Talk:Compromise of 1877

Great Betrayal
Why is this title for the event hidden only n the cided references or the loss of rights of african americans in the south until the civil rights movement? This is a very slanted article in its current state it serves only as part of the "State's Rights" conspiracy of repainting the civil war and the reconstruction. 204.63.40.47 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
The article should emphasize that the "compromise" did not amount to much. The key items had already been promised by Hayes and they were reaffirmed. Rjensen 07:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

that vigilantes like the KKK were a part of the democratic takeover is textbook. how did the federal troops "prop up" the republican governments except by ensuring voting rights and ending intimidation?


 * The KKK was dead by early 1870s. The Federal troops guarded the state house and would not recognize the Democrats who had been elected governor in the 3 states.   As soon as the troops left most of the Republicans left town too. The soldiers did *not* guard election booths in 1876-77 or prevent voter intimidation (they did that a few years earlier). In other words, the Republican governors were using the US troops to control the state capital. Critics said that was violation of the principles of self government. Rjensen 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What did Federal troops do? example: (Wallace. Hist SC p 604) "Governor Chamberlain, at midnight before the legislature assembled on November 28, 1876, placed Federal troops in the State House under orders to obey his agent. Fifty-nine Republicans (five of them white) assembled in their hall and elected E. W. M. Mackey speaker. The sixty-five Democrats approached the door, headed by the five Edgefield claimants followed by the three from Laurens. These eight bore the Supreme Court's certified copy of the returns showing them to have received the majority, and the others the certificate of the Secretary of State. Governor Chamberlain's agent, flanked by soldiers, refused the claimants from Edgefield and Laurens admission. The Democratic members of the house, leaving W. H. Wallace, elected from Union, to observe the Mackey House, marched to  Carolina Hall, organized as the only House of Representatives possessing a legal quorum, and elected Wallace speaker." [so you had 2 governments and 2 sets of election returns.]Rjensen 17:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Election of 1876
Should we go into at least some background on this? My cats name was background.. he died NuclearWarfare (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.82.147 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Troops
I removed the lines (reproduced below) referring to the first point of the compromise because the sourcing is improperly done. In addition, I am uneasy about this claim without multiple sources.

("Contrary to legend, Hayes did not remove the last soldiers from the South - he simply ordered them to return to their barracks." source : GIVE ME LIBERTY! An American History. vol 2, 2nd ed. Eric Foner. Ch 15, page 554

Seelie (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC I find it funny, I'm actually studying for my History exam, and that is the History book that my college is using; I'm not saying it is a good book. So as an editor you are disallowing the addition of material that is taught as true history in many U.S. colleges. Ironic. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Legality of Compromise of 1877
Was the Compromise of 1877 legal? Took place in a hotel room...no laws were passed by Congress that ended Reconstruction. Are there any sources that state the legality of the Compromise of 1877 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No legal controversy was involved. The only formal part of the compromise was that Congress voted to approved the recommendation of its commission on the electoral vote (which said Hayes won). Other "deals" were promises that mostly were not kept. Rjensen (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rjensen...The Commission was legal...but how can promises made at a hotel be legally binding or constitutional ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Politicians make informal deals every day over drinks--That is of the world works is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it; however the deals are not legally binding. Politicians who break their word too often lose their clout  rapidly. Rjensen (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rjensen...that helped ! Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Questionable additions
A block of material was added with this edit and sourced to a blog entry on this. As the blog makes clear, it advocates a POV (i.e. "history from a biblical perspective") that is not compatible with objective, academic history. Furthermore, the part of the blog used as a resource does not support the broad claims made by the wikipedia editor that added the material. The blog does not claim that the solid south that lasted until 1966 was based on such issues as railroad rates, Union pensions, or civil war bonds that had lost their political salience back in the 19th Century. I have reverted the material pending some sort of consensus to be reached here on adding the material back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this qualifies as an RS blog and do not think the material should be added backParkwells (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC).

Grammar issue, Withdrawal of troops/end of Reconstruction
The last sentence of the opening (ending with federal withdrawal of troops), is not grammatically a complete sentence. It's also alluding to some contested storyline, as Heather Cox Richardson in How the South Won the Civil War states that reconstruction ended in 1870, and that the common narrative of the troop withdrawal after 1876 is false and pushed by Southern congressmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C086:ED00:FDE4:9222:ECBF:9637 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) 2600:8807:C086:ED00:FDE4:9222:ECBF:9637 (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Republicans
I noticed that the article mentioned the Civil Rights Act being opposed by solely southern peoples. Democrats and Republicans alike opposed it, yes? However, didn't Nixon's southern strategy solidify the alliance between racism and Republicans? I think the Aftermath section of this article needs some cleaning up. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Defining "Southern" as a former Confederate state and "Northern" as a state that was never a part of the Confederacy, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by 90% of Northern congressman in the House of Representatives and 92% of senators. It was opposed by 92% of Southern congressmen in the House of Representatives and 95% of senators.
 * If you look at it by region and party: in the House, it was supported by 95% of Northern Democrats and 85% of Northern Republicans and, in the Senate, it was supported by 98% of Northern Democrats and 85% of Northern Republicans; in the House, it was opposed by 91% of Southern Democrats and 100% of Southern Republicans and, in the Senate, it was opposed by 91% of Southern Democrats and 100% of Southern Republicans.
 * From these data, the strongest correlation is regional, with Southern legislators being overwhelmingly opposed while Northern legislators being overwhelmingly supportive. Within both of those regions, Democrats were slightly more likely to support the Civil Rights Act than Republicans.
 * The history of racism within the Republican party predates the Southern Strategy by many decades. Look to the Lily White Movement, which began in the 1880s. It's a matter of opinion, but my assessment is that the Southern Strategy didn't solidify the alliance between racism and the Republicans, but rather it was a tactic that successfully convinced Southern white voters that the Republican party was most aligned with their interests, utilizing racism to appeal to those voters. Davidwbaker (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the South has since been Republican bastions. I'd say it was the work of Dirty Dick that finished the crazy-fication of the GOP. Hell, if Dwight couldn't get those nuts under control, we might as well write him off as a modern Democrat. Western Progressivist (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)