Talk:United States presidential election, 1876

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I could be mistaken, but the main graphic, of the presidential election outcome on map, is confusing to me. Why here are republicans represented by blue states and democrats represented by red states. Am I missing out on a change in color association that was made some time ago? It is further confusing considering that all the states I would generally associate with voting liberal or conservative seem to be voting in the exactly opposite way they have for the past hundred years. Texas and most of the south for the democratic candidate and California and the east coast for a republican candidate. Somebody make sure that is right will you, and when you find out what on earth is going on somebody e-mail me please...natestaunton@hotmail.com


Please see Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy for standards for all "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" pages.

Contents

[edit] Formatting curiosities

Anyone know why the format of the "The Controversy" headline is different to the others? --Rebroad 23:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise of 1877

I added a link to the Compromise of 1877 in the "see also" section, but really it should be mentioned in more detail in the article. -- Marcus 2 Jun 2005

I added a sentence about it in the intro. -- Kevin 8 Feb 2006

[edit] "Two sets of returns"?

Quoth the article:

This led to each state submitting two sets of returns, one certified by the state's Governor (favoring Hayes), and the other certified by the state's legislature (favoring Tilden).

Does anyone know exactly what this means? Were two entirely separate sets of electors assembled, each sending its own electoral votes to Congress? --Jfruh 02:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Rather two governors, as each side claimed victory in the gubernatorial elections. This didn't happen in all states, though. --24.17.17.26 18:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral picture peculiarity

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.
— DLJessup (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Oregon

Congressional acts regulating the conduct of presidential elections (1792 and 1845) both specified that vacancies among the Presidential Electors were to be filled by the remaining Electors. Oregon's Governor was unjustified in his attempt to certify one of the losing candidates.

In Ohio, the Electors recorded their proceedings in a book purchased by Gov. Hayes. This book was in use from 1868 until 1912. The book is currently held by the Ohio Historical Society. Chronicler3 18:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

Um, I've looked up both of the congressional acts you mention, 1 Stat. 239 and 6 Stat. 721. The first act says nothing about replacement of vacancies in the electors. 6 Stat. 721 does mention vacancies, but reads:
Each state may by law provide for the filling of any vacancy or vacancies which may occur in its college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote … when any state shall have held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and shall fail to make a choice on the day aforesaid, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the State shall by law provide.
In neither case does it appear that vacancies among the electors were to be filled by the remaining electors unless the state legislature passed a law to that effect.
— DLJessup (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I have looked in the books I own on this topic but have not found this reference. I remember reading that Congress wanted to deal with the lack of provision for replacing Electors, which resulted in four vacancies in 1789. This is rather specific information, but I can't recall the book I read it in. Are the federal acts online? I would like to read them. I will do a google search. Sorry for the faulty information :-(

I see in The North Carolina Electoral College: The People and the Process Behind the Vote that the first instance of a replacement Elector there was 1808. According to Ohio Elects the President the first time an Elector failed to show up was 1812 - apparently Ohio did not have a provision for filling vacancies at that time because the vote was lost. The next time an Elector did not show up in Ohio was 1844, and a replacement was chosen. Chronicler3 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

The Library of Congress has Statutes at Law from 1789 through 1875 online at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html, as part of A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1873. (In spite of the title, it's actually through 1875; they apparently didn't update the title when they got the additional two years uploaded.) It's a wonderful resource.
— DLJessup (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commies?

Is the buissiness about Wisconson having a Communist party that got 32 votes true? It sounds a little suspiscious to me. 68.39.174.238 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Name Communist did not exist (as a name) until 1916AD in Russia. What this might refer to is a Socialist Party. However if you are refering to a current election, then the info maybe found elsewhere this article talks about the Currupt election of 1876ADMagnum Serpentine 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Cooper's middle name

Peter Cooper had no middle name, or at least one that can be verified using Internet searches :-) . I am removing "Fennimore" until a citation can be given. For more information see: Talk:Peter Cooper

Lent 09:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding Samuel F. Cary's middle name

See: Biographical Directory of the United States Congress http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000216

[edit] Colorado

Does anyone know if Colorado's appointment of electors by its legislature is the last instance of a state choosing its electors by some means other than a popular vote? --Jfruh (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing ballots on Palm Beach County

Dare we note that in Palm Beach County a lot of votes were probably miscast because of the way the ballot was designed? And people thought 2000 was unprecedented! Timrollpickering 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Having found the reference it seems that county in particular was a myth. But the ballot was confusing. Timrollpickering 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Scandal

The section on Democratic Party nomination says "The 12th Democratic National Convention assembled in St. Louis just nine days after the sex scandal" but it does not reference what sex scandal they are talking about. Does anyone have enough info to correct this? Jablair51 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. There wasn't one. (SEWilco 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] New York Times editor John C. Reid

I've read somewhere that Hayes' victory was somehow influenced by then New York Times managing editor John C. Reid. Any evidence about this? 124.104.27.225 11:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Filipino_Reader

There's a bit on this in George H. Mayer's The Republican Party: 1854-1966 page 194. According to his account everyone else in New York had assumed Tilden had won the election at midnight on polling day (the Herald had a results board which displayed 184 votes for Tilden by then) but Reid worked out that the Democrats would carry no more Northern states and that Louisianna, South Carolina and Florida would a) prove decisive and b) the election boards were controlled by Republicans. Reid went to the Republican HQ and convinced W. E. Chandler (secretary of the National Committee) who both dispatched telegrams and travelled to Florida to oversee the outcome.
Whilst Mayer states "To this day nobody knows which candidate was entitled to a majority of the electoral college in 1876" (page 195) he strongly supports the view that the intervention to ensure the results in those three states proved decisive. Timrollpickering 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)