What do you think?
Rate this book
Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876
In this major work of popular history and scholarship, acclaimed historian and biographer Roy Morris, Jr., tells the extraordinary story of how, in America's centennial year, the presidency was stolen, the Civil War was almost reignited, and black Americans were consigned to nearly ninety years of legalized segregation in the South. The bitter 1876 contest between Ohio Republican governor Rutherford B. Hayes and New York Democratic governor Samuel J. Tilden is the most sensational, ethically sordid, and legally questionable presidential election in American history. The first since Lincoln's in 1860 in which the Democrats had a real chance of recapturing the White House, the election was in some ways the last battle of the Civil War, as the two parties fought to preserve or overturn what had been decided by armies just eleven years earlier. Riding a wave of popular revulsion at the numerous scandals of the Grant administration and a sluggish economy, Tilden received some 260,000 more votes than his opponent. But contested returns in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina ultimately led to Hayes's being declared the winner by a specially created, Republican-dominated Electoral Commission after four tense months of political intrigue and threats of violence. President Grant took the threats he ordered armed federal troops into the streets of Washington to keep the peace. Morris brings to life all the colorful personalities and high drama of this most remarkable -- and largely forgotten -- election. He presents vivid portraits of the bachelor lawyer Tilden, a wealthy New York sophisticate whose passion for clean government propelled him to the very brink of the presidency, and of Hayes, a family man whose midwestern simplicity masked a cunning political mind. We travel to Philadelphia, where the Centennial Exhibition celebrated America's industrial might and democratic ideals, and to the nation's heartland, where Republicans waged a cynical but effective "bloody shirt" campaign to tar the Demo-crats, once again, as the party of disunion and rebellion. Morris dramatically recreates the suspenseful events of election night, when both candidates went to bed believing Tilden had won, and a one-legged former Union army general, "Devil Dan" Sickles, stumped into Republican headquarters and hastily improvised a devious plan to subvert the election in the three disputed southern states. We watch Hayes outmaneuver the curiously passive Tilden and his supporters in the days following the election, and witness the late-night backroom maneuvering of party leaders in the nation's capital, where democracy itself was ultimately subverted and the will of the people thwarted. Fraud of the Century presents compelling evidence that fraud by Republican vote-counters in the three southern states, and especially in Louisiana, robbed Tilden of the presidency. It is at once a masterful example of political reporting and an absorbing read.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published February 4, 2003
113 people are currently reading
857 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
November 17, 2016
Very, very interesting book. You would think as a nation the US would have learnt it's lesson from this election but no we had controversy over Bush vs. Gore and the recent 2016 US Presidential election. When will we ever learn from our past mistakes?!
November 24, 2021
Without a doubt, the 1876 Presidential election was the most corruptly decided in American history. This book was written in the aftermath of the 2000 election, but actually is even more relevant after the 2016 and 2020 elections!
Morris ties this election to 2000 by the major deciding factors of the state of Florida and the decision of a Supreme Court justice. However, after 2020, it is even more relevant now. Tilden clearly won a very close and marginal, razor thin plurality and electoral victory. However, and this is where 2020 comes in, the three major states in contention were governed by Republican politicians. (Remember: the parties at that time were mostly flipped in position to what we recognize today - Republicans were dominated by federal supremacy and urban based policies and Democrats were states rights and rural policies).
Both candidates went to bed convinced Tilden had won. The party regulars sprang into action for the Republicans and moved to throw out votes, selectively choose others, and set up commissions that would guard the rails against a Democratic victory. The nuts and bolts of how Hayes was declared the winner in January by a single electoral vote are the basis of this book, as are solid chapters on the candidates. Tilden emerges as an unsung hero here (I think there is a great book to be written about failed Presidential candidacies where the loser would have made a great President).
Imagine if the baseless accusations by the recent ex-President were successful in the few states where the results were close. Now imagine if the results were actually overturned! THAT is what 1876 was. This book deftly gets into the process by which politicians cling to power and can use their existing power to overturn a close election. May we never get this far again! In 256 pages of prose, Morris effectively gets into the spirit and causes of this controversial election and the practical results it had on the country. Good stuff.
Morris ties this election to 2000 by the major deciding factors of the state of Florida and the decision of a Supreme Court justice. However, after 2020, it is even more relevant now. Tilden clearly won a very close and marginal, razor thin plurality and electoral victory. However, and this is where 2020 comes in, the three major states in contention were governed by Republican politicians. (Remember: the parties at that time were mostly flipped in position to what we recognize today - Republicans were dominated by federal supremacy and urban based policies and Democrats were states rights and rural policies).
Both candidates went to bed convinced Tilden had won. The party regulars sprang into action for the Republicans and moved to throw out votes, selectively choose others, and set up commissions that would guard the rails against a Democratic victory. The nuts and bolts of how Hayes was declared the winner in January by a single electoral vote are the basis of this book, as are solid chapters on the candidates. Tilden emerges as an unsung hero here (I think there is a great book to be written about failed Presidential candidacies where the loser would have made a great President).
Imagine if the baseless accusations by the recent ex-President were successful in the few states where the results were close. Now imagine if the results were actually overturned! THAT is what 1876 was. This book deftly gets into the process by which politicians cling to power and can use their existing power to overturn a close election. May we never get this far again! In 256 pages of prose, Morris effectively gets into the spirit and causes of this controversial election and the practical results it had on the country. Good stuff.
September 30, 2020
Entertaining and readable, yet ultimately flawed history of the controversial 1876 US presidential election arguing that the election was stolen from the rightful winner, Democratic nominee Samuel Tilden. Published in 2003, in the shadow of the hotly contested 2000 election, Roy Morris leans heavily into comparisons between the two. Yet while the similarities are obvious - popular vote losing Republicans win the presidency after a protracted legal struggle, with a Republican Supreme Court justice voting to deliver the key state of Florida to the GOP candidate - the overdetermined framework leads Morris to peddle dangerous history and draw dubious conclusions.
