The Compromise of 1877 - Coursework Example

The Compromise of 1877 Outline I. Introduction II. 1876 Election i. Rutherford B. Hayes ii. Samuel J. Tilden iii. Campaigns III. Unethical Practices and Electoral College Disputes i. Florida ii. Louisiana iii. South Carolina IV. Congress Response V. The Compromise VI. The Aftermath i. Opinion VII. Conclusion Introduction The Compromise of 1877 was an agreement between Republican and Democrats settling the disputed 1876 U. S. Presidential election. This unwritten agreement allowed Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate, to become president in exchange for four conditions. The first was the removal of all Federal troops from the former Confederate States, effectively ending the Reconstruction period. The appointment of one Southern Democrat in Rutherford B. Hayes cabinet was also required. Another condition was a new transcontinental railroad using the Pacific in the South and Texas would be built. Lastly, legislation to help rebuild the South had to be drafted. The first two conditions were set into motion, the last two never came to realization. 1876 Election The 1876 Presidential Election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden occurred eleven years after the American Civil War. Reconstruction was winding down. The North and the South were tiring of Reconstruction. The spoils of war had already been plundered, making the Carpetbaggers, Union soldiers, and Northerners eager to head home. The Southerners were sick of the Northerners interference in local matters. So when the 1876 Presidential Election resulted in an electoral vote of 185 to 184 favoring Hayes, but a popular vote of 4,034,311 to 4,288,546 in favor of Tilden, an opportunity to end Reconstruction presented itself (Robinson, 123). A look at both candidates views and affiliations can explain the dilemma and its resolution. Rutherford B. Hayes Rutherford B. Hayes was the Republican nominee for the 1876 Presidential election. He was nominated by the Republicans for several reasons. The first as the former Governor of Ohio, Hayes came from a strategic electoral state (Johnson, 264). Hayes was a typical Republican candidate at the time, which meant he was very conservative. His campaign promised reform, punishment for corrupt officials, and even gave a nod toward the womans rights advocates (Johnson, 264). Otherwise, Hayes represented the normal Republican interests, like promoting business and other conservative issues. After the Civil War, the Republicans received a reputation for corruption. The North had crushed the Southern rebellion, but at a high cost. This cost was not only measured monetarily, but in human casualties as well. After Abraham Lincolns assassination, Andrew Johnson became president. Although Andrew Johnson tried to ease the Reconstruction period for both the Northerners and Southerners, Radical Republicans wanted more. These Radical Republicans wanted the South to pay for the war, not just welcome them back in the Union with open arms. This included stripping all Confederate soldiers from the right to vote, giving the Freedmen the right to vote, and keeping troops in the Confederate States. With troops in the Confederate States, the North could continue its occupation and keep the Southern States under control. When Ulysses S. Grant became President, the Radical Republicans came into power. Grant made moves to use harsher measures against the former Confederacy and giving the Freedman equal status in the South. In turn, the Southern Democratic politicians and public insisted that the Republicans were committing illegal acts of corruption. What the Southerners considered corruption, like hiring Freedmen over white Southerners or allowing the Freedmen to vote, was not corruption. On the other hand, the cry of corruption was enough to taint the Republican party. Unlike the Radical Republicans, Hayes represented a more moderate Republican. He was an honest man, who had fought in the Civil War and had been wounded (Robinson, 16). When Hayes asserted that he would stop any corruption, his reputation made him believable. Hayes was also a Congressman, in addition to having served as the Governor of Ohio. His position as a politician could be shown through his public and wartime service. Samuel J. Tilden The Democratic Presidential candidate was Samuel J. Tilden. This candidate was not a typical party member. Tilden was a wealthy New York lawyer, who tended to lean toward the conservative side, especially on business matters (Stampp, 211). Tilden had also served as the Governor of New York, which led to his nomination to the Democratic convention. Being a bachelor gave Tilden the advantage of working on his campaign with little or no distractions (Robinson, 16). Tilden opposed corruption too. However, unlike Hayes, Tilden had a record of fighting thievery and corruption in the New York court system and as the New York Governor. The Tweed Ring, a group of corrupt government officials in New York, were exposed and prosecuted by Tilden (Robinson, 93). Tilden did not just focus on Republicans, but took down corrupt members of both parties (Robinson, 16). This endeared him to the American public. He did not just talk about ending corruption, but could had taken action against corrupt government officials. Although from New York City, Southern Democrats supported Tilden. The Southerners were impressed that Tilden had not enlisted in the Union army during the Civil War. This lack of military service allowed the Southerners to trust Tilden, despite the fact he did come from the North. During any other election, the fact that Tilden was from New York would have hurt him in Southern States. His lack of military service blinded the Southern Democrats to his Yankee origins. Campaigns Both campaigns in the 1876 elections used mudslinging. The Republicans would attack the Democrats over the Civil War, claiming that all Rebels were Democrats. Since, the Rebels lost, they were traitors. Anytime racial violence against the Freedmen occurred, the Civil War specter emerged causing may Northerners to vote Republican. When the Civil War specter emerged Southerners would remember their stinging defeat, causing Republican corruption. Then democrats would accuse the Republicans