Rating: 
Summary: HIstory Well Told
Review: 1876 election was corrupt and ended an era and prepared for the beginning of another. It clearly marked the end of Reconstruction and influenced the subsequent 90 years. Essentially, in the election of Hayes who is portrayed as a decent individual and Republican party giving up its commitment to Black rights we see the end of the battle for equality. The story is told well by Mr. Morris. It is impossible to read this without drawing comparisons to 2000. Some of the reviewers have argued that there were differences but some of the similarities are striking. Tilden like Gore made fundamental errors immediately after the votes were cast. IN each case there was faith in a legal strategy that did not work while their opponents out manuevered them on the ground. Also Florida was the place where the work was decided. I suggest that anyone reading this book also read 1876 by Gore Vidal to understand how different society was at that time.
Rating:
Summary: HIstory Well Told
Review: 1876 election was corrupt and ended an era and prepared for the beginning of another. It clearly marked the end of Reconstruction and influenced the subsequent 90 years. Essentially, in the election of Hayes who is portrayed as a decent individual and Republican party giving up its commitment to Black rights we see the end of the battle for equality. The story is told well by Mr. Morris. It is impossible to read this without drawing comparisons to 2000. Some of the reviewers have argued that there were differences but some of the similarities are striking. Tilden like Gore made fundamental errors immediately after the votes were cast. IN each case there was faith in a legal strategy that did not work while their opponents out manuevered them on the ground. Also Florida was the place where the work was decided. I suggest that anyone reading this book also read 1876 by Gore Vidal to understand how different society was at that time.
Rating: 
Summary: Our slime-covered history
Review: After reading this, you will want to take a shower, because this is one slimy, grubby tale of politics of the lowest order. If you are someone who needs to know who the good guys and bad guys are, then you should avoid this book. Virtually everyone emerges from this story tarnished. On first glance, this is the story of a stolen election. Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by 260,000 votes and initially appeared to have a comfortable margin of victory in the electoral college. By the time the dust settled, the votes in 3 states had been creatively interpreted and the Twelth Amendment of the Constitution circumvented to give Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency. It would seem to be simple enough: the Democrats are the victimized good guys and the corrupt Republicans were the nasty bad guys. Of course, nothing is as simple as it seems. As Morris delves more deeply into the subterreanean political strata, he shows that the story is actually multiple stories of various power blocs pursuing their respective goals in some rather unsavory ways. Were the carpetbag Republican governments in the South maintaining their power through fraud & corruption? Certainly they were --- however, the Southern Democrats were also expanding their power base through violence and intimidation of black voters. Of course, Republicans were also not above using the same intimidation tactics, sometimes against apostate black voters who had the temerity to support the Democrats. One is left with a bad taste in one's mouth in regards to all parties involved. Morris also draws the distinction between party politics at the national and local levels, and illustrates that different levels of the same party very often have mutually exclusive goals. A case in point would be the Democratic Party in South Carolina & Louisiana, which was more concerned with ending Federal occupation in both states than with getting Tilden elected. The local Democrats of both states were willing to deal with either Hayes or Tilden to achieve that goal. Morris explicitly denies that Hayes cut a specific deal with Southern Democrats, but through vague platform statements and soothing statements through his lieutenants, Hayes was able to reassure Democrats in Louisiana & South Carolina that they need not worry about a Federal presence in their respective states for too much longer. Democratic leaders in the South also knew that protesting too violently against the election results might result in renewed Federal occupation throughout the South --- something, considering that the Civil War had ended only 11 years before, that they were none too eager to provoke. The Democrats took the most pragmatic approach, even though it probably cost Tilden the election. The Republicans, on the other hand, demonstrated that as a party they were willing to abandon Southern Republicans, particularly those who were black, to their fates in order to maintain possession of the White House. The 1876 elections signalled the end of Reconstruction, although the Grant administration had been slowly disengaging for the last two years approximately. The Republicans of the South were abandoned for the greater good of the party, or so the Republican power brokers convinced themselves. As for the candidates themselves, they do not emerge too covered in slime, but they are hardly unblemished. While Hayes was not complicit in his lieutenants' scheming, Morris observes, "Whether he should have known about them in the first place is another question altogether." Tilden is similary compromised, as his lieutenants (albeit without his knowledge) attempted to bribe various officials into producing a favorable result for their candidate. Thankfully, Morris does not overindulge in the "what if" brand of speculative history. Would Tilden have made a good President? Perhaps, but his political instincts failed him during the election crisis. If he had been more actively involved and had courted the necessary people (as Hayes did), Tilden might have been able to produce a favorable result. As it was, he withdrew from view and remained passive throughout the crisis, allowing the momentum to slip away. Would Tilden have been as passive as president. I am inclined to think that he would have been as unremarkable as Hayes. Hayes, for his part, entered the White House under a cloud which never totally left him during his one term. What he left posterity is thoroughly uninspiring. As a whole, this book is recommended reading for anyone who thinks that US history is less squalid than some Banana Republic. It is important to keep in mind that 4 presidential elections (1800, 1824, 1876 & 2000) were decided in rather controversial fashion. At least one other election (1888) was decided by fraud, and one can also look at other elections (1960, for example) with a healthy dose of skepticism. Yes folks, it can happen here, and it has several times. If nothing else, the election of 1876 should serve as a warning against complacency.
