1876 is just a normal election

January First-of-May

What if, either by seat apportionment or by voter will, the 1876 election clearly went for Tilden?
IOTL, Hayes got 185 electoral votes versus 184 for Tilden, after contesting everything he could; Tilden, AFAIK, won 53% of the popular vote.
ITTL, say, after a different seat apportionment (OTL 1876 one didn't seem to use any method, and all major methods of the time give the result I want), the most Hayes can get after contesting everything is 184 or 183 (or 182, or 181, or 180 - it doesn't matter much), and Tilden wins anyway; so, Hayes probably just concedes the election by December, and none of the lengthy OTL debates happen.
Now, AFAIK, political views of Hayes and Tilden were rather similar (not unlike Bush and Gore in 2000), so no change there; but, notably, after the debates, both candidates agreed on ending Reconstruction.
So, suppose 1876 election is more clear - as much, say, as any OTL election from 1880 till 1892. What happens to the Reconstruction, and in the longer run, to the Civil Rights; and do the actual political views (which you probably know better than me) change anything?
Oh, and is that even plausible, or do I have to make some other POD?


...So what, how?
January First-of-May
 

johnjcakos

I just wanted to mention a short story I like very much on the subject of a Tilden victory in 1876. It's called Patriot's Dream, by Tappan King and it's in Mike Resnick's anthology Alternate Presidents. A bit idealistic maybe, but very well written.
 

Shawn Endresen

The rest of the 19th century is likely to see a nasty and violent "discussion" about civil rights (not that it wasn't already nasty and violent for African-Americans). Tilden will withdraw troops from the South, but he's pretty clear about it being a cost-cutting measure - he wants to lower taxes and reduce spending (which means cuts to the Army), and will be making cautionary statements to the effect that the troops will be back if the freedmen's rights are violated. That's probably an empty threat, but it's not nearly as conciliatory as OTL's talk (and it leaves a faction of the Republicans who will be very loud about Tilden being too soft on the dirty rebels; I suspect our Republican president in 1880 will be a hawk and a firebrand, not one of the conciliatory types OTL saw).

So unlike OTL, you have a North frequently threatening to reinstate Reconstruction. The question becomes - how serious are they really? (in my opinion, probably not very). And - how seriously does the South take that threat?
 

Mikestone8

Shawn Endresen said:
So unlike OTL, you have a North frequently threatening to reinstate Reconstruction. The question becomes - how serious are they really? (in my opinion, probably not very). And - how seriously does the South take that threat?
Click to expand...

They probably take it seriously - but they can't get any more solidly Democratic than they already are, so it makes little odds.

As for the Republicans, the only way they can revive Reconstruction is if they control the White House and both houses of Congress. Afaik, the only time they did so between 1875 and 1897 in 1889/90 - and even then only by a slim majority. In that interval, they did, OTL, try to push through a Force Bill, to strenthen control of Federal elections, but it didn't get through the Senate. Nor, most authorities believe, would it have made a huge amount of difference even if passed, assuming indeed that it wasn't almost immediately repealed under Cleveland.

The earliest serious chance of doing anything would seem to be McKinley's Administration, and by then the events of the Tilden years are very ancient history, while the Reps are doing well enough in the north that they don't really need to waste time on chasing southern votes of whatever colour.
 

January First-of-May

mtk1701 said:
Have you tried Amazon?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I live in Russia. I don't think those guys selling it for $5 are going to pay for shipping to Russia, and otherwise it's probably way outside of my preferred price range ($50 if I'm lucky). I just wondered whether it is somewhere on the Internet for free.

Also, are Tilden's political views really so far from what was agreed to IOTL? And if so, in what exactly? (Oh, and which POD will be the most plausible way for a more clear 1876 election? You don't seem to have said anything about that.)
 

Mikestone8

January First-of-May said:
(Oh, and which POD will be the most plausible way for a more clear 1876 election? You don't seem to have said anything about that.)
Click to expand...

Perhaps have a row about Chinese immigration flare up in 1876 instead of 1880, and throw California and Nevada (maybe Oregon too) into the Democratic column.

Alternatively, have President Grant send federal trops into Mississippi in a vain attempt to keep Adelbert Ames in office as Governor. This upsets enough northern voters (thoroughly brassed off with the continual troubles in the South) to switch Ohio to Tilden (OTL, Hayes carried it by less than 1%) giving him 23 extra votes and making the Southern disputes irrelevant.
 

mtk1701

January First-of-May said:
Sorry, I live in Russia. I don't think those guys selling it for $5 are going to pay for shipping to Russia, and otherwise it's probably way outside of my preferred price range ($50 if I'm lucky). I just wondered whether it is somewhere on the Internet for free.
Click to expand...

Well, in that event, I tried a bit of googling, but couldn't find anything. Wish I could be of more help.
 

Cylon_Number_14

Tilden need only have earned a bit more than 2000 more votes to win California and the Election.

I considered a timeline in which this leads eventually to the Populists as a viable third major party. Basically, the laissez faire Democrats and the pro-industry Republicans, distracted and obsessed with trying to win the key state of New York every four years, so that the Populists throw the election of 1892 into the HOuse and gain serious momentum in the West in the 1890s, and then becoming a viable opposition to the Democrats in the South at the turn of the century. Yah, I know that this is unlikely to happen due to Duvergers Law, but it's a fun scenario.

Another idea: what if Hayes won the election without any shenanigans? Would he have ended Reconstruction anyways?
 

Mikestone8

Cylon_Number_14 said:
Another idea: what if Hayes won the election without any shenanigans? Would he have ended Reconstruction anyways?
Click to expand...

He wouldn't have had much choice. The Democrats controlled the HoR (and after the 1878 elctions would hold the Senate as well) so could choke off funding for military occupation of the South. Indeed, it had practically ended already. By 1876 the entire US Army was only about 27,000 men, of whom only 3,000 were in the South. As the First Lady observed to a critic of her husband's policy "What was Mr Hayes to do? He had no army". She exaggerated, but not by much.

Even if he somehow contrived to keep Reconstruction going, it wouldn't have amounted to a great deal. By the time of his inauguration, Radical governments were clinging on in only two states, SC and LA. Given that northern voters were increasingly cheesed off with the troubles of the South, if the Army is still intervening there come 1880, the Democrats are virtually certain to win, and President Hancock will pull out the remaining troops. So at best it is only a four-year reprieve in two states, and even that is unlikely.

I often think that Mr Hayes was a far smarter politician than he's susally given credit for. He forced the South to allow him an uncontested inauguration in return for something he would almost certainly have had to do in any case. IOW, they paid for something they could very soon have had for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top