1876

Narratives of Empire #3

by Gore Vidal

The centennial of the United States was celebrated with great fanfare—fireworks, exhibitions, pious calls to patriotism, and perhaps the most underhanded political machination in the country's history: the theft of the presidency from Samuel Tilden in favor of Rutherford B. Hayes. This was the Gilded Age, when robber barons held the purse strings of the nation, and the party in power was determined to stay in power. Gore Vidal's novel 1876 gives us the news of the day through the eyes of Charlie Schuyler, who has returned from exile to regain a lost fortune and arrange a marriage into New York society for his widowed daughter. And although Tammany Hall has faltered and Boss Tweed has fled, the effects of corruption reach deep, even into Schuyler's own family.

Genres: Historical Fiction, Fiction, Historical, Politics, American History, American, Literature

362 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1976

About the author

Works of American writer Eugene Luther Gore Vidal, noted for his cynical humor and his numerous accounts of society in decline, include the play The Best Man (1960) and the novel Myra Breckinridge (1968) .

People know his essays, screenplays, and Broadway.
They also knew his patrician manner, transatlantic accent, and witty aphorisms. Vidal came from a distinguished political lineage; his grandfather was the senator Thomas Gore, and he later became a relation (through marriage) to Jacqueline Kennedy.

Vidal, a longtime political critic, ran twice for political office. He was a lifelong isolationist Democrat. The Nation, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The New York Review of Books, and Esquire published his essays.

Essays and media appearances long criticized foreign policy. In addition, he from the 1980s onwards characterized the United States as a decaying empire. Additionally, he was known for his well publicized spats with such figures as Norman Mailer, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Truman Capote.

They fell into distinct social and historical camps. Alongside his social, his best known historical include Julian, Burr, and Lincoln. His third novel, The City and the Pillar (1948), outraged conservative critics as the first major feature of unambiguous homosexuality.

At the time of his death he was the last of a generation of American writers who had served during World War II, including J.D. Salinger, Kurt Vonnegut, Norman Mailer and Joseph Heller. Perhaps best remembered for his caustic wit, he referred to himself as a "gentleman bitch" and has been described as the 20th century's answer to Oscar Wilde

Also used the pseudonym Edgar Box.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Gore Vidal é um dos nomes centrais na história da literatura americana pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Nascido em 1925, em Nova Iorque, estudou na Academia de Phillips Exeter (Estado de New Hampshire). O seu primeiro romance, Williwaw (1946), era uma história da guerra claramente influenciada pelo estilo de Hemingway. Embora grande parte da sua obra tenha a ver com o século XX americano, Vidal debruçou-se várias vezes sobre épocas recuadas, como, por exemplo, em A Search for the King (1950), Juliano (1964) e Creation (1981).

Entre os seus temas de eleição está o mundo do cinema e, mais concretamente, os bastidores de Hollywood, que ele desmonta de forma satírica e implacável em títulos como Myra Breckinridge (1968), Myron (1975) e Duluth (1983).

Senhor de um estilo exuberante, multifacetado e sempre surpreendente, publicou, em 1995, a autobiografia Palimpsest: A Memoir. As obras 'O Instituto Smithsonian' e 'A Idade do Ouro' encontram-se traduzidas em português.

Neto do senador Thomas Gore, enteado do padrasto de Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, primo distante de Al Gore, Gore Vidal sempre se revelou um espelho crítico das grandezas e misérias dos EUA.

Faleceu a 31 de julho de 2012, aos 86 anos, na sua casa em Hollywood, vítima de pneumonia.

Reviews

[Marley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm going through my Gore Vidal collection and am re-reading (and in some cases for the first time reading) the Narratives of Empire collection. I love 1876. Every damn page of it. This is the way America was/is not as the gullible unhistoric American public perceives it. I'm a trained historian, and GV is so correct in his portrayals of so-called icons.

1876 is not only a narrative of post-war Washington/New York high and political society, but a comedy of manners. The hand of Henry Adams isn't far from sight--and in some cases is--as with Baron Jacobi. (And the "large party" at which Charlie Schuyler and The Princess of d'Agrigente are introduced to the Grants is reminicent of Mrs. Lee's introduction to "the president" in Democracy."

One again GV sends me to the 'net to check out players I'd not thought of much lately (I actually do think about these people!) Blaine, Tilden, Julia Dent Grant, William Cullen Bryant, Madame Restell. Now I want to find a good bio of General Grant and James A Garfield (I believe a new bio is out on him). When I was a kid I used to eat at his former home in Hiram, Ohio, Bonnie Castle Inn.

Now, the big questions is Emma.

