thank you for joining us today. thank you for all your.

in 1876, republican rutherford hayes, governor of ohio, defeated the democratic governor of new york, samuel tilden, in one of the closest, most contentious elections in american history. hayes lost the popular vote, but congress, controlled by democrats in the house, controlled by republicans in the senate, formed a special commission of members of the house. senate and the supreme court to determine the winner. the result remains controversial still, and the impact is still felt today. thanks for joining us. for our american history tv series, history trick presidential elections. this week we look at the election of 1876. our guest to help us dissect it is eric alexander. he's a history professor at southern illinois university, edwardsville, and he's written extensively about this period. professor alexander, what made

this election in a nutshell so contentious? it's a great question and thank you for having me. i think it's a very famous election. of course, it is the closest election in american history. it was decided by just one electoral vote. it also was notable for the highest voter turnout in american history. voter turnout of 81.8%. it's one of five elections in american history where the winner of the popular vote in this case, samuel j. tilden, did not win the electoral vote, and it's gained a lot of attention in recent years because many of the elements of the electoral crisis that we'll talk about today looked similar to some of our recent elections, perhaps most famously the famous bush versus gore election in 2000. but there were also some elements in our last presidential election of 2020. i think what made this election notable is, well, it was in the aftermath of the civil war. it was a nation that was still

healing from the sectional conflict that had produced the civil war. and all of these issues, i think, are what helped make it such a close, contentious and controversial election. well, let's give you a sense of what america was like in 1876. reconstruction and was just ending or going on. the president was ulysses, ulysses grant and he declined to run for a third term. the population was around 46 million. 38 states at that time. the centennial celebration was going on for the u.s. it was the early stages of the gilded age. there was an economic depression and immigration happening. in 1876. erik zander in a macro sense, what was it like to live in the states? sure. so i think in terms of the election, this is really the first time after the civil war, which had been over now for 12 years, the first time that the entire voting public, you would

say, was fully mobilized. for a number of reasons. many former confederates, white southerners had not voted in the decade before 1876. in the early 1870s, and for the first time, they're returning to the polls in 1876. on the other hand, many black men in the south, former slaves, were finally able to vote or voting for the first time with the ratification of the 15th amendment in 1870. so for really the first time after the civil war, you have the entire american electorate, men only. of course, women are not voting at this point in american history. the full american electorate is mobilized at the polls. the sectional polarization of the civil war was as high as it had been, arguably at the time of the civil war. there was a real fear among americans white and black, that another civil war was possible. the sort of linger ing animosities between north and south. and of course, you had stakes that could not have been higher

as northerners had gradually withdrawn from the programs of reconstruction, which involved securing and protecting the rights for african-americans in the south. there was a sense that the fate of freed people, former slaves in the south, was also at stake. and then, of course, you mentioned there had been a major financial panic in 1873, and that ushered in what was arguably the worst depression in american history outside of the great depression of the 1930s. and the country still had not recovered from this depression in 1876. in fact, the depression had only gotten worse. and so many of those economic issues, those economic questions around the depression, particularly around currency and money, were center stage during this election as well. and then finally, you had mentioned the second term of ulysses s grant's presidency. grant had had some struggles during his second term, along with the gradual withdraw from reconstruction, even as grant tried to persuade congress and

many northerners to continue the efforts to protect black rights. granted, faced a large number. several really damaged young, damaging political corruption scandals that had soured many northerners against his his administration and against the republicans, frankly. there was speculation. there had been speculation grant might run for a third term, but democrats seized upon those rumors to portray grant as a tyrant, as somebody who was refusing to abide by the tradition. going back to george washington, that presidents only serve two terms. so grant, though he considered it, announced in 1875 that he would not run for a third term. so the field was wide open. professor alexander, what were some of the political argue ments around reconstruction? sure. well, for white southerners, former confederates, largely democrats, members of the democratic party, they had increasingly been advocating for white supremacy and home rule.

they wanted control over their own state governments. they were, of course, opposed to equality, racial and political equality for african-americans. and by 1876, they had gradually regained control of the former confederate states. there had been 11 confederate states. by 1876. eight of those 11 states were under the control of former confederates democrats. so you had large debates about this issue. and because of the ongoing depression, increasingly white northerners were not interested in these discussions. white northerners, white northern voters were not interested in committing resources and maintaining the presence of the federal army in the south to help enforce black rights, increasing only what white northern voters were interested in was solutions for the depression. how to put food on their table. economic questions surrounding currency. and so by 1876, reconstruction had really begun to draw down.

i guess i mentioned earlier president grant had continued to press and try to persuade congress to give him the authority to send in troops to enforce federal laws. but gradually, increasingly, white northerners were not interested writ large. white northerners supported whom, as did the freed black slaves. well, so for former slaves, they overwhelmingly voted for the republican party. this was, in their perspective, the party of lincoln. republicans were the party of emancipation. it was republicans who had been responsible for the region's direction amendments the 13th amendment, which had abolished slavery in 1865. the 14th amendment, which had granted citizenship to all americans regardless of race. and the 15th amendment, which had granted black men the right to vote. so african-americans in the south and north overwhelmingly supported the republican party for white northerners.

it was very split. you had many white northerners who supported the republicans, who viewed the democrats as the party of secession, the party of slavery. democrats as the party of the south. the party of the confederacy, who had been responsible for the civil war. but there were also many white northerners who supported the democratic party, who believed that republicans had gone too far. the republicans had been too radical. so among white northern voters, it was very split. you had support for republicans and democrats, for african-americans in the south. overwhelmingly, they supported lincoln, the party of lincoln republicans. well, let's learn a little bit more about the two men we're talking about. rutherford hayes and samuel tilden rutherford b hayes, of course, served as president from 1877 to 1881. he was born in 1822 in delaware, ohio, just north of columbus, attended kenyon college, harvard law school. he was wounded in the civil war. he was a colonel and then a general in that war for the union.

he was a member of the house of representatives. governor of ohio. what distinguished what distinguished him in your view? a great question. i think one of the really fascinating things about this election is i think the two candidates in some ways, you could describe as polar opposites, as you mentioned, hayes was prior to this point, not very well known nationally. he was very prominent in ohio, his home state, where he had gradually risen up through the political ranks. he had served briefly in congress. and then, as you mentioned, as the governor of ohio, really, it was his military service during the civil war that had launched his political career. he had served with distinction. as you said, he was wounded four times. he ended the war with the rank of brigadier general and that career that impressed of service during the war had launched him into politics. he had a reputation as honest for honesty, as a public servant. and he was also i think if we're

comparing the two candidates, he was this physically impressive person. he was sort of hearty and robust and he had a large beard which had become popular among men during this era. and so those things had led to the his successful political career in ohio and then eventually giving him the republican nomination and rutherford hayes was the sitting governor of ohio at the time. his opponent on the democratic side, samuel tilden, was the governor of new york. he was born in 1814 in new lebanon. new york attended yale in new york university law school. he was a corporate lawyer, was a member of the new york state assembly. and, of course, was governor of new york. was he well known nationally at the time? i think similar to hayes, very well known in new york. he had long been very active in new york state politics. he was also, as you said,

governor of new york. so you had these two competing governors. so certainly known nationally. but i wouldn't say well known just as hayes was not well known, well-known within the democratic party and a real interesting contrast because, again, hayes had this sort of robust, robust and physically commanding presence, had this impressive beard. tilden, on the other hand, was very slight. he had a small physical frame. tilden was clean shaven. he had not served during the war, and tilden had struggled with health issues his entire life. tilden had a very sharp mind for numbers and politics, along with being active in new york state politics. tilden was a very, very successful lawyer. he had really made his name as a corporate lawyer, where he made an immense fortune, millions upon millions of dollars, which, of course, in the 19th century was an unthinkable amount of money. and what he had done as a lawyer was he had overseen railroad mergers through the financing of railroad bonds.

so tilden, who was you might describe as pale and sickly, had not served during the war. instead, he had joined other democrats in criticizing the administration of abraham lincoln. but he became, well known after the war and democratic state party politics. he was well known as the lawyer who helped bring down new york's famous political machine of tammany hall, led by the political figure boss tweed. this gave tilden a political career with a reputation as a reformer, and that became a key issue in 1870s politics and led to his successful run for the governor of new york, again as a reformed governor. professor alexander ah, what was the nomination process less like for both? hayes and tilden? a great question and the first thing i'll say is that nominations, presidential nominations in the 19th century were very different than they are today. today we have a process primaries and by the time we get to a major national convention

for either of the major political parties, we know who the nominee is going to be. and in fact, modern presidential conventions are really just advertised. osment's 3 to 4 day long advertisements for the party and its nominee. in the 19th century, there was real suspense, real mystery about who would be a party's nominee. and the conventions were really used as a way for the different delegates from individual states to hash out and figure out who would be the nominee for the republican ends. the frontrunner going into their convention. was a man named james blaine. james blaine was probably the most prominent republican nationally outside of president grant. he had been speaker of the house during most of the grant administration. most assumed he would be the favorite and he was the leader during the initial balloting process at the republican convention. but it was clear he would have struggled to get national support. and so hayes was sort of the backup candidate with not particularly well known, but

known as an honest public servant, known as a civil war veteran who had served well and his running mate was a man named william wheeler, a congressman from new york. also known for his honesty. the democratic convention was a little different. one of the interesting things about the democrats in the 19th century is they're nominating convention required. a two thirds rule, meaning that two thirds of the delegates at the convention had to approve and agree upon the nominee. this had produced many different extended conventions in the 19th century for the democratic party as they struggled to come to a consensus and find a two thirds majority that would agree on a candidate. but in the case of 1876, tilden was had been the obvious frontrunner. there had been some kind of back door maneuvering before the convention to line up the delegates. many democrats in the west who

represented constituents that were largely farmers and laborers, were a little wary of having another easterner. a new yorker at the head of their ticket until then himself was a strong supporter of what at the time was called hard money. a belief that financial transactions should largely be done through what was minted. gold and silver called specie, and tilden favored gradually removing paper currency from circulate. during the civil war, the federal government had printed what were called greenbacks, the same type of currency we use today federal currency paper dollars that had been used to help finance the war. tilden and other easterners who favored hard money wanted to gradually reduce the amount of greenbacks in circulation. many western democrats wanted more money. they wanted the government to print more money, which would lead to inflation, which would help laborers and farmers in the west. so you had this split between the western half of the democratic party in the eastern

half who could not agree on these financial questions. and this came to a head in the nominees because while the party nominated tilden at the head of their ticket, again, a man who favored hard money policies, their vice presidential nominee was a man named thomas hendricks, who was from indiana. and hendricks favored soft money. and so you had to candidates who actually had completely different policies about some of the biggest issues of the day, which were financial questions. and in fact, when presidential candidates in the 19th century accepted a nomination, they did not attend the convention. typically. normally, the nominees, the candidates for the nomination were not at the convention. they didn't go on the stage to accept the nomination like they do today. instead, candidates stayed home and if they received the nomination, they would release a public letter, a public statement saying they accepted the nomination. and in that statement, they would outline their policies when samuel tilden and thomas hendricks accepted the nomination. they both released a letter that basically said the opposite

things. they both believed to completely opposite financial policies as a solution to the depression. in fact, republicans would print political cartoons showing these two candidates as heads opposite heads of a snake or a tiger, basically pulling the democratic party apart. so were there actual party platforms in 1876? yes, that was the other big thing that the conventions did. they would draft a platform and in the case of the democrats, again, there was real disagreement where eastern democrats wanted a hard money platform and western democrats wanted a soft money platform, and they would fight this out during the convention. any other issues in the platforms? certainly. well, so for both parties and while democrats had this very pronounced split over financial questions, republicans did too. and so both parties ended up effectively avoiding the question altogether because they didn't want to split their parties apart. so what democrats ended up really emphasizing was reform, civil service reform. they were leaning into criticism of the grant administration that

had been besieged by corruption scandals throughout the 1870s. and so because tilden, their nominee, had this real reputation as a reformer. this was the big message the for the democrats, we are the party of reform. we will reform the government. republican wins, on the other hand, really emphasize what was called the bloody shirt, waving the bloody shirt, and that was effectively reminding northern voters of the sacrifices that union soldiers had made during the war. associating the democratic party with treason, with secession and with slavery. telling voters the democrats are the reason that your father or husband or brother or son died during the civil war. when you go to the polls, vote as you shot. if you shot for the union, if you shot confederates, then you should vote republican. republicans favored or had some lip service to reconstruction. they had nothing timely given up at this point. but really it was the bloody shirt trying to associate

democrats with treason. while democrats emphasized reform. professor alexander, would you call this a mudslinging campaign? no, not and i mean, certainly there were campaigns in the 19th century that were far more vicious. i mean, you had your your standard political cartoons lampooning candidates on both sides. but i actually don't think it was a particularly vicious campaign in the way that some others of the 19th century were. there were certainly standard story ways. and, you know, poking fun at different candidates as i said, republicans made great hay on the fact that tilden and hendricks, the democratic nominees, didn't agree on many of the issues that their party didn't agree or had completely opposite views on many of the issues of the day. but in terms of sort of the broader scale scope of the 19th century, i don't think it was a particularly vicious or mudslinging campaign. any third party candidates have contact. there were many, several smaller

third parties. the biggest name was the greenback party, which had nominated a man named peter cooper. the greenback party had significant support in the west. this was a party that as its name suggests, supported greenbacks. they wanted the government to print more money. the belief was that this would lead to inflation, which actually helped debtors people who owed money to bankers and merchants. by printing more money, you drive inflation up and that actually helps people who had borrowed money, makes it easier to pay back loans. and there was a lot of support for these kinds of policies in the west. as i mentioned, this was a big split within the democratic party. and in fact, democrats were really worried that a lot of democratic voters would vote for peter cooper and for the greenbacks kind of as a spoiler, a third party spoiler. it also reveals that in the 19th century, there was and i've written about this recently with a colleague, rachel shelden.

parties were a little bit different. they were not the sort of stable organizations that we have today. parties were much less stable. and you had lots of different third parties. it was much easier to form a third party and have an impact on election, particularly at the local and state level. and so the greenback party was the probably the most significant of the third parties in 76, but there were actually several other, particularly at the local and state level. well, here's a little bit more about the 1876 race from author roy morris jr. when the campaign started, tilden and the democrats hoped hope to make reform their big campaign issue. and that's saddle hayes and republicans with the need to defend grant and his sorry ring of old army buddies tax evading whiskey distillers bribe taking secretaries of war and other assorted thieves and in competence the republicans, however, were smart enough to change the subject.

