LIMUN 2016 the Men Who Built America Historical Joint Cabinet Crisis

LIMUN 2016 The Men Who Built America Historical Joint Cabinet Crisis

By Daniel Gindis Aaron McPherson Jesse Harington

Table of Contents

Letter from the Directors 3 Business in the 1890s 4 The Economics of the 1890s 7 The Political System of the 1890s 11

Letter from the Directors

Dear Delegates, From the moment I started directing my first corporate Crisis, Murdoch Empire, my eyes were opened to the potential of Crisis committee driving by gain and expansion which, while not based on the acquisition or land or military dominance, and yet was just as exciting with a new array or tools at the disposal of the participants. Flash forward to Angus Steakhouse, 4th November, 2015, where I pitched the idea for The Men Who Build America Joint Cabinet Crisis to the LIMUN Secretariat. I was rightly asked what I found so exciting about post-Civil War America. My answer was simple: imagine what one could do with a mostly modern economic system, but no laws? Just as hindsight is 20/20, and the Great Depression of the early 1930s could have been avoided with knowledge from the 1940s, so too could lessons from today be used to either curtail the limitless powers of rich businessmen, or the businessmen be able to further take advantage of the savagely open market even further than they did. If any one of our delegates has ever been upset by the amount of involvement the federal government has in one’s life, the amount of taxes they take, or the red tape they face starting a business or getting a job, they needn’t imagine, ‘What if it were different?’: here would be a chance to see if they can really do better. Could Cornelius Vanderbilt close off the only bridge to the country’s largest port and let millions of dollars work of produce rot to hurt the competition? Could a mercenary army be brought it to put down a steel mill’s workers’ strike? Sometimes a Crisis can be so far in the future or the past that it is half the stuff of fantasy and science fiction. One of the advantages of the late 1800s is that the system of checks and balances is much less complex than it is today, and can be more easily understood by non-economic students. In The Men Who Built America, we will be able to see the difference between companies that produced products and corporate financiers. Those on the Congressional committee, for their parts, will get to feel what it’s like to be the United States Government in a country without antitrust laws, and to see the challenges of trying to create a system of checks and balances from practically nothing. We want to wish all of the businessmen and women – innovators, financiers, people of industry and property – and aspiring politicians on all our four cabinets the best of luck, and we hope that we will enjoy together a Crisis which will be every bit as fascinating and memorable as the era that we will be simulating. May we see a high-energy performance to trump previous Crises, and make America great again. Good luck! Daniel Gindis, Aaron McPherson, Jesse Harington Crisis Directorate, LIMUN 2016 4

Business in the 1890s On April 15th 1865, just five days after the American Civil War, a divided nation said goodbye to the last casualty of the 600,000 dead. With the assassination of possibly its most talented statesman, the United States, while free from the shackles of slavery, was viewed by the world as a failed democratic experiment. However, beneath the ashes, a new breed of leader was emerging, hungry for the spoils offered by the American dream. Over the next decades, these men would change America, and give a template to the world in business, industry and a new level of ruthless efficiency. To better understand the 1890s, an understanding is needed of the way business was done at the time. Such a case study can be seen through the story of Cornelius Vanderbilt. ‘Commodore Vanderbilt’: a sign of things to come

Vanderbilt, born poor and with a mediocre education, bought a small ferryboat in 1810 at the age of 16 with a $100 loan. Within a few years he had grown his boat into a fleet of ships, and was nicknamed ‘the Commodore’. Over the next forty years he grew his shipping empire into the largest in the world. Vanderbilt understood that shipping was the key to success. Right before the Civil War, Vanderbilt recognized the development of the cross country railroad as an opportunity, sold everything and invested in the rail system. Shipping for both the Union and the Confederacy, by the end of the war, Vanderbilt had raised $68 million ($75 billion in today’s money). The King of Railroads

Even with this fortune, Vanderbilt was saddened by the loss of his favorite son, whom he had prepared to be his successor. This loss led Vanderbilt’s competitors to believe him vulnerable, and they turned down his requests for payment to enter on the only rail bridge into Manhattan, the nation’s largest port.