1876 is a very timely book, only 136 yeas later, the boodle and stakes is bigger.RIP America.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 2 out of 5]

One of Gore Vidal's weakest novels, 1876 examines America's Gilded Age with an excess of archness and a dearth of wit. An antiquated Charlie Schuyler, the narrator-hero of Burr, returns with his daughter on a tour of America during its centennial celebration, becoming disgusted and fascinated by postbellum America's inequalities and the open corruption of Ulysses Grant's Administration. Throughout, Vidal succumbs to his worst instincts as a writer: nearly two-thirds of the text consists of Schuyler indulging in an endless whirl of dinners, parties, backroom deals and snarky chats about the American Character. There's plenty of high-table mirth and cynical aperçus ("Think always of the future, and how much worse it is bound to be!") but little true analysis of the era; Vidal has nothing to say about Reconstruction, westward expansion (save some fleeting references to Custer), the era's capital-labor disputes or, indeed, anything but the self-absorption of the rich. It doesn't help that Schuyler is not only insufferable (like many Vidal heroes, he wears his vices as a badge of pride against the stuffed-shirted hypocrisy of the respectable classes) but so peripherally involved in events that he can't provide any insights, only scorn for what he sees (and those who think America can, or should be better than this). The narrative's densely peopled with historical and literary figures (Grant, Samuel Tilden, Mark Twain, etc.), all of whom remain strictly at the levels of cameo or caricature. The narrative finally jolts to life in the final 80 pages or so, as the disputed Hayes-Tilden presidential election threatens to spark a second civil war. Too bad Vidal's done so little prepare us for it; after an endless whirl of backbiting gossip, greedy tycoons and crooked politicos, even the electoral powder keg proves a damp squib. Historically, how could it not? But surely it's Vidal's job, as novelist, to invest events with some life, drama or illumination; instead, he produces a self-indulgent bore with little to say.

[Sud666 · Rating 4 out of 5]

1876. The Centennial of the American nation. Gore Vidal's look at America in the year 1876 revolves around scandal plaguing the administration of President Grant. It also covers the election, in the demise of the Grant administration, between Hayes and Tilden.

The third entry into the "Empire" series is likely Vidal's weakest novel. Compared to the monumental events of "Burr" and "Lincoln", the events behind the graft and corruption of a banal and daily occurrence are hard subjects to entice interest. The paucity of grand events is further hindered by the teller- the miserable hypocrite Charles Schermerhorn Schulyer. The corrupt and failed author/journalist who used his connections to score the plum position of Consul to France. In previous novels, he was established (though a fictional character) as the bastard son of Aaron Burr and attempted to "rescue" a prostitute, who was pregnant with another man's child, by trying to get her to marry him, failing miserably, and having her choose prostitution over tying the know with this cretin. Schulyer absconds to Paris, where he meets and marries some up-jumped parvenu "Countess", her title created by the Emperor Napolean when he was giving away lands and creating titles as if it were "free pizza day". Once Napoleon fell so to did the lands disappear, but Schulyer having managed to breed an insufferable daughter, the "Princess" Emma, has now returned, flat broke, to snag himself some money and snag the "Princess" some gullible, rich, American.

Thus the book spends an inordinate amount of time on the misbegotten Schulyer-kin's voracious desire for wealth, as they cruise through the upper crust of American society, all whilst bemoaning the loss of their "lands" in France. This miserable collection of pretentious creatures, as well as the topic of corruption and campaign chicanery, makes for underwhelming subject material.

So, then why the 4 stars? Vidal's writing is, as ever, dry, witty, and a pleasure to read. His characters, deplorable as they are, come to life. The comparison of America in the 1830s, with the "modern" America of 1876 is quite telling. Also, Vidal's ability to take complex matters and explain them easily makes for an informative read. Thus, while the characters and the subject material were not my favorite points, the prose and knowledge of history were a pleasure to read.

It also helps to show that political fracturing, media lies and bias, and turmoil are hardly new. No matter what the pundits and media say, this has been part and parcel of the way of life in the messy, but best worst political system, known as democracy.

[John Hatley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another of Gore Vidal's "Empire" series, set against the background of America's celebration of the centennial of the War of Independence.

[John Blumenthal · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love Vidal’s historical novels and this one didn’t disappoint. But if you’re not a history buff, I wouldn’t recommend it. Interesting today though because it features the contested presidential election of 1876 in which the winner’s Republican backers did cheat But we’re talking about Rutherford B Hayes here so, like I said, you have to be a history buff to find this enjoyable.

[Walter · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was my first Gore Vidal novel, and I was less than impressed. By his own estimation, Gore Vidal is the greatest American historical novelist ever, and in my experience, arrogant novelists are rarely any good. "1876" did little to change my mind about this.

