Category: Uncategorized Page 1 of 6

 

The 1948 election presented a new opportunity for the United States. After Franklin Roosevelt had won four consecutive elections, there was now a clean slate, so to speak, and not just with two major party candidates. While Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Thomas Dewey (and to a lesser extent Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond and Progressive Henry Wallace) vied for the country’s future, a well-known American political custom was falling apart.

 

In the November 3^rd New York Times Meyer Berger wrote, “Times Square saw the death of a tradition yesterday. For the first time on a national election night, the Square was comparatively thinly populated. Such crowds as did assemble were voiceless, and without spirit.”[1] While the forecast had cooperated, described as “just enough nip in the night wind with the mercury in the forties”[2] the crowds “never did more than mutter or utter the weakest of cheers.”[3] The new election could have presented the public an opportunity to usher in a new American era but instead it was nothing more than a footnote in the story of the election. Berger wrote “Veteran election night observers seemed inclined to attribute the decline in open-air election night celebrations to the fact that more and more persons take their returns over the radio and over television. They figured the holiday tradition on election night is about dead.”[4] With the growing influence that media played on the American public, something FDR had helped usher in with his fireside chats, Truman’s victory celebrations were confined to private residences. However the crowd in the center of New York had chosen a candidate. The attitudes were described as “What noise there was—and it was never more than a murmur—seemed to be for President Truman. A few horn blasts heard around midnight, the one brief flurry of confetti at the same time came at announcement of the President’s lead.”[5]

The above description shows the beginning of a shift in American politics. As the culture changed from mass events and gatherings to smaller, more private gatherings in households the country was shifting in general. Moving on, past FDR itself brought new challenges, as Truman’s victory and continuance of his predecessor’s policies was uncertain. Instead Thomas Dewey or Strom Thurmond or Henry Wallace could bring about change that the U.S. hadn’t seen in 16 years. However the ideas of change also created negative kinds of uncertainty. On the actual Election Day only 53% of the population came out to vote, the lowest since 1924 (and would be the lowest until 1980)[6]. The combination of low voter turnout and shifts in American attitudes about how to view the election created the scene described in Times Square, a scene that Berger painted as a disappointment about a dying tradition. The election itself and the reaction created a pivotal election in American history, even if the victor and victory was the least pivotal aspect.

Of course, the election of 1948 is best known for the botched Chicago Daily Tribune headline “Dewey Defeats Truman” that was released well before the actual returns. The photo went on to become the sole image that most people remember from the election. In his book Battleground 1948: Truman, Stevenson, Douglas, and the Most Surprising Election in Illinois History Robert Hartley wrote “Truman’s upset victory stunned the nation, as it still does today. He received a little less than 50 percent of the popular vote to 45 percent for Dewey, 2 percent for Strom Thurmond, and 2 percent for Henry Wallace.”[7]   When describing what Truman did during the election, Philip White wrote, “Now on November 2, after giving his all, there was nothing more he could do. He had spoken his mind, in his own way, at every stop, whether addressing eighty thousand people at the National Plowing Match or a handful at one of the many stations well off the main line. If his efforts had been sufficient to pull off the unlikeliest of comebacks he would be delighted”.[8] The idea of Truman simply being forced to wait around is not unlike what many of his supporters did in Times Square the night of his election. The uncertainty in the election itself contributed to the idea that Truman had done all that he could. Gone were the opportunities to reach out to voters and instead Truman had to wait for “a few horn blasts” and a “brief flurry of confetti.”[9] However while waiting, instead of standing outside Truman rested “taking a Turkish bath and then consuming a supper that was as straightforward as the man himself: a ham and cheese sandwich and glass of buttermilk. He then retired for the evening at 9:00 p.m., the earliest bedtime he had allowed himself in months.”[10] In an interesting urn of events, Truman himself represented the shift in American culture. The president himself brought forward the new idea of staying inside on election night. Instead of even what current day candidates do, throwing elaborate Election Day parties, Truman chose to remain solitary and removed. There is no coincidence that most of the American people also chose to stay out of any possible limelight.

Those who were actually in Times Square in early November 1948 still had a lot to say about the election, even if en masse they were silent. One old man said “These political experts, they’re like the weatherman. The weatherman predicted rain tonight and the political experts picked Dewey. There’s no rain and it looks like it might not even be dewy.”[11]   As Times Square was deflated, a few streets over in Rockefeller Plaza the old Election Night festivities were getting a facelift. Much of the crowd to seems to have migrated to the Rock as “almost 5,000 persons assembled to watch the results as shown on a screen 15×20 feet. Images of the candidates in action, and of nation-wide returns were shown. It was an improvement on Election Night in the old tradition.”[12] The shift away from mass movements to watch the election was not yet complete as changing technology also improved the large-scale watch parties. Even with the crowd in Rockefeller Center, the lack of enthusiasm in Times Square was a larger indication of American’s attitude change. Slowly more and more of the public began to replicate President Truman’s Election Day plan of staying inside, an attitude that still defines how the country views the voting results.

[1] Meyer Berger, “Election Night Crowd in Times Sq. Is Thin, Silent and Without Spirit.” New York Times (New York, NY), Nov. 3, 1948

[2] Berger

[3] Berger

[4] Berger

[5] Berger

[6] The American Presidency Project

[7] Robert Hartley, Battleground 1948: Truman, Stevenson, Douglas, and the Most Surprising Election in Illinois History (Southern Illinois University Press, 2013) 194.

[8] Philip White, The Election of 1948 (ForeEdge, 2014) 236.

[9] Berger

[10] White 237.