hayes himself was personally incorruptible, if rather bland, and so they soon made the campaign yet another referendum on the efficiency and staying power of the bloody shirt. waving the bloody shirt, as you may know, is political shorthand for dredging up the civil war and blaming the democrats for everything that had taken place before, during and after the war. voters in the north were urged repeatedly to vote. as you shot, and republican speakers such as illinois orator robert g. ingersoll went around the country giving speeches, proclaiming loudly that not every democrat was a rebel, but every rebel was a democrat. ingersoll gave the same speech so many times during the campaign that he became known as the centennial spread eagle. here's an example of what he said. i am opposed to the democratic

party, and i'll tell you why. every state that seceded from the united states was a democratic state. every ordinance of secession that was drawn was drawn by a democrat. every man that endeavored to tear down the old flag from the having it in riches was a democrat. every man that tried to destroy this nation was a democrat. every enemy, this great republic has faced for the last 20 years has been a democrat. the man that assassinated abraham lincoln was a democrat. every man that raised bloodhounds to pursue human beings was a democrat. soldiers. every scar on your heroic bodies was given to you by a democrat. well, tilden, as a democrat, hope to keep the campaign on a more elevated plane than that, particularly since he was the self-declared candidate of reform and he felt it wouldn't

do for a reform candidate to engage in such shameless demagoguery. besides, tilden truly believed that everyone in the country, republican as well as democrat, was sick to death of grant and the endless stream of corruption coming out of washington. instead of personal name calling, tilden and his staff flooded the country's newspapers with well-reasoned position papers, speeches, cartoons and even something called the sam tilden illustrated joke book with suggested witticisms, suggested witticisms for democratic candidates. all this made for what the new york herald called a flat and tame campaign, in which tilden was presented as a model of high rectitude and noble learning, and how he stayed home in columbus, ohio, and didn't partially venture any opinions on any topic. as a nation magazine complained, hayes would hardly go further in political discussion than to accede to the proposition that

there was a republican form of government and that this was the 100th year of the government. ambrose bierce, about whom i wrote a book, had this to say about hayes, his fellow union veteran. there was enough of lincoln to kill and enough of grant to kick. but hayes is only a man. a magic lantern image without even a surface to be displayed upon. you cannot see him. you cannot feel him. but you know that he extends and lessening opacity all the way from the dark side of senator john sherman to the confines of space. and you're watching american history tv's special series historic presidential elections. we're talking about the election of 1876 with erik alexander. history professor at southern illinois university, edwardsville. professor alexander, where did the incumbent president grant play a role in this campaign? not a significant role during the campaign itself. i mean, he certainly, of course, supported hayes.

he was still dealing with the aftermath of many of the corruption scandals that had harmed his administration and still dealing with managed aging. the reconstruction was still going on even as reconstruction had largely been drawn down from where it had been in the late 1860s and early 1870s, during grant's first term. there was still troop there were still troops in the south. and grant was largely managing that. in the summer of 1876, there were a handful of very severe massacres, racial riots. but really massacres where white southerners attacked and massacred black southerners, former slaves. and so grant was dealing with some of those crises. so he didn't play an enormous role during the campaign itself. but as we get into the crisis that followed, grant actually played a small role during that crisis. now, any other names of note from that period are active in the campaign outside of outside

of the two nominees, the nominees for the party? i wouldn't say so. we'll get into it with the crisis that follows. and there's many names of note that are center stage during the crisis, but during the campaign itself, it was again a pretty straightforward campaign. again, democrats emphasized reform. republicans emphasized the bloody shirt associated democrats with treason. republicans also emphasized religious issues. this was often referred to as the, quote unquote catholic question where republicans really tried to appeal to the anti-catholic prejudices of many white protestants americans. this is a period in american history when there were large numbers of catholic immigrants, especially irish catholics, coming to the united states and many of those irish catholics overwhelmingly voted democrat. so republicans would try during the campaign to tap into anti-catholic sentiments. so one of the original front runners for the republican nomination who i mentioned, james blaine, who had been

speaker of the house, had tried to put forward a constitutional amendment that would require the separate ocean of public and sectarian in schools so that protestants and catholics, you could not use public money effectively to support catholic schools. but overall, the campaign was fairly straightforward. what role did money play and how did they get it? good question. it's actually something that we don't know a whole lot about in the 19th century. we do know that by the 1870s, money has becoming increasingly prominent in these campaigns, and it's largely driving local and state politics. and so, again, as i mentioned a few minutes ago, political parties in the 19th century have functioned very differently. you had a national committee right? you had a central organization for each party. but really, the job of the national committee was to field requests and helped organize the many state and local committees. so, for example, in the case of

