Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876

by William H. Rehnquist

In the annals of presidential elections, the hotly contested 1876 race between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden was in many ways as remarkable in its time as Bush versus Gore was in ours. Chief Justice William Rehnquist offers readers a colorful and peerlessly researched chronicle of the post—Civil War years, when the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant was marked by misjudgment and scandal, and Hayes, Republican governor of Ohio, vied with Tilden, a wealthy Democratic lawyer and successful corruption buster, to succeed Grant as America’s chief executive. The upshot was a very close popular vote (in favor of Tilden) that an irremediably deadlocked Congress was unable to resolve. In the pitched battle that ensued along party lines, the ultimate decision of who would be President rested with a commission that included five Supreme Court justices, as well as five congressional members from each party. With a firm understanding of the energies that motivated the era’s movers and shakers, and no shortage of insight into the processes by which epochal decisions are made, Chief Justice Rehnquist draws the reader intimately into a nineteenth-century event that offers valuable history lessons for us in the twenty-first.

Genres: History, American History, Politics, Law, Nonfiction

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and a political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the Chief Justice of the United States. Considered a conservative, Rehnquist favored a federalism under which the states meaningfully exercised governmental power. Under this view of federalism, the Supreme Court of the United States, for the first time since the 1930s, struck down an Act of Congress as exceeding federal power under the Commerce Clause.

Rehnquist presided as Chief Justice for nearly 19 years, making him the fourth-longest-serving Chief Justice after John Marshall, Roger Taney, and Melville Fuller, and the longest-serving Chief Justice who had previously served as an Associate Justice. The last 11 years of Rehnquist's term as Chief Justice (1994–2005) marked the second-longest tenure of one roster of the Supreme Court.

Reviews

[SoulSurvivor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Former Chief Justice rehnquist is a surprisingly good writer. He thoroughly (maybe too much) covers the disputed 1876 Presidential election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes over Democrat Samuel Tilden. This election put me in mind of the 2000 contest between Bush the younger versus Al Gore.
The author spends too much time discussing the background, education and character of the dozens of key figures in this disputed election. At the end on the book I thought the decision in favor of Hayes was correct but understand how the Democrats and Tilden felt at their rejection. Tilden was an extremely wealthy man (remember Donald Trump) and had a pretty good life ahead of him, so not so much a sympathetic character.Maybe I'll add another Rehnquist book to my 1500+ TBR list?

[William · Rating 1 out of 5]

Rehnquist's panglossian hagiographic take on the 1876 election praises the electoral commission for coming to the correct legal decision, whilst ignoring the fact that Republicans gave the election to a Republican who had LOST THE ELECTION! This reads as nothing more than as a rationalization of his own court's electoral theft in 2000.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who, from time to time, likes to read works of legal history [1], I found this work immensely appealing on two levels. On the surface level of reading, this book is a joy to read, written by someone, namely the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who has a good skill at crafting a narrative, and an ability to make a compelling tale of the sordid and corrupt mess of a particularly controversial election, namely that of 1876 where disputed ballot returns in Florida (among other places) decided the presidency. On a deeper level, though, this book makes a highly appropriate indirect appeal on the part of Chief Justice Rehnquist for the legitimacy of the (partisan) decision made in Gore vs. Bush that ended up certifying Bush's decisive victory in Florida that won him the presidency in 2000 despite losing the popular vote. This book is an example of a well-written history from someone who helped to make history, and one that points out both the complexity and dubious legitimacy of America's politics while also presenting a high-toned view of the dignity of the Supreme Court as an institution, something that is not always easy to remember in the case of that court's frequent self-inflicted wounds by deciding poorly on mistaken moral and legal grounds in the attempt to adjudicate disputes in a frequently divided nation.

