Hoe die verkiesing van 1876 die grondwet getoets het en die heropbou effektief beëindig het

Hoe die verkiesing van 1876 die grondwet getoets het en die heropbou effektief beëindig het

Die uitslae van die Amerikaanse presidentsverkiesing van 1876 was 'n gemors. 'N Demokratiese kandidaat het met die voortou gekom in die algemene stemming, maar 19 verkiesingsstemme uit vier state was in geskil. In 1877 het die kongres vergader om die verkiesing af te handel - en die oplossing was die begin van die einde vir heropbou in die suide.

Destyds het die steun vir heropbou oor die hele land afgeneem. Aangesien die Republikeinse Party die federale regering byna 'n dekade lank oorheers het nadat die burgeroorlog geëindig het-deels te danke aan duisende pas afgetrede Afrika-Amerikaanse mans-het die heropboubeleid van die kongres in die vroeë 1870's tot tweeledige regerings in die suide gelei.

Maar 'n ernstige ekonomiese afswaai in 1873 het die land tot dusver in die ergste depressie gedompel, met wydverspreide werkloosheid en dalende katoenpryse wat die suide se ekonomiese herstel na die oorlog belemmer het. Die ekonomiese ellende van die land en bewerings van 'n hewige korrupsie in die presidensiële administrasie van Ulysses S. Grant het gehelp dat die Demokrate in 1874 die eerste keer sedert die oorlog beheer oor die Huis van Verteenwoordigers kon wen.

Rekonstruksie afbreek

Rassisme bly 'n deurdringende krag in die noorde sowel as die suide, en teen die vroeë 1870's het baie Noordelikes die heropbou se probleme begin blameer vir die vermeende minderwaardigheid van swart kiesers.

Terselfdertyd het die belangrikste besluite van die Amerikaanse hooggeregshof betrekking gehad op die beskerming van grondwetlike wysigings en wetgewing uit die heropbou-era. In die beslissing van die hof in die slagplase -sake (1873) is vasgestel dat die 14de wysiging slegs van toepassing was op voormalige slawe en slegs regte beskerm deur die federale regering, nie deur die state nie.

Drie jaar later, in die Verenigde State teenoor Cruikshank, het die Hooggeregshof die skuldigbevindings van drie wit mans wat skuldig bevind is in verband met die slagting van meer as 100 swart mans in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873, as deel van 'n politieke geskil omvergewerp. Die mans is skuldig bevind aan die oortreding van die handhawingswet van 1870, wat sameswerings verbied het om die grondwetlike regte van die burgers te ontken en bedoel was om geweld deur die Ku Klux Klan teen swart mense in die Suide te bekamp.

Die uitspraak van die Hooggeregshof-dat die belofte van die 14de wysiging van behoorlike proses en gelyke beskerming die skending van die burgerregte deur die state, maar nie deur individue nie-sou vervolg, sal die vervolging van anti-swart geweld steeds moeiliker maak, net soos die Klan en ander wit oppergesaglike groepe het gehelp om swart kiesers uit te skakel en die blanke beheer oor die Suide te herbevestig.

Rutherford B. Hayes tree op as president

In 1876, toe die nasie na die stembus gegaan het om Grant se opvolger te kies, het die demokratiese kandidaat Samuel Tilden, goewerneur van New York, na vore gekom met 'n voorsprong van meer as 260 000 gewilde stemme. Maar Tilden het slegs 184 verkiesingsstemme bymekaargemaak - een skugter van die getal wat nodig was om sy Republikeinse teenstander, goewerneur Rutherford B. Hayes van Ohio, te verslaan. Opbrengste uit drie state (Louisiana, Florida, Suid -Carolina) was in geskil, met beide kante wat die oorwinning beweer het. Saam verteenwoordig die state 'n totaal van 19 kiesstemme, wat saam met een betwiste kieser uit Oregon genoeg sou wees om die verkiesing van Hayes te verander.

Die Amerikaanse grondwet bied geen oplossing vir die geskil nie, en nou sal die kongres moet besluit. Namate die Demokrate die Huis van Verteenwoordigers beheer het, en die Republikeine in die Senaat oorheers het, het die twee partye 'n kompromie aangegaan deur 'n tweeledige verkiesingskommissie saam te stel met vyf verteenwoordigers, vyf senatore en vyf regters van die Hooggeregshof.

Alhoewel die kommissie veronderstel was om uit sewe Republikeine, sewe Demokrate en een onafhanklike te bestaan, val die onafhanklike - Hooggeregshofregter David Davis - uit as hy 'n senaatsitplek aangebied word, en 'n Republikein word aangestel om hom te vervang. Uiteindelik, na 'n reeks stemme langs streng partylyne, het die kommissie aan Hayes vroeg in Maart 1877 al drie die betwiste state toegeken, wat hom die wenner gemaak het deur 'n enkele verkiesingsstem.

Die kompromie van 1877

Soos Eric Foner in sy boek vertel Forever Free: Die verhaal van emansipasie en heropbou, Het Hayes belowe in die aanvaarding van die benoeming om "die seëninge van eerlike en bekwame plaaslike selfregering" na die suide te bring as dit verkies word - 'n verklaring wat as 'n kode beskou kan word om die heropbou te beëindig.

Selfs terwyl die verkiesingskommissie beraadslaag het, het die nasionale partyleiers in die geheim vergader om die kompromie van 1877 bekend te maak. Hayes het ingestem om die beheer van die suide aan die demokratiese regerings af te staan ​​en terug te keer van pogings tot federale ingryping. in die streek, sowel as om 'n Suidlander in sy kabinet te plaas. In ruil daarvoor sou die Demokrate nie die verkiesing van Hayes betwis nie en het hulle ingestem om die burgerregte van swart burgers te respekteer.

Kort na sy inhuldiging het Hayes sy belofte nagekom en beveel dat federale troepe hulle uit Louisiana en Suid -Carolina moet onttrek, waar hulle Republikeinse aanspraakmakers op die goewerneurskappe in daardie state beskerm het. Hierdie aksie was die effektiewe einde van die heropbou -era en het 'n tydperk van stewige demokratiese beheer in die Suide begin.

Wit suid -demokrate het hul belofte om die regte van swart burgers te handhaaf, nie nagekom nie, maar het vinnig oorgegaan om soveel as moontlik van die heropboubeleid om te keer. In die komende dekades het die ontheffing van swart kiesers in die suide, dikwels deur intimidasie en geweld, gehelp om die rasseskeiding wat deur die Jim Crow-wette opgelê is, te verseker-'n stelsel wat langer as 'n halwe eeu geduur het tot die vordering van die burgerlike regtebeweging in die 1960's.


Inhoud

Hamburg was 'n markstad met 'n meerderheid bevryde swartes in Aiken County, oorkant die Savannah -rivier vanaf Augusta, Georgia. Aiken was die enigste land in die staat wat tydens die heropbou -era georganiseer is. [2] Na afloop van die oorlog is die vervalle markstad herbevolk deur vrymanne. (Dit is verouderd gemaak deur die uitbreiding van die South Carolina Railroad na Augusta.) Baie swartes het in die naoorlogse tydperk van landelike gebiede na stede verhuis om te ontkom aan wit geweld en veiligheid in hul eie gemeenskappe te bekom.