Rating:
Summary: Our slime-covered history
Review: After reading this, you will want to take a shower, because this is one slimy, grubby tale of politics of the lowest order. If you are someone who needs to know who the good guys and bad guys are, then you should avoid this book. Virtually everyone emerges from this story tarnished. On first glance, this is the story of a stolen election. Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by 260,000 votes and initially appeared to have a comfortable margin of victory in the electoral college. By the time the dust settled, the votes in 3 states had been creatively interpreted and the Twelth Amendment of the Constitution circumvented to give Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency. It would seem to be simple enough: the Democrats are the victimized good guys and the corrupt Republicans were the nasty bad guys. Of course, nothing is as simple as it seems. As Morris delves more deeply into the subterreanean political strata, he shows that the story is actually multiple stories of various power blocs pursuing their respective goals in some rather unsavory ways. Were the carpetbag Republican governments in the South maintaining their power through fraud & corruption? Certainly they were --- however, the Southern Democrats were also expanding their power base through violence and intimidation of black voters. Of course, Republicans were also not above using the same intimidation tactics, sometimes against apostate black voters who had the temerity to support the Democrats. One is left with a bad taste in one's mouth in regards to all parties involved. Morris also draws the distinction between party politics at the national and local levels, and illustrates that different levels of the same party very often have mutually exclusive goals. A case in point would be the Democratic Party in South Carolina & Louisiana, which was more concerned with ending Federal occupation in both states than with getting Tilden elected. The local Democrats of both states were willing to deal with either Hayes or Tilden to achieve that goal. Morris explicitly denies that Hayes cut a specific deal with Southern Democrats, but through vague platform statements and soothing statements through his lieutenants, Hayes was able to reassure Democrats in Louisiana & South Carolina that they need not worry about a Federal presence in their respective states for too much longer. Democratic leaders in the South also knew that protesting too violently against the election results might result in renewed Federal occupation throughout the South --- something, considering that the Civil War had ended only 11 years before, that they were none too eager to provoke. The Democrats took the most pragmatic approach, even though it probably cost Tilden the election. The Republicans, on the other hand, demonstrated that as a party they were willing to abandon Southern Republicans, particularly those who were black, to their fates in order to maintain possession of the White House. The 1876 elections signalled the end of Reconstruction, although the Grant administration had been slowly disengaging for the last two years approximately. The Republicans of the South were abandoned for the greater good of the party, or so the Republican power brokers convinced themselves. As for the candidates themselves, they do not emerge too covered in slime, but they are hardly unblemished. While Hayes was not complicit in his lieutenants' scheming, Morris observes, "Whether he should have known about them in the first place is another question altogether." Tilden is similary compromised, as his lieutenants (albeit without his knowledge) attempted to bribe various officials into producing a favorable result for their candidate. Thankfully, Morris does not overindulge in the "what if" brand of speculative history. Would Tilden have made a good President? Perhaps, but his political instincts failed him during the election crisis. If he had been more actively involved and had courted the necessary people (as Hayes did), Tilden might have been able to produce a favorable result. As it was, he withdrew from view and remained passive throughout the crisis, allowing the momentum to slip away. Would Tilden have been as passive as president. I am inclined to think that he would have been as unremarkable as Hayes. Hayes, for his part, entered the White House under a cloud which never totally left him during his one term. What he left posterity is thoroughly uninspiring. As a whole, this book is recommended reading for anyone who thinks that US history is less squalid than some Banana Republic. It is important to keep in mind that 4 presidential elections (1800, 1824, 1876 & 2000) were decided in rather controversial fashion. At least one other election (1888) was decided by fraud, and one can also look at other elections (1960, for example) with a healthy dose of skepticism. Yes folks, it can happen here, and it has several times. If nothing else, the election of 1876 should serve as a warning against complacency.
