Frequently Asked Questions on the 1876 Election

What was the final electoral vote count?

• Tilden (Democrat) 184
• Hayes (Republican) 185*
  • *185 electoral votes were necessary for victory

What was the initial electoral count?

• Tilden 184
• Hayes 165
• Disputed 20 Florida (4), Louisiana (8), Oregon*(1), South Carolina (7)

Why is Oregon included in the controversy?

• One Republican Oregon elector, John Watts, was a government employee. Technically this made him ineligible to serve as an elector. Oregon's Democratic governor, La Fayette Grover, claimed the right to appoint a Democrat, E. A. Cronin, to replace the elected Republican. Though he attempted this, he did not have the authority to do so.

What was the unofficial vote result in the three southern states in dispute?

• Florida Tilden 24,434 / Hayes 24,340
• Louisiana Tilden 83,723 / Hayes 77,174
• South Carolina Tilden 90,896 / Hayes 91,870

What was the dispute?

• Electors representing both parties appeared before the state returning boards claiming to be the winners. Both sides sent "certified" returns to Washington, D.C. to be counted. The Constitution did not provide a means for resolving this, as the Twenty-second Joint Rule (a mechanism for resolving such a dispute) had been rescinded by Republicans in February 1876. This left only the Twelfth Amendment's language on the matter which was vague. It directed both houses of Congress and the President of the Senate to meet together, open the certificates, and count the votes, but it was not explicit on who should count the votes. If the House of Representatives (which was Democratic) counted them, the vote would go to Tilden. If the President of the Senate (a Republican, Thomas Ferry) counted them, it would go to Hayes.

What were the powers of the returning boards?

• The boards had the power to decide which votes were valid and which were not. The Republicans controlled the returning boards in the three contested states.

What was the basis for disallowing certain ballots in these states?

• There was evidence in several counties in all three states of "bulldozing" (defined as coercion by threat of violence and intimidation) of African Americans and southern Republicans by white supremacist Democrats in an attempt to keep them from the polls.
• "Repeaters" were used to stuff the ballot boxes. This was seen especially in South Carolina, with Georgians crossing the boarder to vote in the state. In some counties over 100% of the eligible voters voted.
• Fraudulent ballots were printed in order to trick illiterate blacks into voting for Democratic candidates.
• Ballot boxes were held back in some areas so that more votes could be added later.

Why would African Americans vote for a Republican candidate over a Democrat in 1876?

• The Republican Party stood for equal rights while the Democrats preferred the subjugation of blacks.

Did Republicans also perpetrate frauds during and after the election?

• Yes. Partisans on both sides employed legal and illegal methods in order to gain the presidency for their party. Historian Paul Leland Haworth in his book The Hayes-Tilden Disputed Election of 1876 argues that two "steals" were perpetuated in this regard. The first was by the Democrats, who bulldozed the vote through intimidation, violence, and fraud. Had the election been free and fair, he writes, “there is every reason to believe that all would have returned substantial majorities for Hayes.” (303) The second was by the Republicans, who attempted to gain back those votes by throwing out enough to secure the state and national elections, while manufacturing majorities for other candidates who would have otherwise been defeated. Both sides justified their actions by faulting the other.

What did returning boards of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina decide?

• All three boards certified the Republican electors.

Why wasn't Hayes declared the winner when the disputed electoral votes were awarded to the Republican slate?

• The electoral votes still had to be certified by the President of the Senate. During the certification process electors from both the Republican and Democratic parties claimed to represent Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina (the Oregon elector was also a complication). The certification process stopped pending resolution of the disputed electors.

Why didn't the President of the Senate decide which were the legitimate electors?

• The Vice-president is the President of the Senate, however Henry Wilson died in 1875. Senator Thomas Ferry, a Republican from Michigan, took his place as President of the Senate, however he was not the Vice-president. Ferry chose not to make this difficult decision on his own, citing lack of direction from the Constitution.

Which party controlled the U.S. Congress in 1876?

• The Democrats had the majority in the House of Representatives. The Republicans had the majority in the Senate.

What roles did Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden play during the maneuvering?

• Both candidates distanced themselves from the fray, leaving it to their representatives to do the work. They were informed of developments as they unfolded. Neither supported the creation of the Electoral Commission to resolve the crisis.

