“In the Messiest Contested Election, One Man Saved the System From Itself”

Do yourself a favor and read Franita Tolson in the NYT on the 1876 election and Samuel Randall:

In the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s election, scholars and political commentators have been busy gaming out doomsday scenarios on the small, but unlikely, chance that there is a contested result. Despite the existence of laws designed to mediate such disputes, concerns abound because of the tremendous uncertainty in the constitutional and statutory framework governing federal elections.

More than any other contest, the 1876 election shows us that our laws and democratic institutions have not always been up to the task of resolving an election crisis. We still face the prospect that consequential decisions may fall to a single person — be it a candidate, a governor, a legislator or an election official — who may have to decide between party and country in resolving a contested election.

In 1876, that person was Samuel Randall, who played a key role in avoiding dueling inaugurations where the Republican nominee, Rutherford B. Hayes, and the Democratic nominee, Samuel J. Tilden, each presented themselves as the lawfully elected president of the United States. Decisions that Randall, a Democrat, made as the speaker of the House might have forestalled the violent conflict — both inside and outside of the congressional chamber — by supporters on both sides if their candidate was not declared the winner.

With its heady mix of voter disenfranchisement, election fraud and extreme partisanship, the Hayes-Tilden dispute was a political maelstrom for which the U.S. Constitution had no specific remedy. The Constitution leaves significant discretion in the hands of officials who are tasked with facilitating the selection of the president. This discretion was often misused, and the years leading up to 1876 would set the stage for such abuse.

Share this: