The 1876 Presidential Election

The 1876 presidential election pitted Republican Rutherford B. Hayes against Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. On Election Day, results from South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana were unclear, with both parties claiming victory. The Republican-controlled returning boards in these states played a crucial role in the decision.

Returning boards could dismiss votes deemed fraudulent. They disqualified enough Democratic votes to swing the states in Hayes' favor. In Oregon, an additional issue arose: one of Hayes' electors, John W. Watts, was also a postmaster, violating the US Constitution. The Democratic governor substituted Watts with a Tilden elector, adding to the confusion.

When electors cast their ballots on December 6, 1876, most states followed protocol. However, electors in South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Oregon presented two conflicting sets of votes to Congress. The electoral vote count stood as follows:

• Tilden: 184 electoral votes
• Hayes: 165 electoral votes
• Undecided: 20 votes from four states

The crucial question remained: Who had the right to count these votes?

Republicans argued that Thomas W. Ferry, the Republican President of the Senate, should decide. Democrats insisted the Democratic majority in Congress should have a say. This disagreement led to the Electoral Commission Act on January 29, 1877.

The Electoral Commission Act

The Electoral Commission Act of January 29, 1877, aimed to resolve the electoral deadlock of the 1876 presidential election. The commission included 15 members:

• 5 senators
• 5 representatives
• 5 Supreme Court justices

This balanced representation aimed to ensure fairness and trust. However, the intended neutrality was disrupted when the independent Supreme Court justice, David Davis, withdrew after being elected to the U.S. Senate. His replacement, Justice Joseph Bradley, tilted the commission's balance towards the Republicans.

The commission examined evidence and heard arguments from both parties to ascertain the validity of the disputed electoral votes. Democrats presented cases of voter suppression and irregularities in the contested southern states. Republicans argued that these incidents were insufficient to invalidate the votes cast for Hayes.

Each decision made by the commission followed strict party lines, with the Republican majority consistently voting to award the disputed electoral votes to Hayes. The vote to allocate all 20 contested electoral votes to Hayes came down to an 8 to 7 decision, precisely following partisan lines.

Republicans defended the process as necessary to ensure justice prevailed. Democrats condemned what they termed the "Fraud of the Century."

Resolving the electoral dispute required intricate negotiations, leading to the Compromise of 1877.

The Compromise of 1877

The Compromise of 1877 resolved the 1876 election strife and redefined the trajectory of American history. At its core, the compromise facilitated the withdrawal of the remaining federal troops from Louisiana and South Carolina, officially ending the Reconstruction era. This withdrawal was a concession made by Republicans to secure the Presidency for Rutherford B. Hayes.

Hayes assured Southern Democrats that he would remove federal troops, allowing the Democrats to consolidate power in these states. In return, Democrats would acknowledge Hayes as the legitimate President and cease their obstruction in Congress. Despite Hayes' belief in civil rights and his insistence that Southern Democrats pledge to uphold the rights of African Americans, the withdrawal of federal troops left these promises unfulfilled.

Long-term Impacts:

• Enactment of Jim Crow laws in Southern states
• Systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans through literacy tests, poll taxes, and "grandfather clauses"
• Curtailment of education, employment, and basic civil liberties for African Americans
• Rise of the "Solid South" – a bastion of Democratic dominance

The end of Reconstruction meant that the Republican Party's influence waned significantly in the South, giving rise to the "Solid South" – a bastion of Democratic dominance that persisted well into the 20th century. This shift had enduring ramifications on national politics, reshaping electoral strategies and the political landscape¹.

The Compromise of 1877 serves as a reminder of the impact of political decisions on civil liberties and the necessity of commitment to constitutional principles in preserving justice and equality for all citizens.

Hayes's Presidency and Civil Rights

Rutherford B. Hayes advocated for civil rights during his presidency, particularly for African Americans. However, his efforts faced significant obstacles from Southern Democrats and a lack of federal support.