The contents of this book consist of a generally chronological history of about 250 pages that follows several parallel tracks. One of the book's threads takes up the history of the Supreme Court as an institution, the way that justices have served loyally and well, and either added to or detracted from the dignity of the office, and the sorts of cases that the Supreme Court or its justices have had to deal with, such as the five justices that served on the fifteen-man committee that ended up giving Rutherford Hayes the presidency by a vote of 8-7. The second thread is that of the election of 1876, its political context in the corrupt Guilded Age as well as the aftermath of the Civil War, and also includes a fascinating series of biographical sketches on the most important people involved in the dispute, including most notably Hayes and Tilden themselves. The third thread is a discussion of legal jurisprudence and the larger cases that were being made by Hayes' and Tilden's advocates, and the dirty tricks that both sides and their proxies had been involved in, and the bitterly divided state of the United States in the aftermath of the Civil War. All of these threads are dealt with skillfully in a way that is easy to read and full of surprising depth.

Whether or not one agrees with the case that the Supreme Court justices, despite their partisanship, did a good job in 1876, or whether one agrees with the subtle and implicit argument that the justices in 2000 did so, this book does what any book by a Chief Justice should do, and that is make a persuasive historical case. From this book it is clear that Rehnquist has a shrewd understanding of the need to defend the legitimacy of an institution of which he was so prominent and conspicuous a part, as well as a strong degree of interest in using history and law in order to make a complex and nuanced case that is ostensibly about the crisis of 1876 but is also, albeit not very openly, a case about the similar crisis in 2000, about which the author felt it may have been too recent a crisis to provide the necessary historical detachment. This is, ultimately, a book that is both easy to read but one that rewards a reader that approaches the work with a sense of appreciation for skilled layering and implication, a work that deserves to be better read, regardless of your own partisan identity, on the sheer joy of reading a work that speaks so deeply to the life and concerns of a notable man who proves himself a surprisingly skilled popular historian.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[Steve's Book Stuff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Centennial Crisis is Chief Justice William Rehnquist's interesting but ultimately disappointing telling of the disputed election of 1876.

The book is quite good at giving us the background of the central characters in the 1876 election - Grant, the outgoing President, Hayes, the candidate who ultimately won, Tilden his opponent. This takes up the first four chapters.

Chapter 5 covers the election itself, and here's where things get disappointing. Over the preceding 90 some pages Rehnquist covers the players in detail, but the play itself gets only eighteen pages, and there are twists and turns here that clearly could have benefited from further detail. I got to the end of Chapter 5 more than a bit confused by it all - Louisiana had a committee that simply threw out votes until they got the result they wanted? Oregon's governor simply substitutes electors because why? It's all really strange and not well explained - even to a reader going through the strange contortions of the 2020 election.

Suffice it to say that more than one state (Hello Florida) submitted votes from more than one slate of electors to the Electoral College, throwing the election to Congress. How Congress made it's way through the electoral mess, and managed to enlist Justices of the Supreme Court while doing so is the subject of the rest of the book.

Centennial Crisis is interesting as the product of the legal mind of the Chief Justice whose court ruled on the Florida ballot disputes in the 2000 election. It's worth a read for that reason alone. But if you are looking to understand the environment and the politics of 1876 that led to the dispute in the first place, then it's best to look elsewhere. Rehnquist, legal wizard he, is of course much more interested in the legal process of resolving the dispute, and it's impact on the Supreme Court, and that is the story he tells here.

[Rick Elinson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Who knew that the 1876 election was disputed with four states, including good old Florida, holding the electoral balance between Hayes and Tilden? It took an election commission involving 5 senators, 5 representatives, and 5 members of the Supreme Court to declare a winner. This book was useful to get information on this election and its impact on reconstruction, but Rehnquist's concerns, perhaps understandably,are the actions of the members of the Supreme Court. It was tough slogging at times.

[Stephen Lewis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this in anticipation of another disputed election. What I learned was, no matter how egregious the voter suppression (white supremacists roaming with shotguns) or how blatant the fraud (ballots tossed in the trash) or how partisan the people counting the votes (remember who examined the hanging chads), if a state official certifies the results (even if they were bribed) the results will stand. No law or amendment was passed after 1876 or 2000 to democratize presidential elections.

[Barb Ruess · Rating 4 out of 5]

And now I know why congressmen kept comparing the 2020 election to the election of 1876. Striking similarities and challenges though a much different solution to them. Well written, laid a good background and set the stage for understanding how and why things happened at the national level.