First, the positives. Morris provides vivacious character sketches of the leading figures in the drama and details both the campaign and the post-election machinations with all the skill of a novelist. The two major candidates, Republican Rutherford Hayes and Tilden, are given their due by Morris, both being depicted as shrewd, honest, and capable politicians, while the major issues of the campaign (the aftershocks of the 1873 economic depression, civil service reform, and Reconstruction) are succinctly explained. The section on the 1876 Republican convention and Hayes's skillful maneuvering to win the nomination was especially well-done.
The final 1/3 of the book delves into the post-election legal and political wrangling, and it is here where the book begins to fall apart. In Morris's recapitulation, this sordid affair began with the audacious election night plan by Republican Daniel Sickles to overturn Tilden's victories in the three key (and GOP-controlled) Southern states of Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana. And it is through this template, GOP fraud, that this saga is told. The Republican-controlled election boards in the three states threw out enough Democratic votes, on the flimsiest of pretexts, to swing them, and the election, to Hayes. The conflicting claims and sets of certified returns from both sides eventually reached the halls of Congress, where a compromise was reached: a 15-member Electoral Commission with 10 members of Congress (evenly divided between the two parties) and 5 Supreme Court justices (2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, with the four choosing a 5th justice) would decide which returns to accept. The man who was supposed to be the 5th justice, independent David Davis, resigned his Court seat after the Illinois Democratic legislature elected him to the Senate. The seat was eventually filled by Republican justice Joseph Bradley and with a 8-7 Republican majority, the election was settled in Hayes's favor; Bradley solemnly declaring on behalf of the 8 GOP members that the election-board-certified returns had to be accepted at face value since there was no time for further investigation. So, a party-line vote by Supreme Court justices shut down a recount that might have gone in favor of the popular vote-winning Democrat; seems pretty 2000ish.
Except that's only half the story. Morris is so wedded to the 2000 paradigm that he refuses to look at the fraud and intimidation on the other side - the Democratic-backed Klan violence that kept black Republicans at home - and spouts bizarre Dunning School-esque talking points that seem incredibly dubious in light of recent scholarship on Reconstruction, like the preposterous claim that racist Redeemer Southern Democrats like Wade Hampton were crypto-allies of blacks and were quietly winning them over to the Democratic banner. Morris even claims that if there was any fraud and violence in 1876, it was from black Republicans, not white Democrats, yet hardly any evidence is provided for this astounding claim. Indeed, all of the old, discredited tropes of the Reconstruction era are recycled in this book (carpetbag tyrannies propped up by federal bayonets oppressing white Southerners, Ulysses Grant as a corrupt dilettante, etc.), much to its detriment.
This isn't to say all of Morris's conclusions are errant; he makes a convincing case that Hayes won the standoff because the GOP simply wanted the presidency more than the Democrats. Morris thinks the Democrats could have installed Tilden as president had they played their cards differently, but the Southern Democrats, having already started and lost one war in recent memory over a presidential election, weren't eager for a repeat: their overriding goal was simply to end Reconstruction and they felt little kinship for the New Yorker who headed their ticket. Having received private assurances from Hayes that he would withdraw federal troops from the South once he became president, the Southerners refused to block his ascension.
For all its compulsive readability, this book should serve as a warning of the perils of history by analogy. Like Al Gore, Samuel Tilden was an aloof, intellectual Democrat who won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College, but his Democratic Party was not at all like the Democratic Party of 2000. Tilden lost in 1876 *in spite of* massive intimidation of black voters by his fellow Democrats in the South, while Gore lost in 2000 *because of* disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida through Jim Crow relics like felon purges. In an attempt to link 2 contested elections 124 years apart, Morris ends up downplaying some very important differences and repeating debunked history about the Reconstruction period. 3 out of 5 stars reflects my split verdict.
First, the positives. Morris provides vivacious character sketches of the leading figures in the drama and details both the campaign and the post-election machinations with all the skill of a novelist. The two major candidates, Republican Rutherford Hayes and Tilden, are given their due by Morris, both being depicted as shrewd, honest, and capable politicians, while the major issues of the campaign (the aftershocks of the 1873 economic depression, civil service reform, and Reconstruction) are succinctly explained. The section on the 1876 Republican convention and Hayes's skillful maneuvering to win the nomination was especially well-done.
The final 1/3 of the book delves into the post-election legal and political wrangling, and it is here where the book begins to fall apart. In Morris's recapitulation, this sordid affair began with the audacious election night plan by Republican Daniel Sickles to overturn Tilden's victories in the three key (and GOP-controlled) Southern states of Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana. And it is through this template, GOP fraud, that this saga is told. The Republican-controlled election boards in the three states threw out enough Democratic votes, on the flimsiest of pretexts, to swing them, and the election, to Hayes. The conflicting claims and sets of certified returns from both sides eventually reached the halls of Congress, where a compromise was reached: a 15-member Electoral Commission with 10 members of Congress (evenly divided between the two parties) and 5 Supreme Court justices (2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, with the four choosing a 5th justice) would decide which returns to accept. The man who was supposed to be the 5th justice, independent David Davis, resigned his Court seat after the Illinois Democratic legislature elected him to the Senate. The seat was eventually filled by Republican justice Joseph Bradley and with a 8-7 Republican majority, the election was settled in Hayes's favor; Bradley solemnly declaring on behalf of the 8 GOP members that the election-board-certified returns had to be accepted at face value since there was no time for further investigation. So, a party-line vote by Supreme Court justices shut down a recount that might have gone in favor of the popular vote-winning Democrat; seems pretty 2000ish.