of corruption. The election campaigns were waged differently in 1876. Newspapers were the main information source of most American voters. Both candidates did not really campaign, but sent associates to place ads and make speeches for them. If the associates fabricated or exaggerated their candidates abilities, it was difficult to prove. Under these circumstances, Americans went to the voting polls. Unethical Practices and Electoral College Disputes Both the Republican and Democratic party used unethical practices during the vote. The Republican party “used fraud to discard Democratic votes” and the Democrats had intimidated Freedmen into voting Democrat or not at all (Robinson, 134). This led to both side accusing the other of fraud. Both parties used unethical practices, which eventually evened out the results. In the end, three states had disputed results, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. These three states were the last to occupied by Union soldiers, thus giving the Republicans an edge. Florida Florida “did not have a large slave population”, so the Democratic whites were confident that Tilden could be elected peacefully (Robinson, 103). Floridas conflict lay in the Democrats were the majority, but the garrisons of Union soldiers voted Republican. After the votes were tallied, three certificates were given, one giving the four electoral votes to Hayes and two giving them to Tilden (Robinson, 164). Of course, both parties objected to the results. Upon further inspection, the four electoral votes for Hayes were the only ones legally filed. The certificate for Hayes had been filed on December 6, 1876 and had been signed by the Florida Governor, M. L. Stearns (Robinson, 164-165). The second certificate lacked Governor M. L. Stearns signature, but was filed on the correct date (Robinson, 165). The third certificate had the newly elected Democratic Governor, G. F. Drew, but was filed on January 19 (Robinson, 165). This was too late for the Federal deadline of December 6. Floridas electoral vote had to be cast for Hayes. Louisiana Louisiana had a powerful and corrupt Election Board. Normally the Election Board consisted of five, but one Democrat had resigned before the election (Robinson, 137). Apparently there was not enough time to find another Election Board member before the election. All four of these members were Republican (Robinson, 137). This Election Board had the authority to cast out votes if “fraud or force” influenced the vote (Robinson, 137). This gave the Republican Election Board leave to throw out Parishes votes that the Democratic had won. Louisiana had a huge slave population, so had a majority of Freemen. The Democrats were afraid that the Republicans could take Louisiana. So in heavily Freemen populations, which would surely vote Republican, Democrats started riots and intimidation factors (Robinson, 137). This allowed them to argue that these votes must be cast out, because of the riots and intimidation used against the Freedmen. In Democrat areas, orderly voting was encouraged, so these votes could be counted. This caused Tilden to be ahead in the popular vote, but losing the eight electoral votes. Like Florida, Louisiana turned in two certificates. One was signed by the sitting Republican Governor, the other by the Democrat Governor who had never conceded defeat (Robinson, 141). This situation had to resolved by Congress, because two governments had been functioning since 1872 (Robinson, 141). South Carolina Like Louisiana, South Carolina had a large slave population. Thus a large Freedmen population existed. South Carolina Democrats decided to use intimidation against the Freedmen voting for Hayes. July 8, 1876, white Democrats incited a riot in Hamburg, South Carolina, resulting in the death of many Freedman (Robinson, 103-104). Many Freedmen remembered the riot in Hamburg on voting day. Like the two other disputed states, Louisiana and Florida, South Carolina sent in two certificates (Robinson, 141). The first signed by the sitting Republican Governor, the second by the newly elected Democrat Government. The first was legal, the second illegal. However, this did not stop both parties from disputing the results. Congress Response Congress had the dilemma of sorting out the disputed states. As a result, Congress passed a law on January 29, 1876, creating a fifteen member Electoral Commission to decide which set of electoral certificate were valid (Johnson, 266). Five members came from the Supreme Court, five members came from the House of Representatives, and five came from the Senate. The majority of the House or Senate selected three members each, the minority two members, two Republicans and two Democrats came from the Supreme Court (Johnson, 266). The four Supreme Court Justices chose an Independent to be their fifth, but that fell through, which left only Republicans (Johnson, 266). The Compromise The vote for the legitimacy of the electoral certificates followed Party lines, 7 Democrat to 8 Republican (Johnson, 266). The Democrats did have one avenue left; a filibuster. A filibuster is when a Congressman continues to debate the issue to delay the vote. The Republicans realized that a filibuster could be a disaster. It could go on endlessly. In the meantime, the American government would be without a President. So a compromise had to be achieved. The Compromise of 1877 gave both sides leverage and satisfaction. The first agreement reached was the removal of all Federal troops from the last three states, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. These states and the Democrats negotiating the Compromise of 1877 understood that the evacuation of Federal troops would result in Carpetbaggers and Scalawags desertion of these states. Without the Federal troops, Carpetbaggers, and Scalawags, the Democrats would once again control the local, regional, and state government. The Republicans weighed the option of having Federal control or local control. Technically, Federal law prevails over state law, but the Southerners realized that the Federal government would not interfere in their affairs. They were right. The Republicans and Federal government lost interest in the former Confederate States and unfair Jim Crow laws, at least until the Civil