Talk:1876 United States presidential election

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 2, 2010.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Vago, Mike (November 27, 2016). "1876 saw an election even more crazed and contentious than 2016". The A.V. Club.

Removing "needs citations"

Just came to the article today, saw the "needs citations" banner, and as an independent non-editor, I recommedend that it be removed. There are no "needs citations" flags in the text, and there are a number of citations in place now.

Main graphic

I could be mistaken, but the main graphic, of the presidential election outcome on map, is confusing to me. Why here are republicans represented by blue states and democrats represented by red states. Am I missing out on a change in color association that was made some time ago? It is further confusing considering that all the states I would generally associate with voting liberal or conservative seem to be voting in the exactly opposite way they have for the past hundred years. Texas and most of the south for the democratic candidate and California and the east coast for a republican candidate. Somebody make sure that is right will you, and when you find out what on earth is going on somebody e-mail me please...natestaunton@hotmail.com

After the civil war the south did not vote republican for a long time as the republicans and their leader Lincoln had won the civil war and emancipated the slaves; something which the south clearly did not like. in the 20th century, the Democrat president Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights act and predicted the Democrats would lose the South for a generation, this has turned out to be so as you point-out. This is what people have been used to recently and don't know about the hatred for republicans by the south following the civil war. tpbradbury (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The colors didn't have any set standard until after the 2000 election. which actually set the standard we see today. The colored maps on television started in 1976. From 1976-1996 the Republicans were usually blue and Democrats red, but there were some networks that went the other way. A theory for Republicans being blue was that during the Civil War the Union had blue uniforms and all the republican states were in the North. Into the 20th century the red for the democrats could be that they are ideologically closer to Socialism and Communism the latter of which is identified with red. The modern day thought was red and republican both start with "r." Bbigjohnson (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over a one hundred year period states are going to change from one party to the other as their voters change. What made a state vote a certain way in 1876 or even 1976 isn't applicable now. California was a stone cold lock for republicans up until 1992. It just a few elections it has completely flipped. The South did not vote for a republican before or during the Civil War either. The party was formed leading up to 1860 Election. Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in any of the southern states in either the 1860 or 1864 Election. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, had better support in the US Senate from the republicans (82%)27-6, than from the democrats (69%) 46-21 and in the US House (76%) of republicans and (61%) of the democrats. All of the democrats in the South (Dixiecrats) voted against it. The media never mentions these facts. Bbigjohnson (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should some mention be made of Gore Vidal's novel 1876, which is an important book centering on this election? Probably doesn't count as historical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkewilde (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting curiosities

Anyone know why the format of the "The Controversy" headline is different to the others? --Rebroad 23:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) i do be;ieve that by Ruthaford b hayes winning that election didnt help our si tuation bak the at al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.228.8 (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise of 1877

I added a link to the Compromise of 1877 in the "see also" section, but really it should be mentioned in more detail in the article. -- Marcus 2 Jun 2005

I added a sentence about it in the intro. -- Kevin 8 Feb 2006

Hayes won by heavy voting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.39.101 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Two sets of returns"?

Quoth the article:

This led to each state submitting two sets of returns, one certified by the state's Governor (favoring Hayes), and the other certified by the state's legislature (favoring Tilden).

Does anyone know exactly what this means? Were two entirely separate sets of electors assembled, each sending its own electoral votes to Congress? --Jfruh 02:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rather two governors, as each side claimed victory in the gubernatorial elections. This didn't happen in all states, though. --24.17.17.26 18:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral picture peculiarity

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Oregon

Congressional acts regulating the conduct of presidential elections (1792 and 1845) both specified that vacancies among the Presidential Electors were to be filled by the remaining Electors. Oregon's Governor was unjustified in his attempt to certify one of the losing candidates.