Terwyl Suid -Afrikaners probeer om beheer oor die staatswetgewer te herwin, was hul leiers van plan om Republikeinse gebeure te ontwrig, soos uiteengesit in die Konfederale veteraan -generaal Martin W. Gary se "Plan of the Campaign of 1876" (ook bekend as die Edgefield Plan). [1] Op 4 Julie 1876, Onafhanklikheidsdag, ry twee blanke planters in 'n wa in die breë Marketstraat in Hamburg, waar hulle 'n plaaslike militêre onderneming teëkom, wat onder bevel van kaptein D. L. "Doc" Adams was.

Die mans in die Hamburg Company -burgermag was heeltemal swart en meestal vrymanne. 'N Wit supremasistiese groep met die naam The Red Shirts, onder leiding van Benjamin Tillman, wat later 'n 24-jarige loopbaan in die Amerikaanse senaat aangestel het en wie se termyn gekenmerk is deur rassistiese wetgewing, het konfrontasies met die swart burgers aangevuur deur te beweer dat die vrymanne het doelbewus die deurgang van openbare paaie geblokkeer en enige wit man se deur geweier. Ander bronne sê dat 'n wa wit mans opsetlik teen die kop van die kolom gery het om 'n burgerlike onrus te veroorsaak. In elk geval, na 'n woordewisseling, het die rooi hemde, ook genoem "wit planters", deur die geledere van die swart parade gegaan. [3] [4]: ​​314

Die rooi hemde is daarna na die plaaslike hof, waar hulle tydens 'n verhoor op 6 Julie die burgermag beskuldig het van die obstruksie van 'n openbare pad voor verhoorregter Prince Rivers. Die saak is voortgesit tot die middag van 8 Julie. Meer as 100 blankes uit die graafskappe Edgefield en Aiken het by die hof aangekom, gewapen met "haelgewere, rewolwers, skoffels, byle en pikvurke." [5] Destyds verskyn Matthew Calbraith Butler, 'n prokureur van Edgefield, as die planters se advokaat. (Van die vele mans met die naam Butler wat by die voorval betrokke was, is na hom verwys as 'generaal' Butler, gebaseer op sy diens in die Konfederale Weermag.) Ondanks die gebrek aan amptelike pos, het MC Butler geëis dat die Hamburg -maatskappy ontbind en hul gewere persoonlik aan hom oorhandig. [4]: 314–315

Terwyl gewapende wit mans in die omgewing bymekaarkom, het die burgermagmaatskappy geweier om te ontwapen en het hulle toevlug geneem in die wapens in die Sibley -gebou naby die Charlotte, Columbia en Augusta Railroad bridge. Die wit burgermag omring die gebou. Miskien was 25 swart milisies en 15 ander in die gebou toe die vuur begin het. By die uitruil van geweervuur ​​is McKie Meriwether, 'n plaaslike wit boer, dood.

In die minderheid, sonder ammunisie, en toe hulle verneem dat die blankes 'n klein kanon van Augusta af na die stad gebring het, het die milisie in die wapens in die nag weggeglip. James Cook, stadsmarshal van Hamburg, is in die straat doodgeskiet. [6]: 233–234

Die Wit supremacistiese milisie het ongeveer twee dosyn swart burgers, sommige van die milisie, bymekaargemaak en hulle omstreeks 02:00 na 'n plek naby die South Carolina -spoorweg en brug geneem. Daar vorm die blankes wat later die "Dooie Ring" genoem is en bespreek die lot van die swart mans. Die blankes het vier mans uitgesoek, en om die ring gegaan en hulle een vir een vermoor; die manne was soos volg: Allan Attaway, David Phillips, Hampton Stephens en Albert Myniart. Die Sweetwater Sabre Company, onder leiding van Ben Tillman, is gekies om die swart staatswetgewer Simon Coker van Barnwell uit te voer. Nadat hy meegedeel is van sy naderende teregstelling, het Coker die eenheid gevra om aan sy vrou instruksies te gee aangaande katoenmaak en die maand se huur. Hy is toe tereggestel tydens die gebed. [7]

Verskeie ander is gewond tydens hul ontsnapping of in 'n algemene fusillade toe die ring breek. Volgens die verslag van die staatsprokureur -generaal, is die vrygelaat Moses Parks ook hier vermoor [4]: ​​316 die Amerikaanse senaatondersoek het gesê dat hy vroeër naby Cook vermoor is. [6]: 233–234

'N Jury van die lykskouing het vier en negentig blanke mans in die aanval beskuldig, waaronder "MC Butler, Ben R. Tillman, AP Butler, [8] en ander van die mees prominente mans in die provinsies Aiken en Edgefield, South Carolina, en Richmond County, Georgia. . " [5] Hulle is nooit vervolg nie.

Die amptelike verslag deur die Prokureur -generaal van Suid -Carolina eindig met hierdie verklaring:

. die feite toon dat die eis van die burgermag om hul wapens op te gee, gemaak is deur persone sonder wettige magtiging om sodanige eis af te dwing of om die wapens te ontvang as hulle oorgegee is dat die aanval op die burgermag om te voldoen aan hierdie eis sonder wettige verskoning was of regverdiging en dat, nadat daar ongeveer twintig of vyf-en-twintig gevangenes gevange was en heeltemal in die mag van hul gevangenes was, vyf van hulle doelbewus doodgeskiet en nog drie ernstig gewond is. Dit blyk verder dat baie van die skare, wat nie tevrede was met hul wraak nie, die misdaad van diefstal van weerlose mense bygevoeg het en slegs deur die pogings van hul eie leiers verhinder is om aan te steek. (Allen 1888, 317)

Verontwaardiging oor die gebeure het daartoe gelei dat die Amerikaanse senaat 'n ondersoek gevra het. Dit versamel getuienis in verhore in Columbia, Suid -Carolina en publiseer die bevindings daarvan in 1877. [9]

Republikeine was verstom oor die slagting in Hamburg. Die geleentheid het die 'kooperasionele' faksie van die Demokratiese party laat verdwyn, wat 'n samesmelting met die hervormende Republikeinse goewerneur Daniel H. Chamberlain verwag het. Demokratiese steun kristalliseer rondom die kompromislose "Straight-Outs", wat reeds die terreur "Edgefield Plan" van stapel gestuur het, wat deur generaal Martin W. Gary bedink is vir Suid-Carolina se verlossing. [10]

Die slagting het landwye aandag getrek (soos in Harper's Weekly, 12 Augustus 1876 en in Die New York Times). 'N Veel groter bloedbad van vrymanne deur blanke paramilitêre groepe het plaasgevind van 15 tot 21 September in die stad Ellenton, ook in Aiken County, [4]: ​​385–387 met ramings van 100 vrygeslagte wat vermoor is en 'n paar blankes. [11] In Oktober 1876 was daar 'n politieke konflik in Cainhoy, naby Charleston, wat gelei het tot die dood van een swart man en drie tot ses blankes, die enigste sodanige konfrontasie daardie jaar in Suid -Carolina waarin meer blankes gesterf het as swartes. [12]

Na die gewelddadige en bitter omstrede verkiesingsveldtog van 1876, met die onderdrukking van swart stemme deur optrede van die rooi hemde en aanklagte van bedrog, het wit demokrate onverdeelde beheer oor die wetgewer in Suid -Carolina verkry en die amp van die goewerneur verower. Hulle het gedurende die volgende twee dekades wette aangeneem om die wetlike skeiding op te lê, Jim Crow, en in 1895 'n nuwe grondwet aangeneem wat effektief swart onteiening in die staat bewerkstellig het.