the democrats, a local democrats would write letters to the democratic national committee and say, we're really struggling here against the greenback party. we're worried that our voters are going to jump ship and go vote for the greenback or his vote for peter cooper. we need money from the national committee to hire speakers who will come here and tour and speak and support our candidates. republicans would do the same local republicans would write the republican national committee and it was largely private individuals. so in the case of the democrats, samuel tilden, who was incredibly wealthy, one of the wealthiest men in america, financed much of his own campaign. democrats had other children. august, belmont, who had long for a long time been the chair of the democratic national committee for horse racing fans. belmont is well known as the namesake for the belmont stakes. one of the races still today, part of the triple crown. belmont was also very wealthy and helped finance these

campaigns. so money was becoming increasingly prominent during these campaigns, largely financed by individual sales. there were, of course, no campaign finance laws like we have today. and so an individual could pour as much money as they wanted into a campaign. and large that money would go to help state and local organizations fund their campaigns during the election. okay. now we're going to get into the hard part. sure. november 6th, 1876, here is the popular vote. samuel tilden received 4.288 million votes, 51%. rutherford hayes. 4.0 million votes, 48%. voter turnout. was 82%. the initial electoral count was samuel tilden 184. rutherford. hayes 165. rutherford hayes was president. how did that happen?

well, this is complicated. so we'll try to walk through it as easily as we can. so, as you said, the election was november seventh. the night of that election, most observers believed samuel tilden had won. in fact, for almost a week, i mean, hayes went to bed that night. he wrote in his diary that he thought tilden had won for almost a week. hayes was pretty certain that tilden had won. the number, the magic number in the electoral college, the number needed to win a majority of electoral votes was 185. and as you said, tilden, it was clear at the end of election night, within the few days following. tilden had 184 votes and election rates actually were not that dissimilar from how election night is today. you had tallied that. you had the telegraph. and so local precincts would send in their totals to the county level. county levels would add up. the total senate to the state level. state levels would telegraph those totals. and so, for example, in the

major cities like in new york, in new york city, they would be getting telegrams from all over the country with reports of voting totals. those totals would then be in the newspaper. so it was actually possible for observer ers, political junkies, for the candidates themselves to have a pretty good sense even on election night, but certainly within a few days after of which way the election was going to go, just like today, where we all stay up very, very late to get in here. the totals as they come in. so, again, it was clear that tilden had 184 votes, but he needed 185. hayes had, i believe, 166, not 165, but in dispute, there were three southern states florida, south carolina and louisiana, where the electoral votes were in dispute. there was also one vote that was disputed in oregon. for tilden to win the election, he needed one of those states needed the votes of one of those states. for hayes to win the election, he would need the votes for all of those states florida, south

carolina, louisiana, as well as oregon. and very quickly, both sides realized what was at stake. they knew that the outcome who was going to get the votes would be determined at the state level. each state had what was called a canvasing board, which was responsible for overseeing the results of the election. so much like today, voters would go to the polls at the local level. the precinct level votes were then counted first at the local level. then those votes were sent the county level where you had a county return board and then the county return board would send their results to the state capital. the results would be certified by the state canvasing board in all three southern states. florida, louisiana and south carolina. those canvasing boards were controlled by republicans. and republicans were very worried that angry southern democrats, former confederates, white southerners would use violence to somehow alter the outcome or influence the counting of the votes.

both parties realized that this was effectively a partizan operation, and so both parties would immediately sent armies of lawyers to these states where they could collect affidavits, they could file briefs, they could challenge returns that they viewed as suspect, where maybe there was some sort of fraud or suspicious activity going on. and the catch was that all of this had to be done, all of this vote counting had to be finished before the electoral college was required to meet on december sixth. so the election is november 7th. the electoral college meets on december 6th. and you have a lot of questions in each of these three southern states. and it was clear there was a lot of fraud going on. we know for certain that white southerners use extensive violence and intimidation and effectively a campaign of racial terrorism to try and prevent thousands upon thousands of black men in the south from voting. most of those black men would have almost certainly voted republican. so there were a lot of

republican votes that would have gone to hayes in those states, did not were not cast because black voters were intimidated and harassed and kept from voting in other places. for example, in south carolina. voter turnout at the state level was a mathematically impossible 101%, meaning that more people voted than there were eligible voters. for example, in one south carolina county, the county vote level total was 2000 more votes than the entire adult male population of the county. many voters likely were voting more than once, and it was largely white southerners. and so there was a clear sense that there was fraud. and both sides claimed fraud. republicans said that black voters were prevented from voting, that white southern democrats had voted more than once or crossed state lines. democrats claim that republicans controlled the canvasing boards and were manipulating the totals or throwing out democratic votes that were legitimate. a lot of this sounds very familiar to some of the things we saw in 2020 or during the bush-gore election of 2000.