How real was the threat of a renewed Civil War during the election crisis?

• It was more overblown than it seemed. There were calls for renewed war by some Democrats, namely editors of influential Democratic papers like Joseph Pulitzer and Henry Watterson. Watterson called for 100,000 Democrats to peacefully march on Washington and insist on Tilden being inaugurated, but he also told them to arrive “fully armed and ready for business.” Most former Confederates were loathe to renew war, realizing they had neither the infrastructure nor manpower to defeat the North. In fact it was mostly northern Democrats who were crying “Tilden or Blood!” as one famous political cartoon stated. Southern Democrats looked to arbitrate rather than take up arms. That being said, Republicans were nervous that the situation could lead to a resuming of the sectional conflict. Grant called in several companies of soldiers into Washington to protect the federal arsenal, and naval presence was added in the Potomac, though all as precautionary measures. But nothing ever came of this.

How was the electoral dispute resolved?

• In December 1876 the House and Senate passed resolutions creating a fifteen man Electoral Commission charged with resolving the electoral crisis. The Electoral Commission was comprised of five senators, five house members, and five Supreme Court justices. Initially, the political makeup of the commission was seven Democrats and seven Republicans, with one Independent, Justice David Davis, serving as what would have been the deciding vote. When he left to fill a Senate seat, Justice Joseph Bradley, a Republican, filled his place. In February, the commission voted along party lines to give Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina to Hayes. On March 2 at 4:10am, Hayes and Wheeler were declared the winners.

How did the Electoral Commission proceed?

• Hearings started on February 1, 1877. The panel decided on each state separately. All decisions were made on a party-line vote:
  • February 9, Florida to Hayes 8 to 7 
  • February 16, Louisiana to Hayes 8 to 7 
  • February 23, Oregon to Hayes 8 to 7 
  • February 27, South Carolina to Hayes 8 to 7

What were the certified vote counts for the three disputed states?

• Florida: Tilden 22,927 Hayes 23,894 
• Louisiana: Tilden 70,508 Hayes 75,313 
• South Carolina: Tilden 90,896 Hayes 91,870

When was Rutherford B. Hayes sworn in as the Nineteenth President?

• Inaugurations took place on March 4 in the Nineteenth Century. However when March 4 fell on a Sunday (as it did in 1877) the swearing-in would take place on Monday. President Grant and Secretary of State Hamilton Fish suggested that there be a private swearing in on Saturday, March 3, 1877. They were concerned that dissidents could take advantage of the one-day gap between presidents and attempt to install Tilden instead of Hayes. The private ceremony took place in the White House on the 3rd. The public ceremony proceeded without problems on Monday, March 5, 1877.

What was discussed at the Wormley's Hotel, and was there a deal made for the presidency that ended Reconstruction? 

• The infamous "Wormley's Conference" or "Wormley's Meeting" took place on February 26, 1877, at a hotel owned by a prominent black Washingtonian named James Wormley. Present for the Republicans was John Sherman, William Dennison, Stanley Matthews, Charles Foster, and James A. Garfield (all Ohioans), and for the Democrats, Edward A. Burke, E. J. Ellis, William M. Levy from Louisiana and Henry Watterson (representing South Carolina). The discussion focused on assurances Hayes had made in his nomination acceptance letter of July 1876. These were in regard to returning the two remaining state governments in the South (Louisiana and South Carolina - Florida Democrats had already won in 1876) still controlled by Republicans under federal military protection to the states themselves as per the Constitution's Article IV Section IV. Hayes had no part in this meeting. The impetus for the conference itself was a Democratic threat to filibuster past the inauguration date (March 4). To be sure, there was little doubt as to the election’s outcome by this point. The Electoral Commission had already ruled in favor of Hayes in Florida and Louisiana, and would almost certainly do so in the case of South Carolina, so there was no need for the Republicans to bargain or make any deals, and the Democrats knew it. If the Democrats continued to filibuster, they would be seen by the public as instigators trying to renew the war, which would lessen their political power. What southern Democrats really wanted even more than a Tilden presidency was what they called “home rule,” or Democratic control over all the state governments in the South. So the Wormley’s Hotel meeting was essentially an intimidation scenario in which Edward Burke, the leader of the Louisiana Democrats at the meeting, tried to scare the Ohio Republicans into believing that the southern Democrats would not stop filibustering if Hayes did not promise to remove the troops protecting the statehouses in Louisiana and South Carolina. Hayes’ associates produced a letter (not signed by Hayes) stating that the Republican candidate would be true to his southern policy as stated in his nomination acceptance letter, which already supported drawing the troops back. But the Republicans themselves also wanted some assurances, specifically that the rights of African Americans in the southern states would be protected. Hayes’s representatives managed to secure a promise to protect black rights in return for a Southern withdrawal policy Hayes was already planning on following. Charles Foster, one of the Republicans at the meeting, later stated that they had no authority to speak on behalf of Hayes, and Edward Burke called the whole thing a “bluff game.”  Burke himself did not have the influence to spearhead such a filibuster movement anyway, and the Democratic caucus already had met during the Electoral Commission’s consideration of Louisiana and voted that the electoral count would proceed without any filibusters. 

