Here’s an implausible and oddly timely pitch for a Netflix mini-series.
A Republican presidential candidate clearly loses he popular vote and appears to be on track to lose the electoral college. But his backers argue that the popular vote count in several key states nominally won by Democrats was badly flawed. They get their allies in key state legislatures to back alternative slates of electors for the contested states. Days before Inauguration Day, the dispute is still unresolved. But then, a commission created to resolve the differences unexpectedly gains a Republican majority and backs the Republican electors in every disputed state. While some Democrats complain, leaders of the Democratically controlled House go along because the Republicans agree to remove the few federal troops still trying to protect the rights of former slaves in Southern states.
Not good enough yet? Ok, let’s spice up the plot by revealing that Democrats had only won the counts in contested states by using violence and threats to keep newly enfranchised Black men and women away from the polls. Let’s also reveal that the Republican elected by selling out Blacks in the South had, a decade earlier been a Congressman who had supported the 14th Amendment and a major Civil Rights Act.
Still not good enough? How about after he takes office, he removes the troops but also vetoes bills that eliminate other legal protections for blacks. And he also appoints many blacks to federal posts, including Frederick Douglass, perhaps the nation’s best-known Black man, who becomes federal marshal for Washington, DC, the highest office held by a Black man at that time.
Want more? How about after he leaves office, he becomes a passionate advocate for education; provides a scholarship that helps W.E.B. Du Bois get his doctorate, and publicly worries about rapidly growing economic inequality in the United States?
If at least some of this – like the contested election – sounds familiar, it should, because all of it is the story of Rutherford B. Hayes, who was elected president in 1876 and is pictured on today’s #stampoftheday, a 19-cent stamp issued on November 10, 1938. The stamp was part of the “Prexies,” the first series of stamps to portray every American president from George Washington to Calvin Coolidge as well as Ben Franklin and Martha Washington. Given the stamp’s color, I wonder if I could call the proposed series “Purple Hayes.”
Hayes was a moderate three-time governor Ohio who also served as a U.S Representative and as an officer in the Union Army during the Civil War. He got the Republican nomination after a deadlocked convention settled on him as an acceptable alternative. He lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden, the Democratic governor of New York state, and, based on early returns, appeared to have lost the Electoral College vote as well. But Republicans, who had been in power since 1860, saw opportunities to challenge enough of the state results that they could win the Electoral College.
Gridlocked over how to resolve the issue, leaders of the Democratically-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate agreed to establish a 15 person commission with ten legislators, split equally between the two parties, and five Supreme Court justices–two Republicans, two Democrats, and one, selected by the other four, presumably David Davis, an independent respected by both parties. But Davis resigned after the Democratically controlled legislature in Illinois elected him to the US Senate (as part of an effort to win him over to the Democratic side). He was replaced with the Justice Joseph Bradley, a Republican thought to be the most independent-minded of the remaining justices.
In a series of 8-7 votes, in February, the commission voted in favor of all the Republican-backed electors, enough to give Hayes a 185-184 Electoral College victory. Congressional Democrats balked and threatened to filibuster to prevent Congress from accepting this outcome. Finally, in early March just before Inauguration Day (which was held in March until 1937), Democratic leaders agreed to approve the commission’s recommendations if the Republicans agreed to remove the remaining federal troops in the South, who, by this point, were stationed only in South Carolina and Louisiana. Republican leaders and their supporters, who had grown weary of the incessant battles in the southern states, also agreed not challenge the Democratic-dominated government in those states.
Although Hayes had supported the 14th Amendment and a landmark Civil Rights Act when he was in Congress, he accepted these conditions, in part because he did not believe continued occupation would work or was politically feasible. Instead, he said when took office, “the real thing to be achieved is safety and prosperity for the colored people. Both houses of Congress and the public opinion of the country are plainly against the use of the army . . . . The wish is to restore harmony and good feelings between sections and races. This can only be done by peaceful methods.”
While Hayes believed that southern Democrats had agreed to these terms, he soon realized he was mistaken. But rather than reverting to force, he touted education as the solution. In an 1880 speech, for example, he argued, “as long as any considerable numbers of our countrymen are uneducated, the citizenship of every American in every State in impaired.” Moreover, he argued, “it is obvious that neither individual charity nor the resources of impoverished States will be sufficient to meet the emergency. Nothing short of the wealth and power of the Federal Government will suffice to overcome the evil.”
Historians have debated whether Hayes was right to remove the troops. Don T. Carter, an Emory University history professor, for example, said, “I would question whether he had any political options. He did not have the support of the American people and did not have support even in his own political party.” However, Carter added, Hayes “basically was knuckling under to terrorism,….[He] should have stood up to the American people and said, ‘We’re doing this terrible thing,’ and instead he came up with this mealy-mouthed political bargain.'”
As president, Hayes did veto legislation that would have further curtailed civil rights protections and he appointed several blacks, including Douglas, to federal positions. He tried to reform the civil service and insisted that appointments be made on merit not political considerations,. And he generally pursued a moderate, pro-business policies.
Hayes, who promised to serve only one term, did veto legislation that would have further curtailed civil rights protections and he appointed several blacks, including Douglas, to federal positions. He tried to reform the civil service and insisted that appointments be made on merit not political considerations,. And he generally pursued a moderate, pro-business policies.
Over, he claimed that while he came into office at a time when “the country [was] divided and distracted and every interest depressed,” he “left it united, harmonious, and prosperous.” Many contemporaries also gave him positive reviews, according to historian Robert Johnston. Henry Adams, who had dismissed Hayes in 1876 as ‘a third-rate nonentity’ acknowledged by 1880 that Hayes had conducted “a most successful administration.” Mark Twain’s predicted that Hayes “would steadily rise into higher & higher prominence, as time & distance give it a right perspective,” That has not come to pass. Rather, historians have generally ranked him as an average or below-average president, an assessment that Johnston believes is unfair because they “have measured him against the ideals of a later era.”
In his retirement, Hayes continued to advocate for education. He served on the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University, the school he helped found when he was governor. He was active with the Slater Fund, which gave scholarships to young black men, including W. E. B. Du Bois, who as a 22-year-old graduate student wrote Hayes: “I think you owe an apology to the Negro people.”
Towards the end of his life, Hayes became increasingly troubled by the disparity between the rich and the poor, saying in an 1886 speech, “free government cannot long endure if property is largely in a few hands and large masses of people are unable to earn homes, education, and a support in old age.” Later, he wrote in his diary, “it is time for the public to hear that the giant evil and danger in this country, the danger which transcends all others, is the vast wealth owned or controlled by a few persons. Money is power. In Congress, in state legislatures, in city councils, in the courts, in the political conventions, in the press, in the pulpit, in the circles of the educated and the talented, its influence is growing greater and greater. Excessive wealth in the hands of the few means extreme poverty, ignorance, vice, and wretchedness as the lot of the many.” He added, “It is not yet time to debate about the remedy. The previous question is as to the danger-the evil. Let the people be fully informed and convinced as to the evil. Let them earnestly seek the remedy and it will be found.” Such sentiment help explain why, shortly before he died, Hayes concluded ” I am a radical in thought (and principle) and a conservative in method’ (and conduct).”
Ultimately, Hayes’s policies and politics could not prevent the late 19th centuries’ economic and social excesses. But his story turns out to be more nuanced and complex than it first appears, which, I think, is the test for a good mini-series (though its appeal might be tempered by the fact that he was a teetotaler who refused to serve alcohol in the White House, where his wife was known as “Lemonade Lucy.”)
Be well, stay safe, support education, fight for justice and work for peace.