Except that's only half the story. Morris is so wedded to the 2000 paradigm that he refuses to look at the fraud and intimidation on the other side - the Democratic-backed Klan violence that kept black Republicans at home - and spouts bizarre Dunning School-esque talking points that seem incredibly dubious in light of recent scholarship on Reconstruction, like the preposterous claim that racist Redeemer Southern Democrats like Wade Hampton were crypto-allies of blacks and were quietly winning them over to the Democratic banner. Morris even claims that if there was any fraud and violence in 1876, it was from black Republicans, not white Democrats, yet hardly any evidence is provided for this astounding claim. Indeed, all of the old, discredited tropes of the Reconstruction era are recycled in this book (carpetbag tyrannies propped up by federal bayonets oppressing white Southerners, Ulysses Grant as a corrupt dilettante, etc.), much to its detriment.
This isn't to say all of Morris's conclusions are errant; he makes a convincing case that Hayes won the standoff because the GOP simply wanted the presidency more than the Democrats. Morris thinks the Democrats could have installed Tilden as president had they played their cards differently, but the Southern Democrats, having already started and lost one war in recent memory over a presidential election, weren't eager for a repeat: their overriding goal was simply to end Reconstruction and they felt little kinship for the New Yorker who headed their ticket. Having received private assurances from Hayes that he would withdraw federal troops from the South once he became president, the Southerners refused to block his ascension.
For all its compulsive readability, this book should serve as a warning of the perils of history by analogy. Like Al Gore, Samuel Tilden was an aloof, intellectual Democrat who won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College, but his Democratic Party was not at all like the Democratic Party of 2000. Tilden lost in 1876 *in spite of* massive intimidation of black voters by his fellow Democrats in the South, while Gore lost in 2000 *because of* disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida through Jim Crow relics like felon purges. In an attempt to link 2 contested elections 124 years apart, Morris ends up downplaying some very important differences and repeating debunked history about the Reconstruction period. 3 out of 5 stars reflects my split verdict.
September 28, 2017
Fairly dry, the introduction was better than the rest of the material. Covers the disputed 1876 election, caused by a electoral differences in Florida and decided by a single partisan member of the supreme court. Another interesting parallel is voters disenfranchised, the vote totals of whole counties thrown out. Focuses a little too much on the candidates backgrounds, doesn't cover the impact of reconstruction and carpetbaggers enough.
A short epilogue compares the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes to what his challenger Samuel Tilden may have done, and was the second most interesting part of this dry story. Rated slightly more than 2 stars - it was better than OK, but not that great.
A short epilogue compares the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes to what his challenger Samuel Tilden may have done, and was the second most interesting part of this dry story. Rated slightly more than 2 stars - it was better than OK, but not that great.
March 17, 2022
Uhyggelig aktuel med paralleller til valgene i 2000 og 2020
May 30, 2021
I'm researching Rutherford B. Hayes (as we all do from time to time) and found this competently written and exactingly detailed history of his "election" in 1876 to be both informative and a little scary, with its depiction of Republican skullduggery resulting in state election boards invalidating vote counts. I appreciated Mr. Morris' painstaking attention to a painful process: the undermining of the popular vote, and the bureaucratic boondoggles that led to the appointment of a semi-legitimate Electoral Commission that ultimately decided the election. I also approve of his argument that individual decisions have every bit as much impact on history as great sweeping social movements. Didn't need the digressions into the Centennial Fair in Philadelphia or the massacre at Little Big Horn, but they were harmless.
June 4, 2021
Mixed feelings on this book. It is an interesting account of one of the more notable elections in United States political history. The account is detailed and the narrative is engagingly written. I felt throughout that the author's strong biases showed too strongly and it detracts from the book. He does an excellent job of articulating Tilden's case for the presidency. Throughout the book, all inferences are drawn in Tilden's favor and the facts are shaded in the light most favorable to Tilden. I feel like not enough time was devoted to the horrific suppression of black votes by (Democratic) white southerners that explain why the Republicans responded the way they did in LA, SC, and FL.
July 8, 2012
Interesting work about the 1876 presidential election. The work spends a good deal too much time focusing on the life stories and backgrounds of the candidates and has to cover the election and disputations in two chapters, but an interesting read. Also, the most noteworthy part was the description of how presidential candidates did not actively campaign for office, save for publishing a position statement. They wanted to be see as the office seeking them and not them seeking the office
October 5, 2021
Well.
That was almost as nasty as 2020. Almost. Given the fact that 2020 has now happened*, it was wryly funny to me that he kept comparing it to 2000.
Dry. But I really don't know why. Perhaps it was the focus on Hayes and Tilden who both had slightly boring lives. But I was incredibly fascinated by the Boss Tweed section.
The thoughts that I came away with:
Our country has done tough stuff before.
There are upright people in the world (but few of them make headlines).
The government is an incredibly flexible thing (even though it doesn't seem so right now).
*and the AZ recount just finished...
That was almost as nasty as 2020. Almost. Given the fact that 2020 has now happened*, it was wryly funny to me that he kept comparing it to 2000.
Dry. But I really don't know why. Perhaps it was the focus on Hayes and Tilden who both had slightly boring lives. But I was incredibly fascinated by the Boss Tweed section.
The thoughts that I came away with:
Our country has done tough stuff before.
There are upright people in the world (but few of them make headlines).
The government is an incredibly flexible thing (even though it doesn't seem so right now).
*and the AZ recount just finished...
April 20, 2025
A fascinating time in history that I did not know much about, and pretty well-written. Maybe too much character work and not enough action - we spend so long painting our characters I begin get annoyed with the author's Tilden bias and to doubt the assertion of a direct parallel to 2000. Wanted more about failed Reconstruction voter suppression in light of escalating American fascism in the news now, but this is more a story of 1876 personalities and Morris isn't as interested in the racial justice lens as I am.
August 16, 2019
This incredible tale of fraud, Dee caption, and political maneuvering somehow missed my notice in school. After experiencing the elections of 2004 and 2000, I'm amazed at the similarities, and I believe even more firmly in the electoral college. Though a challenging subject, Morris makes it understandable. Overall, I recommend.
March 5, 2020
Five stars for research and reconstruction of events, three stars for entertainment value. Not saying the Republican Party then is the same Republican Party of today, and the Democrats did bad stuff too, but way to steal an election Republicans.