so as this played out at the state level, the details kind of varied in each state. it gets extremely complicated. so without getting too far into the weeds, the gist is that because these canvasing boards were controlled by the parties, both democrats and republicans disputed the. they used whatever legal maneuvers they could to cast doubt on the claims of the other side. sometimes that meant challenging votes at the local level. they might claim fraud because there was violence or voter intimidation. they might claim there were bribes. democrat to claim that republicans used bribes to bribe canvasing board members. and there was evidence that there was bribing bribery going on. or they might challenge the legality of the decisions that these canvasing boards were made. but the end result was that each state, florida, louisiana and south carolina, each state ended up producing two sets of electors who claim to be the legitimate electors. one republican and one democrat. and so what ends up happening is

each state sends two sets of votes to congress, one set of votes for tilden. one set of votes for hayes. and so, for example, in florida, the outgoing republican governor certified, the electoral votes for hayes, but there was a newly elected democratic governor and he certified the electoral votes for tilden. and so both states send the votes to congress and effectively leave it up to congress to solve the problem. and it's not clear how congress could do that, because at this point in american history, really, the only thing that was governing the process was the 12th amendment to the constitution. and under the 12th amendment, it simply states that when congress gets together to count the electoral votes, the electoral college should meet, cast their votes. the votes go to congress. and then congress is to count the votes. and all the 12th amendment says that the president of the senate should open the certificates that come from the states and then, quote, the votes shall then be counted. but who who counts the votes? democrat controlled the house of representatives.

they believed that they could basically swing the election to tilden by using a congressional rule that was known as the two second joint rule. and what that meant effectively is that what the 22nd joint rule said was anybody could challenge any electoral vote for any reason. if somebody raised a challenge in either the house or senate, the house and senate would separate it. they would vote on the challenge without debate and if the house or senate upheld the challenge, then the vote was thrown out. democrats claim that they could use this rule to challenge any vote they wanted. republicans said the rule was no longer, in effect, that this was not constitutional. instead, republicans said, actually, it's the vice president of the united states. the vice president is one who should decide the votes excuse me. the president of the senate is the one who should decide the votes. neither of these arguments were particularly persuasive or, frankly, constitutional. and so there's this real sense of crisis. you have contested votes from different states.

there's no rule or law in place. tells congress how to deal with such a situation. you have a house controlled by democrats, a senate controlled by republicans. they're not going to agree. and how are they going to solve this? and the solution to come up with a committee. both the house and the senate to created committees within their to come up with a solution. they both proposed slightly different versions of what became the eventual answer. by january, congress passed the electoral commission bill. and what that bill did was it created a 15 man commission that would decide the disputed returns, and that commission would include five members from the senate controlled by republicans, five members from the house controlled by democrats, and five supreme court justices. congress would choose four of the justices who would be for associate justices. two of them were republicans. two are democrats. and then those four justices would pick the final member, the

15th member who most assumed would be a man named david davis. and justice from illinois. and so that was the solution. congress came up with. this commission would decide the disputed votes. it was unprecedented. many members of congress, republicans, democrats, believe this was unconstitutional. but it was really the only solution for a problem that was unprecedented. erik alexander that is complicated. was this being played out in the press daily or weekly, and were people engaged in this process? oh, absolutely. in fact, you know, during during the crisis itself in december, when the states were trying to figure out who won each state, there were armies of reporters from all over the country trying to figure out what was going on. there were daily reports in washington. there were rumors everywhere. i mean, it was the front page of every newspaper, every single day. again, this crisis was unprecedented. and going back to the beginning of our conversation, there was a real sense that of what was at stake here, not only the fate of reconstruction, the rights of

black americans in the south, but a real sense of fear that another civil war was possible, that southern democrats claiming that they would have or blood, that if samuel tilden did not win the election. rightfully, then they would use violence. they would start another war. so this real sense that there's a lot at stake here. and so, yes, reporters, newspapers are covering this on a daily basis, trying to figure out what will happen. the house members and again, the house was run by democrats. josiah gardner, abbott of massachusetts, apa hunton of virginia, another democrat, henry payne, ohio democrat. james garfield, future president was the republican on committee along with george frisbie hoar of massachusetts. the senators, the senate was run by the republicans. george edmonds of vermont, frederick frelinghuysen of new jersey. his family continued in politics. oliver hazard. perry morton of indiana.

republican. the two democrats. thomas bayard of delaware and allen thurman of ohio. now the supreme court justices, again, we've got another sticky wicket. david davis, an independent, so-called independent. but it will come back to him. joseph bradley had been appointed by republican samuel freeman miller, republican william strong republican nathan clifford, democrat stephen johnson. field, another democratic appointee. let's go back to david davis. what was his story. david davis is fascinating. so as you said, david davis is from illinois. he had been a very close confidant and friend of abraham lincoln. he had been appointed by lincoln to the court. davis was, as you said, widely viewed as an independent in the 19th century, independent, i mean, genuinely independent, free of either political party. most assumed because of his reputation as an independent,