Rating:
Summary: The Most Corrupt Election
Review: Americans all over the country went to bed after election night thinking that the Democrats had won the White House. The Democratic candidate won the popular vote, and while this was conceded by all, the antiquated Electoral College system made the popular vote of decidedly secondary importance. There were races in such states as Florida where the balloting was contested, and outright fraud at many levels was claimed. Election officials headed south to try to provide trustworthy re-counts, but more important were the deals made secretly between the press, the state officials, and the eager Republicans who intended to put their man in office. Only after a Republican member of the Supreme Court cast his vote was there a certified Republican victory, but the outcome will ever be suspect of polling chicanery. So it was that Americans elected a president in 1876. The parallels to the 2000 election are often surprising, but those coincidences are not the point of _Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876_ (Simon & Schuster) by Roy Morris, Jr. The election was indeed stolen, but Hayes's eventual victory and its cost to public confidence in governmental capability meant that Reconstruction was ended and Jim Crow came into power. Both Hayes and Tilden went to bed on election night assured that Tilden had won. Final returns showed that Tilden had won the popular vote by 250,000, and had 184 of the 185 electoral votes sewn up; there were four states which were late in reporting, and one electoral vote from any of them would have given Tilden the election. It seemed a done deal, but Republicans refused to give up. Alternative counts were produced, and Congress set up an Electoral Commission of fifteen members. Southern Democrats started making deals with Hayes's men, and were promised that federal troops would be withdrawn from the states still under reconstruction governments. Blacks who had helped bring the Republicans into office were cut out of the deal, which ensured that black Americans in the South would be held back from participating in politics until the modern civil rights movement. Four months after the election, and just before swearing in, Hayes was declared the winner. It was the most corrupt election in our nation's history, and yet Morris shows that the two candidates were decent men forced by circumstances to play roles in it. Tilden, especially, shines; he clearly saw what would be good for the nation, and acted unselfishly, even though he had been defrauded by the Republicans. Morris says, "It was an act of supreme patriotism on the part of a man who had won, if not the presidency, at least the election." _Fraud of the Century_ is a rousing story, full of dirty tricks and rascals. Certainly it has relevance to recent events, but the 1876 election has been mostly forgotten. Morris has dramatically brought it forward as an example of how the Electoral College previously complicated and reversed popular will, with serious repercussions for subsequent history. Lively and well researched, without polemics regarding current events, the book rightly puts our last election in historical context.
Rating:
Summary: Not a hanging chad in sight.
Review: As the smoke cleared from Election Day 1876 the people of the United States found themselves with no clear winner. The Republican nominee, Rutherford B. Hayes at first was sure he had lost while at the same time the Democratic nominee Samuel Tilden was just as sure he had won. The Republican National Chairman was so sure of Tilden's victory that on election night he went to bed with a bottle of whisky for comfort. Enter Dan Sickles, yes the same Dan Sickles that shot down Philip Barton Key, the same Dan Sickles who had been the first American acquitted on a murder charge due to temporary insanity, and the same Dan Sickles who had gotten his corps chewed up at Gettysburg. There is little surprise that this man was possibly the father of the biggest election fraud in American history. It was Sickles who first wired the Republican governors of South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana that they should hold their states for Hayes at all cost. That they did. What follows is a sad tale of corrupt state election boards, sneaky politicians, and various shenanigans by both campaigns. The difference in the final outcome seems to be the result of circumstances that have to remind the reader of a certain recent election. The Republican candidate seemed to exude confidence while Tilden acted like he had been hit in the face with a wet squirrel. Since Tilden didn't seem to know what to do that left his party wandering somewhat in the darkness. Tilden's friends tried but without central leadership, without one hand knowing what the other was doing, their whole effort was a confused jumble. Hayes on the other hand, seemed to be completely at ease. The Republican effort was smooth and effective and in the end everything was all decided in great part by the Supreme Court. Just like 2000. Of course there was also the little understanding that if the south let Hayes win, reconstruction would end in the three states where troops were still stationed. Hayes himself seems to have developed this idea while Tilden sat in his library and wrote legal briefs. This book, by Roy Morris, Jr. is a very easy to read and engaging work. The author makes it easy to keep up with what is going on even though the action is spread from Louisiana to DC and from Florida to Oregon. Mr. Morris not only explains what happened but also speculates that President Grant had started reconstruction out the door, and that it was dead no matter who was President. He convincingly argues that white northerners were as tired of reconstruction as were white southerners and that Hayes in reality probably only shortened the occupation of the south by a few months. He did not therefore, sell out southern blacks as badly as some would have us believe. With the excellent research and scholarship to be found in this book, I highly recommend it
Rating:
Summary: Not a hanging chad in sight.
