politicsThe dominant forces in American life in the last quarter of the 19thcentury were economic and social rather than political. This fact wasreflected in the ineffectiveness of political leadership and in theabsence of deeply divisive issues in politics, except perhaps for thecontinuing agrarian agitation for inflation. There were colourfulpolitical personalities, but they gained their following on a personalbasis rather than as spokesmen for a program of political action. Nopresident of the period was truly the leader of his party, and noneapparently aspired to that status except Grover Cleveland during hissecond term (1893-97). Such shrewd observers of U.S. politics asWoodrow Wilson and James Bryce agreed that great men did notbecome presidents; and it was clear that the nominating conventionsof both major parties commonly selected candidates who were"available" in the sense that they had few enemies. Congress had been steadily increasing in power since the Johnsonadministration and, in the absence of leadership from the WhiteHouse, was largely responsible for formulating public policy. As aresult, public policy commonly represented a compromise amongthe views of many congressional leaders--a situation made the moreessential because of the fact that in only four of the 20 years from1877 to 1897 did the same party control the White House, theSenate, and the House. The Republicans appeared to be the majority party in nationalpolitics. From the Civil War to the end of the century, they wonevery presidential election save those of 1884 and 1892, and theyhad a majority in the Senate in all but three Congresses during thatsame period. The Democrats, however, won a majority in theHouse in eight of the 10 Congresses from 1875 to 1895. Thesuccess of the Republicans was achieved in the face of bitterintraparty schisms that plagued Republican leaders from 1870 untilafter 1890 and despite the fact that, in every election campaign after1876, ...