Not as much detail into the mess in each contested state as there could have been - but that likely would have been a much different book.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extraordinary work analyzing he 1876 US Presidential election, wherein Tilden won the Popular and Electoral vote counts, but lost the election because of (then) Republican claims of fraud. I suggest also reading “1876” by Gore Vidal’s historical fiction novel to best understand that election fiasco. It’s like Trump used that election as his playbook on how to thwart American voters.

[Kølin Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

While well-researched and informative, Rehnquist is not much of a book writer. This pretty much reads exactly how you think a lawyer would write, which made my eyes glaze over a couple times. That said, it's a thorough examination of a dispute that, unfortunately, parallels modern times.

[THOMAS J DINGLEY · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went into this comparing it to the actions and aftermath of the November 2020 election since this book was written before then. Upon finishing I got the feeling that it would be extremely hard to reverse results on an election for ANY reason.

[David R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

The late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote this creditable account of the election of 1876 in which disputed ballots in three southern states couldn't be resolved under the Constitution. Congress punted the question to an "Electoral Commission" that itself was a scaffolding for one man: independent Justice David Davis. Unfortunately Davis resigned to take a Senate seat and an apparently partisan vote proceeded to elect Rutherford Hayes to the presidency. Rehnquist is taking aim at those allegations and attempts to justify the decision to empanel a commission and the decisions by the five participating Supreme Court justices. It's a hard sell because all 15 commission members voted their party, although it is difficult to imagine (as Rehnquist suggests) that any other alternative was superior.

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Straight forward and direct retelling of the disputed election of 1876 (as stated in the title). The Presidential election between Hayes and Tilden is one of the great underrated crises in American history and Rehnquist examines it and gives an overview of the sequence of events. Unfortunately, he is dry as dust in writing style and there is a lcak of depth in the analysis at least until the epilogue. But really you can't help feeling that the whole purpose of the book is to act as a metaphor for his and his court's participation in the disputed election of 2000. Although he only explicitly mentions it once, there are the veiled references. A bit more honesty on this point would have been appreciated.

[Fred Klein · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book and found it very informative about the 1876 election.

Then Rehnquist loses his focus at the end, including a lengthy chapter summarizing how the U.S. Supreme Court has played an extra-judiciary role in American government throughout American history. That chapter did not seem to belong in this book. It was as though Rehnquist wrote it as an essay to justify his Court's role in the 2000 election, and he needed a place to put it. I got frustrated and bored during that chapter, and finally decided that I was not obligated to finish it, and I stopped.

I recommend reading this book until the last chapter, which you can skip.

[Kristyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book provides a great story, and shows how important party alliances have been throughout the history of our government. The president in 1876 was ultimately chosen because members of one party outnumbered their opponents on a committee. I gained a deep appreciation for how much work and research is involved on the part of supreme court justices when issuing their opinions. The author did a wonderful job, although parts of the book were over my head, I really enjoyed it and felt smarter after I read it.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found the book interesting but I didn't know much about the subject to begin with. I think that you could be disappointed if you have already read another book on the subject. Like Rehnquist's other books, it is straight to the point without too much fluff. This is worth reading if you are a fan of history or the Supreme Court.

[BillLan · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Chief Justice's attempt to justify the Supreme Court's inexcusable intrusion into the 2000 election.

The fact that he wrote this book shortly before his death is evidence of a jurist who knew the Bush v. Gore opinion lacked precedent and was wrong. It is only worth reading to assess his guilt. I would say this was humorous, but it is pathetic.

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very readable. Couldn't avoid thinking that the book is an apology of sorts for his role in Bush v. Gore. I was interested in the role Justice David Davis played in this drama. Rehnquist's account of this issue did not satisfy.

[Collins Roth · Rating 2 out of 5]

A tough book for anyone but a lawyer to love... the book has its moments, but was ponderous at times. The short length of the book meant the large cast of characters introduced were hard to keep track off, and so made parts confusing. But an interesting time period.

[Tony]

Interesting read. Lots of background on all the actors. Good epilogue discussing the merits of appointing sitting Justices to commissions and such.
I will be adding a biography of Rutherford B. Hayes to my reading list.

[Suzanne · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rehnquist's style is choppy, but subject matter is very interesting.

[Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh. Disappointing.

[Bill Sleeman · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid, thoroughly researched, history of an important event in our nation’s history.