[11] Berger

[12] Berger

By Sarah Aillon

On November 6th, 1856, the Carlisle Democrat reported that the presidential election two days prior had “passed off quietly in Cumberland County.” [1]  With two exceptions, Pennsylvania had voted Democrat in every presidential election since the establishment of the United States. [2] The 1856 election was no exception. A Dickinson College graduate, James Buchanan, was the Democratic nominee in the presidential election of 1856. In the months prior to election day, Carlisle newspapers had been rallying behind his political campaign. The American Volunteer boastfully reported that “For the first time in the history of the state we have before us a Pennsylvanian as a candidate for the presidency: and not only a native Pennsylvanian, but a man who’s giant intellect and sagacious statesmanship is acknowledged  throughout the Union.” [3] The political unity within the Carlisle Township, however, did not resemble the rest of the United States.  Throughout the 1850’s, the debate over the expansion of slavery began polarizing political parties and the Union drastically. The Cumberland County press’ strong affiliation with the democratic party demonstrates the way in which the area itself rallied behind James Buchanan and the democratic party.

 

Throughout the mid-19th century, the expansion of slavery began polarizing American politics. In 1854 the territories of Kansas and Nebraska were admitted into the Union under the Kansas-Nebraska Act. [4] The Kansas-Nebraska Act granted the territories the ability to expand slavery through popular sovereignty. The act, however, violated rules regarding the expansion of slavery previously set forth in the Missouri Compromise of 1820. [5] This created much political discourse around the legality of slavery’s expansion west. Political tensions began to escalate with the mass migration of both proslavery and antislavery movements into Kansas. [6] Both of these groups sought to gain political control of Kansas. [7] The convergence of both movements within these territories created violence between the two forces. [8] The issues surrounding the violence in Kansas became one of the forefront pillars of the 1856 presidential campaign. [9]

The democratic, republican and American party participated in the 1856 presidential election. The democratic party elected Pennsylvanian, James Buchanan as their nominee. Catering predominantly to a southern demography, democrats campaigned under the principle that the expansion of slavery should be dictated by popular sovereignty. [10]  The republican party formed in 1854 to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the expansion of slavery [11]. With a majority of its supporters in the north, the party had a strong antislavery antiexpansion stance [12]. In the 1856 election, the party nominated John Fremont. The republican and democratic party were the two main political parties in the 1856 election. 

 

The democrats former rival, the Whig party, had disintegrated over the expansion of slavery. [13] What emerged from the political dissolution was the American Party. [14] The party chose Millard Filmore as their presidential candidate. The party did not stand on a platform relating to the expansion of slavery. Rather, they stood on a strong anti-immigration and nativist platform. [15]

Democrat James Buchanan was the Pennsylvanian favorite in the 1856 election. In the months leading to election day, “Buchanan Clubs” emerged throughout Pennsylvania. Buchanan Clubs were locally run organizations which hoped to raise support for James Buchanan.  In Carlisle, these organizations began to emerge shortly after Buchanan became the democratic nominee in June of 1856. In July of 1856, the first Buchanan Club advertisement appeared in Carlisle newspaper, the American Volunteer [16]. These Buchanan Clubs had a presence in Carlisle up until the November 4th election date.

 

Much rallying occurred for Buchanan the month before the presidential election in November. On October 9, 1856, an article in the American Volunteer was published  calling for a “Mass Meeting” of democrats in the area. [17] The article rallied for full party support stating that “to gain victory in November, we must be thoroughly organized: ever borough, township, and ward in the county should be canvassed, and every Democrat vote brought to the polls.” [18] The article continues, “Come them from your workshops and your farms: come from your anvils and your looms, from your stores and from your professional engagement, and give-Saturday next to your country. A strong turnout is desirable as it will strike terror in the hearts of Disunionists and Abolitionists … show the enemy the spirit of Democracy is fully aroused.” [19] The consistent attempt to gain mass support from Carlisle democrats demonstrates how politically aligned the area was. Underneath the article calling for a mass meeting of democrats, an article titled The Great Freemont Fizzle shows the limited support for the republican presidential candidate in Cumberland County.  The article reported that the “Freemonters” of the county had failed to rally a mass meeting. The passage reads ” The day arrived, and a beautiful day it was , but the people did not come- them meeting was the most complete failure.” [20]

In the weeks leading up to the 1856 election day, local Carlisle newspapers published a myriad of reminders to vote democrat in both local and state elections. After the successful election of democrat, James Buchanan,  Carlisle press announced that the “Union was safe.” [21] In Cumberland County, James Buchanan received “about a 425” democratic majority. [22] Unlike other areas in the United States, Cumberland County was not tremendously polarized in 1856. Rather, Cumberland County had strong partisan ties. James Buchanan’s affiliation as a Dickinson College alumni further solidified the county’s affiliation with the democratic party. The partisan support in the county contrasts much of the political turmoil throughout the United States. The “peaceful” transition of power within Cumberland County in 1856 contrasts the national uproar that would later with the 1860 presidential election of Abraham Lincoln. [23]

Footnotes:

[1] N/a, (November 6, 1856). James Buchanan Elected President of the United States. American Democrat, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland Country Historical Collections [MICROFILM]

[2] “Presidential Elections.” Presidential Elections. Accessed November 06, 2016. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php. [WEB]

[3] N/a, (October 30, 1856). Freeman Rally to the Support of James Buchanan. American Volunteer, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland County Historical Collections [MICROFILM]

[4] “Slavery and the Making of America.” PBS. 2004. Accessed November 06, 2016. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/timeline/1850.html. [WEB]