The tragedy of it all is that this novel could have been great. It is set in 1876, the American centennial, with all the drama of Reconstruction, the corruption of the Grant administration, the grand defeat of Custer at Little Big Horn, and of course, the 1876 election, which was a disputed election that made the election of 2000 look like a costume ball. Vidal opens the novel with Schuyler, his main character, returning from 40 years living in Europe as an itinerant diplomat and foreign correspondent for the NY Herald. He came back to cover the election and, presumably, the election of the first Democratic President since James Buchanan. For the coming year, Schuyler, the illegitimate son of Aaron Burr and father of a European princess by marriage, would end up in the thick of this disputed election.

The problem with this novel is that Vidal uses it as a vehicle to slam all the things that he hates. Vidal hates Republicans, for example, and he misses no opportunity to harp on the inherent corruption that he sees in the GOP. Vidal rightly discusses the tremendous corruption of the Grant administration, and he associates that corruption with Republicans in general. Interestingly, Vidal brings up the even more corrupt Tammany Hall organization in New York and Boss Tweed, but he neglects to bring up their political affiliation. Vidal hates Mark Twain. He berates Twain on several occasions for the crime of writing novels that speak positively of the American way of life. Vidal seems to think that only European aristocrats have any grasp on reality. He is not a big fan of the American working class. At one point Vidal has Schuyler reminisce longingly about the days when he would walk through working class neighborhoods trolling for prostitutes. He decries the American urban situation of the later part of the 19th century as a cesspool of immigrants and illiteracy.

Vidal's narrative in this novel is essentially a series of dinner conversations, cocktail parties and gossip sessions that moves through various American cities. In these contexts he introduces several great American personalities of the time, like Grant, Twain, James Garfield and James G. Blaine. He portrays Samuel Tilden, the Democratic candidate for President in 1876, as a kind of messiah figure, which is odd given Vidal's dense cynicism toward everyone else. The most confusing part of Vidal's narrative is that it is hard to pull the reality from the gossip in these party settings. He brings up lots of scandals and events, but some of them are tremendously skewed. Did Vidal do that on purpose, or is he trying to recreate the gossip of the time?

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this novel is the gentile racism the permeates it. For example, when Schuyler and his daughter arrive in Washington DC he notes the large population of black people in the city, to which the daughter says, "it's Africa!" In the pages that follow Vidal uses the Africa motif extensively, referring to the corrupt politicians as "African Chiefs" and the worst political factions as "African tribes." In the aftermath of the 1876 election, Vidal notes that black men were kept from the polls in several Southern states, allowing Tilden and the Democrats to win in those states. He is a big fan of this tactic apparently. Part of the dark aftermath of the 1876 election is that, with the withdrawl of Federal troops from the Southern states and the lesson that the Southern Democrats learned about the propensity of black voters of that time to vote Republican, the years following the election saw the rise of Jim Crow and the denial of voting privileges to black voters throughout the South. Vidal writes almost approvingly of this. Perhaps he saw it as a way to rescue the country from the tyranny of the sweaty masses.

Despite my low rating for this novel, I do think that there is value in reading Gore Vidal. If nothing else, it is good for us to understand the thinking of those who consider themselves to be our betters. But, aside from this, "1876" is a big disappointment. There are much better novels about this period in history, written by truly great American writers, like, for example, Mark Twain!

[Ben Serviss · Rating 1 out of 5]

1876: The year everybody fell asleep reading this boring book.

[Larry Bassett · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was amazed and disappointed to learn from the author at the end of listening to this audible book while following along with the e-book that the main characters in this book, the journalist and his daughter, were fictional.

Although the title of this book 1876 coincides with the 100th anniversary of the United States, that event is somewhat secondary to most of the story although there is a side trip to the national or world fair that celebrated the one hundredth year. The real major event is the presidential election of 1876 which ended in a strange way that will seem a bit like reverse déjà vu to those of us who remember the loss of Albert Gore of the presidency by a decision of the US Supreme Court.

As with the book Empire I am giving this book only three stars mostly because this focuses on an era of US history that I do not find particularly interesting personally. By comparison I would have to say Empire is probably a half star better than this book. And the conclusion of this book is much more interesting than most of the preceding pages that lead up to that conclusion.

In this book we learn about how the upper class lived and ruled the country which was the United States. The manners and the morals of that time are described by the lives of just a few families. This creates a good deal of responsibility on the shoulders of just A few characters who all seem to know or know of each other. The connection of the North American continent with Europe continues to be a surprising (to me) aspect of American life.

I continue to generally enjoy my temporary immersion in the works of Gore Vidal as I have seemed to line up a considerable number of his books at this time. His half dozen historical novels move through a considerable period of United States history. Although I am not reading them in order I would recommend to the reader beginning the series, that there may be some benefit to a beginning to end experience.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Americans have always lived entirely in the present, and this generation is no different from mine except that now there is more of a past for them to ignore.

Excellent historical fiction. Fictional Charles Schuyler repeats as narrator, as in Burr gathering notes for a projected future historical work. Surrounded by real characters, Schuyler records America’s transformation from the fledgling republic where he grew up to a continental empire. Most action is New York City.

