Channels, Spring 2017

Channels • 2017 • Volume 1 • Number 2 Page 53 Democratic Party. Further, after abandoning those in support of his original position, Debs refused the chairmanship of the new party when it was offered. 12 The various factions of the party would not be reunited until 1901, crippling the possibility of effective Socialist political action in 1898 or 1900. Thus, Debs’ leadership of the party internally first set it on an unrealistic course, then led to a schism as he abandoned his initial supporters while refusing to take leadership of the other faction. His influence was crucial in healing the Party’s wounds between 1898 and 1901. But perhaps if he had been willing to exert it properly in the beginning, the destructive schism would not have happened in the first place. This unwillingness to organize or exert influence inside the Party would be an ongoing problem for Debs, allowing Socialists of slightly different ideals to lead the Party and preventing the fulfillment of its potential for political influence. Despite the animosity and factionalism preventing a strong effort by a united Socialist Party, the Social Democratic Party still sought to nominate a candidate for the presidential election in 1900. The immediate choice was Eugene Debs, due to his residual popularity from the Pullman Strike and decision on the issue of the cooperative commonwealth. Debs was prominent and well respected, having promoted the local campaigns of Socialists in Massachusetts in 1898 and having negotiated the incorporation of the Socialist Party of Texas. 13 This made his rejection of the nomination an unexpected problem. With the schism of the Social Democracy of America still fairly fresh in the mind of the members of the Social Democratic Party, many no doubt wondered if their faction could survive as an impactful organization if Debs refused to lead. Nevertheless, after incessant appeals by many leading members of the Social Democratic Party, including Victor Berger, Debs recanted his initial refusal and accepted the Party’s Presidential nomination. 14 Debs’ initial reticence to accept the Social Democratic Party’s presidential nomination is another example of his confusing unwillingness to take leadership of the movement of which he was a part. This called his ability and commitment into question in the minds of some of his comrades. Berger was emboldened, as Debs had essentially granted him a measure of control and ceded ideological dominance to his more reform-focused associate. Debs’ actions had essentially put him in the worst possible position, forcing him to be the voice and face of Socialism but only at Berger’s behest and only with Berger in charge of the organization controlling Debs’ campaigns. Nevertheless, with the vagaries and weaknesses his own actions had fostered in the convention behind him, Debs set out to spread his message of Socialism in the Presidential campaign of 1900. Despite Debs’ best efforts on the campaign trail, his 1900 campaign would be marred by continued party infighting which, when coupled with opposition from both traditional parties, resulted in meagre election results. Another independent faction of Socialists 12 Ibid, p. 567. 13 Ginger, Ray. 1949 . Eugene V. Debs : a biography . n.p.: [New York] : Collier Books, [1970], 1949, 224. 14 Ginger, Ray. 1949. Eugene V. Debs : a biography . n.p.: [New York] : Collier Books, [1970], 1949, 225.