November 11, 2025
A little dry in some spots but if you want the ins and outs of how to steal an election, this one’s for you.
March 30, 2008
Republicans steal a presidential election with the help of Florida with disastrous results. Yes, this happened in 2000, but it first happened in 1876. Both Democrat Sam Tilden and Republican Rutherford Hayes were decent men. But their surrogates engineered a massively corrupt election. This book shows that while there was some voter intimidation by the Democrats in the south, Tilden still would have won the presidency if he carried even 1 of the 3 contested southern states that still had federal troops from Reconstruction (Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana). But the Republicans conspired to toss out whole counties worth of votes throwing the election into the hands of the congress, which gave the presidency to Hayes with a mere 1 delegate.
As my doctor Rutherford Hayes (great-grandson of the president) said 'he's not too popular in the African American Studies college classes'. Republicans made backroom deals with southern Democrats to allow Hayes to be president if they promised to remove federal troops from the south, which Hayes did about a month after taking office. The real losers of the election were of course black Americans. For the next 90 years they dealt with not being able to vote, lynchings, Jim Crow laws and segregation.
To be fair to Hayes, Reconstuction would have ended whether he was the president or not. Tilden would also have pulled troops out. With the depression and corruption of the Grant administration, northerners had grown tired of Reconstuction.
With the Bush election all we got was the largest terrorist attack on our soil, the lack of a response to the Katrina distaster, 2 wars, 2 recessions and the shredding of the Constitution. Aren't we fortunate. Let's hope that certain superdelegates don't overturn the will of the people in the current Democratic primary election!
As my doctor Rutherford Hayes (great-grandson of the president) said 'he's not too popular in the African American Studies college classes'. Republicans made backroom deals with southern Democrats to allow Hayes to be president if they promised to remove federal troops from the south, which Hayes did about a month after taking office. The real losers of the election were of course black Americans. For the next 90 years they dealt with not being able to vote, lynchings, Jim Crow laws and segregation.
To be fair to Hayes, Reconstuction would have ended whether he was the president or not. Tilden would also have pulled troops out. With the depression and corruption of the Grant administration, northerners had grown tired of Reconstuction.
With the Bush election all we got was the largest terrorist attack on our soil, the lack of a response to the Katrina distaster, 2 wars, 2 recessions and the shredding of the Constitution. Aren't we fortunate. Let's hope that certain superdelegates don't overturn the will of the people in the current Democratic primary election!
August 5, 2015
In 1876, America celebrated the centennial of its independence. It was also the year of the most hotly contested presidential election in the history of the United States up until that point, and probably ever since. Not again until 2000 would America's anxiety about an election outcome be so prolonged and uncertain.
Some reviews of Fraud of the Century have called the book lopsided. But reviews of virtually every book I have read on the subject of the 1876 election have made similar criticisms. The election is difficult to write about without some finding the perspective slanted one way or another. Personally, I found Fraud of the Century to be as balanced an account of this contentious topic as one can possibly write, including the account of the events leading up to the election, and the tension that followed as Democrats and Republicans vied to come out on top.
The drama of this hotly disputed election plays out against the backdrop of reconstruction, carpetbagging, the rise of violence in the South, implementation of Black Laws, and Grant's insouciance about the pervasive corruption in which his administration was mired. The country, still very much divided following the Civil War, continued to fester through the proxies of political parties. In the end, Democrats ran roughshod over blacks; Republicans ran roughshod over Democrats, and both political parties felt self-righteous about their respective actions. It is history worth knowing and understanding, and this book succeeds in enlightening its readers on this subject.
For those who think that the book is biased, try reading some of the other accounts of the election of 1876 and find one about which the same criticism cannot be made. Roy Morris' Fraud of the Century brings to life a political drama which gripped the country in an well written and entertaining account.
Some reviews of Fraud of the Century have called the book lopsided. But reviews of virtually every book I have read on the subject of the 1876 election have made similar criticisms. The election is difficult to write about without some finding the perspective slanted one way or another. Personally, I found Fraud of the Century to be as balanced an account of this contentious topic as one can possibly write, including the account of the events leading up to the election, and the tension that followed as Democrats and Republicans vied to come out on top.
The drama of this hotly disputed election plays out against the backdrop of reconstruction, carpetbagging, the rise of violence in the South, implementation of Black Laws, and Grant's insouciance about the pervasive corruption in which his administration was mired. The country, still very much divided following the Civil War, continued to fester through the proxies of political parties. In the end, Democrats ran roughshod over blacks; Republicans ran roughshod over Democrats, and both political parties felt self-righteous about their respective actions. It is history worth knowing and understanding, and this book succeeds in enlightening its readers on this subject.
For those who think that the book is biased, try reading some of the other accounts of the election of 1876 and find one about which the same criticism cannot be made. Roy Morris' Fraud of the Century brings to life a political drama which gripped the country in an well written and entertaining account.
December 19, 2009
This has been a really long read. It's an interesting subject for sure, and for all the press about the shady circumstances surrounding the 2000 election, this election was a real example of the renegade politics and corruption that profilerated post-Reconstruction.
June 15, 2024
This is the story of the blatant way in which Republicans literally stole the 1876 U.S. Presidential election. By every fair reading of history the Democrats won the election, but the Republicans sent the Republican controlled canvasing boards to 3 key Republican-ruled states and in the most shamefully transparent exercise of raw political corrupt partisanship declared the winner of those states to be the Republican Rutherford B.Hayes. When the newly-elected Democratic government was inaugurated, they sent their own set of Democratic electors to Congress. Because Congress was divided, a commission was set up to determine who actually won. While there is no actual "smoking-gun" proof, it is widely believed that the tie-breaking vote (a U.S. Supreme Court Justice) was literally bought by the Republicans. Certainly the Justice used one principle to decide for the Republicans in one state, but disregarded this same principle in order to vote for the Republicans in a different state. In the end, Mr. Rutherfraud B. Hayes (as he became known) was voted into the presidency by a cabal of Republicans and Democrats that made a deal to end Reconstruction in the South.
