The Hayes-Tilden disputed presidential election of 1876

Preface

Thirty years have now elapsed since the beginning of the presidential campaign which culminated in the most remarkable electoral controversy in the history of popular government. As yet, however, no adequate account of that controversy has been published. It has seemed to me that there is some need for such an account, and this book is the result of my effort, successful or otherwise, to supply it.

The book is based in large measure upon a collection of more than twenty thousand pages of congressional material, consisting of debates in Congress, of evidence gathered by various investigating committees, and of the proceedings before the electoral commission. This collection constitutes perhaps the most extensive and exhaustive one upon any subject of equal importance in American history, and the labor involved in examining and sifting it has been rendered all the greater by the fact that so much of the evidence contained in it is untrustworthy. As the reference notes will show, I have, in addition, drawn material from a great variety of other sources. I have, in fact, spared no pains to make my investigation as complete as possible. Upon most of the matters which are really vital I have, I believe, succeeded in obtaining the essential facts ; but

X Preface

I feel constrained to admit that I have not succeeded in penetrating the veil which surrounds some others. These last are matters which will, in all probability, always remain secrets, for the simple reason that those actors who could tell the truth conc^ning them will never do so. I may remark in passing that I have brought to light much that has never before been published, and that I have also learned many other interesting, though usually not very important things, which cannot be published because told to me under pledge of secrecy. In all cases, however, I have been able to make use of such facts in drawing conclusions.

It may be worth while for me to add that in interpreting the evidence regarding the situation in the contested states of Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina I have been greatly aided by experience gained some years ago while making an extended investigation in certain southern states of the workings of negro suffrage under present day conditions. In fact, I may say that without the insight thus gained my task would have been well-nigh a hopeless one.

There remains only the pleasant duty of acknowledging my obligations to the many persons who have assisted me in the work. To Hon. Carl Schurz, Hon. John Bigelow, Col. A. K. McClure, Hon. John Goode, Hon. William Dudley Foulke, Dr. Charles R. Williams, and Mr. Yates Snowden of the Charleston News and Courier; to Col. Webb C. Hayes, who allowed me to see his father's papers and who read the entire manuscript; to Mr. Edward Cary of the New York

Preface ^i

Times, who furnished me with information and read a portion of the manuscript; to Professor John R. Ficklen and Mr. Benjamin Rice Foreman, who read the chapter on Louisiana; to Hon. W. E. Chandler, who furnished me with much material and who read several of the chapters; to :Mr. Joseph M. Rogers, who had himself intended to write a book on the subject but retired in my favor and with rare generosity gave me the results of his investigations and read the more important chapters — to these gentlemen and to many others I owe a debt which I fear I shall never be able to repay. Nor must I forget to mention the many kindnesses shown me by my publisher, ^Ir. Charles W. Burrows, and the assistance rendered me by my father and by my wife in correcting the manuscript. Above all, I am indebted to Professor William A. Dunning, leading authority in this period of our history, for reading both the manuscript and the proof and thereby helping me to avoid many errors.

In justice to some of the persons named it should, however, be added that I alone am responsible for statements of fact and for conclusions. In many cases, perhaps unwisely, I have disregarded their

suggestions.

Paul Leland Haworth.

Columbia University.

THE DISPUTED PRESIDENTIAL

ELECTION

Chapter I Th^ Republican Dynasty In Danger

The year 1876 was the most notable of the period in American history between the close of the war of Secession and the beginning of the war with Spain. It was the year in which occurred the last of our important Indian outbreaks — a conflict made sadly memorable by the massacre of Custer and his troopers on the Little Big Horn. It was the year which marked the one hundredth anniversary of our independence — an occasion fitly celebrated by the great Centennial Exposition at Philadelphia. It was also the year of an election which resulted in a strange controversy that put our institutions to one of the severest tests they have ever been called upon to endure.

