Reconstruction Makes No Sense?

Just a couple questions:

- Georgia was readmitted to the Union on July 15, 1870... but they were allowed to vote in 1868? Why weren't Mississippi, Virginia, and Texas allowed to vote in that case? What made Georgia special? All I can find is that Georgia cast votes with no real reason behind it.

- Hayes believed that without Democratic threats, he would've won 40 electoral votes in the South due to the Freedman population. Perhaps he overestimated white votes, but anything I can find lists Louisiana and South Carolina as the only majority Freedman states. I've heard tales that Mississippi would've turned as well, giving Hayes a decisive victory, but I've only found population estimates that show the state with majority white population.

Does any one have answers to these predicaments? Basically, how did Georgia vote? And would Hayes have won in an honest election, anyway?
 
Hmmm, well the only reasons I can think of (since I know little about that time in the US) is that sometimes political decisions have a personal overtone to them. That is they are made to reward their friends and shaft their rivals.
Georgia may have been allowed to vote early because it's congressmen supported the politicians who let them vote early :rolleyes:
 
- Hayes believed that without Democratic threats, he would've won 40 electoral votes in the South due to the Freedman population. Perhaps he overestimated white votes, but anything I can find lists Louisiana and South Carolina as the only majority Freedman states. I've heard tales that Mississippi would've turned as well, giving Hayes a decisive victory, but I've only found population estimates that show the state with majority white population.

Does any one have answers to these predicaments? Basically, how did Georgia vote? And would Hayes have won in an honest election, anyway?

Responding to the second vote, the first thing you have to realize is that the republican support isnt just freedmen. A state could be white-majority and still, in theory, go republican.

As for the other states, it really depends on who you ask. In South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, the Republican government basically threw out a ton of democratic votes as illegitimate, enough to swing the states. On the other hand, one of the reasons that they had to do this was democratic intimidation and fraud. The reverse happened in Mississippi; a democratic government intervened to ensure that they would carry the state (incidently, this is why the republicans never contested the results in mississippi: their case for victory was based around the idea that the state-certified count of votes was legitimate. to challenge the results in mississippi would be to invalidate their argument, and thus probably lose the election).

Could Hayes have won an honest election? Yes. Could tilden? Yes. Was the election going to be honest? No.
 
Responding to the second vote, the first thing you have to realize is that the republican support isnt just freedmen. A state could be white-majority and still, in theory, go republican.

In theory yes. But I'm willing to bet less than 10% of the southern white population voted Republican AT ALL. The only Republicans in the south were freedmen, carpetbaggers, and soldiers who were allowed to vote. The only legitimate voters in that pool being Freedmen. If you take out the carpetbaggers and soldiers, then in the majority of southern states Tilden wins a decisive victory.

According to wikipedia (yes I know) South Carolina and Louisiana were the only states with a majority black population. This would only change Florida's vote giving Tilden 188 to Hayes' 181. If anyone could find any better population estimates, I'd be ecstatic.
 
In theory yes. But I'm willing to bet less than 10% of the southern white population voted Republican AT ALL. The only Republicans in the south were freedmen, carpetbaggers, and soldiers who were allowed to vote. The only legitimate voters in that pool being Freedmen. If you take out the carpetbaggers and soldiers, then in the majority of southern states Tilden wins a decisive victory.

According to wikipedia (yes I know) South Carolina and Louisiana were the only states with a majority black population. This would only change Florida's vote giving Tilden 188 to Hayes' 181. If anyone could find any better population estimates, I'd be ecstatic.

I dont have any precise numbers, but the idea that the republican support in the south was entirely dependent on northern emmigres and freedmen is false. There were a large number of southern whites who had opposed the confederacy, and many of those were still in the republican column. Freedmen alone are not enough to carry the south (although it is true that the only OTL republican victories there were in states with large african-american populations), but in combination with white republicans they are a not-insubstantial force.

And im not sure if you can just chalk up the votes of the states so easily. 1876 saw widespread fraud on both sides. A few years ago, when I first looked into this topic in depth, I would have said that, in all probability, Tilden was robbed of the election. But the truth is, both sides were activly subverting the democratic system that year. Maybe Hayes did win, or should have won, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana (Oregon's electoral-vote being a different matter altogether). But it would be very difficult to prove this, and simple population estimates are enough to do so (although they are a good start).
 
There were a large number of southern whites who had opposed the confederacy, and many of those were still in the republican column.

I'd really need a citation for that statement. When Sherman's armies rampaged through the south, I'm sure they didn't take time to determine which Confederates were secessionists in 1860 and which weren't. The destruction that followed and the carpetbagger rule with it disenfranchised the Republican Party to any southerners who were thinking about leaning Republican. Don't forget that the Republican Party had to be put in the south by force to begin with. Missouri had Lincoln on the ballot in 1860, receiving less than 10% of the vote. South of Tennessee one could not even think about voting for Lincoln. Keep in mind this was the major Party six years in the making and the south STILL wouldn't put them on the ballot.

but in combination with white republicans they are a not-insubstantial force.

A very powerful force. One Grant was relying on for eight years I'm willing to bet.

But it would be very difficult to prove this, and simple population estimates are enough to do so (although they are a good start).

Exactly! Hence I need the population estimates and then I'll go from there...

I think the idea is that in Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, etc., the Democrats (KKK having been declared illegal by now) scared the Freedmen into voting and carried the states without a contest. In Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina, any action by the Democrats to scare the Freedmen population into voting would've backfired and been met with force by the military. Still, the Democrats in the state rallied together their voters and legally carried the state while at the same time the Republican bigwigs in control of the states used the legislative system to cast electors.

Maybe in an honest election Hayes might win different southern states while Tilden would win the ones disputed in OTL.
 
I'd really need a citation for that statement. When Sherman's armies rampaged through the south, I'm sure they didn't take time to determine which Confederates were secessionists in 1860 and which weren't. The destruction that followed and the carpetbagger rule with it disenfranchised the Republican Party to any southerners who were thinking about leaning Republican. Don't forget that the Republican Party had to be put in the south by force to begin with. Missouri had Lincoln on the ballot in 1860, receiving less than 10% of the vote. South of Tennessee one could not even think about voting for Lincoln. Keep in mind this was the major Party six years in the making and the south STILL wouldn't put them on the ballot.
There's a bit of a difference between 1860 and 1876, though. There were some Southerners, at least, who definately swung around from being strong supporters of the Confederacy to being Republicans. Heavens, the "scalawag" slur didn't come out of thing air-- there are recorded instances of Southerners (such as Albert Parsons or, more famously, James Longstreet) becoming Republicans postbellum.
 
Last edited:
Top