By One Vote: The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876

American Presidential Elections

by Michael F. Holt

With electoral votes disputed in three states, a Democrat winning the popular vote, and the Supreme Court stepping in to overrule Florida court decisions, the presidential election of 1876 was an eerie precursor to that of 2000. Rutherford Hayes's defeat of Samuel Tilden has been dubbed the "fraud of the century"; now one of America's preeminent political historians digs deeper to unravel its real significance. This election saw the highest voter turnout of any in U.S. history-a whopping 82 percent-and also the narrowest margin of victory, as a single electoral vote decided the outcome. Michael Holt offers a fresh interpretation of this disputed election, not merely to rehash claims of fraud but to explain why it was so close. Examining the post-Civil War political environment, he particularly focuses on its most curious feature: that Republicans were the only party in history to retain the presidency in the middle of a severe depression after decisively losing the preceding off-year congressional elections. Holt begins with the election of 1872 to demonstrate how competition for Liberal Republicans shaped the campaign strategies of both parties. He stresses the critical but little-noted importance of Colorado statehood in August-which changed the size of the electoral-vote majority needed to win-and provides a new answer to the vexing question of why a Democratic-controlled Congress had admitted Colorado in time to participate in the presidential election, when without its votes Tilden would have won. And he argues that the high voter turnout was attributable both to Republicans exploiting fears of ex-Confederates recapturing control of the government and to long-apathetic southern Democrats reacting to war memories and Reconstruction realities. By One Vote shows how this election triggered a Republican revival and established the GOP as the Democrats' major competitor. Holt's compelling analysis of the dispute over electoral votes also explains why charges of Republican fraud are questionable-and how Democrats were just as guilty of corruption. A masterly retelling of this controversial episode, Holt's study captures the mood of the country and testifies to the power that hatreds and fears aroused by the Civil War still exercised over the American people.

Genres: History, Presidents, American History, Civil War, Nonfiction

314 pages, Hardcover

First published October 15, 2008

About the author

Michael F. Holt is Langbourne M. Williams Professor of American History Emeritus at the University of Virginia. He earned his B.A. from Princeton in 1962 and his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins in 1967.

Reviews

[Bill Sleeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Coming to you soon...a contested election result. Author Michael Holt offers a well researched study of the Hayes / Tilden contest with an eye (at the time ) on the 2000 presidential election outcome. A little dry sometimes 'text wise' his descriptions and analysis are worthwhile considerations for 2020.

[David Nichols · Rating 3 out of 5]

The centennial presidential election of 1876 is one of the most classic - and tragic - in American history, in that it was blatantly stolen by the "winning" party and that the victorious candidate promised to abandon Reconstruction and black voters in exchange for the losing party's collusion. Both of the two major national parties behaved badly in this contest: the Democrats used violence and ballot-box-stuffing in the South, while Republicans used the bloody shirt of Civil War rhetoric and anti-Catholicism to win the Midwest. When the electoral returns came in that November, Republican wire-pullers Dan Sickles and Chester Arthur got Republican officials to "canvass" (fix) the Electoral College returns in three violently disputed Southern states, while the Democrats used lawsuits, parliamentary delaying tactics, and even bribery to counter the Republicans' machinations. Ultimately, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the election, but it's unlikely, Holt argues, that his opponent Samuel Tilden - a multi-millionaire railroad financier - would have behaved any differently in office. The real significance of the election lay in how many people participated: 81 percent of eligible voters came to the polls, a standing record in American politics, and voter turnout remained high in presidential elections for the next twenty years, in part (as Mark Summers has shown) because both parties claimed thereafter that their opponents had either stolen or been planning to steal the previous election. Politics is often just a matter of organizing people on the basis of their grievances. Holt tells this story clearly and thoughtfully, but one can't say his book is a delight to read, as the author never met a fact he didn't like. He's much better in his shorter books. Still, it's good to see a talented historian do this fraught political contest proper justice.

[Jason S · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitive account of the 1876 election. Does a masterful job of explaining the political history and covering every angle. Only critique is that it does not do much explaining the political situation in the south prior to the disputed election and post election wrangling.

[M B]

When this book was written in 2008, the 2000 election was still fresh in public consciousness. A disputed count in Florida in both cases makes this comparison more acute. Today, the disputed election of 1876 feels more relevant than ever. Were this book written in the 2020s, perhaps more emphasis would be placed on election related violence, of which there was plenty. Remembered as the corrupt bargain that ended Reconstruction, Holt shows us the truth was a bit more complex.

