1876: Samuel J. Tilden Becomes President

[Frodo]

Let's suppose that the election wasn't stolen from Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, and he became the nation's 19th President of the United States.

How much of an effect, if any, would there be?  How would his presidency differ from Rutherford B. Hayes' OTL administration?

[Bo]

Let's suppose that the election wasn't stolen from Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, and he became the nation's 19th President of the United States.

The election wasn't stolen from Samuel Tilden. In a free and fair election, Hayes would have likely won MS, LA, and SC due to their majority-black populations. Thus, he would have had more than enough EVs to win the election.

In regards to your question, I don't see much changing under a Tilden Presidency. Reconstruction would have still ended, with Jim Crow laws beginning to be put in place. The only large thing I think would have occured differently is that Tilden would have attempted and might have succeeded in lowering tariffs, thus resulting in a better economic policy for the nation. The role of the President and the federal govt. was pretty small in most of the 19th century, so the potential for large changes under a different President was drastically limited.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Let's suppose that the election wasn't stolen from Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, and he became the nation's 19th President of the United States.

The election wasn't stolen from Samuel Tilden. In a free and fair election, Hayes would have likely won MS, LA, and SC due to their majority-black populations. Thus, he would have had more than enough EVs to win the election.

No, it was stolen. Otherwise you'll have to dismiss every other election until the 1970s since blacks couldn't vote in the South.

[Bo]

Let's suppose that the election wasn't stolen from Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, and he became the nation's 19th President of the United States.

The election wasn't stolen from Samuel Tilden. In a free and fair election, Hayes would have likely won MS, LA, and SC due to their majority-black populations. Thus, he would have had more than enough EVs to win the election.

No, it was stolen. Otherwise you'll have to dismiss every other election until the 1970s since blacks couldn't vote in the South.

I'd also call 1884 and 1916 rigged since if blacks were able to vote, they would have changed the outcome. However, for all other elections until the 1970s (with the possible exception of 1960), the difference was too great for the minority vote to have changed the election results.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Let's suppose that the election wasn't stolen from Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, and he became the nation's 19th President of the United States.

The election wasn't stolen from Samuel Tilden. In a free and fair election, Hayes would have likely won MS, LA, and SC due to their majority-black populations. Thus, he would have had more than enough EVs to win the election.

No, it was stolen. Otherwise you'll have to dismiss every other election until the 1970s since blacks couldn't vote in the South.

I'd also call 1884 and 1916 rigged since if blacks were able to vote, they would have changed the outcome. However, for all other elections until the 1970s (with the possible exception of 1960), the difference was too great for the minority vote to have changed the election results.

Sorry, but you can't be inconsistent like that. Tilden won the 1876 election fair and square, but had the presidency robbed from him in a corrupt bargain that ended up screwing over blacks in the South for decades.

[Bo]

Let's suppose that the election wasn't stolen from Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, and he became the nation's 19th President of the United States.

The election wasn't stolen from Samuel Tilden. In a free and fair election, Hayes would have likely won MS, LA, and SC due to their majority-black populations. Thus, he would have had more than enough EVs to win the election.

No, it was stolen. Otherwise you'll have to dismiss every other election until the 1970s since blacks couldn't vote in the South.

I'd also call 1884 and 1916 rigged since if blacks were able to vote, they would have changed the outcome. However, for all other elections until the 1970s (with the possible exception of 1960), the difference was too great for the minority vote to have changed the election results.

Sorry, but you can't be inconsistent like that. Tilden won the 1876 election fair and square, but had the presidency robbed from him in a corrupt bargain that ended up screwing over blacks in the South for decades.

Tilden would have also screwed over the blacks. Hayes and Tilden were like Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Let's suppose that the election wasn't stolen from Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, and he became the nation's 19th President of the United States.

The election wasn't stolen from Samuel Tilden. In a free and fair election, Hayes would have likely won MS, LA, and SC due to their majority-black populations. Thus, he would have had more than enough EVs to win the election.

No, it was stolen. Otherwise you'll have to dismiss every other election until the 1970s since blacks couldn't vote in the South.

I'd also call 1884 and 1916 rigged since if blacks were able to vote, they would have changed the outcome. However, for all other elections until the 1970s (with the possible exception of 1960), the difference was too great for the minority vote to have changed the election results.

Sorry, but you can't be inconsistent like that. Tilden won the 1876 election fair and square, but had the presidency robbed from him in a corrupt bargain that ended up screwing over blacks in the South for decades.

Tilden would have also screwed over the blacks. Hayes and Tilden were like Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Tilden didn't accept a corrupt bargain to end Reconstruction in exchange for giving himself power.

[nikkio]

Currently I'm producing a documentary on Tilden --I write the Tilden teleplay in 1997 and re-wrote it into a book 2006 to get the story out there--Samuel Tilden the Real 19th President... I've been trying to pitch a mini-series on this election and that time period --the 100 year anniversay or the United States....

Tilden won and "was" derailed by a true right wing conspiracy to steal his Presidency...Newspapers across the nation headlined "Tilden Elected" --but NYTimes Managing Editor John Reid --convinced the paper to run a editoral "A Doubtful Election" --he woke the Republican Campaign Manager Chandler in the wee hours of the morning (who drank himself into a stuper over the defeat) to ask permission to wire the states of LA, SC & FL --the wire read, "Can you hold your State? Answer Immediately"--
Hayes that same night wrote in his diary -"The voters must have gone for ztilden due to the fame he gained with Tammany Hall and his Canal Ring reforms. It seems we Repunlicans has little hope for success...because of his succees."
To answer the slave accusations -Samuel did not agree with slavery -despised it and argued against the spread of it into the new territories. In the end it was the Southern Dems that threw Tilden under the bus because they felt they could get a better deal with Hayes. See Compromise 1877. The funny thing is - here we are 135 years later and even after Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote his book - openly admitted the scam to Tilden -Republicans still won't admit it...
 

[Indy Prez]

-Samuel did not agree with slavery -despised it and argued against the spread of it into the new territories. In the end it was the Southern Dems that threw Tilden under the bus because they felt they could get a better deal with Hayes.

It was the US Army in the SOuth that gave hayes whatever Southern states he won (FL, LA, & SC). The direct outcome of the election had little effect as Hayes had to give into Senate Democrats demands to end Reconstruction in order to be elected, which was Tilden's election promise. Also, a split Congress would have meant whoever was elected wouldn't have been able to instigate much change (so no tariff lowering either).

[hillbilly32]

Tilden should have won he was a hero and he was cheated out of he election by that damn fascist Yankee republican Ruthford B Hayes.

[AelroseB]

Tilden should have won he was a hero and he was cheated out of he election by that damn fascist Yankee republican Ruthford B Hayes.

[Skill and Chance]

It's difficult to underestimate how different things might have been.  If Tilden won, he would have also let Southern whites do as they pleased, but because it would have been a purely Democratic policy without any veneer of cooperation, Republicans could then make the next several elections a referendum on Jim Crow and racial violence, which most Northern whites would have opposed.  Then the next Republican trifecta passes something equivalent to the Voting Rights Act in the 1880's and appoints a Supreme Court that would enforce it.  America would be a very different place today.