Without the Albany Bridge, Vanderbilt prevented millions of pounds of cargo from reaching the rest of the country and, as cargo rotted, he bled his competitors dry. As a result, their value in stock fell and Vanderbilt took advantage of the low stock to buy New York Central railroads in a hostile takeover. Now the undisputed king of railroads, Vanderbilt used his fortune to erect a temple in his honor, the Grand Central Depot (now Grand Central Station), at the time the largest building in New York. The Erie War

Owning 40% of Americans railways was not enough for Vanderbilt. He decided to use his millions to buy as much of the Erie Line as possible, to control the rail route to Chicago, the largest he did not already own. Taking advantage of this, two mid-level employees at the Erie Line, Jay 5

Gould and Jim Fisk, took advantage of Vanderbilt’s patterns of acquisition and printed stock in the basement of the offices and flooded the stock market. Not knowing the stock was getting watered down, Vanderbilt continued to pay to try and complete the purchase. This watering of the stock only ended when Gould and Fisk decided to gloat by sending a pile of printed stock to Vanderbilt’s home. Looking at the printed stock, Vanderbilt realized he had been had, having paid over $7 million to lose control of the Erie line in the summer of 1868 while Jay Gould became its president. The Kerosene Revolution

At this time Vanderbilt realised that the railroads were now overbuilt, and that the key to success lay not in owning railways, but in ensuring that there was the right kind of cargo to transport. Vanderbilt also noticed that Kerosene was quickly becoming a light source all over America. Vanderbilt found a supplier to keep his trains full in Cleveland, which was atop one of the large deposits of oil in the world. The owner of the refinery Vanderbilt chose was John D. Rockefeller, a refinery owner who, at 27 years of age, was facing hard time. While Vanderbilt looked for a weaker partner to take advantage of, Rockerfeller saw his meeting with Vanderbilt as the bargain of a lifetime and went to New York to make the exclusive deal. While always punctual, Rockefeller missed the train, which crashed killing the passengers. Rockefeller felt that divine intervention had saved him and he became a strongly religious man. In contrast to his con-man father ‘Devil Bill’ Rockefeller, John D. did not gamble or drink, and following the accident, he felt he had a higher calling. Feeling he was bargaining as part of a divine purpose, he left New York with the perfect deal in hand, but with one major problem. He did not have the capacity in his own refinery to produce 60 barrels of oil per day. The rise of Standard Oil

The refining process was dangerous, and Rockefeller used this safety concern to promote his own company and brand, Standard Oil (today Exxon Mobil). Starting out with loans, Rockefeller started buying other refineries, and found himself with more oil than Vanderbilt’s trains could carry. Andrew Carnegie, personal assistant to Tom Scott, another rail mogul, proposed an alliance with Standard Oil, and Vanderbilt lost his exclusivity deal. At this point Rockefeller owned 97% of all the refineries in America. Oil vs. Rail

Tom Scott and Cornelius Vanderbilt realized that they were in a weaker position when demanding prices from Rockefeller. As a result they decided to cartel the price, to force Rockefeller to pay the going rates for shipping, instead of the discounted price he was used to. Not wanting to give in, Rockefeller raced to build huge quantities of pipes to move the oil via pipeline and cut the rail out of the picture. It was a serious risk to build a pipeline 4,000 miles long 6 connecting oil wells directly to the refineries. Rockefeller succeeded and, without oil, the railroads didn’t have enough cargo to ship, and the entire market collapsed. The stock exchange in 1873 had run on the railroad stocks, and when as much as a third of the railroads went without business, the rail market collapsed. Of the country’s 364 railroads, 89 went bankrupt, and over 18,000 businesses failed between 1873 and 1875. Unemployment reached 14 percent by 1876, while workers who kept their jobs were employed for a mere six months out of the year and suffered a 45% cut in their wages to approximately one dollar per day. This economic cataclysm is referred to as the Panic of 1873, which led up to the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. Vanderbilt died at age 82 and left his empire to his son. Tom Scott, owner of the Pennsylvania Railroad, similarly never recovered. While Rockefeller controlled 90% of the oil market, Scott’s assistant Andrew Carnegie survived the financial downfall of Scott’s company and swore revenge on the man who broke his mentor. John D. Rockefeller became worth $150,000,000 dollars. He was the wealthiest man in America and was a living example of capitalism at its best, and at its worst. In the coming years, with his steel empire, Andrew Carnegie would strike back as the rivalry between the rich and powerful continued. It was a new day, with a new type of war and a new battleground. There were now new economic and technological tools, endless opportunity, and few rules to bind anyone.

