Tilden wins in 1876?
- Thread starter AdmiralBlake
- Start date
In my opinion Samuel Jones Tilden, did win the U.S. election of 1876, after winning a popular vote majority of 50.9%; it is only down to undemocratic votes cast by the electoral college.
As 19th President, Tilden would go down in history as a classical liberal member of the Democratic Party, the first Democratic President since the Civil War and a hands on President.
If he was allowed to sit as President, like he did in New York, he would again led the fight against the corruption of his previous President Ulysses S. Grant, he would change the tide on the seas of financial and political indulgence, that the politicians at the time were giving themselves.
Mark Twain was quoted in saying that "The Gilded Age is over, now is the Democratic Age."
As he said in his campaign he backed civil service reform and an end to Reconstruction, helping the Southern states rise to the level of their Northern Brothers. Advancing agricultural technology and advocating for civil rights for African-Americans.
He would win the 1880 election, with a slightly smaller majority.
There might be a different resolution to the Paraguayan War's aftermath if Tilden is president, since Hayes gave Paraguay a treaty allowing it to keep much of the land that might have been taken by Brazil or Argentina. Hayes is obscure here, but there's a "Presidente Hayes" region in Paraguay. 
I did a post on this in soc.history.what-if a few years ago based on Michael F. Holt's *By One Vote: The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876*
(Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas 2008) (my POD was that the Democrats had blocked statehood for Colorado):
***
Anyway, Holt notes (something I have mentioned here before), Tilden's
administration would have differed little from Hayes' in terms of policy.
Hayes ended what was left of Reconstruction, and of course Tilden would
have done the same. (Actually, it was Grant--after Hayes had finally been
elected on the morning of March 2--who ordered the troops in South
Carolina and Louisiana back to their barracks, which order guaranteed the
instant collapse of the Republican administrations in those states. But
for unknown reasons the order went astray, so it was left to Hayes to
issue similar orders within a few weeks of his inauguration. If Grant's
orders had been implemented, Hayes' reputation today might be a little
higher, since it would be harder to blame him for the betrayal of southern
African Americans.) Monetary policy? Both Hayes and Tilden were "sound
money" men, firm advocates of specie resumption (which was in fact
accomplished on schedule in 1879). Anyway, continued Senate control by
Republicans would have frustrated House Democrats' attempts to repeal the
Resumption Act even if Tilden had agreed to it (or if he had died and the
inflationist Hendricks became President). Civil service reform? Both
Hayes and Tilden made it a mantra, but Tilden would probably have been no
more successful in carrying it out than Hayes (consider all those
"deserving Democrats" ravenous for federal patronage after sixteen long
years out of power).
Another issue--one very important in the politics of the 1870's and
especially in Hayes' election as governor of Ohio in 1875--was Protestant
resentment of Catholic attempts to get a share of public school funds.
Tilden was probably indifferent to this issue. In 1875 the Democratic
legislature of New York had passed, and Tilden had signed, the "Gray Nuns
Act" which allowed Catholic nuns to teach in New York's public schools.
But in 1876, when the Republicans took control of the legislature and
immediately repealed the Act, Tilden just as readily signed the repeal. In
any event, Senate Republicans lacked the two-thirds vote to enact their
version of the "Blaine Amendment" throughout Hayes' term and indeed through
the rest of the nineteenth century. All they could do--often with the
support of Democrats--was to require western states to enact "Little Blaine
Amendments" as the price of admission to the Union. It is doubtful that
Tilden would disapprove of this, but in any event no additional western
states were admitted to the Union between 1877 and 1881. (Though if the
way Tilden wins is by Colorado not yet being admitted, presumably it would
be a candidate for admission. [1])
Finally, one of Hayes' most controversial acts was to deploy federal
troops to break up the massive (and massively destructive) strike by
railway workers against their employers in 1877. Would Tilden have acted
differently? Holt doubts it. Tilden had after all been an attorney for
railroad interests, and was no small-d democrat--he had recommended the
disfranchisement of non-property-owners in New York City's municipal
elections. The protection of property rights was too important for Tilden
not to intervene.