The political outlook prior to that election was in some respects an unusual one, For the first time since it had come into power there was real likeUhood that the RepubHcan party would be unable to elect its candidate for the Presidency. Successful in i860 by grace of the lack of unity among its opponents, it had in 1864 merged itself in that Union party which gave Lincoln his second term, and four years later, having resumed its independent status, it had been led to another overwhelming victory by the military hero who had ended the war. In the new President's first administration had occurred a division in the party fold. The Liberal Republicans, dissatisfied with the conduct of affairs and despairing of getting their views adopted by the party leaders, had in 1872 held a separate convention at Cincinnati and had nominated Horace Greeley of New York and B. Gratz Brown of Missouri. Thereupon the Democrats, seeing no hope of success with candidates chosen from among themselves, had, despite the fact that Greeley had been one of the highest of the high priests of Abolitionism, indorsed the Liberal Republican candidates and platform. But this unnatural alliance had wholly failed to avert a complete triumph of Radicalism ; out of the 349 electoral votes counted by Congress for President, General Grant had received 286, while the 63 remaining had been divided (Greeley having died before the electoral colleges met) among B. Gratz Brown, Thomas A. Hendricks, Charles J. Jenkins of Georgia, and David Davis of Illinois, ^

1 Cong. Globe, 42d Cong. 3d Sess., p. 1305, Three Georgria votes which had been cast for Greeley were not counted, and all the votes of Louisiana and Arkansas were excluded.

Rendered reckless by the seeming finality of their victory, the Radical leaders had fallen into the pleasant belief that the question of dispensing the loaves and fishes of political patronage was settled forever and that it was wholly unnecessary to carry through measures of reform which the Liberal Republicans had demanded and which many far-sighted men who had remained within the party desired. But there had soon been a rude awakening. The panic of 1873, the dissatisfaction due to the unsettled state of the monetary system, the bad condition of affairs in the South, the Credit Mobilier exposures, the so-called Salary Grab, the Sanborn Contract, and other scandals — all these things had worked mightily to the disadvantage of the party in power. ^ The result had been the great "Tidal Wave" of 1874. Out of thirty-five states in which elections were held twenty-three had gone Democratic ; even such Republican states as Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts had arrayed themselves in the Democratic column; and only a comparative handful of Republicans had been returned to the House. 2

In the new Congress, it is true, the Democratic members had not greatly distinguished themselves for wisdom or for political sagacity ;3 but the party had

1 These conclusions are based upon the files of The Nation, Harper's Weekly, and of the New York World, Times, and Tribune. See also Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, 4th ed., p. 302 ; Foulke, Life of Morton, II, pp. 344-352 ; Hoar, Autobiography of Seventy Years. I. pp. 305-369.

2 McPherson, Handbook of Politics for 1876, p. 255. 3. See Harper's Weekly, XX, p. 112.

been favored by the almost clock-like regularity with which scandals continued to reveal themselves, so that, although financial conditions were becoming better and the "Tidal Wave" was now running much less strong, the Democratic leaders were able to look forward to the approaching election with at least as much confidence as the Republicans.

The chief count that could be brought against the party in power was maladministration. That the government was in a deplorable condition no dispassionate student of history will venture to deny. Nor are the chief causes difficult to find. The nation had but recently emerged from the trying ordeal of the greatest civil war known to history. That war had left many troublesome problems, some of which time alone could fully solve. It had also necessitated a tremendous increase in the revenues and expenditures of the national government. From March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1861, the entire net "ordinary expenditures" had amounted in round numbers to but $1,580,000,000, as against the enormous sum of $5,200,000,000 in the fourteen years from June 30, 1861, to June 30, 1875. Furthermore, the number of civil employees of the government had increased from about 44,000 under Buchanan to more than 100,000 under Grant. ^ In the morally unhealthy atmosphere which inevitably follows

1 These comparisons were made in the Democratic Campaign Text Book, pp. 747-748. The figures are from the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1875 and from reports of the various departments. The "gross expenditures" were, of course, far larger.

a resort to arms, and amidst such favorable conditions as those just described, it was but natural that the Spoils System should produce its most noxious growth, and that political morality should reach perhaps the lowest ebb in our entire history. ^