The economics of the 1890s The western frontier Following the conclusion of the Civil War, the United States came back together as a single nation, but in 1865 large portions of the Western frontier of the United States continued to be either uninhabited or inhabited by Native American populations. Expansion into the territory before the war had led to large portions of the Native American population being slaughtered by police and military forces. This oppression slowed during the Civil War itself, where Native Americans fought on both sides of the conflict, but oppression in the West continued once the war had ended. One of the largest issues that this posed to the United States was that many Americans saw these tribes as a threat to Europeanised ‘American’ culture as they refused to assimilate into their societal system, creating tensions between the two groups. Henry L. Dawes, a Massachusetts senator, was chairman of the Commission on Indian Affairs who wanted to create a system of guarantees for the land of Indians and to encourage them to take part in the United States’ agricultural systems. The intention of this was to provide incentives for the Native American population to ease tensions with other groups. Following the death of the spiritual leader Sitting Bull in 1890, the Native American tribes now pose less of an immediate issue for the westward expansions in terms of resistance, but the standing Dawes Act and any further amendments guarantee these groups land rights. In current circumstances, the Native American population is one of the poorest demographics in the United States, but stands as the most considerable non-natural threat to westward expansion. Continued expansion west presents the opportunity for vast amounts of resources to be utilised within the economy. Immigration In the period of 1877 to 1890, the United States encountered large scale immigration from Western Europe and China, with an estimated 7.4 million people entering the country. These immigrants settled throughout the Northern Territories and the Western frontier, with most finding employment in railways, agriculture and manufacturing. The large scale process of immigration resulted in rapid growth of available labour at low price, leading to deflationary pressure on wages which pushed down average household income. This process was incredibly lucrative for industrial organisations and executives who reaped the benefits of cheaper labour, but served to increase the inequality of the country as it drove down wages. Given that the vast majority of immigrants in the United States had migrated for economic reasons, the rate of immigration followed the trajectory of the United States’ economic performance. During times of economic difficulty, including the panic of 1873, there were slumps in the rate of immigration, which put upward pressure on wages, while in terms of growth the deflationary effect of immigration helped to increase industrial production. Many Americans saw these immigrants as a threat to their culture and saw them as the cause of decreased wages. Discontent was seen throughout the US, with populations of large cities being often divided on ethnicities and hostilities being shown based on race and religion. This discontent is best illustrated in continued hostility and aggression toward immigrant communities; in 8