In Ohio, the Electors recorded their proceedings in a book purchased by Gov. Hayes. This book was in use from 1868 until 1912. The book is currently held by the Ohio Historical Society. Chronicler3 18:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3[reply]

Um, I've looked up both of the congressional acts you mention, 1 Stat. 239 and 6 Stat. 721. The first act says nothing about replacement of vacancies in the electors. 6 Stat. 721 does mention vacancies, but reads:

Each state may by law provide for the filling of any vacancy or vacancies which may occur in its college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote … when any state shall have held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and shall fail to make a choice on the day aforesaid, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the State shall by law provide.

In neither case does it appear that vacancies among the electors were to be filled by the remaining electors unless the state legislature passed a law to that effect.

— DLJessup (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I have looked in the books I own on this topic but have not found this reference. I remember reading that Congress wanted to deal with the lack of provision for replacing Electors, which resulted in four vacancies in 1789. This is rather specific information, but I can't recall the book I read it in. Are the federal acts online? I would like to read them. I will do a google search. Sorry for the faulty information :-(

I see in The North Carolina Electoral College: The People and the Process Behind the Vote that the first instance of a replacement Elector there was 1808. According to Ohio Elects the President the first time an Elector failed to show up was 1812 - apparently Ohio did not have a provision for filling vacancies at that time because the vote was lost. The next time an Elector did not show up in Ohio was 1844, and a replacement was chosen. Chronicler3 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3[reply]

The Library of Congress has Statutes at Law from 1789 through 1875 online at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html, as part of A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1873. (In spite of the title, it's actually through 1875; they apparently didn't update the title when they got the additional two years uploaded.) It's a wonderful resource.

— DLJessup (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commies?

Is the buissiness about Wisconson having a Communist party that got 32 votes true? It sounds a little suspiscious to me. 68.39.174.238 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Name Communist did not exist (as a name) until 1916AD in Russia. What this might refer to is a Socialist Party. However if you are refering to a current election, then the info maybe found elsewhere this article talks about the Currupt election of 1876ADMagnum Serpentine 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Communist_League 108.131.126.108 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cooper's middle name

Peter Cooper had no middle name, or at least one that can be verified using Internet searches :-) . I am removing "Fennimore" until a citation can be given. For more information see: Talk:Peter Cooper

Lent 09:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding Samuel F. Cary's middle name

See: Biographical Directory of the United States Congress http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000216

Colorado

Does anyone know if Colorado's appointment of electors by its legislature is the last instance of a state choosing its electors by some means other than a popular vote? --Jfruh (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing ballots on Palm Beach County

Dare we note that in Palm Beach County a lot of votes were probably miscast because of the way the ballot was designed? And people thought 2000 was unprecedented! Timrollpickering 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having found the reference it seems that county in particular was a myth. But the ballot was confusing. Timrollpickering 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Scandal

The section on Democratic Party nomination says "The 12th Democratic National Convention assembled in St. Louis just nine days after the sex scandal" but it does not reference what sex scandal they are talking about. Does anyone have enough info to correct this? Jablair51 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. There wasn't one. (SEWilco 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

New York Times editor John C. Reid

I've read somewhere that Hayes' victory was somehow influenced by then New York Times managing editor John C. Reid. Any evidence about this? 124.104.27.225 11:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Filipino_Reader[reply]

There's a bit on this in George H. Mayer's The Republican Party: 1854-1966 page 194. According to his account everyone else in New York had assumed Tilden had won the election at midnight on polling day (the Herald had a results board which displayed 184 votes for Tilden by then) but Reid worked out that the Democrats would carry no more Northern states and that Louisianna, South Carolina and Florida would a) prove decisive and b) the election boards were controlled by Republicans. Reid went to the Republican HQ and convinced W. E. Chandler (secretary of the National Committee) who both dispatched telegrams and travelled to Florida to oversee the outcome.

Whilst Mayer states "To this day nobody knows which candidate was entitled to a majority of the electoral college in 1876" (page 195) he strongly supports the view that the intervention to ensure the results in those three states proved decisive. Timrollpickering 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of electors

One of the elector numbers must be wrong: if Hayes got 165 votes at first and 19 were undecided, this does not add up to 185.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The single disputed Oregon vote often causes confusion. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

headings for balloting

Does anyone know why the headings for the convention results are beneath the actual results? This is confusing, as it appears as if the presidential candidates were the vice presidential candidates. Also, the style of these headings (purple with a red dashed border) is not consistent with the other articles in this series and obscures parts of the text. I will wait a few days and if no-one objects will change the headings to better fit the article.Nathaniel Greene (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No question?"

