Blast from the past: GOP follows in 1892 footsteps

More than a century ago, the Republicans held their national convention in Minnesota looking to gain a political advantage. Then, like now, the Upper Midwest was a political battleground. For the most part, the choice of a host city for a major party convention comes down to infrastructure and capacity. But politics also played a crucial role in the 1890s — as it still does today.

The 1892 convention, while long forgotten, was attended by thousands of male delegates who met in the Industrial Exposition Building in Minneapolis, which once stood at Central Avenue and Main Street SE, across the river from what is today’s downtown. The conclave nominated incumbent President Benjamin Harrison on a platform that sounds almost progressive by contemporary Republican standards. The party’s platform expressed support for tariffs on foreign-made goods to encourage domestic industry; voting rights for blacks, a bigger navy and restrictions on illegal immigration.

Such positions promised to play well in Minnesota, a reliably Republican state in the late 1800s. "Minnesota’s voting record seemed to place it solidly in the Republican column," wrote June Drenning Holmquist in the Minnesota Historical Society’s quarterly, Minnesota History. "The state had given majorities to every Republican presidential candidate since the days of Lincoln and had been administered by Republican governors ever since 1860."

But that started to change in the 1880s as the populist Farmer’s Alliance gained seats in the state Legislature, and the Democratic and Populist Parties took all but one of the Republicans’ congressional seats in the 1890 elections. Similar events were happening in Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska and the Dakotas, collectively dubbed The Northwest — referring to the Northwest Territories, from which part of Minnesota’s borders were carved.

In 2006, a similar political logic was at work as Republicans met to choose a host city for the 2008 Republican National Convention. Minnesota was a purple state. Republicans had held the House since 1998; the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party held the Senate. The U.S. House delegation was split four and four, while U.S. senators were one apiece. The governor, secretary of state, state auditor and attorney general were Republicans, while the attorney general was the sole constitutional officer from the DFL.

While in 1892, Republicans saw the possible loss of political influence, the decade leading up to 2006 saw a split government and close presidential elections — and the possibility of a presidential win for the Republicans in 2008. These factors contributed to the choice of St. Paul in September 2006: The Republicans hoped to tint a purple state a few more shades of red.

The details differed but the political dynamics were very similar. In 1891 the New York Times wrote, "The selection of Minneapolis for the meeting place of the Republican National Convention… was avowedly made with the hope that the influence of the convention might counteract the effect of the series of Republican defeats in the vast and important region of which that town is one of the principal centres," wrote The New York Times.

The Times recounted the words of then-Sen. William Washburn, R-Minn., speaking in support of holding the convention in Minneapolis: "When it came to be the turn of Minneapolis, Senator Washburn made a temperate request for the honor of holding the convention at that city. The Northwest, he said, had always been a Republican region. The people there were, naturally, Republicans. … In his judgment, the great fight in the coming campaign was to be in the Northwestern States, in Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and the Dakotas."

"If Minneapolis could have the convention, it would encourage and inspire Republicans," said Washburn.

These days, Ed Morrissey of the blog Captain’s Quarters, as a nationally read conservative blogger from Minnesota, certainly has his ear to the ground when it comes to Republican sentiments. On the day the selection was announced in 2006, he wrote something similar to what Washburn said more than 100 years earlier: "This selection will motivate the state GOP even more than before and will have an impact throughout the entire Upper Midwest."

Indeed, the futures of Iowa and Wisconsin seem linked to the selection of St. Paul for the convention. Republicans want Minnewisowa, as Barry Casselman calls the three politically important states. With similar demographics, all three state’s had close margins in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections and carry a sizable 27 electoral votes.

"This should not be considered just a Minnesota choice," Steven Schier, political commentator at Carleton College, told The Washington Post in 2006. "You’ve got three swing states: Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. We’re very much a battleground state. We were in ‘04 and we will be in ‘08. Same in Wisconsin, same in Iowa."

Bush won Iowa with just 10,000 votes in 2004, while he lost by only 11,000 votes in Wisconsin. He fared a bit worse in in Minnesota, losing by 100,000 votes, but on the whole, the two major political parties are still quite competitive against each other in the Upper Midwest.

"The heartland of America," Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn, told the Associated Press when the decision to have St. Paul host the RNC was announced. "Whoever wins those states is going to be the next president of the United States."

In much the same way that Minnesota had a long record of supporting Republican presidential candidates in the 1800s, it’s given the Democrats a similar feeling of comfort in the 1900s. In 1892, the Republicans wanted to hold the state; in 2008, they want to win it.

But Minnesota may be a tough spot for a Republican presidential candidate, considering that the last one to win Minnesota was Richard Nixon in 1972. Still, recent presidential elections have been close, and as Eric Ostermeier of the Humphrey Institute’s blog, Smart Politics, showed, the Republican strategy of selecting a host site in Democratic-leaning states in the past has given them some edge. In the last two cycles, Republicans picked convention sites in Democratic-leaning states, Pennsylvania and New York, and even though they lost, they picked up votes.

"Will the GOP’s presence in St. Paul have a positive impact on the presidential vote in Minnesota overall for the party as it did in Pennsylvania and New York in 2000 and 2004?" asks Ostermeier.

It seemed to work in 1892. Minnesota voted for the Republican incumbent Harrison, and bucked a Democratic trend. But despite that Minnesota victory, Harrison lost in the national election to Grover Cleveland.

All images courtesy the Minnesota Historical Society