Review: As the smoke cleared from Election Day 1876 the people of the United States found themselves with no clear winner. The Republican nominee, Rutherford B. Hayes at first was sure he had lost while at the same time the Democratic nominee Samuel Tilden was just as sure he had won. The Republican National Chairman was so sure of Tilden's victory that on election night he went to bed with a bottle of whisky for comfort. Enter Dan Sickles, yes the same Dan Sickles that shot down Philip Barton Key, the same Dan Sickles who had been the first American acquitted on a murder charge due to temporary insanity, and the same Dan Sickles who had gotten his corps chewed up at Gettysburg. There is little surprise that this man was possibly the father of the biggest election fraud in American history. It was Sickles who first wired the Republican governors of South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana that they should hold their states for Hayes at all cost. That they did. What follows is a sad tale of corrupt state election boards, sneaky politicians, and various shenanigans by both campaigns. The difference in the final outcome seems to be the result of circumstances that have to remind the reader of a certain recent election. The Republican candidate seemed to exude confidence while Tilden acted like he had been hit in the face with a wet squirrel. Since Tilden didn't seem to know what to do that left his party wandering somewhat in the darkness. Tilden's friends tried but without central leadership, without one hand knowing what the other was doing, their whole effort was a confused jumble. Hayes on the other hand, seemed to be completely at ease. The Republican effort was smooth and effective and in the end everything was all decided in great part by the Supreme Court. Just like 2000. Of course there was also the little understanding that if the south let Hayes win, reconstruction would end in the three states where troops were still stationed. Hayes himself seems to have developed this idea while Tilden sat in his library and wrote legal briefs. This book, by Roy Morris, Jr. is a very easy to read and engaging work. The author makes it easy to keep up with what is going on even though the action is spread from Louisiana to DC and from Florida to Oregon. Mr. Morris not only explains what happened but also speculates that President Grant had started reconstruction out the door, and that it was dead no matter who was President. He convincingly argues that white northerners were as tired of reconstruction as were white southerners and that Hayes in reality probably only shortened the occupation of the south by a few months. He did not therefore, sell out southern blacks as badly as some would have us believe. With the excellent research and scholarship to be found in this book, I highly recommend it
Rating: 
Summary: ¿Was there a Compromise of 1877¿ revisited
Review: If you're looking for a fresh account of the 1876 presidential election that will provide the relevant background, relate the principal facts, and describe the roles of the various players in the drama, Roy Morris' book will do fine. (His vivid retelling of the actual "counting" of the Electoral College votes would by itself recommend the book to such a reader.) If instead you are seeking an in-depth, defensible interpretation of the events, one that will make use of the latest scholarship, then I feel "Fraud of the Century" falls short. Author Roy Morris, Jr. relies heavily on clichés in his recounting of the campaign, election, and aftermath. Pejorative terms and expressions such as scalawag, carpetbagger, and "waving the bloody shirt" abound, used by Morris without reservation or even definition. The "bloody shirt" characterization is applied whenever he tells of a speech defending black voting rights in the South. Overall, the impression builds that Morris' sympathies are distinctly on the side of those who sought to restore the pre-war power balance in the Confederate states. While forthrightly condemning the means -- thus the "stolen election" of the subtitle -- he nevertheless sees the result as a necessary and inevitable restoration of "home rule". His treatment of the various Reconstruction state governments - particularly that in Mississippi under Adelbert Ames - fails to properly recognize the validity of what those regimes were trying to accomplish. Instances of fraud, incompetence, and the use of force in those Reconstruction governments are presented as if they were defining and unique characteristics, rather than attributes at least equally found in the preceding and succeeding white regimes. And by and large he accepts the self-serving accounts in Hayes' diary as truth, while always casting aspersions on the motives of the Radical Republicans. Was there was an explicit quid-pro-quo that motivated Southern Democrats to acquiesce in the reversal of the actual results and to give the presidency to the Republican Hayes? This question has been a significant one in the historiography of the period and has been framed in part as "Was there a Compromise of 1877?" Morris seems to conclusively build the case that there was such an arrangement and then surprisingly to write that the resolution of the electoral crisis "did not depend on any secret deals." Possibly, this could be read as a nuanced view that pivots on what actually