Wyoming and Washington these hostilities came to a head in assaults. This violence led to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which prevented Chinese immigration for 10 years, and which is expected to be extended for a further 10 years in 1892. Though this has prevented further violence, this exclusion has restricted the access to cheap labour: construction of railways were largely done by Chinese immigrants. The Act threatened profits of industrial firms but was very politically popular and there is public interest in expanding this restriction to Hungarian, Italian and some other European groups. The Homestead Act currently flies in the face of these extensions, with Europeans being instrumental to Western expansion in agriculture and heavy advertisement in Western Europe. In addition to the influence that immigration has had on the economic performance of industries, it also represents a major challenge to the current political status of the United States. This presents an opportunity for wealthy and powerful individuals to gain and hold political sway over the country: in addition to those of their religious leaders, enfranchised immigrants often follow the political parties of their employers. Agriculture The process of agricultural change that accompanied westward expansion in the nineteenth century saw that, over the course of the century, agricultural output increased far beyond domestic demand. The component of agricultural income made up by export of agricultural goods increased by 15% over the century, reflecting an improved economic position of the United States. This process was not driven dominantly through technological and strategic advances improving yield per acre – as was the case in Europe – but instead through the benefits of scale. Basic advances in ploughs, reapers and threshers increased the amount of agricultural land which farmers were able to maintain but further improvements to agricultural equipment were not adequately demanded. This coupled with the low price of land led to the number of farms over doubling since 1860 to over 4 million. Though efficiency did not greatly improve, the decade leading up to 1890 saw the percentage of the US workforce in agriculture to fall to below 50%, seeing large scale migration toward cities. With domestic consumption being exceeded, any further improvements to agriculture would result in even further migration of workers toward the cities and a further growth in the available urban workforce. Manufacturing Manufacturing in the United States was dominantly water-powered in the antebellum period, but following the late 1860s manufacturing became dominated by steam power. Despite this change, manufacturing was still focused in the northeast. The majority of manufacturing grew within machinery, iron and steel, printing and publishing, and clothing. Though this manufacturing in the beginning of the nineteenth century was dominated by skilled labour, once steam power became widespread this was largely replaced. As a result of this the United States experienced a large scale rise in unskilled labour employment in manufacturing; this came as the result of greater mechanisation becoming increasingly lucrative and an incentive for partial mechanisation coupled with unskilled labour. This process of unskilled labour becoming increasingly employed became controversial, as skilled labourers suffered increasing redundancy and deflating wages; this 9 component of the workforce was politically active and represented a threat to business in the form of strikes and encouraging legislative changes. The United States has now caught up with the United Kingdom in the production of steel, iron and coal, with the United States’ rate of economic growth having been consistently greater than Western Europe since 1865. In the wake of the European economy enduring the long depression, it has overtaken its rivals as the global economic epicentre. If the United States continues on this trajectory, then by 1900 it will be responsible for over half of the world’s manufacturing capacity, already having this title for the production of industrial goods. Though the United States’ growth rate is higher than that of Europe, it is by no means alone: Australia and Canada have had very similar growth rates to that of the United States, and Argentina’s has been greater. Due however to superiority of population-size, inhabited land, and starting levels of wealth and capital, the United States continues to be the wealthiest of these ex colonial countries. The railroads Throughout the nineteenth century, railroads became a vital component of the American economy, as the miles of track grew hugely through the actions of the sometimes reckless railroad companies. Between 1880 and 1890, over 35,000 miles of railroad track were added to the American stock, which in the process of creation and operation made railroads a dominant industry; by 1890, 3% of the workforce of the United States was in the railroad industry. With nearly 800,000 people involved in the industry, some of the largest railroad companies had more employees than the US Armed Forces: the Pennsylvania railroad alone employed 110,000 people, three times that of the Armed Forces. Following their expansion, the railroads became the largest consumers of lumber, steel, iron and coal in the United States. With the sheer size of the railroad companies, they represented a huge political powerhouse as well as economic. The increased availability of relatively cheap transportation throughout the country was a large source of increased domestic trade, but also represented a threat to the stability of some commodities. Over the course of the nineteenth century, the increased mileage of track increased access between commodity sources and trading. This improved trading sent a large number of commodity prices plummeting and was of particular issue to wheat, timber, cattle and silver. Control of the railroads represented a threat to commodities which the railroad operators chose to trade in and accordingly sent periodic fluctuations to the price of silver in particular over the course of the century. The Gold Standard The United States returned to the Gold Standard in 1875 with the Specie Payment Resumption Act, after it had previously abandoned the system in order to be able to raise capital for the war without depleting the stock of gold and silver. Following the panic of 1873, the United States Government wanted to reestablish stability in order to promote business confidence. The specie payments were finally back to being paid in 1877 though only at 80% of the initial issuance in order to ensure that the policy was not inflationary. The act was passed as a form of resolution to arguments between the advantages and disadvantages of hard money. Senators John Sherman and 10

George Edmunds were able to negotiate and pass the act on the basis of the merits of returning stability. The largest issue of the system is that it inherently restricted expansionary monetary policy and could represent a threat to the international economy should the United States’ trade lead to large scale capital inflows restricting the reserves of other nations. There are many economic critics who claim that the best method for the US in the period would have been to use silver rather than gold as a more readily available commodity with similar fiat qualities, but one which would have had a greater capacity for reserve expansion. However, with the volatility of domestic and international silver discoveries, the price, value and reserves of silver has hitherto fluctuated largely throughout the century. This last item of political economy leads inevitably into the Politics of the 1890s.