[5] “Slavery and the Making of America.” PBS. 2004. Accessed November 06, 2016. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/timeline/1850.html. [WEB]

[6] Thomas J, Balcerski. “Beards, Bachelors, and Brides: The Surprisingly Spicy Politics of the Presidential Election of 1856.” Common-Place: The Interactive Journal of Early American Life 16, no. 4, 1. Accessed November 6, 2016 [LIBGUIDES]

[7] Thomas J, Balcerski. “Beards, Bachelors, and Brides: The Surprisingly Spicy Politics of the Presidential Election of 1856.” Common-Place: The Interactive Journal of Early American Life 16, no. 4, 1. Accessed November 6, 2016 [LIBGUIDES]

[8] Thomas J, Balcerski. “Beards, Bachelors, and Brides: The Surprisingly Spicy Politics of the Presidential Election of 1856.” Common-Place: The Interactive Journal of Early American Life 16, no. 4, 1. Accessed November 6, 2016 [LIBGUIDES]

[9] Thomas J, Balcerski. “Beards, Bachelors, and Brides: The Surprisingly Spicy Politics of the Presidential Election of 1856.” Common-Place: The Interactive Journal of Early American Life 16, no. 4, 1. Accessed November 6, 2016 [LIBGUIDES]

[10] Democratic Party Platforms: “1856 Democratic Party Platform,” June 2, 1856. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29576 [WEB] 

[11] “United States Presidential Election of 1856,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, accessed November 07, 2016, https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1856.[WEB]

[12] “United States Presidential Election of 1856,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, accessed November 07, 2016, https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-18 [WEB]

[13]  “United States Presidential Election of 1856,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, accessed November 07, 2016, https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-18 [WEB]

[14]  “United States Presidential Election of 1856,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, accessed November 07, 2016, https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-18 [WEB]

[15]  “United States Presidential Election of 1856,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, accessed November 07, 2016, https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-18 [WEB]

[16] n/a, (July 10, 1856). Democratic Meeting. American Volunteer, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland County Historical Society [MICROFILM]

[17] n/a, (October 9, 1856). Democratic Mass Meeting. American Volunteer, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland County Historical Society [MICROFILM]

[18] n/a, (October 9, 1856). Democratic Mass Meeting. American Volunteer, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland County Historical Society [MICROFILM]

[19] n/a, (October 9, 1856). Democratic Mass Meeting. American Volunteer, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland County Historical Society [MICROFILM]

[20] n/a, (October 9, 1856). The Great Freemont Fizzle. American Volunteer, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland County Historical Society [MICROFILM]

[21] N/a, (November 6, 1856). James Buchanan Elected President of the United States. American Democrat, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland Country Historical Collections [MICROFILM]

[22] N/a, (November 6, 1856). James Buchanan Elected President of the United States. American Democrat, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland Country Historical Collections [MICROFILM]

[23] N/a, (November 6, 1856). James Buchanan Elected President of the United States. American Democrat, n/a. n/a, Microfilm Collection, Cumberland Country Historical Collections [MICROFILM]

Other resources used:

“Twenty-four hours from the present writing the question will have been settled who is to be the President of the United States for four years from March 4, but during the interval between this time and that, when the result will be known, the American people will be in a state of excited expectancy.”

–National Republican, Nov. 7, 1876

When Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and his wife Lucy went to bed on the night of Tuesday, November 7, 1876, Hayes was resigned to the fact that he had lost the 19th presidential election. By midnight, the Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden, was ahead by about 225,000 popular votes, with over 8.2 million votes cast. He was leading in the electoral vote with 184 out of the required 185 votes to secure the presidency,[1] and the Democrats were eager to pack their bags, evict the Republicans, and occupy the White House for the first time in 15 years. [2] Hayes stayed up to wait on returns from swing state New York, which he and advisors thought would decide the election. When a dispatch sent word that Tilden had a 50,000 vote lead in New York City, Hayes wrote, “from that point, I never supposed there was a chance for Republican success.” Rutherford Hayes wrote in his diary that night, “we soon fell into a refreshing sleep (…) and the affair seemed over.” [3]

However, within a few hours, controversial vote tallies came in from four states. Both the Democrats and the Republicans accused each other of fraudulent voting practices and a fierce battle for the presidency ensued, but predominantly between Democrat and Republican Party leaders and not between Hayes and Tilden themselves. With a reputation as an honest man, Hayes did not immediately contest the election, being more worried about the legitimacy of recounting the votes than winning. [4] Although Rutherford B. Hayes remained uninvolved in the election day voting fraud and subsequent recounts, both Republican Party leaders and Democrat leaders revealed intense party competition and corruption of the time period by prioritizing an 1876 party win over a just democratic election, and challenging the right to a fair vote.

While Hayes slept, convinced of his defeat, former Republican congressman Daniel Sickles, stopped at the Republican headquarters to check on the voting return numbers. He quickly realized that if Hayes secured the seven electoral votes from South Carolina, eight electoral votes from Louisiana, and four electoral votes from Florida, all of which had not come in yet, then Hayes’ count would increase from 165 to tie Tilden at 184. Seeing Zachariah Chandler, the Republican Party chairman, in a drunken stupor in his office, Sickles decided to send telegrams in Chandler’s name to several Republican leaders in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida to alert them of the importance of those states’ electoral votes. He received reply, “All right. South Carolina is for Hayes” from Governor Daniel Chamberlain at 3:00 am. [5] Sickles’ dishonesty marked the beginning of a duplicitous election day, although without his telegrams, Hayes may have had no chance at winning.

