 453 0.09 - 352 0.07 - 65,552 12.57 521,547 IA Kansas 10 159,345 47.63 - 171,675 51.32 10 1,209 0.36 - 1,698 0.51 - - - - 620 0.19 - -12,330 -3.69 334,547 KS Kentucky 13 218,171 48.93 12 217,894 48.86 1 5,084 1.14 - 4,779 1.07 - - - - - - - 277 0.06 445,928 KY Louisiana 8 22,037 21.81 - 77,175 76.38 8 1,834 1.82 - - - - - - - - - - -55,138 -54.57 101,046 LA Maine 6 80,403 67.90 6 34,587 29.21 - 1,867 1.58 - 1,562 1.32 - - - - - - - 45,816 38.69 118,419 ME Maryland 8 136,959 54.73 8 104,150 41.62 - 2,499 1.00 - 5,918 2.36 - 587 0.23 - 136 0.05 - 32,809 13.11 250,249 MD Massachusetts 15 278,976 69.47 15 105,711 26.32 - 11,749 2.93 - 2,998 0.75 - 2,114 0.53 - - - - 173,265 43.15 401,568 MA Michigan 14 293,336 53.77 14 237,166 43.47 - 6,923 1.27 - 4,978 0.91 - 293 0.05 - 1,816 0.33 - 56,170 10.30 545,585 MI Minnesota 9 193,503 56.62 9 139,735 40.89 - 3,222 0.94 - 4,348 1.27 - 954 0.28 - - - - 53,768 15.73 341,762 MN Mississippi 9 4,819 6.92 - 63,355 91.04 9 1,021 1.47 - 396 0.57 - - - - - - - -58,536 -84.11 69,591 MS Missouri 17 304,940 45.25 - 363,667 53.96 17 2,365 0.35 - 2,043 0.30 - 599 0.09 - 292 0.04 - -58,727 -8.71 673,906 MO Montana 3 10,509 19.71 - 42,628 79.93 3 - - - 193 0.36 - - - - - - - -32,119 -60.23 53,330 MT Nebraska 8 103,064 46.18 - 115,007 51.53 8 2,885 1.29 - 1,243 0.56 - 186 0.08 - 797 0.36 - -11,943 -5.35 223,182 NE Nevada 3 1,938 18.79 - 8,376 81.21 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - -6,438 -62.42 10,314 NV New Hampshire 4 57,444 68.66 4 21,650 25.88 - 3,520 4.21 - 779 0.93 - 228 0.27 - 49 0.06 - 35,794 42.78 83,670 NH New Jersey 10 221,535 59.68 10 133,695 36.02 - 6,378 1.72 - - - - 3,986 1.07 - 5,617 1.51 - 87,840 23.66 371,211 NJ New York 36 819,838 57.58 36 551,369 38.72 - 18,950 1.33 - 16,052 1.13 - 17,667 1.24 - - - - 268,469 18.85 1,423,876 NY North Carolina 11 155,122 46.82 - 174,408 52.64 11 578 0.17 - 635 0.19 - - - - 222 0.07 - -19,286 -5.82 331,337 NC North Dakota 3 26,335 55.57 3 20,686 43.65 - - - - 358 0.76 - - - - - - - 5,649 11.92 47,391 ND Ohio 23 525,991 51.86 23 477,497 47.08 - 1,858 0.18 - 5,068 0.50 - 1,165 0.11 - 2,716 0.27 - 48,494 4.78 1,014,295 OH Oregon 4 48,779 50.07 4 46,739 47.98 - 977 1.00 - 919 0.94 - - - - - - - 2,040 2.09 97,414 OR Pennsylvania 32 728,300 60.98 32 433,228 36.27 - 11,000 0.92 - 19,274 1.61 - 1,683 0.14 - 870 0.07 - 295,072 24.71 1,194,355 PA Rhode Island 4 37,437 68.33 4 14,459 26.39 - 1,166 2.13 - 1,160 2.12 - 558 1.02 - - - - 22,978 41.94 54,785 RI South Carolina 9 9,313 13.51 - 58,801 85.30 9 824 1.20 - - - - - - - - - - -49,488 -71.79 68,938 SC South Dakota 4 41,042 49.48 - 41,225 49.70 4 - - - 683 0.82 - - - - - - - -183 -0.22 82,950 SD Tennessee 12 148,683 46.33 - 167,168 52.09 12 1,953 0.61 - 3,099 0.97 - - - - - - - -18,485 -5.76 320,903 TN Texas 15 167,520 30.75 - 370,434 68.00 15 5,046 0.93 - 1,786 0.33 - - - - - - - -202,914 -37.25 544,786 TX Utah 3 13,491 17.27 - 64,607 82.70 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - -51,116 -65.43 78,119 UT Vermont 4 51,127 80.08 4 10,640 16.66 - 1,331 2.08 - 733 1.15 - - - - - - - 40,487 63.41 63,847 VT Virginia 12 135,379 45.94 - 154,708 52.50 12 2,129 0.72 - 2,350 0.80 - 108 0.04 - - - - -19,329 -6.56 294,674 VA Washington 4 39,153 41.84 - 53,314 56.97 4 - - - 968 1.03 - - - - 148 0.16 - -14,161 -15.13 93,583 WA West Virginia 6 105,379 52.23 6 94,480 46.83 - 678 0.34 - 1,220 0.60 - - - - - - - 10,899 5.40 201,757 WV Wisconsin 12 268,135 59.93 12 165,523 37.00 - 4,584 1.02 - 7,507 1.68 - 1,314 0.29 - 346 0.08 - 102,612 22.93 447,409 WI Wyoming 3 10,072 47.75 - 10,861 51.49 3 - - - 159 0.75 - - - - - - - -789 -3.74 21,092 WY TOTALS: 447 7,112,138 51.02 271 6,510,807 46.71 176 133,537 0.96 - 124,896 0.90 - 36,359 0.26 - 19,367 0.14 - 601,331 4.31 13,938,674 US States that flipped from Democratic to Republican California Connecticut Delaware Illinois Indiana Kentucky Maryland New Jersey New York West Virginia Wisconsin States that flipped from Republican to Democratic Montana Nebraska South Dakota Washington Wyoming States that flipped from Populist to Democratic Colorado Idaho Kansas Nevada States that flipped from Populist to Republican North Dakota Close states Margin of victory less than 1% (26 electoral votes; 20 won by Republicans; 6 by Democrats): Kentucky, 0.06% (277 votes) South Dakota, 0.22% (183 