The Politics of the 1890s Politics in the United States The United States of America is a federal, presidential, constitutional republic, composed of 44- states, a federal district, and an additional five organised incorporated territories. Of the states, six of these joined within the last two years, being the first states added to the Union since the end of the Civil War a generation earlier: these new additions comprise North and South Dakota, Montana, and Washington State (1889), and Idaho and Wyoming (1890). The five organised incorporated territories, governed under the Organic Acts, are New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Oklahoma: while these do not have representation in the federal government, they are nonetheless presumed to be entitled to the same constitutional rights as federal citizens and are governed under federal law. The Federal Government The federal government operates under the Constitution of 1789, which provides for a government divided into independent executive branch (the President), judicial branch (the Courts), and legislative branch (Congress). Each state has its own constitution, in addition to the federal constitution which governs all states: hence each state has its own Governor, Courts, and Legislature. The executive is represented by the Office of the President, appointed via an Electoral College, on the basis of an election which takes place every four years. The last presidential election was in 1888, with the next one due to take place in November 1892. The legislature in the District of Columbia, the bicameral Congress, is itself divided into two houses:  The Senate: the upper house of Congress, comprising 88 members, with two senators drawn from each state. The Senate elects a third of its membership every two years, with elections held within the individual state legislatures.

 The House of Representatives: the lower house of Congress, comprising 357 members, with seats allocated in proportion to the population of each state. The House elects its entire membership every two years, by popular vote on a constituency basis.

Given the size of the Congress, most of its legislative business is conducted through committees of a dozen or so members, which have the task of drafting and reporting on proposed and enacted legislation. The powers of committees vary according to whether one is in the House or Senate: the Senate for instance has standing committees but cannot set up ad-hoc committees, while the Speaker of the House can set up ad-hoc committees in addition to standing committees at will. Another difference is that the House must initiate all revenue bills, and that articles of impeachment must similarly begin in the House and then be tried in the Senate: only once the House of 12

Representatives have brought specific accusations against a public official can the Senate hold a trial of impeachment. Federal judges, from the Supreme Court to the lower courts, are appointed by the President, but must be confirmed by the Congress before they can take office. Parties and Politics American politics are currently in what is known as the Third Party system: the post-Civil War era characterised by intense competition between two dominant parties – the Democrats and the Republican Party – with a number of third parties emerging and disappearing on behalf of special interests. The most recent Congressional elections, the 1890 elections that produced the 52nd Congress, have led to a Democrat majority in the House and a Republican majority in the Senate. As an indication of the relative strength of the various parties, in the House the Democrats won 238 seats and the Republicans won 179, while the third-party Populist Party won a modest 8 seats for their first time in Congress, with another 2 senate seats won the same year. Each of the dominant parties in Congress is an umbrella coalition for a wide range of interests. The Democrat Party has been characterised as a party of ‘Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion’: referring to its three pillars of support from the alcohol industry, from Roman Catholics (as well as Episcopalians and German Lutherans) in the North, and in the South from bitter sympathisers of the defeated Confederacy. The Republican Party, conversely, had transformed from the pro- Emancipation party of the Civil War era into a coalition of moralising pietistic Protestants opposed to drink and other vices, which led to sharp religious lines being drawn between the two parties’ respective bases. The parties are also partly divided along class lines (with the Democrats drawing on the immigrant and working classes, and the Republicans drawing on businessmen and professionals) and geographical lines (the Republicans traditionally carrying the North and Democrats carrying the South in presidential elections). In economic policy terms, Republicans have generally pushed forward inflationary, protectionist policies, calling for protectionist tariffs on imports and subsidy for industry, and for a looser monetary policy at a time when the dollar is linked to the Gold Standard. Democrats on the other hand, led by the fiscally conservative Bourbon Democrats, have typically favoured hard-money, free trade, and other small-government policies as a means to protect lower-class consumers from depredation by political and business interests, while opposing overseas expansion and imperialism. The northern immigrant and anti-northerner southern elements of the party have not been cohesive on economic policy, and thus tend to fall in behind the Bourbon Democrat faction. The Populist Party, the emergent political force and really more of a movement at this stage than an established party, is meanwhile built on a coalition of poor, white cotton farmers in the South (in particular North Carolina, Alabama and Texas) and wheat farmers in the Plains states affected by drought and crop failure (most notably in Kansas and Nebraska). Agitators such as Mary Elizabeth Lease have decried a ‘Wall Street [that] owns the country’, and told Kansas farmers that they need to ‘raise less corn and more hell’. As a party with a radical agrarian base, the Populists represent considerable hostility toward urban interests, banks, elites, railroads, and gold as a basis for the monetary system. 13