When Hayes awoke on the 8th, he wrote a letter to his son at Cornell reflecting on his loss. He graciously accepted the outcome, but was disappointed in not having a chance “to establish Civil Service reform, and to do good work for the South” as part of his campaign platform. [6] Both presidential candidates were popular because of their integrity and desire for reform. Hayes, the governor of Ohio, had supported Reconstruction efforts and the ratification of the 15th Amendment, and he wanted to continue to improve the conditions of African Americans in the South. He didn’t smoke, he didn’t drink, and was a volunteer during the Civil War. His opponent, Tilden, was the governor of New York, and known for helping to dissolve the corrupt Tweed Ring Democrat group. Both Hayes and Tilden were appealing presidential figures who contrasted President Grant’s administration, which was tainted with bribery and scandal. Ironically, the election day proceedings did not meet the virtuous standards of its candidates. [7]

Not long after writing the letter to his son, Hayes was informed that he had won the West Coast and could still win the election. As the sun rose that morning, the president-elect was undetermined, and copies of the National Republican circulated in Washington DC shouting the headline, “Suspense! Possibly Tilden, Hopefully Hayes (…) Reports Very Conflicting, Some Probably Falsified.” [8] The hesitation in declaring a president-elect was due to inconsistent popular vote counts in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida, as well as a questionable electoral voter in Oregon. In the 1870s, voting ballots were actually “party tickets,” printed by political parties and containing a list of all candidates for that party. They might have been printed in a color to represent the party and to aid illiterate voters. These tickets made voting fraud simple, as multiple tickets could easily be folded up and submitted by one person. [9] In addition, Hayes believed that the election had been stolen from him through unconstitutional voting restrictions in the South, primarily through limiting African Americans’ and white republicans’ ability to vote by racist terrorist groups and registration requirements, but he was prepared to “accept the inevitable” with “composure and cheerfulness.” [10]

Both parties certain that they had won the states, they each submitted separate vote tallies to Congress. In Florida, out of 47,000 votes, Republicans reported a 922 vote margin with Hayes ahead, and denounced the Democrats for restricting African Americans’ voting rights through intimidation tactics and bribery [11] in addition to tricking illiterate voters by printing Democratic ballots with a Republican symbol. [12] So convinced that they had won the election, by November 9, the Republican newspaper National Republican proclaimed that Hayes had won with the full page headline “Glorious News!” [13]

On the other hand, Democrats were just as confident that Tilden was the winner. In Florida, they claimed that there was a 94 vote margin in favor of Tilden, and contended that Republicans had smeared ink on ballots in a pro-Tilden county to discredit those votes. [14] Voting officials accused opposing parties of stuffing ballot boxes with false votes, and that in some counties, the number of votes surpassed population. To add to the already high level of deception, allegedly the Democratic National Committee in LA claimed that the Republicans suggested that there would be a guaranteed Democratic popular majority in exchange for $1 million. [15] In Oregon, the Democrat Governor La Fayette Grover noticed that one of the Republican electors was federally employed at a post office, and therefore ineligible to be an elector. He appointed a new Democrat elector, and although Hayes still won the electoral votes for Oregon, the Democrats responded by crying fraud. [16] In Louisiana, citizens were informed that Democrats won the election. A Democrat newspaper, the Louisiana Democrat, printed on November 15, “The Republican Party is Dead!” in celebration of a Tilden majority. [17] A week after election day, inconsistent reports announced either Hayes or Tilden as the president-elect, and both parties unequivocally advocated for their own candidate.

The level of cheating on both sides was undoubtedly high. To attempt to reach a verdict, Republican officials under Grant set up “returning boards” in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida to recount disputed votes. Besides sorting through problems related to voter activity, bribery, and other depravities, there was the issue of how to count the controversial votes. Hayes told friend US Senator Carl Schurz that he was concerned that “in the canvassing of results there should be no taint of dishonesty,” and wrote to John Sherman, who was a Republican statesman dispatched to Louisiana, “we are not to allow our friends to defeat one outrage and fraud by another…there must be nothing crooked on our part.” [18] Hayes was dismayed at the amount of underhanded political dealing contributing to the election, and acknowledged that the democracy set up by the Founding Fathers was failing; he wrote in his diary on December 7, 1876, “A contest ruinous to the country, dangerous, perhaps fatal to free government may grow out of [the fraud]. I would gladly give up all claim to the [presidency], if this would avert the evil without bringing on us a greater calamity.” [19] Hayes soon realized that his protests were in vain; party leaders were determined to amass as many votes as possible and the Republican Party was adamant about winning the election by any means necessary.

Not until 4:10 am on March 2, 1877 was election day truly over. [20]  Ultimately, Rutherford Hayes won the election. Republican candidates Hayes and running mate William Wheeler were given 4,033,497 popular votes, or 48%, and 185 electoral votes. Democrats Tilden and Hendricks were given 4,288,191 popular votes, or 51%, and 184 electoral votes. In spite of losing the popular vote, all disputed electoral votes from South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, and Oregon were awarded to Hayes. [21]

Fraudulent votes and political party intervention at the state level corrupted the election and made it effectively impossible to determine a true winner, and Democrats started calling Hayes “Rutherfraud” and “His Fraudulency” because they were furious at how he “stole” the election. [22] Hayes expressed in his inaugural speech on March 5 that he, “owed his election to office to the…zealous labors of a political party” because it was due to the interventions of his party’s supporters that he was eventually elected. [23] The election day events of 1876 exposed the democratic-republican government experiment as an imperfect system. The election demonstrated that election day voting needed continual adjustment to avoid biased votes and false votes from political parties, and set the stage for later constitutional debates over the right to vote and the right to have a vote counted.