The administrative demoralization of the country was, it must be conceded, due in part also to the personality of President Grant. Like rnany a successful soldier before him, Grant was by no means a finished statesman. Prior to his inauguration he had never held a civil office, and he did not clearly understand the workings of our political system. Starting out wuth the assumption that the Presidency Vv'as a sort of personal possession given him by the people to manage as he thought proper, he had, with the best intentions in the world, entirely ignored the party leaders in choosing his first cabinet. This independent policy had soon proved a failure, and he had been brought to the necessity of securing some support. In the contest to gain control of him which followed, the Radicals — Butler in Massachusetts, Conkling in New York, Cameron in Pennsylvania, Patterson in South Carolina, Morton in Indiana, and so on — had triumphed over the Liberals and had become the Pres-

1 For a different view see Hoar, I, pp. 309-311, and Foulke, II, p. 410. Tiie Republicans were able to show that the rate of defalcation per ^l.OCiO under Grant was considerably lower than under any previous President. This argximent failed to take into account the fact that most of the corruption at this time was not in the form of direct stealing from the government. Furthermore, there were under Grant many officials each of whom handled in the course of a year more money than was spent in that length of time by the entire government under Washington.

idential advisers and the dispensers of patronage. Thus the man who had begun by ignoring the pohticians had in the end allowed himself to fall entirely into their hands. The outcome was rendered all the more disastrous because the President, although a keen judge of military capacity, had no skill in choosing political subordinates and advisers. A thoroughly honest man himself, he was unable to detect dishonesty in others. His confidence was frequently abused by pretended friends, who brought him into disrepute, but whom, with misguided fidelity, he was unwilling "to desert under fire." In many ways, to be sure, his two administrations were by no means failures. Under him our disputes with England were peaceably and honorably settled, the national debt was greatly reduced, the Resumption Act was passed, and the South was kept as tranquil perhaps as a section which had so recently undergone such a complete social and political upheaval could be kept. Probably no other man then living could have filled the Presidential chair 'as well as he; yet the fact remained that the administration was pervaded with a lamentable demoraHzation which increased rather than diminished. Disclosures of wrong-doing followed each other with such astounding rapidity that inefficiency and fraud were suspected even where they did not exist. ^

1 For estimates of Grant which agree in the main with this see Garland, Life of Grant, pp. 385-449; Cox, Three Decades of Federal Legislation, pp. 672-673; McCulloch, Men and Measures of Half a Century, pp. 355-357; Andrews, The United States in Our Own Times, pp. 23 et seq.; and John Shermans Recollections I pp. 446-449, 474-475. Some excellent estimates of him i^

Disputed Election of l8j6 J

As the time for the campaign of 1876 drew near it was generally recognized that in Republican misgovernment the Democrats would find their best opportunity for attack. The wisest policy for them would be to drop the Southern issue and fight the battle on that of "Grant's maladministration," Said the New- York Herald on April i, 1876:

"Let the party trace every stream of corruption which now pollutes the country to its source, and call upon the country to rise and cleanse the source. Let the leaders begin the campaign on the violation of the Constitution involved in the appointment of staff officers and not statesmen to the Cabinet. Let them show how the moral sense of the nation was degraded by the selection of worthless relations and whiskeydrinking cronies to high offices here and abroad. Let them show how the Senate degraded itself by becoming a sharer in the plunder and patronage of the Executive. Let them show how the country was parcelled out like the provinces of the Roman Empire, every state with a Senatorial proconsul — Conkling in New York, Cameron in Pennsylvania, Patterson in South Carolina, and so on until the country, so far as the patronage is concerned, is under the dominion of an oligarchy which only opposes the President when he names men for office like Hoar and Dana, supporting him in his selection of a Billings or a Delano. Let them show how investigations in the House were made impossible so long as the brothers of members were allowed to hold trade posts and rob Indians and soldiers. Let were given in the newspapers published at the time of his death. For his apologry for his administrations see his last message to Congress. ,

; them show how scandal after scandal supervened until we had a Secretary of War at the bar of the Senate as a confessed robber and a Secretary of the Navy rapidly on his way thither for having used a million of dollars

Vto sustain a sinking banking house in London." ^

The indictment that could be drawn was certainly a strong one. The Republican party, rendered reckless by the possession of too much power, had been weighed in the balance and had been found wanting. In the minds of many a sincere patriot, proud of the record of a hundred years but humiliated by the fact that the centennial of the nation's birth must witness so much corruption in high places, there inevitably arose a desire for a political change.