that the four justices congress appointed who then got to choose the fifth justice, the 15th member of the committee that they would choose davis and the popular belief was that davis probably favored tilden, though nobody knew for certain. but what ends up happening is that at the last minute, literally, as congress is going to vote on this bill, that will create commission, illinois davis's home state, the state legislature here in illinois, decides to select davis as their new senator from illinois. in the 19th century, senators were chosen by the state legislature. it was not until the 20th century that senators were chosen by popular vote. and the reason this happens is that it's democrats who control the illinois state legislature. it's democrats who think this is effective in their mind, a bribe that they're going to give davis a senate seat. and then in return, davis will support their candidate, tilden for president. that's the reason that democrats did this in illinois. they thought if we give davis the senate seat, he'll vote for

tilden. davis goes to the senate, we get tilden, the white house, everybody wins. davis as an independent, immediately released a letter where he said that he could not serve on the commission. it was a conflict of interest that he was resigning from the supreme court, going to take the senate seat, which, by the way, just imagine this happening today, a sitting supreme court justice stepping down to go serve in congress. it's unthinkable today, but that's what davis did. he stepped down, did not serve on the commission. and again, this is all happening as congress is voting on the bill to create the commission. many democrats in congress assumed davis would be on the commission. they didn't know this was happening. and so by the time the bill is passed, davis has resigned from the supreme court. and so in his place, we get, as you mentioned, joseph bradley, who was a justice appointed by a republican. well, just to give you an idea of the interest in this 1876 campaign, in thousand four, then chief justice of the supreme court, william rehnquist, wrote

a book on this commission and the 1876 election. here's a portion at the end of the book. the last sentence you wrote in the view of this author and accepting membership on the commission, they did the right thing. what were you talking about? well, i was talking about the fact that in many instances when justices of the supreme court are asked to do extra judicial work, it has not always worked out very well. and the justice is who's served on this commission have been criticized for having brought the court not to the court as an institution. but the justices into into a political decision. and there's no doubt that they did that. but it was a decision. the commission was something that really may have saved the country a great deal of possible violence and uncertainty so that even if they sullied their own reputations, perhaps the reputations of the court, i think they did the right thing

because they certainly solved that very great problem as of the moment. and we return to our guest, eric alexander, southern illinois university, edwardsville history professor. professor alexander, how often did the commission meet? was it open to the public and did they meet the december sixth electoral count deadline? so this is all happening after that deadline. so what happened by december six? that is that's when you have each of the states sending their contested votes to congress. and that's where we got the. 184 166. is that correct? well, so 184 166 had was basically in november, most people assumed that's the states that were not contested. so there were 20 outstanding electoral votes between florida, south carolina, louisiana and oregon. and so it's those states that are sending their contested votes to congress, effectively telling congress, you decide,

you figure out which side is correct. so it's then in january area when congress is meeting and debating how to solve the problem. and so they create this commission at the end of january and then it's in february that the commission is meeting. and all of this now has to be decided. inauguration day in the 19th century is in early march. so the commission is created at the end of january and it needs to basically solve this problem by early march. and so to answer your question, the way this process then works. so once the commission has been created, congress then proceeded as they normally would. they started counting the votes as they would in any election. just as many americans i know i did in 2020 stayed up very late and watched this process happen. it's very similar. what happens is it's alphabetical and so the two houses of congress get together. the president of the senate opens the certificates and they proceed alphabetically state by state. and everything was smooth until they get to florida, which is the first state alphabetically where there had been disputes. and when they get to florida,

the votes that congress opened had been for hayes. democrats immediately challenged this. and democrats in congress said, we regularly challenges we don't believe this is legitimate. and so the commission then meets to debate florida. and so when the commission meets both houses of congress, adjourn temporarily, they go into and they wait. and the commission would then get together. and the the the rules that the commission set was effectively both sides, democrats and republicans were allowed to represent. it moves from congress to make their case. and each side was then allowed to lawyers and what's fascinating is you mentioned earlier kind of, you know, who are some of the famous names during these commission meetings, some of the biggest legal minds in the united states at the time are arguing in front of this commission. so, for example, during the florida case, lawyers on the democratic side included a man named charles o'connor from new york, who was one of the most famous lawyers trial lawyers in

the country. o'connor had actually been jefferson davis lawyer when. davis during davis trial for treason, after the civil war. former confederate president jefferson davis. the other democratic lawyer was a man named jeremiah black. black had been the attorney general and secretary of state under president buchanan in the 1850s. and so you had these really prominent legal minds. you had a man named david dudley field, who was also a prominent legal mind, who was the brother of supreme court justice stephen field. so you had a brother arguing the commission in front of another brother. and so it's real intrigue and two of the members of the commission you mentioned, bayard, from maryland excuse me, bayard from delaware. and alan thurman from ohio are also widely regarded as some of the greatest legal minds of the 19th century. and they're all getting together to debate and hear the case as the rules went. each side was given 2 hours of