[1] Richard Wormser, “Hayes-Tilden Election (1876),” The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow, PBS, 2002. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_election.html

[2] S. Mintz and S. McNeil, “The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876,” Digital History, 2016. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3109.

[3] Rutherford B. Hayes, Diary of Rutherford B. Hayes, Volume III, The Disputed Election–Electoral Commission–Selection of Cabinet, 1876-1877, Nov. 11, 1876, Ohio History Connection. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2016 from http://apps.ohiohistory.org/hayes/results.php?page=4&ipp=20&&searchterm=election

[4] Ari Hoogenboom, “Chapter 17: Disputed Election,” Rutherford B. Hayes: Warrior & President (University Press of Kansas, 1995). Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from http://www.rbhayes.org/hayes/disputed-election-by-ari-hoogenboom/

[5] “The Political Situation,” Finding Precedent: Hayes vs Tilden, HarpWeek, 2008. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from http://elections.harpweek.com/09Ver2Controversy/Overview-1.htm.

[6] Rowland L. Young, “The Year They Stole the White House,” ABA Journal 62 (1976): 1460. [Google Books]

[7] Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. “Rutherford B. Hayes: Campaigns and Elections.” Miller Center. Accessed Oct. 30, 2016 from http://millercenter.org/president/biography/hayes-campaigns-and-elections

[8] The National Republican, (Washington DC), Nov. 8, 1876. [Library of Congress] Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86053573/1876-11-08/ed-1/seq-1/

[9] “The History of the Paper Ballot,” Fair Vote. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from http://archive.fairvote.org/righttovote/pballot.pdf

[10] Rutherford B. Hayes, Diary of Rutherford B. Hayes, Volume III, The Disputed Election–Electoral Commission–Selection of Cabinet, 1876-1877, Nov. 12, 1876, Ohio History Connection. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2016 from http://apps.ohiohistory.org/hayes/results.php?page=4&ipp=20&&searchterm=election

[11] S. Mintz and S. McNeil, “The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876,” Digital History, 2016. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3109.

[12] Ari Hoogenboom, “Chapter 17: Disputed Election,” Rutherford B. Hayes: Warrior & President (University Press of Kansas, 1995). Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from http://www.rbhayes.org/hayes/disputed-election-by-ari-hoogenboom/

[13] The National Republican (Washington DC), Nov. 9, 1876. [Library of Congress] Retrieved Nov. 6. 2016 from http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86053573/1876-11-09/ed-1/seq-1/.

[14] S. Mintz and S. McNeil, “The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876,” Digital History, 2016. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3109.

[15] Gilbert King, “The Ugliest, Most Contentious Presidential Election Ever,” Smithsonian.com, Sept. 7, 2012. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-ugliest-most-contentious-presidential-election-ever-28429530/?no-ist.

[16] S. Mintz and S. McNeil, “The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876,” Digital History, 2016. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3109.

[17] The Louisiana Democrat [Alexandria, LA], Nov. 15, 1876. [Library of Congress] Retrieved Nov. 6, 2016 from http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82003389/1876-11-15/ed-1/seq-2/.

[18] Quotes in Ari Hoogenboom, “Chapter 17: Disputed Election,” Rutherford B. Hayes: Warrior & President (University Press of Kansas, 1995). Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from http://www.rbhayes.org/hayes/disputed-election-by-ari-hoogenboom/

[19] Rutherford B. Hayes, Diary of Rutherford B. Hayes, Volume III, The Disputed Election–Electoral Commission–Selection of Cabinet, 1876-1877, Dec. 7, 1876, Ohio History Connection. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2016 from http://apps.ohiohistory.org/hayes/results.php?page=5&ipp=20&&searchterm=election

[20] Ari Hoogenboom, “Chapter 17: Disputed Election,” Rutherford B. Hayes: Warrior & President (University Press of Kansas, 1995). Retrieved Oct. 30, 2016 from http://www.rbhayes.org/hayes/disputed-election-by-ari-hoogenboom/

[21] John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, “Election of 1876,” The American Presidency Project, 2016. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2016 from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1876

[22] Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. “Rutherford B. Hayes: Campaigns and Elections.” Miller Center. Accessed Oct. 30, 2016 from http://millercenter.org/president/biography/hayes-campaigns-and-elections

[23]  Rutherford B. Hayes, “Inaugural Address of Rutherford B. Hayes,” March 5, 1877. Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library, 2014. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2016 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hayes.asp

 

By Ryan Schutte

On November 3, 1874, Captain A.S. Daggett of the 2nd U.S. infantry sat at his hotel window and watched horrified as bloodshed ensued outside the polls on the main street of Eufaula, Alabama on election day.  An altercation outside a polling station between a black Republican, Milas Lawrence, and white Democrat, Charles E. Goodwin, quickly turned into a massacre after Lawrence was stabbed in the shoulder by Goodwin’s companion, William Dowdy.  Prepared for conflict, unofficial white militia men shouted, “Fall in Company A; Fall in Company B,” and began firing an estimated 500 shots into the mass of unarmed black men on the street.  When the dust had settled, seventy-five men were found wounded and seven dead.  More life was lost later that night in the neighboring town of Spring Hills, when Democrat intruders broke into the house of the Republican city court judge Elias Hills and opened fire, killing his 16-year-old son, Willie.  Overshadowed by the carnage of that day was the large-scale destruction of ballot boxes, the theft and burning of hundreds of casted ballots, as well as the denial of thousands of black men from the polls.  Democrats swept the county elections, and symbolic of the rest of the nation, had a new party representing their district in the House of Representatives for the first time since the Civil War.  The events of Eufaula in 1874 exemplify the militaristic arm of the Democratic Party that was taking hold in southern politics, and paired with inadequate federal response, effectively eliminated blacks’ newfound rights granted by the 14th and 15th amendments [1].