Yet there was one consideration among other less influential ones which might perhaps save the party in power from merited rebuke. Bad as that party had shown itself of late, there nevertheless existed a grave doubt whether its opponent, in the light of the record of the past, was any more worthy of confidence. ^ Rightly or wrongly, men had not yet forgotten that not more than eleven years before a large section of the Democratic party had stood beneath the Stars and Bars in battle array against the Union; that another section of that party had been worse than lukewarm in support of the government which they now sought to control. With more truth than poetry it was still said that "not every Democrat was a Rebel, but every Rebel

1 This, of course, is overdrawn.

2 See, for example, Harper's Weekly, XIX, pp. 90, 170, 210.

Disputed Election ^f 1 8y6 /

,y was a Democrat." Would it be safe to trust the nation's affairs with men many of whom had once raised their hands against her life ? Would it not, after all, be better to keep in power a party which, whateverits faults, had always stood unflinchingly for the preservation of the Union? Upon the answers given to these questions seemed to depend the result of the forthcoming election.

Chapter II

the: RKPUBI.ICANS CAST ABOUT I^OR A I.EADER

With such a poHtical outlook it was almost inevitable that there should be a readjustment in the Republican party. The Radicals, discredited and somewhat chastened by defeat, began to show themselves much more amenable to advice ; it was apparent that the moderate element, whose watchword w^as "reform within the party," ^ would play a much more important part than hitherto. This state of affairs made it easier for many Liberals who were alarmed at the inflationist tendencies displayed by the Democrats and who approved the Republican stand on the Resumption Act to drift back into their former party.

For the first time since i860 there was real uncertainty as to who would be chosen to lead the Republican hosts. There was, of course, much talk about a third term. The newspapers, and especially the New York Herald, took up the subject; and during 1875 a great deal was said about "dynasties," "dictatorships," "Cassarism," and so on. In the spring of 1875 the Pennsylvania Republican state convention, moved by

1 For an article on this subject see Harper's Weekly, XIX, p. 274.

this outcry, passed a resolution against a third term. Thereupon President Grant wrote to General Harry White, chairman of the convention, as follows : "Now for the third term. I do not want it any more than I did the first ... I am not, nor have I ever been a candidate for a renomination. I would not accept a nomination if it were tendered, unless it should come under such circumstances as to make it an imperative duty — circumstances not likely to arise." The letter was regarded by many as a "declination with a string to it ;" people remarked that in the past, at Ft. Donelson and elsewhere. Grant had never shown any inability to make his meaning unmistakable. ^ In consequence, the discussion of his availability was kept up until the following December, when an effectual quietus was put to it by the passage in the House of Representatives, by a vote of 233 to 18, of a resolution declaring that any attempt to depart from the precedent established by Washington and other Presidents "would be unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to our free institutions." ^

With General Grant out of the way, the field was open for other candidates. Of these the most talked about were James G. Blaine of Maine, Roscoe Conkling of New York, Benjamin H. Bristow of Kentucky, and Oliver P. Morton of Indiana. In addition there were some "favorite sons," among whom were John F.

1 For an account of this matter and a copy of the letter see Garland's Grant, pp. 430-432 ; also Harper's Weekly, XIX, pp. 474, 494, 496, and 499.

Hartranft of Pennsylvania, Marshall Jewell of Connecticut, and Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio.

To outward appearances, Mr. Blaine seemed to have the best chance of securing the coveted nomination. He possessed a magnetic personality, and had attracted much attention as Representative and Speaker. In the Congress then in session he had kept himself in the public eye by systematically baiting the Southern members and drawing from them disloyal utterances which could be used by their opponents as party capital. 1 Mr. Blaine's friends were, in general, those men who were dissatisfied with the Administration yet were not reformers. ^ He was, of course, bitterly opposed by Senator Conkling, whom on a memorable occasion he had forever alienated by comparing him to a turkey gobbler. ^ Mr. Blaine was also regarded with but little favor by the reformers ; and his availability in their eyes was vastly lessened by the disclosure not long before the convention met of the celebrated "Mulligan letters" which purported to make some uncomfortable revelations regarding his alleged improper relations with the affairs of the Little Rock and Ft. Smith Railroad. ^ Nevertheless he was sure of the support of Maine and of enough votes in other states to give him a decided lead over any of the other candidates.

1 The Nation, XXIII, p. 173 ; also Johnson, An American Statesman, ch. 6.

2 Hoar's Autobiography, I, p. 378.

3 See reference to this in The Nation, XXV, p. 373 ; also Stanwood's Blaine, pp 66-72.

Senator Conkling would naturally have the support of practically all the delegates from his own state of New York/^ and was generally believed to be the candidate favored by the Administration. This latter fact was, however, a source of weakness rather than of strength ; for the influence of the Administration was at a very low ebb indeed, and one of the leading Republican weeklies declared that "the only man whom the Republicans can elect is some man whom the Administration coterie would strongly oppose, because his career and character would be the guarantee of a total change in the tone of the Administration." ^

Senator Morton was still another candidate who was not favorably looked upon by the reformers. While a man of great ability as a leader, he was a R.adical of the most intense type, and was credited with having defended the civil service as "the best upon the planet." ^ His nomination was opposed in the East because he was suspected of being a "soft money man ;" this suspicion was borne out by the fact that his organ, the Indianapolis Journal, was demanding the repeal of the Resumption Act. In addition, his chances were greatly lessened by the fact that he was so infirm physically that he was obliged to use crutches. He was, however, loyally supported by Indiana, and was so popular with the negroes of the South that a national convention of that race at Nashville on April 7th showed itself almost unanimous in

1 See his Life by A. R. Conkling, p. 504.

2 Harper's Weekly, XIX, p. 1028. 3 Ibid, XX, p. 443.

his favor. An ungrounded attack begun about the same time by the New York World upon his personal honesty reacted strongly in his favor, for it gave him an opportunity in a speech in the Senate to bring once more before the country his splendid services as "War Governor" of Indiana. ^

Of all the candidates, Mr. Bristow was apparently the man best fitted to lead a campaign whose watchword should be "Reform within the Party." As secretary of the treasury he had conducted a ruthless warfare against the Whiskey Ring; had not hesitated to secure the conviction of personal friends of the President; and had even ventured to bring about the indictment and trial of Orville E. Babcock, the President's private secretary. ^ By his activity he had, however, gained the ill-will of the President and of the Radical official coterie and had been blackballed by the New York Union League Club. ^ His chances were also weakened by the fact that he had not long been known to the country at large. On the other hand, -he was regarded with favor by the reformers and was supported by a large part of the more reputable Republican press. ^

Of the two other candidates most frequently men-

1 For a good account of Morton's candidacy see Foulke, II, pp. 387-396. The attack was made in the World of April 29th; Morton replied in the Senate on May 5th.

2 For an account of Bristow's fight against the Whiskey Ring see an article by H. V. Boynton in the North American Review for October, 1876, p. 280.

3 Harper's Weekly, XX, p. 418; New York Times, May 12th.

4 For his candidacy see Harper's Weekly, XX, pp. 182, 202, 382, 418. The Nation, XXII, p. 344, and Stanwood, Blaine, p. 178.

tioned, Hartranft had the support of the great state of Pennsylvania ; but his name appears to have been put forward less in hope of his securing the nomination than of keeping the Pennsylvania delegation in hand until it could be profitably thrown to some other man. ^ Hayes, the other candidate/had been indorsed by Ohio. He was then serving a third term as governor of that state, and in his various contests for that office had defeated three prominent Democrats — William Allen, George H. Pendleton, and Allen G. Thurman. He was sound on the money question, had a good war record, was without any important enemies, but wa-s not much known outside his own state. Few persons considered it likely that he would be nominated. ^

A month before the time for the convention at which the hopes of all but one of these candidates must be blasted there occurred in New York City an event of considerable political significance. In response to a call issued by Carl Schurz, Theodore Woolsey, Horace White, William Cullen Bryant, and Alexander H. Bullock, about two hundred gentlemen met in the Fifth Avenue Hotel to confer upon the political situation. Among those present, in addition to the persons who had issued the call, were David A. Wells, Charles Francis Adams, Mark Hopkins, Dorman B. Eaton,

1 Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, II, p. 568. The attendant circumstances bear out the theory.

2 McClure, in his Recollections of Half a Century, p. 99, says that if there had been a belief that the nomination would go to Ohio, Sherman would have been put forward. For Hayes's candidacy see Harper's Weekly, XX, pp. 3 22 and 162; Times of April 9th; and Herald of April 21st. For an account of his career see the campaign Life by William Dean Howells.

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Parke Godwin. H. C. Lodge, and Professor Seelye.

This Fifth Avenue Conference, as it was called, continued in session during the 15th and i6th of May, and, in addition to adopting a resolution in favor of civil service reform, issued an elaborate Address to the American People. This paper, which was from the able pen of Mr. Schurz, was in the nature of a warning to both parties. After deploring the unprecedented "prevalence of corrupt practices in our national life," the address continued: "We therefore declare . . . that at the coming Presidential election we shall support no candidate who in public position ever countenanced corrupt practices or combinations, or impeded their exposure and punishment"; no candidate "who has failed to use his opportunities in exposing abuses coming within the reach of his observation, but for personal reasons and party ends has permitted them to fester on ; . . .no candidate, however conspicuous his position or brilliant his ability, in whom the impulses of the party manager have shown themselves predominant over those of the reformer ;" no candidate about whom there could be room for question as to his being "really the man to carry through a thoroughgoing reform in the government."

Although the Radical Republicans and also many Democrats endeavored to belittle the importance of the conference by calling those in attendance "soreheads" and "sentimentalists," its action was generally felt to be very significant. ^ The Address showed, for one thing, that the independents would not accept a candidate Hke Blaine, Conkling, or Morton, and would support only a genuine reformer. The general sentiment of the conference had, in fact, been favorable to Mr. Bristow; and one of the most distinguished members, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, had openly stated that in case Mr. Bristow was not named, he would use his influence in behalf of the expected Democratic nominee, Mr. Tilden. ^

On June 14th, a month after the conference was held, the Republican convention met at Cincinnati. The meeting place was regarded as especially favorable to Bristow, for the people were more enthusiastic for him than they were for Hayes, and the city was also easy of access to Kentuckians. Numerous as were Bristow's supporters, however, they were, in the estimation of The Nation's correspondent, decidedly unpractical. "Looking at them, and seeing the thoroughly 'visionary' way in which they tried to push the fortunes of their candidate by appeals to the desire of the convention for honest government, and to the detestation of the delegates for all trickery and underhand proceedings, it was impossible for the most genuine reformer not to regret that they were too

1 Harper's Weekly for June 3(3.

2 In preparing this account of the conference I have consulted the files of the New York Times, Herald, World and Sun; of The Nation and Harper's Weekly; and of the Indianapolis News, Journal and Sentinel. Information has also been supplied me by Mr. Schurz.

moral to use other arguments."^ Mr. Bristow's friends were not the only ones in evidence: Hoosier supporters of Morton came "in trains and steamboats chartered for the purpose 'as thick as mosquitoes in blackberry time/ " ^ 2,nd "shouters" for most of the other candidates were present in goodly numbers. Almost every candidate had some colored supporters, but Morton was especially favored in this respect. Black orators descanting upon the merits of their candidate were numerous and voluble; their "speeches on the whole were very nearly as good as the white speeches, and infinitely more amusing, partly from internal causes and partly because they were so universally recognized as a piece of buncombe." ^