Rutherford B. Hayes

Rutherford B. Hayes by Hans Trefousse

Tier 3

When going through presidents, one can unfairly judge someone by comparing them to their predecessor. This is an unfair practice that has tainted many presidents. Is it Howard Taft’s fault that Teddy Roosevelt was president before him? No. Was it Lyndon Johnson’s fault that he followed a young, handsome, outwardly idealistic war hero John F. Kennedy? No. But they are always compared to those larger-than-life figures (we’ll get to each of them in their own time, and I assure you no one outstrips Johnson in terms of personality), justly or otherwise.

Hayes falls into that category for me. Not that he was some exceptional individual or president, but simply that he feels dull compared to Grant, one of my favorite figures in U.S. history.

Some basic facts—Hayes was born in Ohio, served in their House of Representatives, and eventually became Governor of that state; he fought for the good guys in the Civil War; and was elected president in possibly the most debilitating election in U.S. history. Ultimately that election is what he is known for.

Alternately known as the Compromise of 1877 and the Bargain of 1877, Hayes was elected under a cloud of controversy that resulted in the abandonment of both Lincoln and, later, Grant’s attempts at equitable Reconstruction in the South. As it is the primary thing Hayes is remembered for, let’s get into it.

In the 1876 presidential election, Hayes ran against Samuel J. Tilden, an anti-slavery Democrat formerly of the New York political machine. He ran on a similar platform to Hayes that dealt mainly with civil service reform which was all the rage in the late 19th and early 20th century. Despite Tilden’s support for the Union during the Civil War, southern Democrats (aka virulent racists) supported him hoping to be able to end Reconstruction in the South and return to the antebellum status quo. Would Tilden have gone along with this? We have no way of knowing.

Tilden won the popular vote by around 250,000 votes. He also won the electoral college 184 to 165. However, four states—Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina— returned disputed results. If any of these states went for Tilden, he would reach the necessary 185 votes to secure the presidency.

Three of the four disputed states—Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina—still had federal troops occupying them to maintain order post-Civil War. They ensured that African Americans could vote in elections and hold office. Each of these states had elected Republican governments and only loosely were able to maintain power under the constant threat of Democrat revolt.

Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, Republicans the Senate. There was a sitting Republican President—Grant—whose power was severely neutered following several scandals.

Ok, I think that brings us up to speed.

Congress passed an Electoral Commission Act to establish a fifteen-member body—eight Republicans, seven Democrats— to rule on the disputed states. This body rules along party lines in favor of Hayes, granting him all the disputed twenty electoral votes and, subsequently, the presidency. The only way for the commission’s findings to be overturned would be for both the Senate and House to reject them. The Republican-led Senate approved the results, and Hayes became president.

End of the story, right?

Wrong.

The nation was fragile, held together with tape and staples, if you will. The Democrats in the South, almost all of whom had fought for the Confederacy and longed for a return to the post-Civil War order, were fuming. They were on the precipice of revolt. And how would the nation handle a second Civil War so close after the bloody catastrophe of the first?

The Republicans were not inclined to find out and set about striking a deal with the Southern Democrats. There are other factors in the compromise—some money for the industrialization and recovery of the South and a railroad to pay off a businessman who helped negotiate it. Still, the crux was the removal of federal troops from Southern states and an end to Reconstruction. This amounted to the complete abandonment of African Americans in the South and a concession that racist Southern Democrats could resume their pre-Civil War practices. They couldn’t call it slavery, but they could do what they wished.

If you wish to know more about the horrors these Southern States inflicted upon their Black population, I highly recommend Douglas A. Blackmon’s seminal book, Slavery by Another Name. Suffice it to say, it’s awful. Blacks were disenfranchised, imprisoned on any and all pretenses, forced into labor that could only be called slavery, and often murdered on a whim. This continued until World War II, when they were again met with horrible treatment during and after that war.

Now, I won’t claim that if it weren’t for the Compromise of 1877, we’d be living in some racial utopia, but it’s hard not to pinpoint this moment as a turning point. It would always be a struggle to convince the white population of the South to reshape their society, but the nation should’ve tried. Ultimately, they did not because Republicans and Northern, anti-slavery Democrats cared more about their peace and financial prosperity than the lives and rights of Blacks in the South. This is a dark moment in our history, and its reverberations echo into the present day.

As for Hayes, this wasn’t his fault. He didn’t negotiate this compromise, but he went along with it. He removed the remaining federal troops from the South (Grant pulled them from Florida before leaving office) and didn’t fight to maintain the hard-fought rights won by blood for Blacks in the South.

Hayes attempted civil service reform, handled a railroad strike, and argued over currency during his term as President. Trefousse, the author of this biography, focuses more on these things than on the compromise that brought him to office, but it doesn’t take. When I think of Hayes, I think of 1877 and the abandonment of Reconstruction. I think of how those racist Confederates managed to shape the legacy of Reconstruction into one of carpet-bagging Northerners. I think of what it must’ve been like to have been a Black man in the South who watched the ravages of the Civil War and saw a brighter future snatched away from him in the blink of an eye. I think of the Black men elected to state governments who were summarily run out of office and tormented for having tried to rise above their perceived station.

This sad moment in our history is probably unfairly linked to Hayes. Historians are split on what Republicans should’ve done in this situation. Some say it was essential to avoid a second Civil War. Others say it was their responsibility to protect what the war had been fought over. I’m sure you can guess that I fall into the latter of these two camps.

Trefousse’s biography is not particularly memorable. I highly recommend Blackmon’s book. It is essential reading if you want to understand our nation’s history. It is not a biography of Hayes, but it is an important book and, quite frankly, better than this biography.