Basically, Holt concludes, the ultimate significance of the 1876 election
was not that Hayes was counted in and Tilden out, but that the Democrats
(after being routed in 1872) and Republicans (after being routed in 1874)
both made remarkable comebacks--not so much by persuading voters to switch
parties as by mobilizing supporters who had previously stayed away from
the polls (the Democrats who could not bring themselves to vote for
Greeley in 1872 and the Republicans who could not swallow the depression
and Grant-administration corruption in 1874). This [2] created the very
close competitive equilibrium between the two parties which would exist
until the depression of the 1890's.
[1] Of course another way Tilden could win (even without the three
disputed southern states) would be by carrying closely-contested Ohio--
according to Holt, Hayes had badly exaggerated the ease with which he
would carry it, and the Democratic National Committee did not spend
sufficient funds to help Tilden in the state.
[2] Along with suppression--not yet complete--of the black vote in the
Deep South, of course.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/rPhL80fOHK4/qmeCGWe_gMgJ
(Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas 2008) (my POD was that the Democrats had blocked statehood for Colorado):
***
Anyway, Holt notes (something I have mentioned here before), Tilden's
administration would have differed little from Hayes' in terms of policy.
Hayes ended what was left of Reconstruction, and of course Tilden would
have done the same. (Actually, it was Grant--after Hayes had finally been
elected on the morning of March 2--who ordered the troops in South
Carolina and Louisiana back to their barracks, which order guaranteed the
instant collapse of the Republican administrations in those states. But
for unknown reasons the order went astray, so it was left to Hayes to
issue similar orders within a few weeks of his inauguration. If Grant's
orders had been implemented, Hayes' reputation today might be a little
higher, since it would be harder to blame him for the betrayal of southern
African Americans.) Monetary policy? Both Hayes and Tilden were "sound
money" men, firm advocates of specie resumption (which was in fact
accomplished on schedule in 1879). Anyway, continued Senate control by
Republicans would have frustrated House Democrats' attempts to repeal the
Resumption Act even if Tilden had agreed to it (or if he had died and the
inflationist Hendricks became President). Civil service reform? Both
Hayes and Tilden made it a mantra, but Tilden would probably have been no
more successful in carrying it out than Hayes (consider all those
"deserving Democrats" ravenous for federal patronage after sixteen long
years out of power).
Another issue--one very important in the politics of the 1870's and
especially in Hayes' election as governor of Ohio in 1875--was Protestant
resentment of Catholic attempts to get a share of public school funds.
Tilden was probably indifferent to this issue. In 1875 the Democratic
legislature of New York had passed, and Tilden had signed, the "Gray Nuns
Act" which allowed Catholic nuns to teach in New York's public schools.
But in 1876, when the Republicans took control of the legislature and
immediately repealed the Act, Tilden just as readily signed the repeal. In
any event, Senate Republicans lacked the two-thirds vote to enact their
version of the "Blaine Amendment" throughout Hayes' term and indeed through
the rest of the nineteenth century. All they could do--often with the
support of Democrats--was to require western states to enact "Little Blaine
Amendments" as the price of admission to the Union. It is doubtful that
Tilden would disapprove of this, but in any event no additional western
states were admitted to the Union between 1877 and 1881. (Though if the
way Tilden wins is by Colorado not yet being admitted, presumably it would
be a candidate for admission. [1])
Finally, one of Hayes' most controversial acts was to deploy federal
troops to break up the massive (and massively destructive) strike by
railway workers against their employers in 1877. Would Tilden have acted
differently? Holt doubts it. Tilden had after all been an attorney for
railroad interests, and was no small-d democrat--he had recommended the
disfranchisement of non-property-owners in New York City's municipal
elections. The protection of property rights was too important for Tilden
not to intervene.
Basically, Holt concludes, the ultimate significance of the 1876 election
was not that Hayes was counted in and Tilden out, but that the Democrats
(after being routed in 1872) and Republicans (after being routed in 1874)
both made remarkable comebacks--not so much by persuading voters to switch
parties as by mobilizing supporters who had previously stayed away from
the polls (the Democrats who could not bring themselves to vote for
Greeley in 1872 and the Republicans who could not swallow the depression
and Grant-administration corruption in 1874). This [2] created the very
close competitive equilibrium between the two parties which would exist
until the depression of the 1890's.
[1] Of course another way Tilden could win (even without the three
disputed southern states) would be by carrying closely-contested Ohio--
according to Holt, Hayes had badly exaggerated the ease with which he
would carry it, and the Democratic National Committee did not spend
sufficient funds to help Tilden in the state.