Sitting just below America’s Black Belt along the Chattahoochee River, Eufaula, like the rest of the nation experienced a period of expansion in the right to vote with the Civil War’s end [2].  Despite opposition from Southern states and President Andrew Johnson, the majority Republican Congress passed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing newly freed blacks citizenship, due process, equal protection under the law, and, most importantly, the right to vote [3]. The democratization of the right to vote was, by no means, accepted without resistance and in a petition sent to Congress, Alabama conservatives referred to the newly enfranchised blacks as, “…ignorant generally, wholly unacquainted with the principles of free Governments, improvident, disinclined to work…dishonest, untruthful, incapable of self-restraint, and easily impelled…into folly and crime…” [4]. By 1874, “White Northern disillusionment with Reconstruction” had set in, and the nation was in the midst of an economic downturn like never before.  As a result, black civil rights expansion became increasingly unpopular, and southern blacks were left alone in the fight to protect their newfound voting rights [5].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Throughout the summer of 1874, racial and political tensions in Eufaula had reached its climax as white conservatives hoped desperately to redeem political control from the Republican coalition of carpetbaggers, scalawags, and enfranchised blacks.  To Barbour County Democrats’ dismay, influence from the opposition political alliance often resulted in the election of Republican candidates in local elections– their current representative in Congress a leading black politician, James Rapier [6].  Rapier, born free in the slaveholding south in 1837, won his seat in December of 1873 and worked hard during his tenure in the defense of black rights.  In his first address to Congress, Rapier reaffirmed this stance as he proclaimed, “I cannot willingly accept anything less than my full measure of rights as a man, because I am unwilling to present myself as a candidate for any brand of inferiority.”   Consequently, Alabama’s white conservatives were determined to win the November congressional election in order to save the state from “Negro Rule” [7].  In June of 1874 at the state convention, Democrats nominated former Confederate, Jeremiah Williams, for the 2nd Alabama congressional seat and adopted the Pike County Platform [8]. The platform read:

“[Nothing] is left to the white man’s party but social ostracism of all those who act, sympathize or side with the negro party, or who support or advocate the odious, unjust, and unreasonable measure known as the civil rights bill; and that from henceforth we will hold all such persons as enemies of our race, and we will not in the future have intercourse with them in any of the social relations of life [9].”

In essence, the Alabama Democratic platform encouraged the ostracism of white Republicans in hopes that deprivation of a satisfactory social life could change their opponents’ voting behavior or force them to move [10].  Later that Summer, local Democrats took more extreme measures to defeat the Republicans when they formed the “White Man’s Club of Eufaula.”  Similar to the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, members of the organization attempted to force local black voters to pledge loyalty to the Democratic party [11].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On top of the pressures provided by the Democrats, a faction within the local Republican Party had materialized over the pending impeachment of Judge Richard Busteed.  Despite his determination to stay out of the conflict, Rapier was forced to give in when armed protestors showed up at the Republican nominating convention in August, threatening violence unless their demands were met.  To many voters, Rapier’s surrender to the violent faction of Republicans reeked of  corruption, and following the event one southern newspaper noted the Democrats disapproval of the “bargain” [12] .  In a political misstep, Rapier went back on his pledge a few days later, and leading up to the election, his chances of earning a second term were in question [13].

Nothing clouded the political landscape more than the growing “atmosphere of violence” as election day neared, and according to historian, Melinda M. Hennessey, city court judge, Elias Keils “personified” the political struggle in Eufaula.  Keils, a former secessionist, but now a middle-aged Republican leader in Eufaula, had been elected to the city court in 1870.  In his four years as city court judge, Keils faced significant political opposition from the Democratic party and was accused of protecting guilty blacks in the county.  As the midterm election of 1874 neared, Keils recognized the growing political and racial tensions throughout Bourbon County; and, seeking support and protection, wrote to Alabama attorney general, Benjamin Gardner, as well as U.S. Marshall, Robert W. Healy, on several occasions.  Finally, less than two weeks before the election, the marshall answered his pleas, and a company of soldiers led by Captain A.S. Daggett was sent to oversee the elections.  However, just as the soldiers from the U.S. 2nd infantry arrived in Barbour County, their ability to aid the election was severely restricted by General Order No. 75.  General Irwin McDowell, Commander of the Department of the South and Captain Daggett’s superior, gave the order, limiting uses for Army troops to enforce writs of U.S. courts and protect Internal Revenue Department agents.  Despite Captain Daggett’s protests, he and his troops were essentially powerless, and Keils and the Republican party were forced to proceed with the election unprotected [14].