Leaders of the state’s regular Republican party. Known as the Stalwarts, they are the enemies of every sort of reform and hence fierce supporters of General Grant and of the spoils system.

History records times and events, the best fiction tells us about people. Vidal wrote of the crooked president Grant and the election of 1876 as surrogates for the crooked president Nixon and accidental president Ford and the election of 1976. Contemporary readers will detect foreshadows of the elections of 2000, 2016, and 2020. Vidal is more subtle than modern polemicists but no less dedicated killing the Republican Party.

“Oh, The New York Times is getting ready to pour it on. There is no crime their editors would not commit to help the Republican party.”

Vidal suggests the Times lied to America 150 years ago; are they still? He also looks behind the closed doors of partisan journalism, Congressional corruption, upper class hypocrisy, and American mating norms. This may not be exactly what happened, but the story is immersive.

To turn life to words is to make life yours to do with as you please, instead of the other way round. Words translate and transmute raw life, make bearable the unbearable. So at the end, as in the beginning, there is only The Word.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a pity! I've just come to the end of another thoroughly enjoyable book by Gore Vidal.

It is 1876, the hundredth anniversary of the founding of the USA. The widowed Charlie Schuyler returns to New York with his widowed daughter, who was born in France during the 40 years that he was living there. Charlie, the narrator of Vidal's novel Burr, wants to see how his native land has changed since he last lived there. He also hopes that Emma, his glamorous daughter, will find a new husband.

1876 is written in the form of a personal memoir. Schuyler records life in a New York City where money counts more than does good taste and culture. He attends the Centennial Celebrations in Philadelphia, and then writes newspaper reports on the campaigning that led to the presidential election late in 1876, a close one that was decided by factors which cannot be considered entirely democratic.

Vidal, through Schuyler, takes us on an amusing as well as critical romp through the saloons of hotels and the houses of the wealthy in New York before exposing us to the shenanigans of America's leading politicians of the time.

This book, which is a delight to read, reveals the corrupt nature of politics in 19th century USA but does not leave one feeling bereft of hope for the country. It is a tribute to the ideals of the USA that books such as Vidal wrote, which re-write history in a critical way, are not banned in the same way as they are in other countries.


I cannot wait to begin reading my next Vidal!

[nicky · Rating 2 out of 5]

i like historical fiction. i also like books that take place in 19th century new york city. that being said, this book contains both those elements but just didn't do it for me. gore vidal is a phenomenal writer (as if gore f*ing vidal needs me to validate that) but here he gets too pre-occupied with NYC high society and the story goes nowhere. or maybe the NYC socialites were the whole story. either way i had a hard time finishing it. the first person memoir style was killing me by the end -- especially b/c the narrator is a pretentious old man who keeps complaining about his sore knees and his aged back.

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pure Vidal - historical fiction, highly readable decent writing, part of a trilogy, lots of irony, satire, a good time. Doesn't particularly hold too steady in terms of narrative, uneven at times, but lots of fun nevertheless.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this one immediately after reading Vidal's Burr, its predecessor, during the winter break from school of 1983/84. As usual, with Vidal, the book is well researched, its events plausible.

[Joe Kraus · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this, the third of the Annals of America novels, Vidal comes to assert something he merely suggests as a possibility in the early ones: protagonist Charles Schermerhorn Schuyler is the illegitimate son of Aaron Burr. I like that detail, but I love what it does to the series as a whole. This alternative to the conventional American history really is a kind of bastard perspective.

At a broad level, the series takes us back to moments of American history that we think we know and then reimagines them. In the first, Burr, we get Charlie’s favorable impressions of the most maligned of the major “Founding Fathers.” In the second, we see Abraham Lincoln not as an idealist but as a pragmatist dragged into the Civil War almost against his will.

In each separate novel we see members of the extended Schuyler family, which means in one way that we are seeing an America in which Aaron Burr continues to make his mark. It’s a little like Vidal himself, scion of a family that has had political power for generations, watching from the outside and complaining that he no longer gets to assert his own truth.

With that, Vidal is still funny in an airy way. One of my favorite running jokes is that Charlie doesn’t think much of Mark Twain, regarding his just released Tom Sawyer as a come-down from his earlier work. Another is the great one-liner describing a young man he meets, “He was like the handsome son I never had, nor wanted.” That is, we sometimes get his admission that this alternative perspective isn’t necessarily a better one.

Still, the topic of the 1876 Presidential election is a tricky one. On the one hand, we get the chance to examine what was perhaps the most closely contested vote in American history. I hadn’t realized it, but Democrat Samuel Tilden is still the only person to win a majority of the popular vote and still lose the election. (I had to check, but Hillary Clinton won somewhat less than 50 percent even though she beat the current President by a well-documented wide margin.) Charlie desperately wants Tilden to win because he sees it as his way to get appointed to a ministership abroad.