[2] Along with suppression--not yet complete--of the black vote in the
Deep South, of course.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/rPhL80fOHK4/qmeCGWe_gMgJ
Tilden won the popular vote in large part because of the Redeemers in the South prevented African-Americans from voting (though admittedly there was fraud on both sides as well), and if you think that the man even remotely cared about Civil Rights, let alone would have been able to pass substantial bills to that effect through a Democratic Congress, you are dead wrong.
The few attempts that Hayes made to that effect once the troops were pulled out were overwhelmingly shouted down by Samuel Randall and his allies, and those at worst involved Federal Marshals overseeing the elections. He would essentially have to kowtow the party line or at least he line that Samuel Randall drew for him.
The few attempts that Hayes made to that effect once the troops were pulled out were overwhelmingly shouted down by Samuel Randall and his allies, and those at worst involved Federal Marshals overseeing the elections. He would essentially have to kowtow the party line or at least he line that Samuel Randall drew for him.
Civil Service Reform is another matter altogether, and its success in OTL largely owes to the successes of Cleveland in essentially forcing a constant turnover of Republican and Democratic administrations thru the 80's and 90's. I can't imagine Tilden getting a much stronger Act passed than one like the Pendleton Reform Act, but that is in large part because I am unfamiliar with how that argument in Congress went down, or how discussions proceeded in earlier Congresses. Whatever the case, he may end up suffering as Arthur had then, with opponents not already disgusted with him turning completely away, and some reformers not satisfied with the final compromise.
The 1878 House and Senate elections would color the remainder of his Administration given the results would either be more favorable to the Greenbacks, the Republicans, or a combination of both, with increased net losses for the Democratic Party. Depending on the size of the change that might mean that the Greenback Party would hold sway over who controls the chamber and could extract concessions in return for their support. Either way Tilden would essentially remain a lame duck given the Senate would remain Republican even moreso.
I can't see Tilden being nominated for a second term in '80, largely because of the opposition that would now be arrayed against him by the party bosses who stand to lose much to Tilden's continued calls for reform, as well as fears that he may very well lose them the election judging by the Congressional, Gubernatorial, and Legislative results of the past couple years. Senator Thomas Bayard seems the candidate most likely to at least openly challenge Tilden given their nominal rivalry from '76, his popularity among those factions which would be opposed to Tilden (notably Tammany Hall) but he would not have been popular among Silver or Greenback Democrats as Winfield Hancock in OTL was; inversely though, many who had backed Winfield Hancock would initially be for Tilden, likely leading to a situation where Bayard is in the lead though not having locked the nomination, Tilden is second, and Hancock is just barely third. From there it would be a steamroll effect where a few delegations switch over, allowing Bayard to clinch it.
If the resulting ticket would be liable to alienate the Silver and Greenback Democrats and, depending on who the Republicans nominated, its effect could be varied. However given that Tilden had been President for the last four years, the closeness of the OTL election, and the fact that Bayard would likely be driving away OTL Democratic voters, I believe that the Republican ticket would carry the election as it historically did.
The 1878 House and Senate elections would color the remainder of his Administration given the results would either be more favorable to the Greenbacks, the Republicans, or a combination of both, with increased net losses for the Democratic Party. Depending on the size of the change that might mean that the Greenback Party would hold sway over who controls the chamber and could extract concessions in return for their support. Either way Tilden would essentially remain a lame duck given the Senate would remain Republican even moreso.
I can't see Tilden being nominated for a second term in '80, largely because of the opposition that would now be arrayed against him by the party bosses who stand to lose much to Tilden's continued calls for reform, as well as fears that he may very well lose them the election judging by the Congressional, Gubernatorial, and Legislative results of the past couple years. Senator Thomas Bayard seems the candidate most likely to at least openly challenge Tilden given their nominal rivalry from '76, his popularity among those factions which would be opposed to Tilden (notably Tammany Hall) but he would not have been popular among Silver or Greenback Democrats as Winfield Hancock in OTL was; inversely though, many who had backed Winfield Hancock would initially be for Tilden, likely leading to a situation where Bayard is in the lead though not having locked the nomination, Tilden is second, and Hancock is just barely third. From there it would be a steamroll effect where a few delegations switch over, allowing Bayard to clinch it.
