Centennial Crisis : The Disputed Election of 1876

Rating:
Summary: A very good, if somewhat bloated history
Review: In this book, William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the American Supreme Court, looks at the disputed presidential election of 1876. In that election, which pitted Democrat Samuel Tilden against Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, disputes in the election in the states of Florida, Louisiana, Oregon and South Carolina resulted in each of those states sending in not one, but two competing sets of returns! As there was no constitutional provision to cover this eventuality, the two parties set up a commission to determine how the returns should be treated, and, as such, determine who would become President of the United States. The commission found for the Republican Party, which left the Democrats embittered, with charges of fraud and election stealing which have echoed down to this very day.

First of all, I must say that I found this to be a very good history. Mr. Rehnquist goes into great depth to give the reader a grasp on all aspects of the controversy, giving an enormous amount of information on the proceedings and the people involved. In fact, it is not too much to say that he gave too much information. As you go through the narrative, the constant, and rather lengthy, digressions begin to get a little wearying, making the history somewhat bloated and disjointed feeling.

But, that said, I did find this to be a very interesting look into that dispute, and I now understand a good deal about it that I never did before. The Chief Justice deals with it in a very even-handed manner, pointing out the hypocrisies and underhanded practices perpetrated by both parties; such as the Republicans' use of an all-Republican Returning Board in Louisiana to reject some 13,000 Democratic votes(!), and the Democrats' blatantly illegal double return from Oregon and the terrorist suppression of the African-American vote throughout the South, spearheaded by such groups as the Ku Klux Klan.

Overall, I found this to be a very good, if somewhat bloated history. If you are interested in reading an even-handed look at the disputed election of 1876, then I do recommend that you get this book.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting and Readable History
Review: Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has tackled one of the most insteresting, yet understudied, episodes in presidential election history by detailing the events of the disputed 1876 presidential election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden. While providing ample material highlighting the historical background for the election and its key participants, Rehnquist, quite naturally, focuses on the role of the judiciary in the settlement of the disputed electoral votes. Five key Supreme Court members were a part of the congressionally appointed commission which ultimately decided the outcome of the election, and Rehnquist spares few details in identifying the motives and justifications for their decisions.

Unfortunately, Rehnquist completely dodges comparisons between the 1876 election and the disputed 2000 election. No doubt that Rehnquist, who is both a sitting jurist as well as a major player in the final outcome of the 2000 campaign, would have a lot to say about the connections between 1876 and 2000. However, Rehnquist avoids this issue entirely, leaving us without a greater historical connection and context between the two elections.

Still, this is a fascinating story of elections, partisanship, aspirations, and egos, one that has timely relevance for a nation that today is sharply divided politically.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Narrative History from a Unique Point of View
Review: The author presents the facts of case pretty much as a lawyer would. The presentation appears to be complete and detailed. But a professional historian would have taken a different tack. Personally, I feel that Chief Justice Rehnquist presentation was excellent.

I particularly liked the Chief Justice's analysis of what might have been Justice Bradley's thought processes in arriving at his opinions. I do not believe that a professional historian could have provided this type of insight into the situation.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent History
Review: This is an excellent history of a somewhat obscure event in American history. C.J. Rehnquist gives the reader a great sense of historical context and a window into life in those times. This book is highly recommended for anyone interested in 19th century American politics.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent History
Review: This is an excellent history of a somewhat obscure event in American history. C.J. Rehnquist gives the reader a great sense of historical context and a window into life in those times. This book is highly recommended for anyone interested in 19th century American politics.

Rating:
Summary: And one star is generous ...
Review: Whatever you think of the chief justice as a jurist, you should not mistake him for a historian. Simply put, the chief justice is ignorant of scholarship on this election, a prisoner of old stereotypes foisted upon him by whatever research assistant sought to placate his views (do you really think the cheif justice went to the sources?). Scholars will be interested in this book insofar as it might shed some light into the chief justice's own views on the disputed election of 2000, but no one should mistake this volume for a reliable work of historical scholarship.

Rating:
Summary: And one star is generous ...
Review: Whatever you think of the chief justice as a jurist, you should not mistake him for a historian. Simply put, the chief justice is ignorant of scholarship on this election, a prisoner of old stereotypes foisted upon him by whatever research assistant sought to placate his views (do you really think the cheif justice went to the sources?). Scholars will be interested in this book insofar as it might shed some light into the chief justice's own views on the disputed election of 2000, but no one should mistake this volume for a reliable work of historical scholarship.