Politiek Redigeer

M. C. Butler se verwagtinge en omvang van betrokkenheid by die latere gebeure is nie bewys nie. Hy is nie finaal in die "Dead Ring" geplaas nie, maar sy verbintenis met die slagting het sy latere loopbaan in die Amerikaanse senaat beskadig. [13]: 226 Tydens die Senatoriale veldtog van 1894 het Butler egter die gesig gestaar teen Benjamin Ryan Tillman, wat 'n "Rifle Club" van Edgefield County gelei het, wat deel was van die rooi hemde en wat deur die jurie se jurie aangekla is vir sy betrokkenheid. Demokratiese benoeming. Tillman het in die omgewing erkenning gekry vir sy rol in die Hamburgse bloedbad en het nog steeds gespog met die "ontroerende gebeurtenisse" van 1876, [6]: 237 en verwys daarna meer as 'n dekade later tydens sy veldtog in 1890 vir die goewerneur van Suid -Carolina. [14] [15] Soos hy dit op die vloer van die Amerikaanse senaat gestel het:

[A] se wit mans, ons is nie spyt daarvoor nie, en ons stel nie voor om verskoning te vra vir enigiets wat ons in verband daarmee gedoen het nie. Ons het die regering in 1876 van hulle weggeneem. Ons het dit wel geneem. As daar nog geen ander senator hierheen gekom het wat dit sou erken nie, is dit jammer. Ons het geen bedrog gehad tydens ons verkiesings in Suid -Carolina sedert 1884. Daar was geen georganiseerde Republikeinse party in die staat nie. [16]

Butler en Tillman het tydens die veldtog van 1894 heftig gestry oor wie van hulle meer aan die Hamburgse bloedbad deelgeneem het. In die destydse politiek in Suid -Carolina is dit as 'n heroïese beskou dat 'n witman aan die geleentheid deelgeneem het. [17] In 1940 het die staatswetgewer van Suid -Carolina 'n standbeeld opgerig ter ere van Tillman op die hoofstad. In 1946 het die Clemson -universiteit, een van die openbare universiteite van Suid -Carolina, die hoofsaal herdoop ter ere van Tillman. Eers na gebeurtenisse in 2015, toe 'n wit oppergesagter met die naam Dylann Roof nege swart kerklede tydens hul gebedsdiens vermoor het, het Clemson gestem om hulself te distansieer van Tillman se "terreurveldtog". In 2020 het trustees van die universiteit gevra om die saal te hernoem. [18]

Die noodlot van die stad Redigeer

Na hierdie gebeure het baie swartes Hamburg verlaat en dit het weer begin afneem. [19] Na 'n vloed van 1911 begin Augusta met die bou van 'n rivierloop, maar Hamburg bly onbeskermd. Rampagtige oorstromings in 1927 en daaropvolgende seisoene het uiteindelik die laaste inwoners in 1929 gedwing. [20] In die 21ste eeu bestaan ​​daar geen sigbare oorblyfsels van die voormalige stad Hamburg nie, en word dit grotendeels deur 'n gholfbaan bedek. [21]


Inhoud

Op 29 Januarie 1877 onderteken president Grant die Wet op die Verkiesingskommissie, wat 'n kommissie van 15 lede van agt Republikeine en sewe Demokrate opgestel het om die betwiste verkiesing van 1876 af te handel. Aangesien die Grondwet nie uitdruklik aangedui het hoe geskille oor die kieskollege opgelos moet word nie, was die kongres verplig om ander metodes te oorweeg om die krisis te besleg. Baie Demokrate het aangevoer dat die kongres in sy geheel moet bepaal watter sertifikate hulle moet tel. Die kans dat hierdie metode tot 'n harmonieuse skikking sou lei, was egter skraal, aangesien die Demokrate die Huis beheer het, terwyl die Republikeine die Senaat beheer het. Verskeie ondersteuners van Hayes, aan die ander kant, het aangevoer dat die president van die Senaat die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal watter sertifikate hy moet tel, omdat hy verantwoordelik was vir die voorsitter van die kongresvergadering waarop die verkiesingsstemme gehou moet word. Aangesien die amp van president pro tempore deur 'n Republikein, senator Thomas W. Ferry van Michigan, beset was, sou hierdie metode Hayes bevoordeel het. Nog ander het voorgestel dat die saak deur die hooggeregshof besleg moet word. [4] In 'n stormagtige sessie wat op 1 Maart 1877 begin het, het die Huis ongeveer twaalf uur lank die beswaar bespreek, voordat dit herroep is. Onmiddellik word nog 'n valse beswaar gemaak, hierdie keer teen die verkiesingsstemme van Wisconsin. Die senaat het weereens gestem om die beswaar te herroep, terwyl 'n filibuster in die huis gehou is. Die Speaker van die Huis, demokraat Samuel J. Randall, het egter geweier om dilatoriese mosies te onderhou. Uiteindelik het die filibusterers tou opgegooi, sodat die Huis die beswaar in die vroeë oggendure van 2 Maart kon verwerp. Om 2:10 op 2 Maart, het senator Ferry aangekondig dat Hayes en Wheeler met 'n kiesmarge van 185–184 verkies is tot die presidentskap en vise -presidentskap.

Die Demokrate het ooreengekom om nie die inhuldiging van Hayes te blokkeer op grond van 'n "agterkamer" -ooreenkoms nie. Die sleutel tot hierdie ooreenkoms was die verstandhouding dat federale troepe nie meer in die suidelike politiek sou inmeng nie, ondanks aansienlike geweld wat verband hou met verkiesings teen swartes. Die suidelike state het aangedui dat hulle die lewens van Afro -Amerikaners sou beskerm, maar sulke beloftes is grootliks nie nagekom nie. Hayes se vriende laat weet ook dat hy federale hulp vir interne verbeterings sal bevorder, insluitend hulp met 'n spoorweg in Texas (wat nooit gebeur het nie) en 'n Suidlander in sy kabinet noem (dit het wel gebeur). Met die einde van die politieke rol van Noordelike troepe, het die president geen metode gehad om heropbou af te dwing nie, en hierdie 'agterkamer' -ooreenkoms dui op die einde van Amerikaanse heropbou. [5]

Die kompromie lui in wese dat Suid -Demokrate Hayes as president sou erken, maar slegs met die veronderstelling dat Republikeine aan sekere eise sou voldoen. Daar word algemeen gesê dat die volgende elemente die punte van die kompromie is: [6]

  1. Die verwydering van alle oorblywende Amerikaanse militêre magte uit die voormalige Konfederale state. [7] Destyds het Amerikaanse troepe slegs in Louisiana, Suid -Carolina en Florida gebly, maar die kompromie het hul onttrekking uit die streek voltooi.
  2. Die aanstelling van ten minste een Suid -demokraat in die kabinet van Hayes. (David M. Key van Tennessee is aangestel as posmeester -generaal.)
  3. Die bou van 'n ander transkontinentale spoorlyn met behulp van die Texas en die Stille Oseaan in die suide (dit was deel van die "Scott -plan", voorgestel deur Thomas A. Scott van die Pennsylvania Railroad, het hy onderhandelinge begin wat die finale kompromie tot gevolg gehad het).
  4. Wetgewing om die suide te help industrialiseer en die ekonomie te herstel na die burgeroorlog en heropbou.
  5. Die reg om swart mense sonder noordelike inmenging te hanteer.