On the other, this is an alternative history to…what, exactly? This is a chapter in American history that most of us have forgotten. It’s good to be exposed to it, I suppose, but it makes the corrective/alternative perspective harder to employ. I couldn’t follow what was happening because I didn’t know the history against which this version is set.

To make it worse, the ‘drama’ of this episode takes place in an extended set of election returns. There’s no real climax; it’s just the outcome of electoral votes from Oregon and Florida. And there’s not much happening in Charlie’s own life. His daughter plans to marry, but she makes those arrangements largely away from him. The personal drama taking place there happens outside our point-of-view. We get caught up on it, but the effect is as attenuated as the slow election returns.

As someone who has read this much of the series largely because I keep finding the volumes on sale, I still admire the overall project. This one is intriguing within that larger structure, but it doesn’t hold up too well on its own. I would like to see how Vidal reimagines later episodes in history, and I look forward to how he weaves the Schuyler family into it. So maybe I will keep going with this series.

In this volume, though, he looks back to an election that made clear the extent to which corruption has shaped who we are as a people. Right now, of all times, that’s an easy lesson to remember.

[Perry Whitford · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this in 2006, the year after Dubyah's second election "victory". I had no idea at the time that American elections had previous when it came to vote rigging.

Charles Schermerhorn Schuyler is a recently impoverished writer returning to America after thirty years in Europe, where he witnessed the events leading up to the Paris Commune. Through his eyes Vidal paints a picture of New York society at that time, then takes us to Washington DC and its movers and shakers.

Vidal brings to life both places with exquisite detail, his characters are all incredibly witty and urbane, caressing each other with sly inferences. As an author I find him so authoritative, I find myself believing everything he writes, although he certainly has his own agendas.

For those, like me, not familiar with the 1876 election, Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden was effectively robbed of the presidency by the distinctly undemocratic vagueries of the process, shameslessly manipulated by the Republican Party. Their candidate Rutherford Hayes assumed office despite getting less votes - sound familiar?

The ropey election machinery is picked apart and dismantled. As with most political processes the finer points are dry and dull, but Vidal was such a skillful writer he could overlay a sense of silky sophistication on any subject.

So stealing elections is nothing new, folks.

[Rick Snee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vidal tackles the election of 1876 with the same historical fiction lens as Burr and Lincoln, only for a period in American history that deserves as much public awareness as the founding and Civil War. And, brother, is this one timely. Questionable election returns, the Democrat candidate winning the popular election, faithless electors turning the decision over to the House, who make a sweetheart deal between Republicans and Southern Democrats to let the Republican win -- sound familiar? This election set the precedent for all of 20th Century U.S. politics, from the corruptibility in the President's Cabinet to Nixon's Southern Strategy to Bush v. Gore to the 2016 election.

[David Mckinnon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book that looks at the Presidential election of 1876. In that Centennial year that gave us President Rutherford B, Hayes in the most corrupt election of many corrupt elections. That election was stolen, the votes of the people were thrown out. (Does this sound familiar?) and corrupt politicians, legislators and the current sitting President, U. S. Grant all joined together to steal the Presidency for Mr. Hayes, and brought the country close to second Civil War.

Gore Vidal brings it all to life by bringing the reader into the action in his usual brilliant way.

[Иванка Могилска · Rating 2 out of 5]

Мудна и трудна за четене ми беше тази книга. Може би защото очаквах по-скоро нещо като любимата ми "Сът��орението"...
Освен това не разбрах откъде се появи този пълномощник министър на България през 1876?

[Inese Okonova · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tā kā pēdējā laikā esmu lasījusi pārsvarā vieglā un pavisam vieglā gala literatūru, šis varētu būt mans alibi, ko paralēli un lēnām čunčināju uz priekšu.

"1876" ir ceturtā sarakstītā, bet pēc notikumu hronoloģijas trešā grāmata sērijā par Amerikas "impērijas" vēsturi. (Latviski padomju laikā izdotā "Vašingtona, Kolumbijas apgabals" arī ir no šīs sērijas) To 1976. gadā, sagaidot ASV 200. jubileju, sarakstīja erudītais un asprātīgais, bet arī ļoti asi sarkastiskais Gors Vidals, un stāsts par prezidenta vēlēšanām Amerikas simtgadē nebūt nav jūsmīgs vai glaimojošs.

Galvenais varonis un stāstnieks šajā romānā ir romāna "Bērs" (Burr) titulvaroņa Ārona Bēra ārlaulības dēls Čārlijs Šuljers, kurš daudzus gadu desmitus pavadījis Eiropā, kur darbojies kā diplomāts, arī rakstījis ASV avīzēm par Eiropas politiku un pārdzīvojis Parīzes Komūnu. Šī romāna sākumā viņš kopā ar savu meitu - atraitni - atgriežas pēc-Pilsoņu kara Amerikā un Ņujorkā, kas piedzīvo gilded age sākumposmu un īsti vairs nav atpazīstama.