What was "the Compromise of 1877?"

• A theory coined by C. Vann Woodward in his 1951 book Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction. Woodward constructs the compromise as a far-reaching and major sectional agreement, similar to those of 1820 and 1850, and lasting until 1957, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to defend black students. Woodward defines his compromise as a means of exchanging concessions for the purpose of economic and political gain for the South and federal power for the North, but also as an attempt to reforge a long-lasting reunion of the embattled regions. The so-called components included:
  • Aid for federal infrastructural improvements in the South
  • Control of federal political patronage by Democrats and a Democrat selected for Hayes’ cabinet
  • Federal funding for the Texas and Pacific Railroad
  • Completing the electoral count for Hayes
  • Organizing the House with Garfield as Speaker
  • Solution of race issue in the South would be resolved by southerners
  • Hayes removing the troops from the South
  • Laying the foundation for a revival of Republicanism in parts of the South under conservative native leadership
• It is important to note that the "Compromise of 1877" theory has nothing to do with the meeting at Wormley's Hotel between Republicans and Democrats that took place on February 26, 1877. Most modern interpretations of the election have conflated the "Compromise of 1877" with the meeting at Wormley's Hotel. Ironically, Woodward himself denied that the Wormley's Meeting was significant or had any influence on the outcome of the election.

What are the arguments made by historians who say there was no "compromise?"

• Historian Allan Peskin challenged Woodward's "Compromise" theory in his 1973 article “Was There a Compromise of 1877?” He pointed out that most of the elements of the Compromise of 1877 had never come to fruition, or had already been Hayes' policy prior to the election. No federal money was provided for the creation of the Texas and Pacific Railroad, no infrastructure funds were given to the South, Garfield was not made Speaker of the House, and Democrats resisted Republican presence in the South by way of continued violence and intimidation. Hayes had already pledged in his campaign acceptance speech to return local government to the southern states, which required troop removal, though not before Hayes managed to extract a promise from the state governments in Louisiana and South Carolina to protect the rights of black citizens. Return of local state government was also carried out to satisfy Article IV Section IV of the Constitution, which guarantees each state a republican form of government. Hayes had also stated his willingness to appoint a southerner to his cabinet as move toward unification and bipartisan cooperation. As Peskin argues, “A deal whose major terms are never carried out appears suspiciously like no deal at all.”
• Michael Les Benedict in his article “Southern Democrats in the Crisis of 1876-1877: A Reconsideration of Reunion and Reaction” argues that Woodward puts too much emphasis on the railroad component and to the role southern Democrats played in the crisis. “The outright bargain Woodward described did not take place,” Benedict writes, noting that there were no legal underpinnings to Woodward’s so-called compromise like there were in the Compromises of 1820 and 1850. These and the many other challenges to Woodward’s "Compromise" reveal that his explanation of the electoral crisis is misguided in both its premise and as a fundamental argument. Even Woodward himself in his preface to the 1991 edition of Reunion and Reaction noted in reflection of the critical assessment to his book that he “assigned material interests [economic elements] too large a role” in his analysis and stated that “I would not write such a book the same way today.”

Did Rutherford B. Hayes remove the troops from the South?