In ruil daarvoor sou die Demokrate die Republikeinse Hayes as president aanvaar deur die filibuster nie in diens te neem tydens die gesamentlike kongresvergadering wat nodig was om die verkiesing te bevestig nie. [8] [9]

Na die kompromie het 'n paar Demokrate hard gekla dat Tilden bedrieg is. Daar was sprake van die vorming van gewapende eenhede wat na Washington sou marsjeer, maar president Grant was gereed daarvoor. Hy het die militêre veiligheid verskerp, en niemand het opgetrek na Washington nie. [10]

Hayes is vreedsaam ingehuldig. Punte 1 en 2 van die kompromie het in werking getree. Hayes het reeds voor die verkiesing sy steun vir die herstel van die "tuisregering", wat die verwydering van federale troepe behels, aangekondig. Dit was nie ongewoon of onverwags dat 'n president, veral een wat so nou verkies is, 'n kabinetslid kies wat die ander party verkies nie. Punte 3 en 4 is nooit uitgevaardig nie, dit is moontlik dat daar geen vaste ooreenkoms daaroor was nie.

Of dit nou deur 'n informele ooreenkoms was of bloot gerusstelling in ooreenstemming met die aangekondigde planne van Hayes, die gesprekke met die Suid -Demokrate het die kommer van baie bevredig. Dit het 'n kongresfilibuster verhinder wat gedreig het om die oplossing van die verkiesingsgeskil te verleng tot na die inhuldigingsdag 1877. [9]

Historikus C. Vann Woodward het in 1951 geskryf dat opkomende sake- en nywerheidsbelange van die Nuwe Suide gemeenskaplike grond gevind het met Republikeinse sakelui, veral met die spoorweë. Hulle het in die geheim bymekaargekom in Wormley's Hotel in Washington om 'n kompromie te bewerkstellig met behulp van interne verbeterings: brûe, kanale en spoorweë wat deur die Suide gesoek word. Peskin merk egter op dat daar geen ernstige federale poging aangewend is nadat Hayes die amp aangeneem het om 'n spoorweg te finansier of ander federale hulp te verleen vir verbeterings nie. [11] 'n Opponerende belangegroep wat die Suidelike Stille Oseaan verteenwoordig, het eintlik Scott se voorgestelde Texas en Stille Oseaan -skema in die wiele gery en uiteindelik sy eie lyn na New Orleans gehardloop.

Sommige historici, soos Allan Peskin, beweer dat die versekering wat aan sommige Suid -Demokrate gebied is om 'n filibuster te voorkom, nie 'n kompromie was nie, maar 'n uitgemaakte saak, aangesien Tilden nie voldoende steun gebied het nie. [11] Peskin erken dat Woodward se interpretasie in die bykans kwarteeu sedert hy dit gepubliseer het, byna algemeen aanvaar is. Aangesien nie aan alle voorwaardes van die ooreenkoms voldoen is nie, meen Peskin dat daar in 1877 werklik geen ooreenkoms tussen die noorde en die suide was nie. Samuel J. Randall (D-Pennsylvania) was byvoorbeeld voorsitter van die Huis en het die filibuster verhoed. Hy was meer geïnteresseerd in die versekering dat die radikale staatsregering in Louisiana verlaat word as in enige suidelike spoorweg. [11]

Vincent DeSantis voer aan dat die Republikeinse Party suidelike swartes oorgelaat het aan die bewind van die rassistiese Demokratiese Party om die steun van die Demokrate vir Hayes se presidentskap te verkry. [12]

Heropbou het in elk geval geëindig. Die oorheersing van die Demokratiese Party in die Suide is versterk met die styging van die "Verlosser" -regerings wat die Republikeinse regerings verplaas het. Na 1877 het steun vir blanke oppergesag oor die algemeen daartoe gelei dat blankes vir die demokrate gestem het, en die streek het bekend gestaan ​​as die 'vaste suide'. [13] Tot aan die einde van die 19de eeu het swart Republikeine voortgegaan om talle kandidate vir die plaaslike amp te kies, alhoewel Demokrate die meeste staatsverteenwoordiger en staatswye sit, behalwe vir 'n kort periode van samesmeltingsregerings wat deur Republikeine en populiste ondersteun word. Die meerderheid wit kiesers het die nasionale Demokratiese kandidate tot in die 20ste eeu gesteun voordat hulle na die Republikeinse Party oorgegaan het. Hierdie latere verskuiwing na die Republikeinse party volg op die Wet op Burgerregte van 1964, wat deur die Demokratiese President Lyndon B. Johnson ingestel is en deur die meeste Republikeine en Noord -Demokrate ondersteun word.

In Die Mexikanisering van Amerikaanse politiek: die transnasionale pad van die Verenigde State van Amerika van burgeroorlog tot stabilisering (2012), verwerp Gregory P. Downs die idee dat dit 'n era van maklike versoening en politieke stabiliteit was. In plaas daarvan toon hy aan dat baie Amerikaners bang was vir die "Mexikanisering" van die politiek, waardeur geweld gebruik sou word om 'n presidentsverkiesing te skik, soos geweld gebruik is om sekere staatsverkiesings in die Suide te skik. Downs ondersoek hoe Mexikanisering rondweg verwerp is en stabiliteit bereik is.