argument and the specific issues as they debated the states, the disputes in the states, the arguments varied in detail, but effectively the central question that was before the commission in each case was the commission allowed to what they called, quote, go behind the returns? in other words, was the commission allowed to actually investigate, go back to the state level and figure out what really happened? was the commission allowed to consider testimony about specific counties or locations or accusations of fraud? democrats in front of the commission argued that there was so much evidence of fraud that there was no choice, that the commission had to investigate these returns if they were really going to figure out which candidate truly received the most votes. they had to go behind the returns. they had to go and investigate and listen to testimony and affidavits about what had happened during the election. republicans said no, this is impossible for two reasons. it's impossible because this is

going to take way too long. it is february. we need to inaugurate a president in four weeks. if we don't figure this out now. this could go on forever. and then we'll have an even worse constitutional crisis. we'll have no president. inauguration day is just weeks away. but even more important, republic said that elections are up to states. it is up to states to determine who votes, how elections are conducted, how the electors are chosen. and if the commission were to intervene and say, no, florida, the votes that you have sent us are invalid, you actually should have done it this way. that would be blatantly unconstitutional. it would violate the rights of the states under the constitution. so that was the central argument. how far was the commission allowed to go to investigate these returns? democrats argued again they needed to go behind the returns. republicans said, no, you can't do that. it's not practical and it's unconstitutional. as you asked was, you know, these were covered widely. it was i do not believe it was open to the public, but certainly there were widespread newspaper reports, rumors

circulating, things leaked to the press, just as it would be today and and certainly the public was following it very closely. once the commission heard the arguments for each case, they would make a decision. so in the case of florida, which came first, they heard the arguments. then the commission would make their decision. and what they made the decision, it would go back to congress. congress would then proceed counting votes of more states until the next state, in this case, louisiana. and the next state came up. and then they would congress would adjourn while the commission met once again to hear arguments about louisiana. in each case of each state. it was a very partizan in decision because, of course, you had five members from the house controlled by democrats. so the house chose three democrats and two republicans. you had five members from the republican senate. so there were three republicans and two democrats. so that meant you had five democrats, five republican from congress. and then again, the supreme court justices were also very partizan, which was common in the 19th century. supreme court justices were very

political. and there were two republican justices, two democratic justices. and joseph bradley. bradley had been appointed by a republican, and he was the 15th man and actually took the longest to decide. and the first case, the case of florida, it took a nearly 48 hours. he ultimately decided in favor of hayes. and so the commission made voted 8 to 7 a strict partizan vote to give florida's votes to hayes. once the commission made its decision, the commission stepped aside, went back to congress. congress proceeded until they got to the next state with disputed returns. and that's how the process went for each of these disputed states. ultimately, the certified final electoral vote after the commission's work, rutherford hayes, 185, the minimum needed in 1876. samuel. tilden 184. here is the final electoral map as well. eric alexander, what was the reaction to rutherford hayes

being declared the winner? it was certainly controversial. democrats were, of course, furious. they believed hayes this was illegitimate. tilden, for example, throughout this process, was receiving scores and scores of letters urging him to challenge the outcome. many said challenge it via the courts. you should sue. take this to the supreme court. and there were many that were pledging violence, writing. tilden particularly southerners, writing tilden, saying if you say the word we will raise the militia and we will storm washing to make sure that you are installed as president. i think importantly, though, and this is particularly notable given how we saw the last presidential election play out in 2020 and particularly the events of january six, 2020. tilden refused refused to challenge the outcome. now, to be clear, there were many lawsuits in the state and local level that had been going on since november. democrats and republicans challenging individual the

returns and results in individual counties and localities. but by the time the commission had made its decision, tilden refused to challenge the outcome. tilden believed he had won. he believed he was the rightful president. he believed he should have won. but like many other americans, tilden personally feared another civil war. he feared sectional conflict. he feared what a prolonged conflict over the election might do that had already been controversial enough. it had already taken long enough. it had been such a severe and unprecedented constitutional crisis. tilden was not worried, was not willing to make this any worse than it had already been. so he quietly accepted the outcome, even as many democrats as well as many his own personal advisors encouraged him and asked him to challenge the outcome. that said, democrats refuse to go do this quietly. they were using all the parliamentary maneuvers they could in congress to try and prevent hayes from taking office.

it was eventually the speaker of the house, a man named j. randall, who paved the way for democrats to accept the results of the commission. but even after hayes took office, while hayes was president, democrats in congress repeatedly passed resolutions declaring that hayes was illegitimate. so democrats, again, very, very upset, very furious. republicans, of course, believed that given all of the widespread violence and intimidation in the south that had black americans in the south been allowed to vote, as they should have been. hayes would have easily been the winner and that this was the rightful outcome. samuel tilden said after the certified electoral count, i can retire to public life with the consciousness that i shall receive from posterity. the credit of having been elected to the highest position in the gift of. the people without any of the cares and responsibilities of the office. erik alexander, who teaches history at southern illinois university and edwards ville. there are more twists and turns.

the election of 1876 that we weren't able to get to. professor alexander, thank you fo