Despite the lack of protection, black voters were prepared to use strength in numbers, and the night before the election hundreds gathered on the outskirts of Eufaula to prepare for election day.  Republican leaders, George H. Williams, Henry Frazer, and Edward Odom organized voters, handed out Republican ballots, and gave orders to travel unarmed on their march to the polls, to “avoid the slightest excuse for white violence…” [15]. On the morning of November 3rd, an estimated 1,500 men marched into the town ready to cast their votes at the town’s polling place.  Throughout the morning, blacks and whites, Republicans and Democrats, cast their votes peacefully.  However, at 1 o’clock, Milas Lawrence’s and Charles Goodwin’s paths crossed as Goodwin and his fellow Democrats attempted to force an underaged black boy to vote the Democratic ticket.  Once the first gunshot sounded, white men ran to their predetermined stations on either side of the street and to second-floor shops above.  After about one minute and an estimated 500 gunshots, with the attacked laying in the street, former Confederate brigadier general, Alpheus Baker, yelled with the rest of the men, “Let the Yankees come. We are ready for them” [16].  The violence and destruction in Eufuala on November 3rd kept many blacks and Republicans from the polls and hundreds of casted ballots for the Republican ticket were destroyed.  In the end, the Alabama 2nd congressional district went to the Democrats as Jeremiah Williams won the election by 1,056 votes and took his seat at the House of Representatives.  After an unsuccessful appeal over the validity of the election, James Rapier was forced to forfeit his position and the election of Williams was confirmed [17].

In the aftermath of the Eufaula Riot, Congress launched an investigation into the events that transpired on November 3rd.  When the evidence had been collected, the majority determined it was a “premeditated affair to intimidate black voters…” [18]. Southern newspapers, however, responded quite differently, and placed blame on the Eufaula’s black population.  A November 10th article from the Georgia Weekly Telegraph twisted the story saying, “The difficulty grew out of the abuse of a negro… by several Radical negroes, chief among whom was one very bad negro named Milas…With an oath against the whites, and daring them to come on, he drew out his pistol and fired”[19].  Not only did the source reverse the attackers and the victims, but made sure to refer to the whites responding to the attack as “gentlemen.”  Similarly, another account from a Mississippi paper, The Hinds County Gazette, gave whites a heroic and patriarchal role in the riot, where whites saw the assault and “would not allow it to be done” [20].  The inaccuracy and racial bias of these two accounts demonstrate the growing Democratic influence over the once Confederate states in the years following the war.  The lack of consequences for the guilty party following the Eufaula Riots and the ability of Democrats to twist the narrative to their own benefit opened the doors for further acts of violence that would eventually eliminate Republican support and the black vote in the South.

Testimony from Captain A.S. Daggett Describing His Orders and the Riot

Although violence like that of Eufaula was not a commonplace in the 1874 election, the electoral outcome held true throughout the nation. Ninety-four Democratic congressional candidates around the country beat out their Republican adversaries in 1874, and took a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time since the Civil War [21].  The election marked a success for the Democratic party, not only in congressional seats, but in their newfound ability to control the black vote.  While Republicans maintained control over the Presidency and the Senate, the midterm election of 1874 made clear that control over the South was slipping.  The election signaled that with little to no federal oversight, southern state and local governments had free reign over elections and could implement policies to nullify the designed effects of the 14th and 15th Amendments. 1874 marked the beginning of the end of the black right to vote in the South– a right that would take almost a century to recover.

[1] Hennessey, Melinda M. “Reconstruction Politics and the Military: The Eufaula Riot of 1874.” Alabama Historical Quarterly 38, no. 2 (1976): 118-120. Accessed November 1, 2016. RapidILL.

Owens, Harry P. “The Eufaula Riot of 1874.” The Alabama Review 16, no. 3 (1963): 233. Accessed November 1, 2016. RapidILL.

Wilhelm, Blake. “Election Riots of 1874.” Encyclopedia of Alabama. November 6, 2009. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-2484.

[2] “Eufaula, Alabama.” Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eufaula,_Alabama#Geography.

[3] Pinsker, Matthew.  “Understanding the ‘Strange Odyssey’ of the Fifteenth Amendment.” September 20, 2016.

[4] Keyssar, Alexander. The right to vote : the contested history of democracy in the United States. n.p.: New York : Basic Books, 2009., 2009. 73-74, 84.

[5] Robertson, Andrew W. “The Continuing Struggle for Full Rights” In Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History, edited by Andrew W. Robertson, 26-27. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2010. doi: 10.4135/9781608712380.n239. [Google Scholar]

[6] Wilhelm, 2009.

Hennessey, 113.

[7] Rabinowitz, Howard N. Southern Black Leaders of the Reconstruction Era. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1982. 83-84.

Hennessey, 112.

[8] Hennessey, 114.

“Democratic Party Platform of Pike County, Alabama (1874).” Facing History and Ourselves. Accessed November 4, 2016. https://www.facinghistory.org/reconstruction-era/democratic-party-platform-pike-county-alabama-1874.

“Williams, Jeremiah Norman, (1829-1915).” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress 1774 – Present. Accessed November 6, 2016. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=W000512.

Rabinowitz, 83-84.

[9] “Democratic Party Platform of Pike County, Alabama (1874).” Facing History and Ourselves. Accessed November 3, 2016. https://www.facinghistory.org/reconstruction-era/democratic-party-platform-pike-county-alabama-1874.

[10] Hennessey, 114-115.

[11] Wilhelm, 2009.

[12] “By Telegraph.” Georgia Weekly Telegraph and Georgia Journal & Messenger [Macon, Georgia] 15 Sept. 1874: n.p. 19th Century U.S. Newspapers.

[13] Rabinowitz, 85-86.

[14] Hennessey, 112.-113, 116, 119-120.

Owens, 231-232, 226.

[15] Hennessey, 116-117.

Owens, 232-233.

[16] Hennessey, 117-119.

Owens, 233-234.

[17] Rabinowitz, 86.

[18] Hennessey, 123.

[19] “Intimidators Cleaned Out.” Georgia Weekly Telegraph and Georgia Journal & Messenger (Macon, Georgia), November 10, 1874. Accessed November 3, 2016. 19th Century U.S. Newspapers.