constitutes a "secret deal." Or that there was such a deal, but that delivery of the presidency was only the occasion for it and not actually an element in the deal. But to this reader, Morris' interpretation seems to be simply that, since the "understandings" were never embodied in a written contract, and since Hayes managed to retain "deniability" of any such deal, one therefore did not exist. This seems to me to be a naïve view, and the events Morris relates argue against it. Overall, the author accepts the interpretation of Reconstruction - and thus the merits of its demise - that dominated both scholarly works and textbooks in various forms for over a hundred years. Generally, that view claimed that the end of Radical Republican governments in the South "marked the end of force as an element in American political life and a return to the ways of conciliation" (Randall & Donald). That view has recently been effectively challenged by works such as the well-documented "Race & Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory" by David Blight. Although he cites it in his bibliography, Morris seems to have ignored that work's uncovering of how our collective perception of Reconstruction had been warped by the need to reintegrate the (white) South back into the Union. Putting aside this somewhat stale interpretation and the effect it seemingly has on the way Morris characterizes many events, his book otherwise serves as a compelling look at the circumstances that produced a turning point in American history.
Rating: 
Summary: War by other means
Review: It is unfortunate that the election of 1876 continues to be described in terms the Ku Klux Klan would smile upon. Consider the casual use of honored Klan terms such as 'carpetbagger' (any northern federalist) and 'scalawag' (any southern federalist). For Democrat Tilden, Morris quotes but immediately rebuts newspaper slander. For black election commissioners, the newspaper slander is gospel. When white 'rifle clubs'murder former members of federal colored units in Edgefield, it is explained away with conflicting testimony. When (federalist) South Carolina election officials throw out the Edgefield votes, Morris tells us the black vote was probably split. When former slaves lose the right to vote, we are told their 'rights' were just an 'experiment.' Just what was the 'Fraud of the Century'? Morris concludes the book by claiming he finds Hayes 'personally blameless'. I wondered just what Morris thought the fraud to be until discovering the book is an elaboration of a 1988 article and the title is a quoted headline used to conclude the article. Morris makes no argument for a specific 'fraud', instead he is simply sharing one contemporary opinion. I came to the book to read about Hayes and his fraud. The fraud I was interested in reading about was not covered, though. I thought the fraud of 1876 was Hayes' 'bargain' with Wade Hampton and other Southern slave-ocrats. In return for the presidency, Hayes agreed to forget the 15th amendment to the US constitution. Morris convinced me the fraud lay elsewhere. If nothing else, Morris argues the election of 1876 was 'war by other means.' Both Republican and Democrats were led by former generals. Prior to 1876, the activity was called a 'canvass'. After 1876, it was called a 'campaign'. Tilden, a man without military connections and experience in command of troops, never had a chance. Consider a less Klanish version of events in Charleston. On Feb 18th, 1865, Charleston fell to units of the 21st US Colored Troops, followed by two companies of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers (colored). After Lincoln's death, slave-ocrat leaning President Johnson kept southerners of color who had served in the federal army from voting and allowed the election of slave-ocrat colonel, James Orr. Orr's term in office was cut short by Federal General Robert K. Scott, who establish voting rights for federal colored soldiers. In 1874, a former lieutenant of Colored calvary, with the support of former colored South Carolina troops was elected governor, Daniel Chamberlain. This brings us to 4 murders in Edgefield, rifle clubs, night riders and the election of slavo-crat hero Wade Hampton. Which brings us back to locating the 'fraud of the century' and its meaning in the context of 'war by other means.' Until the readmission of rebel states, the civil rights of the slavo-crat soldiers were suspended, including their right to vote in elections. In fact, because the Rebels had taken up arms against their own nation - an act of treason according to the Constitution ("Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them . . ." Art. III, Sec. 3, cl. 1), they could have been executed (Art. III, Sec. 3, cl. 2). Instead, amnesty was granted to the Rebels if they took an oath of fidelity to the United States, including the 15th Amendment which guaranteed the voting rights of former federal colored soldiers. Maybe, the artful way these oaths were circumvented represented the 'fraud of the century.' Morris was right. Hayes could do little to change the reality of politics south of the Mason-Dixon line. The US is now engaged the preliminaries to another election in-lieu of war. The issues regarding post-war elections should not be lost on us. After all, what is the meaning of 'fraud' when war-by-other-means is the focus?