Tā kā Šuljers tikko visus iekrājumus pazaudējis par 1873. gada paniku sauktajā finanšu sabrukumā, viņam nākas izmantot vecos sakarus, lai nodrošinātu darbu kā politikas komentētājam, un lasītājiem tiek celts priekšā viņa skatījums uz prezidenta vēlēšanām, kurās pēc vairāku mēnešu ilgušas balsu skaitīšanas apstrīdēšanas un risinājuma meklēšanas iznākumu izšķīra 1 elektora balss.

Romāna pamatā ir nesaudzīgs un neglaimojošs politikas ķēķa atmaskojums, kur atšķīrībā no mūsdienām mazāka nozīme bija darbam ar vēlētājiem, bet tikpat svarīga vai vēl svarīgāka - atslēgas cilvēku pierunāšanai un atklātai pirkšanai. Nav jau tā, ka nebūtu manāmas autora simpātijas pret demokrātiem un demokrātu kandidātu (Vidals pats bija demokrāts), bet viņa aprakstītais process nebūt nav melnbalts.

Specifiska grāmata, kas diez vai uzrunās tos, kam nemaz neinteresē politika, bet talantīgi sarakstīta un trāpīga.

[Joseph Sciuto · Rating 5 out of 5]

What can I say, that I have not already said about Gore Vidal? He is undeniably one of the great American writers of the twentieth century, along with Toni Morrison, Capote, Hemingway, Faulker, Baldwin, Fitzgerald, O'Hare, and so on. I also am confident that he would agree, but not agree totally with my assessment of the other great writers I mentioned.

"1876" is in a sense the third novel in the series that critics have come to name "Narratives of Empire." The first was the one on Aaron Burr and the second on President Lincoln. Many of the fictional characters from the first two books have made it into the third, and many in the third have made it into the fourth, fifth, and sixth. You do not have to read them in order, actually the ones I have read were out of order, yet their impact was still great.

His fictional characters, like Mr and Mrs Sanford are fascinating, and the character of Charles Schuyler and his daughter are great. But it is his portrayal of President Grant, President Hayes, and Governor Tiden of NY who was literally robbed of the Presidency by the Republican party. At a mere two hundred thousand dollars the sec. of states, election board members, and governors had no qualms about changing the vote tally, and declaring the loser the winner. Yes, 1876 was undeniably one of the most corrupt moments in our country's history, but compared to the present day insanity it seems like a lot of nothing.

Mr. Vidal, when asked about his portrayals of such real life figures as Grant and Hayes, and the many inaccuracies in his portrayals simply says, "It's the way I see them. It is fiction, and in my reading of history, it is the way I see them." A daring statement from any writer, but he's not any writer. He is simply brilliant, and I highly recommend this book and the series.

[Adriano · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over verkiezingen en corruptie in de Verenigde Staten. Verrassend actueel...

[Steve Cooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

This third book in Vidal’s Narratives of Empire is a pleasant way to absorb facts about the politics and society of a defining period in American history - the presidential election of 1876.

We are shown the massive changes New York underwent in the period between 1836 to 1875 from the fictional narrator’s perspective, and we learn that greedy, corrupt politicians and election stealing are not particular to our times.

Perhaps it’s the narrator’s bias, but there seems to be a whiff of partisanship in the way the facts are presented here. Knowing that Vidal ran for political office a couple of times as a Democrat may explain a certain complaisance when it comes to the portrayal of that party’s corruption here and political corruption in general. Or perhaps Vidal just understood human nature.