[20] “The Election Riot at Eufaula, Ala.” Hinds County Gazette [Raymond, Mississippi] 11 Nov. 1874: n.p. 19th Century U.S. Newspapers. Web. 3 Nov. 2016.

[21] “United States House of Representatives Elections, 1874.” Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1874.

Bibliography

“By Telegraph.” Georgia Weekly Telegraph and Georgia Journal & Messenger [Macon, Georgia] 15 Sept. 1874: n.p. 19th Century U.S. Newspapers.

“Democratic Party Platform of Pike County, Alabama (1874).” Facing History and Ourselves. Accessed November 4, 2016. https://www.facinghistory.org/reconstruction-era/democratic-party-platform-pike-county-alabama-1874.

“Eufaula, Alabama.” Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eufaula,_Alabama#Geography.

Hennessey, Melinda M. “Reconstruction Politics and the Military: The Eufaula Riot of 1874.” Alabama Historical Quarterly 38, no. 2 (1976): 112-25. Accessed November 1, 2016. RapidILL.

“Intimidators Cleaned Out.” Georgia Weekly Telegraph and Georgia Journal & Messenger (Macon, Georgia), November 10, 1874. Accessed November 3, 2016. 19th Century U.S. Newspapers.

Keyssar, Alexander. The right to vote : the contested history of democracy in the United States. n.p.: New York : Basic Books, 2009., 2009. Dickinson College Library Catalog, EBSCOhost (accessed November 3, 2016).

Owens, Harry P. “The Eufaula Riot of 1874.” The Alabama Review 16, no. 3 (1963): 224-38. Accessed November 1, 2016. RapidILL.

Rabinowitz, Howard N. Southern Black Leaders of the Reconstruction Era. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1982. 83-84.

Robertson, Andrew W. “Congress.” In Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History, edited by Andrew W. Robertson, 904-909. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2010. doi: 10.4135/9781608712380.n239. [Google Scholar]

“Strategic Politicians and U.S. House Elections, 1874–1914.” The Journal of Politics, 2005., 474, JSTOR Journals, EBSCOhost(accessed November 4, 2016).

“The Election Riot at Eufaula, Ala.” Hinds County Gazette [Raymond, Mississippi] 11 Nov. 1874: n.p. 19th Century U.S. Newspapers. Web. 3 Nov. 2016.

“United States House of Representatives Elections, 1874.” Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1874.

Wilhelm, Blake. “Election Riots of 1874.” Encyclopedia of Alabama. November 6, 2009. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-2484.

“Williams, Jeremiah Norman, (1829-1915).” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress 1774 – Present. Accessed November 6, 2016. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=W000512.

 

On November 3, 1896, William Jennings Bryan awoke early in Omaha, Nebraska. Looking convivial and relaxed, the Democrat ate a hearty breakfast and headed downtown to travel by train to Lincoln in a regular car. Upon his arrival in the capitol, he was surrounded by supporters, a brass band, and joined a parade through town wtih the popular tunes of “Home, Sweet Home” and “Just Tell Them That You Saw Me” playing in the background. Eventually, Bryan arrived in the Fifth Ward at Precinct F to cast his ballot. Just after 11A.M., he went to place his ballots in their box. A Republican called on everyone present at the polling place to uncover – remove their hats – as a respectful salute to Mr. Bryan and his efforts. The Democrat walked outside and declared, “I have done all that I can.”

Mr. Bryan certainly had. He ran one of the most grueling campaigns in history, traveling six days a week by train, speaking for many hours every day and sleeping for not many hours every night. But from the start, he faced a well organized and much better funded Republican campaign touting their nominee, Governor William McKinley of Ohio. Powerful financial interests flooded Republican campaign war chests encouraged by the specter of a populist president who pledged bimetallism in place of the gold standard. The Republican National Committee spent a staggering $3.5 million (equivalent to $3 billion in today’s money if calculated as a share of GDP), while Bryan and his backers spent only $300,000. Yet historian William D. Harpine cautions against overestimating the importance of money in elections: “Money talks in a campaign,” Harpine writes, “but the money helped McKinley only if the message was persuasive.”

Why were moneyed interests funding McKinley and not Bryan? First, Bryan was a Democrat and a populist who won over many citizen voters by extolling the virtues of the common man and railing against corporations. During one speech, Bryan argued that “The man employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer. The farmer who goes out to toil in the morning is as much a business man as the man who goes on the Board of Trade to gamble in stocks.” He was clearly aligning himself with western and mid-western voters by demonizing northeastern interests (and voters). But, even beyond that, there was something called bimetallism, which was Bryan’s foremost campaign issue. Bimetallism (a.k.a. “Free Silver,” in the words Bryan would have used) would have allowed currency to be backed by silver in addition to gold and would greatly expand the money supply. It appealed to voters because it made more money seem more accessible and their debts more manageable; it scared established business interest, particularly banks, because the increase in the money supply would almost certainly be inflationary and would diminish the value of debt owed to them. One Republican poster suggested that free silver would mean prosperity at the level of Guatemala.

Unfortunately for Mr. Bryan, doing “all [he] could” was not enough to win the presidency. The third party “National Democrats” who strongly opposed free silver probably split the Democratic vote and helped Republicans win in states like California and Kentucky. Wealthy and powerful interests donated immense amounts of money to McKinley and the Republicans, and they eventually won out.

That night, Bryan went to sleep defeated but not broken. He would proclaim: “The friends of bimetallism have not been vanquished; they have simply been overcome.” Bryan remained a dominant voice in the Democratic party, shaping the party’s platform and winning the nomination once again four years later, free silver in tow.