Ongeag watter transaksies daar wel of nie plaasgevind het nie, in formele wetlike terme, is die verkiesing van 1876 nie deur sulke handelinge beslis nie, maar deur die amptelike stemming van die Kongres om die aanbevelings van die Verkiesingskommissie wat hulle self ingestel het, te aanvaar. 'n uitweg uit die impasse van die verkiesing. Die verwagting by die oprigting van die komitee was dat sy besluite deur die kongres aanvaar sou word. Dit was eers toe sekere Demokrate nie saamstem met die besluite van die kommissie ten gunste van Hayes nie, dat hierdie reëling in die gedrang kom. Hierdie Demokratiese groep bedreig 'n filibuster (ook gekant teen die Republikeine en die Kongres se Demokratiese leierskap) wat sal verhoed dat die ooreengekome stemming plaasvind. Die besprekings van die punte in die beweerde kompromie het verband gehou met die oortuiging van belangrike Demokrate om 'n filibuster nie te aanvaar nie. Die dreigement van 'n filibuster - 'n maatreël wat 'n minderheid gebruik het om 'n stemming te voorkom - dui daarop dat daar reeds voldoende stemme was om die aanbevelings van die kommissie te aanvaar. [14]


Grondwetlike raamwerk

Verskeie metodes om die uitvoerende gesag te kies, is tydens die konstitusionele konvensie aangebied, hersien en weggegooi: wetgewende regeringsverkiesing en lotery. 'N Besluit was eers laat in die konvensie, toe die detailkomitee uitvoerende verkiesing aangebied het deur spesiale kiesers wat deur die staatswetgewers gekies is. Hierdie kompromie het die regte van state bewaar, die onafhanklikheid van die uitvoerende gesag verhoog en gewilde verkiesings vermy. In hierdie plan speel die kongres 'n formele rol in die verkiesing van die president en vise -president. Alhoewel dit uitdruklik verbied is dat lede van die kongres kiesers is, vereis die Grondwet dat die Huis en die Senaat die stembriewe van die kieskollege tel, en in die geval van 'n staking van stemme, onderskeidelik die president en die vise -president kies.


Grondwet van 1876

Die Grondwet van 1876 is die sesde grondwet waarteen Texas beheer word sedert onafhanklikheid van Mexiko in 1836 bereik is. bly die basiese organiese wet van Texas. Die grondwet bevat 'n paar Texaanse bepalings, waarvan baie produkte is uit die ongewone geskiedenis van die staat. Sommige kan byvoorbeeld herlei word na Spaanse en Mexikaanse invloed. Onder hulle is afdelings wat handel oor grondtitels en grondwet in die algemeen, verligting van skuldenaars, geregtelike prosedures, huweliksverhoudinge en aanneming, en water- en ander mineraalregte. Ander atipiese bepalings kan toegeskryf word aan die tweeledige invloede van die Jacksoniaanse agrarianisme en grensradikalisme-albei was algemeen toe Texas die eerste keer 'n staat geword het en albei wyd ondersteun deur die grootste deel van immigrante na Texas voor die Burgeroorlog. Hierdie invloede het gedeeltes veroorsaak wat banke verbied en 'n strenger skeiding van kerk en staat vereis as wat in ouer state vereis word. Heropbou, onder die hoogs gesentraliseerde en relatief outokratiese administrasie van goewerneur Edmund J. Davis en sy mede -radikale Republikeine, het voorsiening gemaak vir bepalings om die staatsregering te desentraliseer. Nadat hulle weer beheer oor die wetgewende en uitvoerende tak van die regering gekry het, besluit die Demokrate in 1874 om die ongewilde Grondwet van 1869 te vervang. beperkte bevoegdhede vir beide die wetgewer en die goewerneur, lae belasting en staatsuitgawes, streng beheer oor korporasies en grondsubsidies vir spoorweë.

Vroeg in 1874 het 'n gesamentlike wetgewende komitee 'n hele nuwe grondwet gerapporteer as 'n wysiging van die Grondwet van 1869. Omdat die dokument nie deur 'n konvensie voorberei is nie en vanweë die moontlikheid dat die aanneming daarvan die federale regering kan teenstaan, het die wetgewer die voorstel verwerp . Op advies van goewerneur Richard Coke het die volgende wetgewer die kwessie van 'n grondwetlike konvensie aan die kiesers voorgelê, wat op 2 Augustus 1875 die konvensie goedgekeur het en drie afgevaardigdes uit elk van die dertig senatoriale distrikte verkies het. In die konvensie, wat op 6 September byeengeroep is, was vyf-en-sewentig lede Demokrate en vyftien, waaronder ses Swartes, was Republikeine. Nie een was lid van die Konstitusionele Konvensie 1868-69 nie, een-en-veertig was boere en nie minder nie as veertig was lede van die Patrons of Husbandry (The Grange), die militante boere-organisasie wat gestig is in reaksie op die paniek van 1873 In die konvensie het die Grange -lede as 'n blok opgetree ter ondersteuning van konserwatiewe grondwetlike maatreëls. Om te verseker dat die regering reageer op die openbare wil, het die konvensie die regte, bevoegdhede en voorregte van die verskillende regeringsdepartemente en -agentskappe presies omskryf, insluitend baie besonderhede wat die wetgewer in die algemeen oorgelaat het.

Die Grondwet van 1876 begin met 'n lang handves van regte. Dit verklaar dat Texas 'n vrye en onafhanklike staat is, slegs onderhewig aan die Grondwet van die Verenigde State, dat alle vrye mans gelyke regte het en dat die bevel van habeas corpus nie opgeskort of onnodig vertraag kan word nie. Die artikel verbied ook godsdienstige toetse vir ampte (behalwe erkenning van die bestaan ​​van 'n opperwese), onredelike soektogte en gevangenisstraf vir skuld, en dit verseker vryheid van spraak en pers, die reg van die beskuldigde om borgtog te verkry en om verhoor te word 'n jurie, en die reg van die burgers om wapens te hou en te dra. Die wetgewende artikel omskryf die bevoegdhede en beperkings van die wetgewer in detail. Die wetgewer sou bestaan ​​uit twee huise, 'n senaat wat uit een-en-dertig lede bestaan ​​en 'n Huis van Verteenwoordigers wat nooit meer as 150 lede mag oorskry nie. Senatore en verteenwoordigers dien onderskeidelik vier en twee jaar uit. Wetgewers sou die eerste sestig dae van elke sessie en daarna twee dollar per dag kilometersvergoeding en nie meer as vyf dollar per dag ontvang nie. Die wetgewer, wat tweejaarliks ​​sou vergader, kon geen skuld meer as $ 200 000 opdoen nie en kon nie langer as twee jaar 'n amp vestig nie. Dit was verplig om belasting op alle eiendom in verhouding tot die waarde daarvan te hef en sy vergaderings in Austin te hou. Die uitvoerende artikel het voorsiening gemaak vir sewe amptenare-goewerneur, luitenant-goewerneur, staatsekretaris, rekenmeester van openbare rekeninge, tesourier, kommissaris van die landkantoor en prokureur-generaal. Almal behalwe die staatsekretaris sou deur die kiesers vir 'n termyn van twee jaar verkies word, maar sonder beperkinge op die geskiktheid vir nuwe terme. Alle salarisse is verlaag, die van die goewerneur van $ 5,000 tot $ 4,000. Die goewerneur het die bevoegdheid om die wetgewer in spesiale sittings byeen te roep, die burgermag te beroep om die wette uit te voer, opstande te onderdruk, die grens te beskerm teen vyandige Indiërs, en om veto te maak teen wette en items in krediteure, maar sy veto kan egter wees oorheers deur 'n tweederdes stemme van beide huise. Die goewerneur was ook bevoeg om sekere afsprake te maak, vakatures te vul en die wette getrou uit te voer, maar het geen beheer oor plaaslike of ander verkose staatsamptenare gekry nie. Die geregtelike artikel het voorsiening gemaak vir 'n hooggeregshof, 'n appèlhof, distrikshowe, landshowe, kommissarisse en vrederegters. All judges were to be elected by popular vote, with terms of six years for the supreme and criminal appeals courts, four years for the district courts, and two years for all other courts. The number of district courts was placed at twenty-six, but the legislature was authorized to establish others as needed. The Texas Supreme Court, composed of three judges, was vested with appellate jurisdiction in civil cases only, and the court of appeals, composed of three judges, was vested with appellate jurisdiction over all criminal cases and certain classes of civil cases. The district courts received original jurisdiction (in criminal cases) over felonies and over misdemeanors involving official misconduct and (in civil cases) over a long list of classes of suits. The district courts were given appellate jurisdiction over the county courts in probate matters. The article also mandated a court in each organized county with original jurisdiction over misdemeanors not granted to the courts of justices of the peace and certain civil cases and appellate jurisdiction in cases originating in the justice of the peace courts. The courts of the justices of the peace, not fewer than four or more than eight in each county, were granted jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters involving not more than $200 in controversy or in penalties. The commissioners' court was to consist of the county judge and four elected commissioners, one from each commissioner's precinct.

The article on education drastically changed the system established by the Republicans in 1869. In the first section the framers ordered the legislature to establish and make provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools but then added provisions that made that directive impossible. To support the system the article authorized the legislature to levy a poll tax of one dollar on all male inhabitants between the ages of twenty-one and sixty and to appropriate not more than one-fourth of the general revenue. In addition, it set aside as a perpetual fund all proceeds from lands previously granted to the schools, including all the alternate sections of land already reserved for the state or afterwards reserved out of grants to railroads or other corporations (as specified in the Constitution of 1866), and the proceeds from the sale of one-half of all other public lands (as prescribed by an act of the legislature in 1873). The document abolished the office of state superintendent, founded a board of education composed of the governor, comptroller, and secretary of state, eliminated compulsory attendance, provided for segregated schools, and made no provision for local school taxes. The Constitution of 1876 provided for the establishment of the University of Texas and made Texas A&M, which had been founded by the legislature in 1871, a branch of it. The constitution further required the legislature to establish an institution of higher education for the instruction of the Black youth of the state. To support the university and its branches the constitution set aside one million acres of the public domain, with all sales and proceeds therefrom to be placed in a Permanent University Fund. It also provided that proceeds from the lands previously granted for the establishment and maintenance of the university (including the fifty-league grant by the legislature in 1858 but not the one-tenth of the alternate sections of land granted to railroads) and all future grants would permanently belong to the university.

The constitution also provided for precinct voting and mandated a poll tax, but not as a prerequisite for voting. It provided for homestead grants of 160 acres to heads of families and eighty acres to single men eighteen or more years of age, and for protection against the forced sale of a homestead for debt. It declared railroads to be common carriers, forbade their consolidation and further aid in grant of money or bonds, and authorized the legislature to enact regulatory laws, including maximum freight and passenger rates. To promote the construction of new track, the document authorized the legislature to grant the railroads sixteen sections of public land for each mile of road constructed. It prohibited the state from chartering banks but mandated the legislature to enact general laws for the establishment of private corporations other than banks, that would provide fully for the adequate protection of the public and individual stockholders.

Overall, the Constitution of 1876 complied with public opinion. It provided for biennial sessions of the legislature, low salaries for public officials, precinct voting, abolition of the road tax, and a return to the road-working system for a homestead exemption clause, guarantees of a low tax rate, a less expensive, locally controlled, segregated school system, and a less expensive court system for county and justice of the peace courts and for popular election of officers. It also prohibited the registration of voters and grants of money or bonds to railroads. The document was adequate for a rural people engaged principally in subsistence farming, but not for an urban-industrial-commercial society. Very few changes were made during the first half century of the constitution's existence, but since then it has been changed at a steadily increasing rate. Changes are made through amendments submitted to the voters by consent of two-thirds of the members of each house of the legislature and approved by a majority of those voting. Of ninety-nine amendments submitted by September 1928, only forty-three were adopted, but by 1980 the voters had approved 235 proposals. No provision was made in the constitution for calling another constitutional convention. On several occasions there has been considerable agitation for a new document, but the voters defeated a proposal for a constitutional convention in 1919, and in 1975 they rejected an extensive revision prepared by the legislature. The constitution's more than 63,000 words make it one of the most verbose of state constitutions. Its wealth of detail causes it to resemble a code of laws rather than a constitution. Its many requirements and limitations on both state and local governments make it one of the most restrictive among state constitutions. Some of its passages are so poorly drafted as to need clarification for understanding, and others have been declared by the Texas Supreme Court to be beyond interpreting. Finally, since many of its provisions relating to the same subject are scattered widely throughout the text, a detailed index is necessary.

Most of the numerous amendments have dealt with the legislature, the judiciary, public education, and state finances. Those relating to the legislature have generally removed existing limitations on legislative action. Changes in the article on the judiciary have been so sweeping that the article has been almost completely rewritten. Alterations in provisions relating to public education have also removed original limitations and permitted expansion of the public school system. Provisions relating to the state's financial system have been altered to permit adoption of new expenditure programs and exploitation of new sources of revenue. Other constitutional changes have relieved some of the burden of detail imposed on the governor's office in 1876, revamped the basic suffrage requirements, altered the method of chartering municipal corporations, lengthened the term of office for many state and local officials, and established an ever-growing number of specifically allocated funds in the state treasury. In spite of its cumbersomeness, of its need for frequent amendment, and its occasional obscurity, however, Texans have continued to hold on to the Constitution of 1876.


Looking Back: The Electoral Commission of 1877

Ted Cruz and other senators are requesting a special electoral commission to investigate the fairness of votes in the 2020 presidential race, harking back to the only time such a body convened. Here is a look at how the Electoral Commission of 1877 was created, in a much different era, to settle a presidential election.

The 1876 presidential campaign between Samuel Tilden, the Democratic Party nominee, and Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate, was hard-fought. After Election Day on November 7, 1876, Tilden was one electoral vote short of winning the election and well ahead in the popular vote.

However, four states&mdashFlorida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon&mdashhad problems with their slates of electoral votes, which were yet to be included in the results. In the three southern states, there were legal actions taken after Republican-controlled canvassing boards disqualified Democratic voters.

In Florida, the state canvassing board threw out about 2,000 votes, leaving Hayes with a lead of 924 votes. The Democrats convened their own electoral college vote, sent a second Florida election certificate to Congress signed by the state attorney general, and sued the Republicans in state court. Similar conflicts arose in South Carolina and Louisiana.

In Oregon, its governor, La Fayette Grover, wanted to disqualify a Republican electoral college member, John W. Watts. Grover believed Watts&rsquo appointment as an assistant postmaster conflicted with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that required that no &ldquoPerson holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.&rdquo Grover wanted a Democrat to replace Watts, which would give the presidential election to Tilden. The three southern states represented 19 electoral votes. If they were counted for Hayes, along with Oregon&rsquos contested vote, then Hayes won the election.

Congress faced a clear conflict considering the electoral votes from those four states since it had received multiple slates of electors from each state signed by state officials. Under the Constitution, Congress had an obligation to count all the electoral votes, but no mechanism to decide between competing votes sent from states. As tempers flared, there was also a clear danger of public violence, with calls from Tilden supporters to mobilize the National Guard and the Republicans to use federal troops to keep the peace.

On January 29, 1877, Congress passed and President Grant signed the Electoral Commission Act to break the impasse. The House and Senate named five members each to serve on the commission, and the Supreme Court named five associate justices to serve. The commission would decide &ldquothe true and lawful electoral vote of such State&rdquo if a state sent multiple electoral slates to Congress. The key vote would fall to one of the named justices, Justice David Davis, an independent. However, Davis decided to accept a Senate seat in Illinois. His replacement, Justice Joseph Bradley, was a Republican.

The commission met on February 1, 1877, to settle the dispute in Florida, which had sent three certificates to Congress. After extensive arguments, the commission ruled on February 9, 1877, in an 8-7 vote in favor of Hayes, with Justice Bradley joining the Republicans. On February 12, 1887, the commission took up the question of Louisiana, which also sent three certificates to Congress. Five days later, the commission decided for Hayes in Louisiana.

The crucial question of Oregon was next for the commission on February 21, 1877, with objections raised about Watts&rsquo position as a postmaster on the day electoral votes were counted in Oregon. In a 1969 academic paper, Philip W. Kennedy described the critical question at stake. &ldquoThe central issue was whether the commission had the authority to investigate electoral returns,&rdquo Kennedy said, or in other words, &ldquogo behind&rdquo the Democrats&rsquo electoral certificate to investigate wrongdoing (including an alleged bribe paid by the Tilden campaign).

On February 23, 1877, the commission heard that one of its members, Democratic senator Alan G. Thurman, was too ill to vote on the Oregon matter. Instead, the commission moved the vote to Thurman&rsquos house. A unanimous commission rejected a rival Oregon slate with three Democrats submitted to Congress, and it then approved Watts as Oregon&rsquos third elector in an 8-7 vote. The majority said Watts&rsquo position of postmaster was immaterial, since he resigned after the election, resigned as an elector, and then was reappointed as elector before he cast his electoral vote.

The South Carolina dispute also went in favor of the Republicans on February 27, 1877, leaving about a week for Congress to handle the final matter of the presidential election. The Democrats threatened to filibuster and delay proceedings as a protest about the election results. Violence was again possible among the Tilden supporters. That week, members of both parties&rsquo leadership reportedly met at Washington&rsquos Wormley Hotel to finalize an agreement. The Southern Democrats would accept Hayes as president and Republicans would agree to effectively end Reconstruction by removing federal troops from the South, along with other concessions.

On March 2, 1877, at 4:11 a.m., a joint session of Congress declared Rutherford B. Hayes as the next president of the United States. During deliberations that started the previous day, House Speaker Samuel Randall, a Tilden supporter, defeated filibuster efforts from his fellow Democrats. At one point during vocal protests on the House floor, Randall admonished the protesting Democrats. &ldquoIf gentlemen forget themselves, it is the duty of the Chair to remind them that they are members of the American Congress,&rdquo Randall said.

Chief Justice Morrison Waite swore in Hayes the next day in private at the White House, since inauguration day fell on a Sunday that year. The public inauguration was on March 5, 1877. Tilden&rsquos supporters called Hayes &ldquoRutherfraud&rdquo after the election, but Tilden had accepted the election results.

A decade later, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to deal with some of the open questions faced by the Electoral Commission. There were still concerns about the Electoral Commission&rsquos inclusion of the Supreme Court justices as election arbiters. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 left the decision solely in the hands of Congress.

The 1887 act&rsquos wordy language provides for methods of handling competing slate electors without needing to convene another Electoral Commission. The act also defines a process about objections to electoral votes in the joint meeting of Congress to tally electoral votes and confirm a presidential election.

While some modern scholars question the clarity of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, it has remained in place as a detailed response to the 1876 presidential election, one of the greatest constitutional challenges faced by Congress in its history.

Senator John J. Ingalls voiced the frustration of many during the debates over the Electoral Count Act of 1887. &ldquoThe Electoral Commission of 1877 was a contrivance that will never be repeated in our politics. It was a device that was favored by each party in the belief that it would cheat the other, and it resulted, as I once before said, in defrauding both.&rdquo

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

For More Information

Kennedy, Philip W. "Oregon and the Disputed Election of 1876." The Pacific Northwest Quarterly 60, 3 (1969): 135-44. Accessed January 3, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40488623.

Haworth, Paul Leland. The Hayes-Tilden disputed presidential election of 1876. Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers Company, 1906.


Reconstruction and Its Impact

The Reconstruction Era lasted from the end of the Civil War in 1865 to 1877. Its main focus was on bringing the southern states back into full political participation in the Union, guaranteeing rights to former slaves and defining new relationships between African Americans and whites. While very little fighting occurred on Iowa soil and Iowa had never legalized slavery, black migration of former slaves into the region and the national focus on civil rights forced Iowa to reconsider its own racial relations.

Amending the U.S. Constitution during Reconstruction

When southern states seceded from the Union, they withdrew their representatives from Congress, leaving both the Senate and the House under the control of the North. While most white Americans still held views that whites were superior to African Americans and were not yet ready to integrate society, many were sympathetic to the plight of freed slaves and wanted to promote their welfare. On the political front, Republicans were eager to give African Americans the right to vote because they anticipated that African Americans would strongly support them at the polls.

To achieve these goals, Republicans needed to amend the U.S. Constitution, a process that requires approval of two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Republicans felt an urgency to get these measures approved before southern congressmen returned to Washington, D.C., who could block the process. In 1865, Congress passed and states approved the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting slavery. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified granting "equal protection of the law" and "due process" to all citizens to prevent southern states from passing laws that would discriminate against African Americans.

Constitutional Changes in Iowa

The Iowa legislature, controlled by Republicans, approved both amendments. Even though there was some opposition to measures that looked as if they were moving toward racial equality, Iowa Republicans realized they could not impose on the South restrictions that they were not willing to support at home. Before the Civil War, African Americans were denied the right to vote in northern as well as southern states. Iowa was no exception. The 1857 Constitution restricted suffrage to white males 21 years of age and over. Changing the state constitution required an affirmative vote on a referendum. In 1868, two years before the 15th Amendment prohibited denying the vote to anyone based on "race, color or previous condition of servitude" (slavery), the Iowa legislature submitted to the voters (all white males at the time) an amendment to strike the word "white" from voting requirements. The measure won a majority, and African-American males in Iowa could vote. In 1870, when the 15th Amendment came to the states ensuring African-American suffrage nationwide, Iowa became the 29th state to approve it, providing the final state necessary for passage.

The suffrage amendment was controversial on several fronts. Many white voters, primarily Democrats, opposed measures that brought African Americans more fully into mainstream society. Advocates for women’s suffrage were very disappointed that the measure stopped with African Americans — male only — suffrage, leaving all women out of the voter pool. Some Republican leaders urged the suffragists to wait their turn: "This is the black men's hour." And wait the women did. Women did not achieve full suffrage for another half century.

Race Relations in Iowa

There were other legal developments on race relations. In 1867, Susan Clark, a African-American youth in Muscatine, was denied admission to the public school on account of her race. Her father, Alexander Clark, challenged the policy in a case that went to the Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor. The Iowa Constitution granted the responsibility to the Board of Education to "provide for the education of all the youths of the State." The Court ruled that "all" meant all with no authority to deny education to any based on race. In another case, the Supreme Court ruled that there could be no discrimination based on race in public accommodations like railroads and steamboats. In practice, however, the laws were unevenly enforced.

Union soldiers continued to enforce law and order in the South until 1877. During those years and after, Iowa confronted new challenges to the American commitment that "all are created equal" as more African Americans migrated to river and southeastern Iowa cities and to Des Moines. While Iowa can be proud of several major steps toward equality, racial attitudes of most white Iowans of the period continued to oppose full integration.


A nation united, but still divided

In 1876, the nation was still scarred and divided by the Civil War, which had ended a decade earlier. During the war’s aftermath, approximately four million enslaved people were freed. In what would become known as the Reconstruction era, a Republican-controlled Congress moved swiftly to restore the former Confederacy to the Union, limit the political power of former Confederates, and protect the rights of formerly enslaved people by granting them citizenship and the right to vote.

Newly enfranchised Black voters overwhelmingly supported the Republican Party, the party of President Abraham Lincoln and a critical force behind the Union’s Civil War victory. They registered to vote in large numbers and ran for and were elected to public office.

But as Black citizens gained political and social power in the late 1860s, white Southerners, who largely supported the anti-Reconstruction Democratic Party, resented the federal government’s policies. Reconstruction represented what they saw as the theft of their rightful dominance of the racial, political, and economic hierarchy. In an attempt to wrest back their power, they used intimidation and violence to disenfranchise Black voters.

Then, in the early 1870s, the Republican Party’s popularity took a hit due to an economic depression and political scandals like the Whiskey Ring, a bribery scheme in which federal officials helped whiskey distillers evade taxes. Between the Republicans’ tarnished reputation and the intimidating tactics that allowed white Southerners to suppress Republican votes, Democrats finally saw a path to electoral victory.


A Contest for Votes

Conditions in the nation’s new capital aggravated partisan divisions. In cosmopolitan Philadelphia, lawmakers met in the historic old State House and enjoyed the distractions of the nation’s largest and most cultivated city. In frontier Washington, politics consumed them. There was little else to do. “A few, indeed, drink, and some gamble, but the majority drink naught but politics,” House Republican leader Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania wrote in mid-January about his colleagues, “and by not mixing with men of different or more moderate sentiments, they inflame one another. On that account, principally, I see some danger in the fate of the [presidential] election which I had not before contemplated.” Federalists and Republicans had mixed freely in Philadelphia society. In Washington, however, they rarely met except in partisan combat.

With less than two weeks until the critical House vote for president, trust had broken down completely between the parties. Each side attributed only the worst motives to the other. By the middle of February, lawmakers were in no mood to compromise, or even to act rationally. When President Adams issued an advance call for a special session of the new Senate, ostensibly to confirm the next president’s appointments, some Republicans smelled a rat. Knowing that Federalists would still dominate this body until the states chose their new senators, Republicans feared that the rump Senate would promptly elect a Federalist president pro tempore to assume the reins of government.

According to his own account, Jefferson verbally threatened Adams with “resistance by force and incalculable consequences” if the Federalists tried to install an interim president. “We thought it best to declare openly and firmly, [to] one and all, that the day such an act passed, the middle states would arm and that no such usurpation, even for a single day, should be submitted to,” Jefferson explained in a February 15 letter to Virginia Governor James Monroe. Republicans would reluctantly acquiesce if the House legally elected Burr, Jefferson later informed Pennsylvania Governor Thomas McKean, “but in the event of an usurpation, I was decidedly with those who were determined not to permit it because that precedent once set, would be artificially reproduced, and end soon in a dictator.”

Perhaps in response to Republican threats of disunion, on February 9, the House adopted procedural rules that effectively precluded it from passing legislation to designate an interim president. The rules, drafted by a Federalist-dominated committee, gave a literalistic reading to the constitutional provision stating that in the case of a tie between two presidential candidates, the House “shall immediately choose by ballot one of them.” The key proviso in the new rules stated that if the first ballot did not decide the issue, then “the House shall continue to ballot for a President, without interruption by other business, until it shall appear that a President is duly chosen…[and] shall not adjourn until a choice is made.” In effect, members would remain in session until either they elected a president or their terms expired on March 3, whichever occurred first.

Both sides went into the House vote on February 11 with high hopes. The Federalists expected all the Republicans to vote for Jefferson on the first ballot, but believed that some would eventually split off if the balloting continued. Burr had friends in Congress, particularly among Republicans in the closely divided New York and New Jersey delegations. Tennessee’s lone representative, a Republican, also seemed open to persuasion, as did Vermont’s Republican congressman. To win, Burr needed only one or two Republican votes in any three of these four delegations. Rumors swirled of bribes and job offers—but these promises, if made, apparently came from zealous Federalists rather than from Burr himself. In contrast, Jefferson needed only one more Federalist vote from Maryland, Vermont or Delaware to prevail. Republicans believed that he would win on the first ballot.

The entire House and Senate crowded into the ornate Senate chambers at noon to observe the Electoral College vote count. Performing one of his few constitutionally mandated duties as vice president, Jefferson read aloud the 16 state ballots and announced the final totals. As everyone anticipated, Jefferson and Burr had 73 votes each Adams had 65 Pinckney 64 and John Jay 1. “The votes having been entered on the journals,” the National Intelligencer reported, “the House returned to its own chamber and, with closed doors, proceeded to the ballot.” With Speaker Sedgwick presiding, the voting to break the tie began promptly at 1 p.m.


The longest delay

That happened after Americans went to the polls on November 7, 1876, in a contest between Democrat Samuel Tilden and the Republican Rutherford Hayes.

Initially, Tilden won a majority of the popular vote as well as 184 electoral college votes to Hayes's 165, with 20 votes from four states unresolved.

However, on Election Day there was voter intimidation against African-American Republican voters in the South, according to the Smithsonian tydskrif. Three Southern states, Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina, had Republican-dominated election boards, according to the Smithsonian Magazine.

There were also questions of electoral fraud, Ben Marsh, American history lecturer at England's University of Kent told Newsweek, as counting continues in the 2020 election.

Republican-dominated state electoral commissions disallowed Democratic votes, some on the pretext that some ballots had been printed with Republican symbols on them, he said. Meanwhile, in Oregon, one Republican elector was declared ineligible by a Democratic governor who sought to replace him with a Democrat vote, Marsh noted.

"In the end they passed an innovative law in January 1877 to create an Electoral Commission to resolve it," Marsh said. "Republican domination of the Supreme Court thereby helped get Hayes all the disputed electoral votes on March 2," he added.

Hayes was declared the winner with 185-184 Electoral College majority&mdash115 days after Election Day. It led to the Compromise of 1877, in which Republicans agreed to an end to Reconstruction and military occupation of the South.


Kyk die video: С 0,65 стотни преднина коалиция ГЕРБ-СДС печели изборите в Хасковско