THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS RESULTS
The Presidential election was held in 1876. The Republicans had carried
the country in 1872 by such a decisive majority that it indicated many
years of continued Republican ascendency in the National Government. But
the severe reverses sustained by that party at the polls two years later
completely changed this situation and outlook. Democrats confidently
expected and Republicans seriously apprehended that the Presidential
election of 1876 would result in a substantial Democratic victory. Mr.
Blaine was the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, but he
had bitter opposition in the ranks of his own party. That opposition
came chiefly from friends and supporters of Senator Conkling at the
North and from Southern Republicans generally. The opposition of the
Conkling men to Mr. Blaine was largely personal; while southern
Republicans were opposed to him on account of his having caused the
defeat of the Federal Elections Bill. The great majority of southern
Republicans supported Senator Oliver P. Morton of Indiana.
After the National Convention had been organized, it looked for a while
as if Mr. Blaine's nomination was a foregone conclusion. Hon. Edward
McPherson, of Pennsylvania,--a strong Blaine man,--had been made
President of the Convention. In placing Mr. Blaine's name in nomination,
Hon. Robert G. Ingersoll of Illinois made such an eloquent and effective
speech that he came very near carrying the Convention by storm, and thus
securing the nomination of the statesman from Maine. But the opposition
to Mr. Blaine was too well organized to allow the Convention to be
stampeded, even by the power and eloquence of an Ingersoll. It was this
speech that gave Mr. Ingersoll his national fame and brought him to the
front as a public speaker and lecturer. It was the most eloquent and
impressive speech that was delivered during the sitting of the
Convention. After a bitter struggle of many hours, and after a number of
fruitless ballots, the Convention finally nominated Gov. R.B. Hayes, of
Ohio, as a compromise candidate. This result was brought about through a
union of the combined opposition to Mr. Blaine. Hon. Wm. A. Wheeler, of
New York, was nominated for Vice-President and the work of the
Convention was over.
The Democrats nominated ex-Governor Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, for
President, and Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice-President.
Their platform pledged many radical reforms in the administration of the
government. This ticket was made with the hope that it would be
successful in the doubtful and debatable States of New York, New Jersey,
Indiana, and Connecticut, which, with the Solid South, would constitute
a majority of the electoral college, even if all the other States should
go Republican, which was not anticipated.
That the prospect of Democratic success was exceedingly bright and the
probability of a Republican victory extremely dark, was generally
conceded. The South was counted upon to be solid in its support of the
Democratic ticket, for the methods that had been successfully
inaugurated in Mississippi the year before, to overcome a Republican
majority of more than twenty thousand, were to be introduced and adopted
in all the other States of that section in which conditions were
practically the same as in Mississippi.
To insure success, therefore, it was only necessary for the Democrats to
concentrate their efforts upon the four doubtful States outside of the
Solid South. Up to a certain point the plan worked well. Every
indication seemed to point to its successful consummation. As had been
anticipated, the Democrats were successful in the four doubtful Northern
States, and they also carried, on the face of the returns, every
Southern State, just as had been planned; the Mississippi methods
having been adopted in such of them as had Republican majorities to
overcome. Since through those methods the Democrats had succeeded in
overcoming a large Republican majority in Mississippi, there was no
reason why the same methods should not produce like results in South
Carolina, in Louisiana, and in Florida. In fact, it was looked upon as a
reflection upon the bravery and party loyalty of the Democracy of those
States if they could not do what had been done under like conditions in
Mississippi. Hence those States _had_ to be carried, "peaceably and
fairly," of course, "but they must be carried just the same." Failure to
carry them was out of the question, because too much was involved.
According to the plans and calculations that had been carefully made, no
Southern State could be lost. While it might be possible to win without
all of them, still it was not believed to be safe to run any such risk,
or take any such chance. If the Democrats should happen to carry a state
that was not included in the combination, so much the better.
Everything seemed to work admirably. That it was a plan by which
elections could be easily carried, with or without votes, had been
clearly demonstrated. On the face of the returns the majorities were
brought forth just as had been ordered and directed. But it seems that
such methods had been anticipated by the Republican governments in South
Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida, and that suitable steps had been
taken to prevent their successful consummation through the medium of
State Returning Boards. When the Returning Boards had rejected and
thrown out many of the majorities that had been returned from some of
the counties and parishes, the result was changed, and the Republican
candidates for Presidential electors were officially declared elected.
This gave the Republican candidates for President and Vice-President a
majority of one vote in the Electoral College. It has, of course, been
alleged by many,--and it is believed by some,--that the actions of those
Returning Boards defeated the will of the people as expressed at the
polls, thus bringing about the seating in the Presidential chair of the
man that had been fairly and honestly defeated. Yet, no one who is
familiar with the facts, and who is honest enough to admit them, will
deny that but for the inauguration in South Carolina, Florida, and
Louisiana, of the Mississippi methods, those three States would have
been as safely Republican at that time and in that election as were the
States of Pennsylvania and Vermont. But the plans of the Democratic
managers had been defeated. It was hard for them to lose a victory they
felt and believed to have been won by them, notwithstanding the
extraneous methods that had been employed to bring about such results.