The results, at any rate, are worth the effort. The style may feel pretentious, but that’s because Vidal expresses himself in a way that pretentious people are particularly drawn too. It doesn’t mean he’s trying to be superior, but it sometimes seems like he tries very hard (and succeeds for the most part) to be witty.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gore Vidal's "1876" is a satirical novel that amongst other things deals with the contested election of 1876 in which Samuel Tilden the Democratic governor of New York was robbed of the American presidency by cabal of Republican conspirators after winning both the popular vote and the electoral college. Under the deal known as the Hayes-Tilden Compromise, the Republican candidate Rutherford Hayes became President in exchange for which he withdrew the American Army from the rebel Confederate states opening the way for the southerners to create an apartheid regime in their territory whereby Blacks were segregated and prevented from voting. When "1876" was published (in January 1976) the election of 1876 was regarded not as the most crooked presidential election in American history but as the one with the most serious consequences.
I began reading "1876" because I thought it would provide insight into the Electoral College chicanery that was expected to follow the Trump-Harris election of this year. By the time I finished reading the novel in the early hours of November 6, it was obvious that Trump had won an overwhelming victory and that there would be no deals necessary to get a majority in the Electoral College. I did not regret having read the novel however as it was highly informative.
The problem as many GR reviewers have noted is that "1876" is not very entertaining. Much of the humour falls flat. The main problem lies with the protagonist and narrator, Charlie Schuyler. Charlie made his entrance in Vidal's "Empire" series in "Burr" where he is a literary device more than a true character. In "Burr" Charlie is a journalist working on a biography of Aaron Burr, the third vice-president of the USA. His function is to remind the reader that it is difficult if not impossible for a biographer or historian ever to obtain the true facts concerning his subject given the lies and deceits of the various sources. Charlie succeeds brilliantly as a literary device in "Burr" but fails miserably in "1876" where Vidal uses him as a character. Charlie is simply sleazy and unappealing. He fails utterly to engage the reader.
The first three quarters of "1876" is a satire comprised of Schuyler's snide comments about the high society of New York in the so called Gilded Age. Many of the characters are members of the leading families such as the Astors and the Belmonts. Charlie Schuyler is a talented journalist and illegitimate son of Aaron Burr who returns from Europe after a very lengthy absence. His daughter's marriage to a European prince has given her a title but has been a financial disaster. Schuyler needs to quickly obtain a patronage appointment and find a new husband for his daughter. Coming from a very old Dutch family, he has connections with the all the key families of New York's society.
The challenge of finding a husband for Schuyler's daughter works itself out in a satisfactory if not brilliant manner. Schuyler's quest for a government appointment dominates the last quarter of the novel where Schuyler works for the doomed Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden. Vidal provides an excellent narrative on how the Republicans were able to overturn the results of the vote in four states and then obtain the presidency for Rutherford Hayes Ultimately, the conspirators succeeded because a large number of Democrats wanted the American army to withdraw from the South and did not care whether or not a member of their party was president.
I found Vidal's story surprising but credible. The outgoing President Ulysses S. Grant is frequently portrayed as an innocent man. Under this version, Grant who was the military commander the Northern Army during the Civil War is supposed to have been strongly opposed to withdrawing the army from the south afterwards because the army was needed to protect Black voters from being attacked by the KKK and other similar groups. In "1876", Vidal describes Grant as being a great enemy of Tilden and other Democrats who had exposed corruption in his government. For this reason, Vidal implies, Grant worked hard to ensure that Tilden did not become president. In his desire for revenge, Grant agreed to the retreat of the army from the Southern States thus ensuring that the Blacks would lose their vote.
Vidal's version of events is provocative and possibly accurate. I do not know the era well enough to either refute or endorse Vidal's version of events but I am skeptical. Worse "1876" is a dreary read vastly inferior to "Burr".

[John Cooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read Burr, I went straight to its sequel, 1876, in which Burr narrator Charlie Schuyler returns to America after forty years in France. It's the Gilded Age, and everything is as different from the 1830s as in some ways it is the same. It's ten years after the terrible Civil War, and General (now President) Ulysses S. Grant is nearing the end of a more or less openly corrupt administration's second term. Several high-ranking members of the party of Lincoln are looking to succeed Grant and continue the status quo. Against them stands the priggish but upright reformer Samuel Tilden, governor of New York, the presumptive Democratic nominee. Schuyler, having lost his fortune in the Crash of 1873, resumes journalism in the United States while seeking an advantageous marriage for his widowed French daughter and an ambassadorial post for himself under the future President Tilden. Just as Burr consisted mostly of the young Schuyler's record of Burr's dictated memoir, 1876 is essentially the older Schuyler's notes for his book on the 1876 presidential campaign.

The older Schuyler is a much better narrator than his younger self: life has made him wry, and his pithy asides and descriptions are often hilarious. His financial anxiety and his continual fish-out-of-water perspective provide drama and perspective; he has a stake in everything that happens on both personal and political fronts. I personally liked this edition of Schuyler quite a bit, and my liking kept me engaged unti the remarkable election of 1876 reached its insane peak. Bush vs. Gore 2000? That was nothing. The military on standby as votes are counted, disputed, and manipulated, and public outcry reaches fever pitch? Trump vs. Biden was not at all new.

Just as Burr ended with a bit of an unforeseen but clearly foreshadowed twist, so too does 1876. I'm not sure I believe it, but it fits Vidal's view of human motivation, as I described it in my review of Burr. All in all, I enjoyed 1876 a great deal. I look forward to reading other books in the series.

[Fred R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another in Vidal's absurdly entertaining series. This, unlike Burr and Lincoln, has no powerful central presence to provide an anchor, and so occasionally falls flat, but the portraits of Tilden and Grant are both excellent, if tantalizingly elliptical. As a wishy-washy liberal, I wish he had emphasized more the corruption on the Democratic side of the 1876 contest (surely one of the most sordid elections in our history), but I suppose he had his reasons.