The Compromise of 1877, which secured Hayes's presidency, required withdrawing federal troops from the South. Although Hayes sought assurances from Southern Democrats to uphold African American rights, these promises proved short-lived once the federal presence diminished. Southern states quickly enacted measures to disenfranchise African American voters and restore white supremacist control.

Hayes's administration attempted several initiatives to secure civil rights, including:

• Vetoing bills that would weaken federal oversight of elections
• Criticizing fraud, intimidation, and violence against black voters
• Urging the attorney general to prosecute violations of federal election laws

However, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives consistently blocked appropriations necessary to sustain federal troops and enforce civil rights protections.

Without federal oversight, white supremacist groups flourished, and voting rights for African Americans were systematically stripped away. Literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, and violence became common strategies to suppress black voters.

The legal environment grew increasingly hostile, with Supreme Court decisions favoring states' rights over federal intervention. Cases like United States v. Cruikshank and United States v. Reese weakened the Fifteenth Amendment, limiting the government's ability to enforce civil rights legislation.

Hayes's vision of political reconciliation by integrating Southern whites into the Republican fold proved misguided. Southern whites used economic cooperation to strengthen their own political agenda, ensuring the exclusion of African American interests.

The 1878 midterm elections exemplified Hayes's challenges, with Southern Democrats employing brazen voter suppression tactics. African Americans, once a vital Republican constituency, were effectively silenced.

Hayes's presidency marks a significant chapter in the struggle for civil rights. While his intentions were genuine, his administration's actions were constrained by the era's political realities. The rapid disenfranchisement of African Americans following his troop withdrawal signaled a grim period of regression lasting generations.

Economic and Political Challenges

During his presidency from 1877 to 1881, Rutherford B. Hayes faced numerous economic and political challenges. The ongoing economic depression that began in 1873 set the stage for hardship throughout his term.

The Great Railroad Strike of 1877

The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 erupted following wage cuts imposed by major railroad companies. The strike spread across multiple cities, paralyzing the nation's rail network. Hayes authorized federal troops to affected areas to quell the violence and restore operations. His response balanced firmness and restraint, emphasizing the government's responsibility to maintain law and order during tumultuous times.

Currency Reform

Hayes grappled with currency reform, supporting a gold-backed currency despite pressure for inflationary measures. When Congress passed the Bland-Allison Act in 1878, mandating silver purchase and coinage, Hayes vetoed it. Although Congress overrode his decision, Hayes directed minimal implementation of the act to preserve fiscal stability.

Civil Service Reform

Civil service reform was another key focus for Hayes, who sought to curb corruption and inefficiency within the federal government. His efforts faced substantial resistance, particularly from powerful Republican factions such as Senator Roscoe Conkling's Stalwarts. Hayes's clash with Conkling over the New York Custom House demonstrated his resolve but intensified intra-party frictions.

"He serves his party best who serves his country best." – Rutherford B. Hayes

Hayes's presidency was further complicated by interactions with a contentious Congress. His single-term pledge limited his leverage over legislative matters, and the divided nature of Congress obstructed several initiatives. Despite calls for national reconciliation and economic prudence, his administration often encountered legislative gridlock.

The legacy of Hayes's presidency demonstrates the challenges of leadership during economic turbulence and deep-seated political divisions. His efforts at civil service reform, while not fully realized during his term, underscored a commitment to governance rooted in principle and integrity. His handling of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 showcased a judicious approach to crisis management.

Hayes's tenure, though often overshadowed by the contentious election that brought him to power, remains a significant part of American political evolution. It illustrates the intricate interplay between leadership vision and the practical realities of political life within a constitutional republic.

The 1876 presidential election and its aftermath highlight the delicate balance required in upholding constitutional principles amid intense political strife. The events during Hayes's presidency underscore the impact of political decisions on civil liberties and the ongoing pursuit of justice and equality in our constitutional republic.