• Rutherford B. Hayes did not remove any troops from the South as a result of the election, nor did federal troop presence in the South end after 1877. The notion that there was a large federal army throughout the South protecting African Americans at the polls and otherwise is untrue. Ulysses S. Grant had already overseen the steady dismantling of federal Reconstruction via troop removal in the region over the course of his two terms as president. By the time Rutherford B. Hayes assumed office in March 1877, the federal army numbered only 25,000, with only about 3,200 of these stationed in the South. For instance, only 1,586 troops were stationed in the Department of the South which was comprised of six states (including South Carolina), while 1,257 troops were stationed in the Department of the Gulf, which totaled four states (including Louisiana). Clarence C. Clendenen in his piece “President Hayes’ ‘Withdrawal’ of the Troops: An Enduring Myth,” demonstrates two important points in this regard. First, as mentioned, there were very few federal troops in the South at the time of the election, and second, the reason for actual troop removal from the region had nothing to do with any bargain or compromise. President Hayes’ orders were not in the interest of fulfilling any deal, but rather to satisfy the elements of his campaign acceptance letter of July 1876, as well as in obligation of obeying Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution which guarantees each state a republican form of government. Hayes’ orders of April 1877, as Clendenen notes, “did not cause the removal of a single solder” from the region, and when troops were called out of the South, “it was because of the railroad strikes and wars with Indigenous Americans in the West.”

When did Hayes recall the federal troops in Louisiana and South Carolina back to their barracks?

• Before leaving office, President Grant sent a telegram (known as the "Sniffen Telegram") ordering the federal troops in New Orleans to withdraw from the statehouse and return to their barracks. This order, however, was never carried out, leaving the matter instead for Hayes to handle. Hayes’ aim in belaying Grant’s order to pull back troops at the Louisiana statehouse was to extract promises from the two remaining state governments still under control by Democrats (Louisiana and South Carolina) to protect the rights of African Americans. On April 3, Hayes ordered the troops in Columbia, South Carolina, removed from the statehouse back to their barracks four blocks away. On April 10, this was carried out, and Democrat Wade Hampton III assumed the governorship. By April 19, Hayes had received the same promises from Democrat Francis T. Nicholls in Louisiana. On April 20, the president ordered the troops stationed in New Orleans back to a camp just outside of town. At this point, all of the southern state governments were under the control of Democrats. 

Was 1877 the moment Reconstruction ended?

• Since there was no backroom deal, the narrative that we’re used to hearing is incorrect and needs to be reconsidered, especially the notion of Reconstruction ending in 1877. True, the drawing back of federal presence from the remaining statehouses did end the federal notion of Reconstruction in the sense that the federal government no longer had any presence in the state governments of the former Confederate states. However, socially, economically, politically, Reconstruction continued, as did Republican efforts to protect African Americans. There question that the Republican party had by the mid-1890s shifted away from protecting civil rights for African Americans, favoring a Booker T. Washington model of black progress. This, however, was not a direct result of the Election of 1876, nor was Reconstruction overall a cause that Hayes and the Republican party backed down from without a fight. Despite disappointing decisions by a liberal Supreme Court (see the 1883 repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1875), Hayes, his presidential successors, and his congressional allies vetoed, investigated, denounced, and attempted to pass significant legislation in opposition to Democratic policy. This took many forms: Hayes vetoed Democratic riders on appropriations bills that sought to disenfranchise blacks; Republicans attempted to pass the Blaire Bill and Lodge Federal Elections Bill of 1890 which respectively sought to promote education for African Americans so that they could not be disenfranchised and also protect the polls in the South during elections. First Benjamin Harrison and then William McKinley publicly recognized the horrors of lynching, and efforts by scores of other Republicans including Frederick Douglass and John Mercer Langston combatted Democratic moves to disenfranchise, segregate, and murder black Americans. All of these serve to contradict the fundamental argument of the conflated Bargain-Compromise-Wormley’s myth, which is essentially that Rutherford B. Hayes and the Republican party made a deal for the election and abandoned African Americans to the whims of southern Democrats in 1877 and ended Reconstruction. Most historian today agree that 1877 was not the moment Reconstruction ended, and that in fact it is a process that may still be ongoing.