And what is his fixation on doting widowers and their intelligent, vivacious daughters? There are such in all three books of the series mentioned here. Does anyone have an explanation?

In a letter to Cynthia Ozick Saul Bellow said of Vidal "He has a score to settle with the USA. Anywhere else, he might have been both a homosexual and a patrician... democracy has made it impossible to be a gentleman invert and wit," and this goes, I think, some way to explaining the inanities he's been babbling for the last 30 years or so (I saw him speak once at Pomona and was disgusted by what he'd become), although his basic type is quite common in the history of America; the disillusioned,cynical aristocrat, modeled on Henry Adams and other scions of noble families who feel that America hasn't quite lived up to what they deserve.

P.S. I feel compelled to mention, now that I've loused him up so, that Gore Vidal can be seen on Youtube claiming that Bellow was better than Hemingway, Fitzgerald Faulkner.

[Shawn Thrasher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Might be a good book to read right now, as the zeitgeist of the original Gilded Age closely mirrors our own era (the new Gilded Age). Crazy politics and a contested election that nearly led to a second civil war provide the backdrop for recently returned American expat Charles Schuyler and his titled, widowed French daughter Emma's sojourn through the titular United States centennial year. Nearly destitute, they are trying to cash in on the riches to be gained from the rapid economic growth of the time. A cast of real live men and women from that era - James Garfield, Grant, the Mrs. Astor - interact seamlessly with these and other fictional characters Vidal wrote into being who populate his Narratives of Empire series.

[Jacob Elder]

i took a long break in the middle of reading this for reasons out of my control lol, but i like this book for similar reasons to its narrative predecessors, Burr and Lincoln. this one is a direct sequel to Burr, following its fictional protagonist Charlie Schermerhorn Schuyler (no relation to the famous Schermerhorns nor the famous Schuylers), who is now old and rotting from the inside. he is both charmingly rakish and totally obnoxious in a way similar to, i imagine, Vidal himself but with his worst qualities exaggerated. unlike Burr, this one is narrated entirely in the first person from Charlie’s perspective, so it’s consistently, incredibly funny and entertaining despite feeling a little thin in comparison to those other two novels.

it seems as though Vidal anticipated that he would have more to say about the election theft and the Gilded Age than he did. i think the issue is that the corruption is self-evident and widely acknowledged, while Vidal seems to have the most fun in satirizing some of the more revered figures of American history (as he does briefly with Grant here.) still, i think this succeeds elsewhere as a comedy of manners, and it’s as stylistically convincing as the other two, even if it feels like a bit of connective tissue between larger statements. i’m a big fan of these and i’m looking forward to reading further volumes of this work.

[Mr. Neumann · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book, but I would only recommend it to people who love historical fiction and deep dives into important and overlooked periods in American history. Vidal's research and attention to detail is mind-blowing. As I read, I had my laptop open to research historical characters and events, many of which I was familiar, but the overwhelming majority I had never heard of before. In most cases, Vidal's descriptions were clearer, more thorough, and more succinct than the internet sources that I scoured. It is absolutely amazing how many minor details Vidal incorporates with historical accuracy, down to an incredible Mark Twain cameo late in the book.

I have two quibbles:
1) Vidal's attention to detail is a positive attribute, but the sheer amount of facts and trivial details make this feel more like a reference book than a novel at times. I thoroughly enjoyed the story, but it is dry and it took me weeks, if not months to finish.
2) The plot arc is 90-95 percent setting events, which means that the climax (the election) and denouement (the constitutional crisis and shady compromise) were not developed enough for my liking. The real intrigue of this story is the aftermath of the election, but it felt like it was squeezed into 20-30 pages, which was not nearly enough for me.

But the descriptions of 19th century New York and DC alone make this book worth the time investment. And it was so interesting to learn more about the complexities of historical figures who are usually caricatures in other historical texts. Ulysses Grant was portrayed as a much more complicated, thoughtful figure than I would have given him credit for. I knew nothing about Samuel Tilden, James Garfield, and James Blaine, all of whom influenced this period of history and beyond.

tl;dr: Abolish the Electoral College

[Aidan Phillips · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this up randomly from my bookshelf, not realizing how the Trump post-election misinformation campaign imitates the Republican election steal of 1876. I finished the book just as a few Republicans threaten to reject the electoral college vote and, as in 1876-77, demand an electoral commission to investigate “contested states” - which are “contested” simply because someone says they are! Anyway, in addition to choosing to read it at an incredibly relevant time, it’s very well-written, entertaining, and informative - the choice of an aging journalist as narrator was an excellent premise for an eloquent account of a rapidly changing country, absurd politics, and immense societal inequities. Throughly enjoyable.

[Meirav Rath · Rating 4 out of 5]

This books was interesting, though I could do with less tiny details about American politics at the time. Without the fetching characters and the witty writing this book would have been a real bore.