In sheer numbers, the 1921-23 Congress had more Republicans (302R/131D) and they held 69% of the seats (the Senate was much less, we've never held that many Senate seats, well above 60 at any point). The 1894 election was an anti-Democrat backlash (a lot of the gains being made in Dem-leaning border states or even in the Southern states themselves), and the Dems held only 93 out of 357 seats (just 26% to the Republicans whopping 70% and 254 seats). So technically, by a single %, the GOP held a higher number of seats than 1921-23. Virtually all the Dem seats were restricted to the South. The gains were short-lived, however, as even as McKinley won in '96, the GOP lost 48 House seats, most of those being fluke wins in those aforementioned states (some of which would not go GOP again until either 1920 or until the 1990s).
Back during the 1860s, however, when most of the Southern states had seceded, the GOP reached their record highs ever set in the House. In the 1861-63 Congress, the Dems were reduced to just 24% of the body. But they made considerable gains in the midterms opposing Lincoln, gaining enough to move up to 39% (the GOP held only a plurality, with the difference being held by Unionist members, some of whom were War Democrats). But the gains were wiped out in '64, and the Democrats dropped to their lowest level ever of just 19.6% of the membership. That was just below the Republicans lowest point of 20.2% in the horrible 1937-39 Congress when they dropped to 88 out of 435 seats (the Dems held almost 77% of the body).
"The rats were clearly the bad guys since then with jerks like Altgeld and Bryan wresting the national party from the Bourbons."
Well, there was a large contingent of leftists (as we understand them in the modern sense today) that wanted to take over the party. The 1896 election was the point at which the Dems officially became the leftist party (not to say the GOP was, because although some make the argument that they were up until that time, it's hard for us to make a clear statement of that being so due to issues we simply no longer contend with today. Hell, I'd make the argument that freeing the slaves and "equality" of Black and White are Conservative issues. Supporting a slave system was antithetical to the Constitution and to freedom, an entire race of people prevented from being able to move up and share in the rights of everyone else that happened to be White. It's the left that proliferates oppression).
1894 is real amazing in that 1890 was a heavily democrat year a majority was GOP in 1888. 4 years later congress was as heavily Republican as it was Democrat. Huge turnover. I’d like to see that in 2010...
We’ve talked before about past political affiliation. Taffifs (which may not have even mattered all that much) were THE issue for a long time. I’d probably be for lower tariffs. The good news was there didn’t used to be a socialist traitor party. I would have probably opposed some Republican things. Draft/income tax! while being anti-slavery and anti-postreconstuction serfdom.
I’d have been a manifest destiny supporter for sure! This would have led me being uncool with Whig opponents to this. Somewhere along the line the Dems switched on that. Cleveland’s Bourbons denounced Harrison’s “imperialism”.