The artcle acknowledges that there was systemic violence and fraud. How can there be "no question" who won the popular vote? 108.45.79.25 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United States presidential election, 1876. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Lincoln-Rooster ballot

In the Electoral Disputes section, it is very interestingly quoted that "In this election, many Democratic ballots were printed with the Republican symbol, Abraham Lincoln, on them", cited from the BBC. First, can we find an academic secondary source – newspapers are never perfect on academic facts, and we also want to be able to source things like specific states and counties in which the ballot ruse was committed.

More importantly (for both verification and as an important illustration to the reader), can anyone find an image of such a deceptive ballot? A google search turned up several Hayes–Tilden ballots, but they were all legit, though all from Northern states, so I'm thinking university libraries anywhere in key Southern states of the time like Virginia, Texas, and the Carolinas (and of course anywhere in DC) would be a good place to start looking. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Tilden get 4,288,546 votes or 4,286,808 votes?

Did Tilden get 4,288,546 votes (as indicated in the top template) or 4,286,808 votes (as indicated in the body of the article? bd2412 T 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Catholicism

Something of the anti-Catholic sentiment evident in Rutherford B. Hayes#Private life and return to politics and File:Grant to Hayes - I guess that reform bait wont work this side. Better try and anti-Catholic worm LCCN2008661717.jpg should be added to this article. Daask (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

Under the Electoral disputes section there is a paragraph where it is speculated that without issues like voter intimidation and suppression, Hayes would have won the election anyway. First of all, I'm not sure this kind of what-iffing is appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place. Even if it is, the paragraph relies entirely on a single source - an article in a defunct newsletter (?) called Buttons and Ballots. I don't know how reliable this source is, but it's definitely not authoritative enough to warrant speculation about who would have won "fair and square". At the very least, more/better sources would be needed. Jah77 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen multiple historians assert that one candidate would have won a fair vote and the other would have won a fair count but rarely going into detail as they're usually in general accounts rather than detailed analysis of the election. They also don't always make clear whether they're talking about the popular vote or the Electoral College, or for that matter if they're talking about votes actually cast or votes that would have been cast (or even votes that might have been cast differently under fairer circumstances). Timrollpickering (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Popular Vote Losing Election?

The 4th paragraph states that this election in 1876 "was the only presidential election in U.S. history in which the losing candidate won a majority of the popular vote" which, as a general statement seeming to apply to all Presidential Elections to date, is not accurate. LaEremita (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the statement is inaccurate as it is written. Even if the article was simply outdated, the 1888 United States presidential election had the same outcome and Grover Cleveland lost the electoral vote but won the popular vote. Perhaps the original author at the time meant it "was the only presidential election in U.S. history at the time in which the losing candidate won a majority of the popular vote" but lost the election? The 1824 United States presidential election may arguably be the first popular vote win and electoral loss, since Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the presidency to John Quincy Adams, but Andrew Jackson still won the electoral vote. Tjprins (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since you commented this nearly a month ago and it wasn't addressed, I decided to remove the statement and merge the two preceding sentences. The introduction should be more accurate now. Tjprins (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in this case "majority of the popular vote" means more than 50%. In the other elections mentioned, the candidate who won the popular vote didn't get over 50%. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, we can revert the text, but we should make it more clear that "majority" in that context is referring to over 50% of the vote, something like: "was the only presidential election in U.S. history in which the losing candidate won more than 50% of the popular vote". Even then, though, I think it's not a worthy distinction because 50% of those who voted does not mean 50% of the voting eligible population. Tjprins (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the removal honestly because I don't think the text was particularly clear. I was just commenting to explain what the majority part might mean. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]