Rating:
Summary: War by other means
Review: It is unfortunate that the election of 1876 continues to be described in terms the Ku Klux Klan would smile upon. Consider the casual use of honored Klan terms such as 'carpetbagger' (any northern federalist) and 'scalawag' (any southern federalist). For Democrat Tilden, Morris quotes but immediately rebuts newspaper slander. For black election commissioners, the newspaper slander is gospel. When white 'rifle clubs'murder former members of federal colored units in Edgefield, it is explained away with conflicting testimony. When (federalist) South Carolina election officials throw out the Edgefield votes, Morris tells us the black vote was probably split. When former slaves lose the right to vote, we are told their 'rights' were just an 'experiment.' Just what was the 'Fraud of the Century'? Morris concludes the book by claiming he finds Hayes 'personally blameless'. I wondered just what Morris thought the fraud to be until discovering the book is an elaboration of a 1988 article and the title is a quoted headline used to conclude the article. Morris makes no argument for a specific 'fraud', instead he is simply sharing one contemporary opinion. I came to the book to read about Hayes and his fraud. The fraud I was interested in reading about was not covered, though. I thought the fraud of 1876 was Hayes' 'bargain' with Wade Hampton and other Southern slave-ocrats. In return for the presidency, Hayes agreed to forget the 15th amendment to the US constitution. Morris convinced me the fraud lay elsewhere. If nothing else, Morris argues the election of 1876 was 'war by other means.' Both Republican and Democrats were led by former generals. Prior to 1876, the activity was called a 'canvass'. After 1876, it was called a 'campaign'. Tilden, a man without military connections and experience in command of troops, never had a chance. Consider a less Klanish version of events in Charleston. On Feb 18th, 1865, Charleston fell to units of the 21st US Colored Troops, followed by two companies of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers (colored). After Lincoln's death, slave-ocrat leaning President Johnson kept southerners of color who had served in the federal army from voting and allowed the election of slave-ocrat colonel, James Orr. Orr's term in office was cut short by Federal General Robert K. Scott, who establish voting rights for federal colored soldiers. In 1874, a former lieutenant of Colored calvary, with the support of former colored South Carolina troops was elected governor, Daniel Chamberlain. This brings us to 4 murders in Edgefield, rifle clubs, night riders and the election of slavo-crat hero Wade Hampton. Which brings us back to locating the 'fraud of the century' and its meaning in the context of 'war by other means.' Until the readmission of rebel states, the civil rights of the slavo-crat soldiers were suspended, including their right to vote in elections. In fact, because the Rebels had taken up arms against their own nation - an act of treason according to the Constitution ("Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them . . ." Art. III, Sec. 3, cl. 1), they could have been executed (Art. III, Sec. 3, cl. 2). Instead, amnesty was granted to the Rebels if they took an oath of fidelity to the United States, including the 15th Amendment which guaranteed the voting rights of former federal colored soldiers. Maybe, the artful way these oaths were circumvented represented the 'fraud of the century.' Morris was right. Hayes could do little to change the reality of politics south of the Mason-Dixon line. The US is now engaged the preliminaries to another election in-lieu of war. The issues regarding post-war elections should not be lost on us. After all, what is the meaning of 'fraud' when war-by-other-means is the focus?
|