Insights into the politics of 1876 include the pivotal role that Colorado’s admission as a state played in determining the outcome and the fractured nature of the Republican vote in the North. With election related violence in the South showing no signs of dampening and northern voters increasingly tiring of civil rights, republicans were already taking steps to abandon Reconstruction. The Liberal Republican revolt against Grant in 1872 caused many northern voters to defect from the party. Grant’s landslide victory that year concealed an enduring vulnerability. Virtually all of the 440k increase in the national vote total that Grant received in 1872 came from the former slave states. This caused Grant to make concessions to Liberal Republicans throughout his second term, including an amnesty bill for ex-confederates. The Panic of 1873 soured northern attitudes even further. The increasingly divergent goals of the differing republican factions combined with unrelenting violence made Reconstruction unsustainable. When white supremacists overthrew Mississippi’s republican government in 1875, Grant refused to step in, fearing political backlash. This would be a grim harbinger of things to come.

After putting Reconstruction on the back burner, Republicans began to use Catholic schools and monetary policy as wedge issues for 1876. However, Democrats and Republicans monetary policy was virtually identical, forcing both sides to wave the bloody shirt of sectional animosities. Soon to be nominee Rutherford Hayes was bored with the money issue, admitting to a friend that he hadn’t even read the Specie Resumption Act, a disinterest shared by this reviewer. While the Republican campaign waved the bloody shirt, Hayes pandered to southern white voters by promising a full withdrawal of federal troops from the South.

This book drives home the well told but necessary point that when historical actors are forced to choose between justice and expediency, the latter will usually be chosen. As both candidates promised some form of home rule in the South, the result of 1876 looks less like a corrupt bargain and more like a foregone conclusion. Holt says as much in the final chapter, concluding that history would have played out mostly the same whatever the outcome of the election. Given Republican moves to abandon reconstruction, it’s hard to think of a more plausible scenario. In this sense, 1876 was simply the final nail in the coffin for a project that white America had long since abandoned.

[Karl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough academic history of the politics surrounding the disputed presidential election of 1876, when numerous facets of post-Civil War American society converged into a national crisis. When partisanship turned to violence, electoral desperation to fraud, and party politics to a confused labyrinth, political leaders cobbled together a compromise that remains controversial today.

Michael Holt has done a great job recreating the broader context of the 1876 election by looking at the presidential election of 1872, the congressional election of 1874, and political violence in some of the former Confederate states. He also reconstructs the electorate's voting patterns, based on what is known, and which states were the most critical to the strategy of each party. He argues that the key issues in the election- debates over paper money and southern opposition to African-American civil rights- did shape the election, but partisanship and the prevailing economic recession were perhaps more important. He also examines the complex dynamics of Congressional rules for counting electoral votes and the significance of Colorado's first presidential election as a state. Some cross-comparison to the election of 2000 helps to demonstrate that certain constitutional and legal questions are not new, nor can be safely assumed to be of the past. The elections of 2016 and 2020 came after the publication of this book, but they weirdly uphold some of the same concerns. In the end he argues that some of the outcomes, including the money question and the collapse of African-American voting rights in the south, most likely would have happened whomever won the election of 1876.

This is an academic history, and its style may not appeal to everyone, but for those interested in a deep exploration of one of the most consequential American elections, this is a valuable book.

[Kerrin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a great book for information, but it gets a little dry towards the end talking about the procedural process for the election commission that was created. The most interesting part of the book was talking about the interest groups that both parties represented, and how after the corrupt Grant administration both parties tended to try to be a little more moderate in their tactics.

I thought it was telling that the Republicans argued for states rights after instituting top down, disastrous Reconstruction policies a few short years earlier when discussing NOT going behind the voting counts for the disputed votes in the states. Meanwhile, the Democrats (who were states rights advocates to the core in this era) wanted the federal government to do a full recount for the states in question. This proves that during a crisis political ideologies always drop away, and there is a scramble to maintain power.

This book was so far better than Fraud of the Century. If there is a better book about the election of 1876, I have yet to see it. However, it was still very dry regarding the actual Congressional aspect that was discussed. This section could have been summarized instead of going over 50 to 60 pages.

[Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael F. Holt is a master of U.S. political history. This is the best account of the disputed 1876 election that pitted Republican Rutherford B. Hayes against Democrat Samuel Tilden. Both parties expected a close election and sought to appeal to as many of the Liberal Republican voters of 1872 as they could. The Democrats struggled with divisions between the gold and silver/greenback wings of their party. Republicans struggled with an attempt to appeal to southerners with promises of "home rule" while also waving the bloody shirt to rally northern voters. Hayes ran a vehemently anti-Catholic campaign, reprising some of the Know-Nothing messaging from an earlier generation.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

No, the election of 2016 was not the weirdest in the history of American politics. Though a bit dry, this recounting of the 1876 election is well-researched and will give the reader a good overview of the background and controversy surrounding it. Particularly interesting is the dispute that unfolded after Election Day. My goal in reading this book was to learn more about a part of history of which I knew little. Mission accomplished.

[Rachel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Excruciatingly bad writing. I just couldn't stick with it, which is really saying something!

[John Bicknell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wrote about this book and the election of 1876 here: https://lawliberty.org/is-the-spirit-...

[Yunis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't expect the dispute to be such dry subject. I have to definitely reread this book