The Compromise of 1877

Our Nation has constantly been in a struggle between states rights and the federal

government. The founding fathers designed a blue print that is a great filter against

corruption and balances the power in a system of “checks and balances”. At times these

systems are put under extreme strain as we see in the “Compromise of 1877” and how the

government repairs its trespasses.

In the months following the Election of 1876, but prior to the inauguration in March

1877, Republican and Democratic leaders secretly hammered out a compromise to

resolve the election impasse and address other outstanding issues. Under the terms of this

agreement, the Democrats agreed to accept the Republican presidential electors (thus

assuring that Rutherford B. Hayes would become the next president), provided the

Republicans would agree to the following: withdraw federal soldiers from their

remaining positions in the South, to enact federal legislation that would spur

industrialization for southern states, appoint Democrats to patronage positions, and

appoint a Democrat to the president’s cabinet. 1

The Hayes’ electors were selected and Hayes was named president two days before the

inauguration. Had Samuel J. Triden been elected as president, the civil rights movement

of the 1950’s would have not been so drastic due to his campaign was to assure that the

blacks got equality as we restructured the economy and trade. A week before these

negotiations opened a means had been devised to insure the removal of troops in case

Hayes forgot his promises or was unable to carry them out. At a Democratic caucus on

February 19, 1877, a majority of the members voted for a resolution to write into the
1
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h396.html (author unk)
Army appropriations bill, then still pending. A clause forbidding the use of troops to

support the claims of any state government in the South until it should be recognized by

Congress.2 With all these fail safes in place “the deal” could be put into action. In an

article in the New Your Times remarked; “the fraud of Electoral Boards and the wicked

partisanship of the Electoral Commission declaring Hays had not been elected President

according to law and asserting that he could not be lawfully installed as the Chief

Magistrate of the people. 3 This resentment went unheard as other issues had to be

addressed at the time as our Nation was still young and it’s Republic rot with more

pressing issues.

In cases like these, it does seem that the founding fathers had a pretty good grasp

on what a tyrannical government could be capable of as they won their independence

from England. But at the scope of this “Compromise” it can be said that as the political

hierarchy becomes detached from the peoples they serve the power they hold and not the

duty to the office sworn to serve and defend from corruption. In this Compromise an

election was decided without the account of the popular vote but the conditions of the

Electoral College and the conditions of the power brokers to be. The country was too

exhausted to allow another Civil War so this will go unnoticed in history and referenced

only when this happens again.

2
Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of the Reconstruction (Woodward, C.
Vann, Oxford University Press, Incorporated)
3
New York Times, February 19, 1877
 Bibliography

1. History.com - http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h396.html (author unk)

2. Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of the Reconstruction (Woodward,
C. Vann, Oxford University Press, Incorporated)
3. New York Times, February 19, 1877