The point has been made --- and it is a good point --- that the black vote in the South was depressed due to increasing violence and intimidation of whites against blacks, and that the Republicans would have won if the vote had been truly free. There is certainly no doubt at all about the violence and intimidation. That being said, the votes were what they were, and an honorable system should have counted them honestly (while trying to ensure that the voting booths could be as free from intimidation as possible). The alternative breeds contempt and distrust in government and its officials, and constitutes just as despicable a disenfranchisement as that which the violence caused in the South.
The election of 1876 is the only one (thus far) which was thrown into the hands of Congress to adjudicate. The 2000 election almost came to that, but Al Gore had the good honor to step down in order to save the country from the appearance of rank partisanship, this after the U.S. Supreme Court of the time --- in an exercise of rank partisanship --- ruled against him in the Florida recount case. And of course, it was the strategy of a recent Republican Presidential candidate loser to saw doubt about the 2020 election in order to throw the electoral count to Congress so that he could be re-elected, even though he really lost the election. And just like the Republicans of 1876, those who cooperated in this recent scheme are corrupt politicians without honor or integrity.
The point has been made --- and it is a good point --- that the black vote in the South was depressed due to increasing violence and intimidation of whites against blacks, and that the Republicans would have won if the vote had been truly free. There is certainly no doubt at all about the violence and intimidation. That being said, the votes were what they were, and an honorable system should have counted them honestly (while trying to ensure that the voting booths could be as free from intimidation as possible). The alternative breeds contempt and distrust in government and its officials, and constitutes just as despicable a disenfranchisement as that which the violence caused in the South.
The election of 1876 is the only one (thus far) which was thrown into the hands of Congress to adjudicate. The 2000 election almost came to that, but Al Gore had the good honor to step down in order to save the country from the appearance of rank partisanship, this after the U.S. Supreme Court of the time --- in an exercise of rank partisanship --- ruled against him in the Florida recount case. And of course, it was the strategy of a recent Republican Presidential candidate loser to saw doubt about the 2020 election in order to throw the electoral count to Congress so that he could be re-elected, even though he really lost the election. And just like the Republicans of 1876, those who cooperated in this recent scheme are corrupt politicians without honor or integrity.
July 5, 2025
What started out a bit corny and cliche in the first few pages turned out, in the end, to be quite a well written and well documented--if also barely known--reality of American history. Coupled with a recent reading of Criminal Dissent, a study of the Alien & Sedition Acts from 1798, it seems our nation can't exactly hide from its unconstitutional cruelties and controversies, mostly because they're so readily and blatantly available to those who look. But it seems that we try, constantly and collectively, to move on from our documented past as quickly as possible, rarely learning or attempting to be better than we were, believing that whatever the generations did before us was mostly fine, or flawless, or, at worst, not so bad (so why make a big deal of anything, just move on). We seem hellbent on always going "back" to something we thought we were at this or that time in history, without admitting or recognizing the sins that perpetually stick to those times.
Seeing as this book was published in 2003, when Bush v Gore was the most controversial issue in our democracy at the time, there were chapters, here, that felt eerily similar to the 2020 Election. For example, after the votes were counted in 1876, when the nation was uncomfortably waiting for the tallies to be figured out amidst some foul play in the South, Tilden's party tried to organize a massive, armed march on Washington in order to seat their man in the White House no matter what. The only difference, between 1876 and 2020, was that Tilden, unlike Trump, stayed out of the state machinations and recounts, fraudulent as they may have been. He wanted to be an American statesman, yes, but he had also lived through a bloody Civil War and feared the potential of any violence that might rekindle that awful experience. The current president, on the other hand, has no qualms about stoking the fires of civil unrest.
Seeing as this book was published in 2003, when Bush v Gore was the most controversial issue in our democracy at the time, there were chapters, here, that felt eerily similar to the 2020 Election. For example, after the votes were counted in 1876, when the nation was uncomfortably waiting for the tallies to be figured out amidst some foul play in the South, Tilden's party tried to organize a massive, armed march on Washington in order to seat their man in the White House no matter what. The only difference, between 1876 and 2020, was that Tilden, unlike Trump, stayed out of the state machinations and recounts, fraudulent as they may have been. He wanted to be an American statesman, yes, but he had also lived through a bloody Civil War and feared the potential of any violence that might rekindle that awful experience. The current president, on the other hand, has no qualms about stoking the fires of civil unrest.
February 1, 2021
In the first week of November the New York Public Library emailed their newsletter that had a list of history books about past elections in the U.S.A. I put a bunch of the books the NYPL suggested on hold for their grab-n-go service. Year of Meteors was the first to become available. A Magnificent Catastrophe was second. This was the third.
1876 is a fascinating part of American history.
I learned so many things:
-about the current events of the times (voter suppression and intimidation with violence, and the Centennial Exhibition)
- the manipulation of the press
- the end of Reconstruction
- the careers, and personalities of Tilden and Hayes
- and that the swamp was just as corrupt back then as they are now. Making secret deals, forging signatures and back dating elector's slates... what a bunch of criminals.
I thought about writing a deeply detailed review about everything I learned, but I took so many notes (and I even photocopied some pages before I returned the book to the library) I feel like this would just become a thesis.
The end dragged a bit when they got into the specifics of the Electoral Commission. I admit I skimmed. Yet, eventually I think I will buy a used copy for my collection.
4 out of 5 Fraudulent Presidents.
1876 is a fascinating part of American history.
I learned so many things:
-about the current events of the times (voter suppression and intimidation with violence, and the Centennial Exhibition)
- the manipulation of the press
- the end of Reconstruction
- the careers, and personalities of Tilden and Hayes
- and that the swamp was just as corrupt back then as they are now. Making secret deals, forging signatures and back dating elector's slates... what a bunch of criminals.
I thought about writing a deeply detailed review about everything I learned, but I took so many notes (and I even photocopied some pages before I returned the book to the library) I feel like this would just become a thesis.
The end dragged a bit when they got into the specifics of the Electoral Commission. I admit I skimmed. Yet, eventually I think I will buy a used copy for my collection.
4 out of 5 Fraudulent Presidents.
January 14, 2021
Despite being Canadian, I have a real interest in American history. I think I like to see the parallel and extremely divergent development of our cultures and social contracts (read 1776 by David Mucculough and Three Weeks in Quebec City by Christopher Moore at the same time, fascinating contrast). With the unprecedented events happening in Washington right now, there's been a few historians on cable news that mentioned the 1876 election. I googled "best book on 1876 presidential election" and this book came up.
This is one of those history books that I think of as an extended Wikipedia article. Not too long, very straight forward prose, mostly straight up facts with minimal commentary, and very very informative. This is worth the read if your into American political history or if you'd like to learn about another historical political mess. If I had read this book last year I would have been shocked. Finishing it today though made me want to say to Rutherford B Hayes "oh yeah, hold my beer!!!"
This is one of those history books that I think of as an extended Wikipedia article. Not too long, very straight forward prose, mostly straight up facts with minimal commentary, and very very informative. This is worth the read if your into American political history or if you'd like to learn about another historical political mess. If I had read this book last year I would have been shocked. Finishing it today though made me want to say to Rutherford B Hayes "oh yeah, hold my beer!!!"
September 24, 2025
A fascinating and often overlooked bit of history, the disputed Tilden v. Hayes presidential election of 1876 is the subject of Roy Morris, Jr.'s Fraud of the Century. The author balances the complex, interrelated issues in a very clear, focused narrative. The immediate post-Civil War era brought Reconstruction to the defeated South.
With the goal of bringing black citizens into the mainstream of society, the Reconstruction process was generally as loathed by white southerners as it was meant to be helpful to blacks. In simple terms, this pitted the Democratic and Republican parties in a continual sectional conflict. The outgoing president, Grant, had intervened very occasionally by sending troops to settle extra-legal anti-black confrontations (most notably in 1874 Mississippi).
Subsequent hostility and resentment of so-called black Republican rule was hardly going to help the country overcome past differences--in the southern redeemer's view (redemption from perceived Yankee tyranny), the black population had to give way. Morris gives this background to the election a thorough yet concise treatment.
Somewhat absurdly, given the uneven enforcement of the law in the South, reform was another major issue of the 1876 campaign. While both parties had a history of favoritism--known as the spoils system--the string of federal jobs available to cronies of the successful party might've been accepted as 'business as usual' patronage. Except that, perhaps inevitably, the largess led to widespread venality.
In this respect, the Democrat, Tilden, was certainly less soiled than Hayes, his Republican opponent. Reconstruction, a Republican (essentially a Northern or Federal party) creation, was an easy target for reformers. Such an ambitious project, with plenty of federal operatives and agents of many kinds, had a steady stream of money flowing from the Federal government. It meant that, well-intentioned and progressive as its mission indicated, Reconstruction would be a field ripe for corruption.
Corruption was a mainstream issue; at least for the majority of voters who couldn't directly profit from it. The Republicans, therefore, in power in Washington since 1860, had to deal with a rogue 'liberal' offshoot, dedicated to cutting out the bribery, scandals, and general malefeasence masquerading as rewards for party loyalty.
Also, the hard v. soft money schism ('hard' referring to gold reserves as against 'soft' greenback currency) also had its day as an issue in both parties. The mix of issues seemed highly volatile, but neither candidate gave cause for offense in their speeches and statements.
We move steadily from the issues and their adherents, to the candidates, their conventions and platforms; and, of course the election itself. The real drama, however, begins after the election, with disputed returns from three southern states (South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana). No one disagreed that Tilden had won the popular vote.
Unsurprisingly, those three states were the remaining 'unredeemed' ones, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. That is, ones with shaky Republican regimes, not judged stable enough to have had federal troops withdrawn. A picayunish issue hobbled the Oregon count, as one of the three electors (a Republican) wasn't technically legitimate. Even that one electoral vote, or any of the votes from the three contested southern states would've been enough to give Tilden the election.
The core of the book is how Tilden, in effect, got railroaded out of all of the disputed votes and electors; such that, thanks to the rather ingenious creation of the ad hoc electoral committee, he lost. At the heart of the problem in those states were rival sets of returns, essentially one or more certified by officials of each party. Regardless of who should have been president, or who would've been a better president, it's hard not to sympathize with Tilden.
A bit of reform dust might well have given Tilden a more favorable result; the author makes clear that, although there were irregularities on both sides at the local level (from both parties and races), the decisive majority of ballot-tampering, intimidation, violence, venality, and bribery was from the Republican side.
Not only did Tilden lose all three states (and the rogue Oregon electoral vote), he lost the war of words in the newspapers, and at the bargaining table. Even the tacitly fair Electoral Commission, which ultimately decided the election, was tilted, more or less by coincidence, towards a Republican majority. At each tipping point, Tilden was defeated.
Probably the weirdest and least fair aspect of the outcome was the compromise hammered out by party bosses from each side, which neither Hayes and Tilden necessarily approved, but couldn't ignore. Since the continuation of Reconstruction was easily the strongest and most divisive issue, by ditching the content of it (leaving enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments up to the states), while leaving the form of it in well-chosen words, Hayes may as well have switched parties.
One way to look at this Fraud Of The Century is, as Morris implies, by detailing Tilden's aloof, hands-off stance from beginning to end, that Hayes won simply because he wanted to be president more than Tilden.
Despite its relatively short length (barely 300 pages, including notes and index) this is a comprehensive treatment of its subject. Like all good history, we very much have the look and feel of the time and place. Even better, the number of folks involved--including both candidates--are fleshed out enough to give us a good look at who we're dealing with, without the mountain of peripheral information that can weigh down history with mini-biographies.