Rights Movement. The second term of the Compromise of 1877 was the appointment of one Democrat cabinet member. President Hayes chose David M Key from Kentucky as his Democrat Postmaster General (Robinson, 200). Hayes figured this was the least influential cabinet post. David M. Keys was not only a Democrat, but an ex-Confederate (Robinson, 200). Another appointment was the South Carolina Governor, Democrat Wade Hampton and Louisiana Governor Democrat, Francis Nicholls (Robinson, 134). Other promises were made to the Democrats that remained unfulfilled. Other conditions were a new transcontinental railroad using the Pacific in the South and Texas would be built and legislation to help rebuild the South. These conditions were never fulfilled. Aftermath The aftermath of the Compromise of 1877 was Democrat rule became law in the former Confederate States. The Democrats were former Confederate Soldiers. These men did not want slavery to end. They could not vote slavery back, but the Democrats arrived at a solution that was almost as bad. Jim Crow law were introduced. First, the laws segregated the two races. The African Americans had to ride at the back of the bus, drink at Colored water fountains, use colored bathrooms, have their own schools, walk in the street instead of the sidewalks, work at lower wages than their white counterparts, take a literacy test to vote, and other humiliating laws. Segregation was separate, but far from equal. When the Federal troops withdrew, Federal support of African Americans withdrew. The white Democrats remembered the help the Freedmen had given the Union. After the Federal troops withdrew, these former Confederates had the chance to get even with the Freedmen. After the Compromise of 1877, lynchings increased at a rapid pace, from 122 lynchings in 1877 to 195 lynchings in 1891 (Logan, 76). Since African Americans could not serve jury duty, even if a white was charged with a lynching, no all white jury would have convicted. Without the backing of the Federal government, the former slaves were oppressed by their former masters. Not only did the Freedmen suffer from the Compromise of 1877, but the Southern States did as well. Without Federal interest, the Southern States had to rebuild industrially. Before the Civil War, cotton was king in the South. Without slaves, cotton production dropped dramatically. The South started using African American sharecroppers, which was another form of slavery. The African Americans received seed, tools, a shack, and food, but little else. No actual money traded hands. If a sharecropper broke even, not owing his landowner, he considered himself lucky. The Republicans promised industrialization was sorely needed to provide jobs for both races. When this fell through, the South struggled with poverty. Opinion Politicians, Republican and Democrat, are supposed to represent the American people of their jurisdiction. During the Compromise of 1877, neither party was motivated by the people they represented. The Democrats yearned for the good old days before the Civil War, while the Republicans want power. Both sides were sick of the Reconstruction, the Compromise of 1877 was an easy way out. The Republicans and the Democrats forgot why they fought in the first place. If it was the Southern cry of States Rights, then the South won after the Compromise of 1877. If it was about ending slavery, then the North won. However, if the battle was abolishing slavery and allowing the Freedmen equal rights verses keeping slaves, theoretically both parties lost. The biggest winner after the Compromise of 1877 was big business. President Hayes was a republican after all. The conservative Hayes would allow industry in the North to grow. Before unions, labor laws, and other restrictions, the Industrial Revolution blossomed under President Hayes. If Tilden had been elected, maybe big business would have been scrutinized more carefully. Of course, that would not have been profitable for big business or their employees. The biggest losers of the Compromise of 1877 was former slaves and freedmen in the former Confederate states. These people were at the mercy of the Democrat government officials, which were made up of KKK and racist members. The segregation caused by the Compromise of 1877 can be felt today. This segregation has not been forced since the Civil Rights Movement, but in all fifty states, predominately African American communities exist and predominately white communities exist. Some progressive communities are integrated, but that is the exception, not the rule. The Compromise of 1877 did not protect the most vulnerable American citizens, the African Americans. The reason is racial, but also practical. The African Americans had no political clout. If African Americans voted, they could be intimidated by white Democrats. If they did not vote, then they were not important politically. The practical reason was that most African Americans, especially Southern African Americans, were dirt poor. Money played a part in the Republican and Democrat agreeing to the Compromise of 1877. This is not to downplay the hatred of the racists in both the Republican and Democrat parties. Race played a big part, but so did economics and politic clout. Conclusion The Compromise of 1877, although unspoken and unwritten, allowed Rutherford B. Hayes win the 1876 U. S. Presidential election. The Democrats received control over the local Southern governments and the removal of Federal troops in exchange for not filibustering the Electoral Commission. An appointment of a Democrat Post Master General was also required. The other promises were never fulfilled. Although the Republicans won the battle, the Democrats won the war. The Democrats had taken back their local governments. Bibliography Johnson, Ludwell H., III. North against South: The American Iliad, 1848-1877. USA: The Foundation for America Education, 1993. Logan, Rayford W. The Betrayal of the Negro, from Rutherford B. Hayes to Woodrow Wilson. New York: Perseus Books Group, 1965. Robinson, Lloyd. The Stolen Election: Hayes Versus Tilden, 1876. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 2001. Stampp, Kenneth M. The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877. USA: Vintage Books, 1965. Read More