If the resulting ticket would be liable to alienate the Silver and Greenback Democrats and, depending on who the Republicans nominated, its effect could be varied. However given that Tilden had been President for the last four years, the closeness of the OTL election, and the fact that Bayard would likely be driving away OTL Democratic voters, I believe that the Republican ticket would carry the election as it historically did.
Edit: As usual David T provides a better insight than I could.
so essentially, on almost every issues, Tilden had the same policy as Grant?
I agree Tilden wouldn't have won in 1880, if he got the nomination, if he even sought the nomination.
Who would be the republican nominee in this situation? Blaine?
I agree Tilden wouldn't have won in 1880, if he got the nomination, if he even sought the nomination.
Who would be the republican nominee in this situation? Blaine?
What're the odds Grant takes it?
I think we have the makings of a timeline here
Stolengood
Banned
Oh, my god... I just realized: Samuel Tilden would be TTL's version of Jimmy Carter.
It depends a bit on how.
David Kahn in The Codebreakers recounts a forgotten sidelight of American history. After the popular vote in November 1876, it became clear that the electoral vote would be very close and could be decided by the disputed results in the Deep South; that is, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina.
In Florida and South Carolina, Republican officials offered to certify a Democrat win if paid enough. There were negotiations between these Republicans and Tilden's campaign managers.
The deals fell through for a number of reasons - mainly because the Democrats couldn't come up with enough money before the states had to issue their certificates. The Democrats also thought they could buy an elector in Oregon, and didn't need to pay the big bribes the southern Republicans were asking.
During these negotiations, Democrat operatives exchanged coded telegrams discussing the deals. These telegrams later fell into Republican hands and were decrypted. (Which explains Kahn's interest.) The scandal from this was limited, since the deals hadn't been made. But it was significant, and affected the 1878 elections.
One of the noisiest critics of "Republican corruption" and "the crime of '76" was revealed to be up to his neck in the bribery attempt. Many of the telegrams were sent or received by Tilden's campaign manager from Tilden's house (he was Tilden's son-in-law and lived there). According to Kahn, most Democrats had favored renominating Tilden so he could avenge 1876. This scandal killed that dead.
So...
PoD: one of the two schemes goes through, and Tilden is elected. Two years later, the bribery scheme is exposed. Republicans can (and do) claim that the election was stolen. Is there a constitutional crisis? Are the Democrats sufficiently embarrassed that they go down hard in 1880?
That's a fascinating story. If the scandal was exposed while Tilden was still in office, I'd guess the Republicans would try to impeach him. Would they have enough votes in the Senate to convict? That might depend on if the scandal broke before or after the 1878 midterms, I suppose. If conviction looked likely, would Tilden resign to spare himself the disgrace (a la Nixon), or fight to the bitter end?
Longer term, such a scandal might make the abolition of the Electoral College a plank of future reformist or Progressive campaigns. It might not happen immediately (for the 1880 or even 1884 elections), but perhaps it could be accomplished if something like the Progressive movement comes around early in the 20th century.
Doubtful.
Senators in those days were elected by the State legislatures, so the legislators who chose Senators in 1878/9 would themselves probably have been elected about 1876. So the scandal would have come too late to make much difference there [1]. So as OTL the Democrats would probably have taken control of the Senate at midterm, and even if they didn't they would have been well over the one-third plus one needed to defeat an impeachment.
[1] A clear example of this would be the midterm elections of 1854, when the Democrats suffered a crushing defeat in the HoR elections - yet actually increased their majority in the Senate as a result of such a "time lag".
Redhand
Banned
An interesting place to look at potential effects would be in the West as it pertains to railroads and Indian relations. It is significantly possible that some of Grant's more conciliatory measures in regards to the tribes would be erased by Tilden, who was sort of a railroad type of guy.
R. B. Hayes secured the allegiance of certain key Electors by, in effect, promising to end Reconstruction in the South upon assuming office. Had he not done so it is likely, in my opinion, that Mr. Tilden would have won.
If Tilden won in 1876 he would have won all of the Disputed electorals as the 19th President He would have likely ended Reconstruction which wouldn’t sit well with northerners he would have retracted Grant’s Policies but he would have only served one term he would lose the 1880 Election to James Garfield
Reconstruction was over anyway, and as much as I think Garfield could have been a great president had he not been assassinated, he was also not the likeliest to be nominated in 1880. He was not even in the running before the convention historically.