I'd highly recommend Fraud Of The Century to those interested in the Reconstruction/post-civil war era in particular, and presidential elections in general.
With the goal of bringing black citizens into the mainstream of society, the Reconstruction process was generally as loathed by white southerners as it was meant to be helpful to blacks. In simple terms, this pitted the Democratic and Republican parties in a continual sectional conflict. The outgoing president, Grant, had intervened very occasionally by sending troops to settle extra-legal anti-black confrontations (most notably in 1874 Mississippi).
Subsequent hostility and resentment of so-called black Republican rule was hardly going to help the country overcome past differences--in the southern redeemer's view (redemption from perceived Yankee tyranny), the black population had to give way. Morris gives this background to the election a thorough yet concise treatment.
Somewhat absurdly, given the uneven enforcement of the law in the South, reform was another major issue of the 1876 campaign. While both parties had a history of favoritism--known as the spoils system--the string of federal jobs available to cronies of the successful party might've been accepted as 'business as usual' patronage. Except that, perhaps inevitably, the largess led to widespread venality.
In this respect, the Democrat, Tilden, was certainly less soiled than Hayes, his Republican opponent. Reconstruction, a Republican (essentially a Northern or Federal party) creation, was an easy target for reformers. Such an ambitious project, with plenty of federal operatives and agents of many kinds, had a steady stream of money flowing from the Federal government. It meant that, well-intentioned and progressive as its mission indicated, Reconstruction would be a field ripe for corruption.
Corruption was a mainstream issue; at least for the majority of voters who couldn't directly profit from it. The Republicans, therefore, in power in Washington since 1860, had to deal with a rogue 'liberal' offshoot, dedicated to cutting out the bribery, scandals, and general malefeasence masquerading as rewards for party loyalty.
Also, the hard v. soft money schism ('hard' referring to gold reserves as against 'soft' greenback currency) also had its day as an issue in both parties. The mix of issues seemed highly volatile, but neither candidate gave cause for offense in their speeches and statements.
We move steadily from the issues and their adherents, to the candidates, their conventions and platforms; and, of course the election itself. The real drama, however, begins after the election, with disputed returns from three southern states (South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana). No one disagreed that Tilden had won the popular vote.
Unsurprisingly, those three states were the remaining 'unredeemed' ones, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. That is, ones with shaky Republican regimes, not judged stable enough to have had federal troops withdrawn. A picayunish issue hobbled the Oregon count, as one of the three electors (a Republican) wasn't technically legitimate. Even that one electoral vote, or any of the votes from the three contested southern states would've been enough to give Tilden the election.
The core of the book is how Tilden, in effect, got railroaded out of all of the disputed votes and electors; such that, thanks to the rather ingenious creation of the ad hoc electoral committee, he lost. At the heart of the problem in those states were rival sets of returns, essentially one or more certified by officials of each party. Regardless of who should have been president, or who would've been a better president, it's hard not to sympathize with Tilden.
A bit of reform dust might well have given Tilden a more favorable result; the author makes clear that, although there were irregularities on both sides at the local level (from both parties and races), the decisive majority of ballot-tampering, intimidation, violence, venality, and bribery was from the Republican side.
Not only did Tilden lose all three states (and the rogue Oregon electoral vote), he lost the war of words in the newspapers, and at the bargaining table. Even the tacitly fair Electoral Commission, which ultimately decided the election, was tilted, more or less by coincidence, towards a Republican majority. At each tipping point, Tilden was defeated.
Probably the weirdest and least fair aspect of the outcome was the compromise hammered out by party bosses from each side, which neither Hayes and Tilden necessarily approved, but couldn't ignore. Since the continuation of Reconstruction was easily the strongest and most divisive issue, by ditching the content of it (leaving enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments up to the states), while leaving the form of it in well-chosen words, Hayes may as well have switched parties.
One way to look at this Fraud Of The Century is, as Morris implies, by detailing Tilden's aloof, hands-off stance from beginning to end, that Hayes won simply because he wanted to be president more than Tilden.
Despite its relatively short length (barely 300 pages, including notes and index) this is a comprehensive treatment of its subject. Like all good history, we very much have the look and feel of the time and place. Even better, the number of folks involved--including both candidates--are fleshed out enough to give us a good look at who we're dealing with, without the mountain of peripheral information that can weigh down history with mini-biographies.
I'd highly recommend Fraud Of The Century to those interested in the Reconstruction/post-civil war era in particular, and presidential elections in general.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 16, 2024
The author explains, in detail, the various machinations, which led to the 1876 election of RBH by one electoral vote. The style is very readable, and the author explains in a simple, readable style. I’m still not sure I totally follow all of the actions of the two parties in the three states involved, but i don’t blame the author. The situation appears to be the first, in which one party won the popular vote but lost, in the electoral college, which, unfortunately, tainted , in many mines, the legitimacy of Hayes’ presidency. The back channel moves appear to have been made without the knowledge or consent of Hayes.
The situation is sad, because reconstruction ended, and also because Samuel Tilden, a reformer, would likely have been a fine president. Hayes, however, was also deserving,and a fine choice.
The situation is sad, because reconstruction ended, and also because Samuel Tilden, a reformer, would likely have been a fine president. Hayes, however, was also deserving,and a fine choice.
October 3, 2022
I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to other readers. The topic of unethical handling of key elections is so important today, which is ironic considering that I placed this book on my To Read list a few years ago. Mr Morris has written a very readable story that brings the Democrat Tilden and the Republican Hayes (as well as the other major candidates for the respective nominations, especially James Blaine) to life. He has exhaustively researched and unearthed the many sources touching on whether fraud occurred in a particular state. He posits in his prologue that yes, in some states, Blacks were prevented from voting at all, but major fraud was still committed after Election Day. It would appear that at the very least, one Hayes vote from Oregon should not have been counted and Louisiana votes should have gone to Tilden and not Hayes. Both Louisiana and South Carolina were a mess, with the added chaos of a Republican and a Democrat candidate for governor each claiming victory for months after Election Day. As Mr Morris concludes, Tilden won the Election but ultimately not the Presidency! This election is really a stain on American history.