votes) California, 0.64% (1,922 votes) Margin of victory less than 5% (55 electoral votes; 42 won by Republicans; 13 by Democrats): Oregon, 2.09% (2,040 votes) Indiana, 2.85% (18,181 votes) Kansas, 3.69% (12,330 votes) Wyoming, 3.74% (789 votes) Ohio, 4.78% (48,494 votes) (tipping point state) Margin of victory between 5% and 10% (66 electoral votes; 6 won by Republicans; 60 by Democrats): Nebraska, 5.35% (11,943 votes) West Virginia, 5.40% (10,899 votes) Tennessee, 5.76% (18,485 votes) North Carolina, 5.82% (19,286 votes) Virginia, 6.56% (19,329 votes) Missouri, 8.71% (58,727 votes) Statistics Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Republican) Zapata County, Texas 94.34% Leslie County, Kentucky 91.39% Addison County, Vermont 89.17% Unicoi County, Tennessee 89.04% Keweenaw County, Michigan 88.96% Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Democratic) West Carroll Parish, Louisiana 99.84% Leflore County, Mississippi 99.68% Smith County, Mississippi 99.26% Pitkin County, Colorado 99.21% Neshoba County, Mississippi 99.15% Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Populist) Madera County, California 62.80% Lake County, California 61.95% Stanislaus County, California 59.00% San Benito County, California 57.59% San Luis Obispo County, California 56.37% In popular culture The election parade for William McKinley is seen in the 1952 film adaptation of The Little House. See also American election campaigns in the 19th century History of the United States (1865–1918) First inauguration of William McKinley Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz Third Party System 1896 United States House of Representatives elections 1896–1897 United States Senate elections Notes lower-alpha note References 30em Works cited Abramson Paul Aldrich John Rohde David Change and Continuity in the 1992 Elections CQ Press 1995 0871878399 Sherman Richard The Republican Party and Black America From McKinley to Hoover 1896-1933 University of Virginia Press 1973 0813904676 Further reading 1896 United States elections#Further reading "Election of 1896" in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed. Coming to Power: Critical Presidential Elections in American History (1972) pp. 225–263. online James A. Barnes Myths of the Bryan Campaign Mississippi Valley Historical Review 34 3 1947 367–404 10.2307/1898096 1898096 David T. Linda Royster Beito Beito David T. Beito Linda Royster Beito http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=22&articleID=261 Gold Democrats and the Decline of Classical Liberalism, 1896-1900 Independent Review 4 2000 555–75 March 26, 2014 April 26, 2006 https://web.archive.org/web/20140326140336/http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=22&articleID=261 dead Bensel, Richard Franklin Richard Bensel Passion and Preferences: William Jennings Bryan and the 1896 Democratic National Convention https://books.google.com/books?id=MadNAPP2Jz8C&pg=PA120 2008 Cambridge U.P. 9780521717625 Burnham, Walter Dean. "The system of 1896: An analysis" in Paul Kleppner, W.D. Burnham, Ronald P. Formisano, Samuel P. Hays, Richard Jensen, and Walter G. Shade. The Evolution of American electoral systems (Greenwood, 1981) pp. 147–202. Paolo E. Coletta William Jennings Bryan, Political Evangelist https://archive.org/details/williamjenningsb00cole registration University of Nebraska Press 1964 vol. 1 Diamond, William, "Urban and Rural Voting in 1896," American Historical Review, (1941) 46#2 pp. 281–305 in JSTOR Durden, Robert Franklin "The 'Cow-bird' Grounded: The Populist Nomination of Bryan and Tom Watson in 1896," Mississippi Valley Historical Review (1963) 50#3 pp. 397–423 in JSTOR Edwards, Rebecca. "The election of 1896." OAH Magazine of History 13.4 (1999): 28–30. online brief overview Fahey, James J. "Building Populist Discourse: An Analysis of Populist Communication in American Presidential Elections, 1896–2016." Social Science Quarterly 102.4 (2021): 1268–1288. online Gilbert C. Fite Republican Strategy and the Farm Vote in the Presidential Campaign of 1896 American Historical Review 65 4 1960 787–806 10.2307/1849404 1849404 Paul W. Glad McKinley, Bryan, and the People 1964 Lippincott 0-397-47048-7 https://archive.org/details/mckinleybryanpeo0000glad_s9t5 Henry F. Graff Henry Graff Grover Cleveland 2002 0-8050-6923-2 https://archive.org/details/grovercleveland00graf Harpine, William D. From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign (2006) focus on the speeches and rhetoric Horner, William T. Ohio's Kingmaker: Mark Hanna, Man and Myth (Ohio University Press, 2010.) Jeansonne Glen Goldbugs, Silverites, and Satirists: Caricature and Humor in the Presidential Election of 1896 Journal of American Culture 1988 11 2 1–8 10.1111/j.1542-734X.1988.1102_1.x Richard J. Jensen The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict 1888–1896 1971 University of Chicago Press https://books.google.com/books?id=XpCgCNZwpvoC 0-226-39825-0 online Stanley L. Jones The Presidential Election of 1896 https://archive.org/details/presidentialelec0000jone registration 1964 University of Wisconsin Press 0-299-03094-6 Kazin, Michael. A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (2006). Patrick J. Kelly The Election of 1896 and the Restructuring of Civil War Memory Civil War History 49 2003 3 10.1353/cwh.2003.0058 254 Kleppner, Paul. The cross of culture : a social analysis of midwestern politics, 1850-1900 (1970) online Russell L. Mahan William Jennings Bryan and the Presidential Campaign of 1896 White House Studies 3 2003 41 1 Morgan, H. Wayne William McKinley and His America https://books.google.com/books?id=B0Jr8Ypal1UC 2004 Kent State U. P. chapter 10–11 9780873387651 Phillips Kevin William McKinley: The American Presidents Series: The 25th President, 1897-1901 2014 https://archive.org/details/williammckinley00phil New York Times Books 9780805069532 The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters Karl Rove Karl Rove Simon & Schuster 2015 9781476752952 detailed narrative of the entire campaign by Karl Rove a prominent 21st-century Republican campaign advisor. Stonecash, Jeffrey M.; Silina, Everita. "The 1896 Realignment," American Politics Research, (Jan 2005) 33#1 pp. 3–32 Wanat, John and Karen Burke, "Estimating the Degree of Mobilization and Conversion in the 1890s: An Inquiry into the Nature of Electoral Change," American Political Science Review, (1982) 76#2 pp. 360–70 in JSTOR Wells, Wyatt. "Rhetoric of the standards: The debate over gold and silver in the 1890s," Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era (2015). 14#1 pp. 49–68. R. Hal Williams Years of Decision: American Politics in the 1890s https://archive.org/details/yearsofdecisiona0000will registration 1978 Wiley 9780471948773 Williams, R. Hal. (2010) Realigning America: McKinley, Bryan, and the Remarkable Election of 1896 (University Press of Kansas) 250 pp Primary sources Bryan, William Jennings. First Battle (1897), speeches from 1896 campaign. online National Democratic Committee https://archive.org/details/campaigntextboo01goog Democratic campaign text Book. Campaign Text-book of the National Democratic Party 1896 National Democratic committee This is the handbook of the Gold Democrats and strongly opposed Bryan. https://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/sgml/moa-idx?notisid=ABQ7578-0163-22&type=simple&slice=1&&&q1=issues%20and%20prospects&year1=1815&year2=1926&searchSummary=16%20matches%20in%206%20journal%20articles&size=50&layer=third&coll=serial2 William E. Chandler William E. Chandler Issues and Prospects of the Campaign North American Review 163 2 August 1896 171–82 https://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABQ7578-0163-23 Josiah Quincy 182–95 Issues and Prospects of the Campaign North American Review 163 2 August 1896 Porter, Kirk H. and Donald Bruce Johnson, eds. National party platforms, 1840-1964 (1965) online 1840-1956 Whicher, George F., ed. William Jennings Bryan and the Campaign of 1896 (1953), primary and secondary sources. online External links Presidential Election of 1896: A Resource Guide from the Library of Congress 1896 popular vote by counties McKinley & Hobart campaign handkerchief in the Staten Island Historical Society Online Collections Database Election of 1896 in Counting the Votes https://web.archive.org/web/20190923205040/http://www.countingthevotes.com/1896/ September 23, 2019 Category:People's Party (United States) Category:Presidency of William McKinley Category:Garret Hobart Category:William McKinley Category:William Jennings Bryan Category:November 1896 in the United States Category:1896 in American politics