Electoral turnout is typically very high, sometimes reaching 80 or even 90% in some states, given the effectiveness of the parties’ ‘political machines’ at organizing support, often by identifying particular groups and offering them rich rewards within the ‘spoils system’ should their party get into power. Businesses too have actively courted political candidates to ensure favorable treatment, and the Congress is often seen by newspapermen and satirists as dominated by major financial interests. The Presidency is not the driving force of political life that it was earlier in the century, with Congress having the most influence on the political arena. On the whole congressional elections have been close to the point of stalemate between the two parties, though the Republicans have dominated presidential elections with only a few breaks since the Civil War, but changing demographic patterns due to immigration – particularly with the influx of German and Irish Catholics – have meant that the voter population has started to look like it might tip more in the Democrats’ favor. The decision of states to switch to secret ballot in the last decade has also made it more difficult to buy individual voters in closely contested constituencies as was done in the past, and have made more compelling battles for the hearts, minds, and futures of American voters increasingly urgent.

Current Policy Debates The Sherman Antitrust Act Electoral considerations were largely at play in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 – the signal piece of legislation drafted by Republican Senator Richard Sherman to break up monopolies and prevent the activities of big businesses and trusts deemed to be anti-competitive. Though drafted by a Republican Senator with the stated target of big business and trusts, the New York Times opined that the law was most likely passed to pre-empt public criticism of the pro-trust tariffs that were to be passed by his party shortly after it. Notwithstanding Sherman’s intention, the Sherman Antitrust Act is now currently a law on the books, and this gives the Congress, and its Judiciary Committees in particular, broad scope to act within the commercial sphere. The Currency debate: Gold or Bimetallism? As of 1891, the currency debate is one of the most important ongoing political discussions. Silver bullion had been accepted in a bimetallic system of currency (Silver and Gold) from the 1830s up until the Fourth Coinage Act of 1873. Numerous Congressmen who voted for the bill claimed they did not realise it would de-monetise Silver; combined with economic volatility, this led to it being was called the ‘Crime of ‘73’ by its detractors. As opposition to the Act grew in the 1870s, the Bland-Allison Act was passed in 1878 to require the Treasury to purchase millions of dollars of silver bullion each month, and mint it into silver dollars—the denomination was restored as a legal tender, except when gold was specified by law or private contract. The Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 extended this further; in addition to the $2 million to $4 million that had been required by the Bland–Allison Act of 1878, the US government was now required to purchase an additional 4.5 million ounces of silver bullion every month. The US Treasury became the second-largest 14 buyer of silver in the world. The law required the Treasury to buy the silver with a special issue of Treasury Notes that could be redeemed for either silver or gold. The immediate unintended consequence of allowing note holders to redeem with silver or gold is the depletion of gold reserves. An alteration to the Act would ameliorate this.

Pro-Silver, Pro-Bimetallism Anti-Silver, Pro-Gold The ‘Populists’. Farmers, those with debts Republican Establishment, Bourbon Democrats. and silver miners who were The business and financial establishment who disproportionately affected by a restricted benefitted from the deflation because the value of money supply and deflation. their loans and assets increased in real terms.

McKinley Tariff Broadly speaking, the Republicans are Protectionist whereas the Democrats are pro-Free Trade (especially the Bourbon Democrats). As a quid pro quo for the Sherman-Silver Purchase Act, the Republicans demanded an increased tariff on imports. The result was the McKinley Tariff. This raised the average import duty to 50% but was politically unpopular as it led to a steep increase in the price of goods that are not produced domestically. It is politically unpopular and the immediate price rises led to backlash during the 1890 midterms, with the Republicans losing their majority in the House of Representatives- seeing their number of seats fall from 171 to 88. This led to the election of a number of pro-Silver Democrats (such as William Jennings Bryan), increasing their influence in the Democratic Party.

The 1892 Elections The United States goes into 1892 with Republican President Benjamin Harrison in the final year of his first term in office, and with a coming political contest for the House, Senate, and the Presidency to be fought by both the political parties and their financial backers. With the Populists currently unsure as to whether to stand as an independent party or back their pro-silver allies in the Democratic Party, the battle for the 1892 Democratic presidential nomination between Silverites and Bourbon Democrats looks likely to be hotly contested depending on the decisions of political actors: former President Grover Cleveland looks likely to be the Bourbon Democrats candidate of choice and it will be the organisation of his opponents that will determine the nomination. The Republicans are still suffering from the political effects of the McKinley Tariff but aim to hold onto the Presidency. It is up to the participants in the Crisis, all of whom have an interest in its prospective outcome, to decide what best aligns with their interests.