Mr Morris paints a poorer picture of President Grant than does Ron Chernow. And he explains that the North, and President Grant, had grown tired over having to defend Reconstruction in the South against agitant racist opposition in the South. While Grant had earlier intervened to protect a Republican elected governor and state legislature in Louisiana, he (and General Sheridan) caught so much political flak for this that he declined to act on behalf of Republican Governor Ames in Mississippi and a second time in Louisiana. Thus, Mr Morris points out, while Hayes and his handlers reassured Southern Democrats (during their lobbying in Washington months after the election but before the final 8-7 arbitration for Hayes) that he would go easy on Democrats in the event of a Hayes win, it is an overstatement to say that the Hayes win and the associated agreement to remove Federal troops from the South was the principal cause of the end of Reconstruction.
Mr Morris also posits that, if Tilden had chosen to run again in 1880, he likely would have won. I had not been aware of this. But Tilden chose not to run.
It is a shame that Tilden is not well-remembered. He acted with the good of the country as his first concern, not his personal ambition.
Mr Morris paints a poorer picture of President Grant than does Ron Chernow. And he explains that the North, and President Grant, had grown tired over having to defend Reconstruction in the South against agitant racist opposition in the South. While Grant had earlier intervened to protect a Republican elected governor and state legislature in Louisiana, he (and General Sheridan) caught so much political flak for this that he declined to act on behalf of Republican Governor Ames in Mississippi and a second time in Louisiana. Thus, Mr Morris points out, while Hayes and his handlers reassured Southern Democrats (during their lobbying in Washington months after the election but before the final 8-7 arbitration for Hayes) that he would go easy on Democrats in the event of a Hayes win, it is an overstatement to say that the Hayes win and the associated agreement to remove Federal troops from the South was the principal cause of the end of Reconstruction.
Mr Morris also posits that, if Tilden had chosen to run again in 1880, he likely would have won. I had not been aware of this. But Tilden chose not to run.
It is a shame that Tilden is not well-remembered. He acted with the good of the country as his first concern, not his personal ambition.
October 10, 2022
This is an interesting read, looking at one of the most important elections in American history, and overall, I found it quite good. That being said, I was a little concerned about how they reported some of the violence that surrounded the election. Talking about violence committed by both black and white Americans in the deep south, the book suggests that we don't really know about what both sides did and seems to suggest that the same amount of violence was perpetrated on both sides. I don't really think that black Americans in the 1870s were able to do the same amount of violence as their white counterparts. The argument that "but both sides did the same thing" doesn't really ring true in this situation.
May 23, 2024
The subject of this election is interesting, but this book was written in a bit of a dry style that made it hard to get through at times. Further the author shows too much of a bias throughout as he makes the best case for Tilden, and frequently dismisses the case for protecting against intimidation in the South without much conviction. The only other book that I've read that touched on the subject was Grant by Ron Chernow, and this book paints Grant in an entirely unflattering light in comparison to Chernow. I'm glad I read this book, but I wish there was another book that read a bit better, and was more evenly balanced in presenting both sides of the dispute.
September 16, 2022
This is a pretty good book on the contested election of 1876. They are many similarities between this election and the election of 2000. The author does a good job of describing the opposing campaigns and the immediate aftermath.
Where I think he could have done a better job is in the last section that focuses on both sides fighting over who would actually become President. I feel that he shows the Democrats did not do very much to push their candidate into the Presidency Vs the effort of the Republicans. This section needs to be more balanced.
Where I think he could have done a better job is in the last section that focuses on both sides fighting over who would actually become President. I feel that he shows the Democrats did not do very much to push their candidate into the Presidency Vs the effort of the Republicans. This section needs to be more balanced.
September 28, 2022
This is a great summary of the controversial Centennial Election of 1876.
It is fascinating to see the antecedents to the strategies employed in the 2000 and 2020 Elections in 1876.
I believe Morris Jr is too quick to discount Haye's involvement in the agreement to remove Federal troops from the South in exchange for the Election.
That is not a small matter, as the withdrawal of troops ended Reconstruction (as Morris Jr notes) and led to 100+ years of legal discrimination and Jim Crow.
It is fascinating to see the antecedents to the strategies employed in the 2000 and 2020 Elections in 1876.
I believe Morris Jr is too quick to discount Haye's involvement in the agreement to remove Federal troops from the South in exchange for the Election.
That is not a small matter, as the withdrawal of troops ended Reconstruction (as Morris Jr notes) and led to 100+ years of legal discrimination and Jim Crow.
July 5, 2024
A Timely Read
Roy Morris does a deep dive into the 1876 election and immediate post election period. The election pitted Ohio governor Rutherford Hayes against New York attorney Samuel Tilden. While Tilden won the popular vote, the vote in the electoral college was close and only behind-the-scenes machinations and corruption secured the presidency for Hayes. I have no doubt something similar could happen in the 21st century.
Roy Morris does a deep dive into the 1876 election and immediate post election period. The election pitted Ohio governor Rutherford Hayes against New York attorney Samuel Tilden. While Tilden won the popular vote, the vote in the electoral college was close and only behind-the-scenes machinations and corruption secured the presidency for Hayes. I have no doubt something similar could happen in the 21st century.
January 31, 2018
A great telling of the story...that is hamstrung by a flimsy epilogue about consequences. Well written and researched, it glosses over the major impact of the election in just a few paragraphs. Would have preferred more than that. Also, would have preferred an electoral map with the states and their totals that could be referenced.
October 5, 2020
The night after I finished this book, I had a dream that Tilden won the election and Hayes was fighting him on the Congress floor, accusing Tilden of not being a strong enough anti-greenbacker. So if that speaks to the strength of book, there you go. Also a very interesting book that I fear will prove to be monstrously prescient in the upcoming 2020 elections.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews