9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
There's more beneath the surface, as usual, September 3, 2005
This review is from: Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Paperback)
The Compromise of 1877, in which Rutherford B. Hayes was elected President over Samuel Tilden, even though Tilden had more popular and (it seemed likely) more electoral votes as well, is usually explained rather simply (or simplistically): in exchange for removing Federal troops that still oversaw government rule in Louisiana and South Carolina, the South would give its electoral votes to Hayes and cease threatening a new civil war. The biggest loser, of course, would be the freed blacks, who would have no federal protection at all anymore. Woodward contends there was a lot more to the Compromise than just this, and that's what his book explores. Apparently in addition to the troops being removed, the South would get a few cabinet posts, promises of federal appropriations for internal improvements, and passage of the Texas Pacific Railroad Bill, which guaranteed a southern route for a trans-continental railroad at government expense. The deal was struck, Hayes was elected, the troops left, Reconstruction was officially ended, the Texas-Pacific was completed in 1892. Meanwhile, the South became a one-party (Democrat) section and segregation ruled the land. For the next couple of generations the fate of the South was sealed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A nebulous compromise (3.7*s), January 27, 2010
This review is from: Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Paperback)
This book is a highly detailed look at the behind-the-scenes meetings and correspondence among politicians, newspapermen, and businessmen, mostly connected with railroads, occurring in a very brief period form Nov, 1876 to Mar, 1877 for the primary purposes of installing Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House and ending the remaining vestiges of military occupation in the South. The election of 1876 appeared to have been won by Democrat Samuel J. Tilden of New York, but it was claims that chicanery and fraud had put South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana in the Democratic column that gave Republicans an opening to retain the Presidency, currently held by Grant.
It was a time of shifting political alliances, resulting in the increasing influence of conservative, Whiggish elements in both the North and the South, and the diminishment of Radical Republicans in the North and Carpetbaggers in the South. The conservatives' main focus was to move beyond the leftover antagonisms of the Civil War, especially considerations of the rights of freedmen, and to promote a laissez-faire business climate, but with considerable government subsidies for internal improvements, especially in the South, which had serious infrastructure deficiencies. The most interesting political development was the growing alignment of southern Democrats with northern Republican reformers, or conservatives. Beyond the business leanings of Republicans as a basis of alignment, southern Democrats wanted no part of the talk of northern "dough-face" Democrats to use military force to install Tilden. The North-South split in the party, while real enough, was never strictly adhered to and proved to be rather short-lived.
The formal mechanism to decide how state electoral votes were to be cast was the federal Electoral Commission established in Jan, 1877, consisting of five members from the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Ct. The commission ended up with eight Republicans and seven Democrats, who proceeded to vote along party lines in determining how the electoral votes of the states in question would be cast. Republican Justice Joseph P. Bradley, a late substitute, generated considerable storm by apparently shifting his votes in late-night dealings. While those three states had their votes cast for Hayes, the governorships were returned to Democrats immediately upon troop withdrawals - in effect, a return to "home-rule" and a rejection of Carpetbagger rule.
The so-called Compromise of 1877 was a nebulous affair. Virtually all of it involved verbal agreements, many aspects of which did not come to fruition. Hayes' selection of Sen. David M. Key of Tennessee for Postmaster General fulfilled a requirement to place a southerner in the cabinet and did result in numerous conservative or "redeemer" Democrats being awarded patronage jobs in the South. The implied promise on the part of southerners to aid in the election of conservative Republican James A. Garfield of Ohio to the speakership of the House in late 1877 failed to materialize. Furthermore, very little in the way of funds to effect internal improvements was sent to the South. In particular, the funding of the Texas and Pacific railroad in its push to lay track from Texas to California was rejected, despite the huge lobbying efforts of Thomas Scott, the president of the railroad, and his numerous well-placed supporters. Ironically, it was that lobbying in 1875 that laid the basis for the political compromise some two years later. The Republicans also exacted assurances from leading southern figures that the rights of freedmen would be respected - obviously, not honored in the long term.
The book is immensely detailed concerning various maneuverings, perhaps far more than necessary. In some cases there is glaring lack of detail. The nature of the claims of electoral wrongdoing in the three southern states is scarcely mentioned, which is inconsistent with its centrality to the entire situation. The author insists on the importance of the so-called Compromise, placing it along other well-known compromises of the 19th century. Yet that would seem to be a somewhat controversial view. Had Tilden become president, events could well have proceeded along a similar path. Democrats would have been restored in the South, federal troops would have left, and concerns for the freedmen would have been shoved to the rear. Nonetheless, the book is a very interesting cataloging of the process of reaching several agreements, regardless of implementation. The book can also be read as general history of the period as there are broad looks at the political landscape. Not unexpectedly, virtually all of the parties to the agreements had Civil War backgrounds. It's unlikely that one could ever find so many majors, colonels, and generals involved in political action at any other point in our history.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
