The Legacy of Republican Voter Fraud

Christopher Hansen, Nevada IAP State Chairman

I was reading about Republican President Benjamin Harrison on The White House web site and had to laugh at how similar he is to George W. Bush. How can we blame Georgie W. when he is only being a good Republican and following in a long line of Republicans that used voter fraud to get elected.

Here is the quote:

In the Presidential election, Harrison received 100,000 fewer popular votes than Cleveland, but carried the Electoral College 233 to 168. Although Harrison had made no political bargains, his supporters had given innumerable pledges upon his behalf.

When Boss Matt Quay of Pennsylvania heard that Harrison ascribed his narrow victory to Providence, Quay exclaimed that Harrison would never know “how close a number of men were compelled to approach… the penitentiary to make him President.”

31 Responses to “The Legacy of Republican Voter Fraud”

  1. globalist_elitist Says:

    Factoid: Benjamin Harrison was William Henry Harrison’s grandson… And Benjamin Harrison is also PAT ROBERTSON’s great-grandfather.

  2. Cody Quirk Says:

    Quite a legacy…

  3. Gary Odom Says:

    One of the worse cases of voter fraud occurred in 1876 when Democrat Samuel Tilden received many more popular votes than Republican Rutherford Hayes and should have received more electoral votes as well. This was, however, quite a corrupt time in American politics (which in view of recent years, is saying quite a bit) and it was a time of Reconstruction in the South. The first results of the popular votes in Florida and Louisiana showed with what should have been comfortable leads, but after some wheeling and dealing and the exchange of a lot of green stuff, the popular vote in those two states, under the control of Reconstruction authorities, most amazingly nearly reversed giving Hayes the votes he needed to eek out a very narrow win. This, too, was Republican voter fraud. A fine tradition indeed!

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    Oddly enough, I just read this Chris Hanson post last night. I’d like to talk to that guy to figure out how he is growing that party so much.

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    The popular vote does not guarantee electoral votes. In many cases, it does not even guarantee electors. Mr. Odom is talking about the Reconstruction era South. The “scandal” was that the southern states each sent two slates of electors, and it was dispitued as to which slate was legitimate. But the real scandal is that Hayes and the Republicans agreed to sell black people down the river by agreeing to end the Radical Reconstruction of the South. That’s why it continued to be a bastion of ignorance, poverty, and racism for another 100 years.

  6. Angela Wittman Says:

    Trent says: “Oddly enough, I just read this Chris Hanson post last night. I’d like to talk to that guy to figure out how he is growing that party so much.”

    Dear Trent,

    You and Cody are the best cheerleaders I have ever heard for the Constitution Party. I think Mr. Odom should either take notes or put you both on the payroll. : )

  7. matt Says:

    Eventually he’ll probably do both. Enthusiasm breeds enthusiasm and those two are money in the bank.

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    Its amazing how you are so anti-government. And yet when the government tries to sway public opinion forcefully (LITERALLY,with the guns of the government) you back it and indeed say it wasn’t enough.
    The way to change southern opinion about black people wasn’t through Reconstruction, but through a media appeal and compassion.
    Imparticular, the liberal churches of Southern Louisiana did a great job in advancing civil rights. However, I will say this: that might not have been enough; eventually government intervention was probably needed. And im glad the South is more accepting of all races now.

    On the payroll? I could use some cash. Especially for doing what I love, what I think is right for my country and myself. I intend to be around for a LONG time Angela, maybe i’ll eventually start my own bankroll. PAC, Campaign Staff, and Lobbying Firms;there’s lots of political options for someone who actually wants to make a difference. Good luck not even HAVING a payroll.

  9. Cody Quirk Says:

    You and Cody are the best cheerleaders I have ever heard for the Constitution Party. I think Mr. Odom should either take notes or put you both on the payroll. : )

    =If it pays a lot- heck yeah! :D

  10. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent - I am of the belief that war should be extremely rare and only fought when absolutely necessary. But one of the legitimate functions of the state, as outlined by Smith, is defense. The Confederacy was a white-supremacist terrorist insurrection and it needed to be crushed as totally as Nazi Germany. Post Civil War, the South refused to respect the Constitutional rights of black Americans, and as protecting those rights is another legitimate function of government - BY FORCE - it needed to be done. The fact that Reconstruction was not completed is why the South saw so many racial murders for the next 100 years. It is why education and income levels continue to be lower than those of the North now. To be clear, I understand that the South has made some great improvements over the past 10 years or so and that it now is a place of greater economic growth than the North. But that is due in large part to the fact that it was never reconstructed - Reconstruction goes on right now, and it’s almost complete. The equality that the South is now finally reaching could have been achieved 140 years ago.

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    Wrong. Clearly you’ve never read ANYTHING about Reconstruction.
    The Confederacy was dominated by White Supremacists (although it should be noted, there were SOME abolitionists). However, by no means was it a “terrorist insurrection”. In fact, the North was the side using terror tactics. While the South followed the established rules of war, the North used torture-tactics, attacked civilians, and indeed burned hundreds of towns and crops (purposefully causing the starvation of thousands). So even if White Supremacy and racism WERE the reason the North attacked (which it wasn’t. It was more about protectionism and seperation) it still was the one using disproportionate force.

    The fact that Reconstruction was carried out in the WRONG MANNER is the reason why southern hatred for blacks continued on for so many years. It led to a lingering anger and repressed hatred. Exactly what do you THINK Reconstruction accomplished anyways? It actually worsened the lives of citizens here in Louisiana. It started a long line of Democratic politicians who pilferred our treasury and did nothing in the way of public service.

  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    I’ve read plenty on Reconstruction. Most books are just apologetics for the racist South, but a really good one is by Peter Camejo; Revolution Reaction or something like that. It is written from a Marxist perspective but it is devoid of the typical political spin.

    I’m not going to defend every action by the North. I’m not going to get into another debate about what the North’s motives were. We agree that the North was not an army of black liberation.

    The point is that the Confederacy sought to destroy the United States by absorbing half of its territory. It sought to do so in the name of forever preserving white supremacist rule. In the aftermath of its defeat, it sought ot maintain white supremacy and the early Radical Republicans sought to crush it. Leaving white supremacist rule in place, re-enfranchising former confederates, returning property to former slavemasters, etc., is the equivlalent of leaving Nazis in power in Germany.

    Freed slaves were U.S. citizens. The federal government has a responsiblity to protect their rights. This is primarily what Reconstruction was about. And yes, by force if necessary.

    Just as with Nazi Germany, every Confederate leader should have been hanged. Anyone convicted of terrorizing blacks or denying their rights should have been executed. The White Leagues - which were the forerunners of the Democratic Party - were homegrown terrorist cells that should have been given no different treatment than Al Qaeda. The Civil War did not end with Lee’s surrender. The Confederacy was not properly crushed. And thousands of blacks died over the course of the next 100 years. To this day, the South is still behind the North.

  13. Gary Odom Says:

    Only on TPW could my comments on the Tilden/Hayes Presidential contest in 1876 morph into discussions about Nazi Germany!

    Looks like a lot of people are leading lonely, desperate lives!

  14. globalist_elitist Says:

    And you’re the loser who is reading all of our comments. Congrats to you.

    I for one enjoy the debates I have with Trent Hill. Maybe your hobby involves the family farm and a pet mule. Mine is TPW. Live and let live. Then agian, that’s always hard for control freaks like you to understand, isn’t it?

  15. Trent Hill Says:

    We can agree that a “reconstruction” needed to take place.
    However, the way it was carried out was neither efficient, nor prudent. It was neither constitutional, nor moral.
    However,we can agree that the North should have fully crushed the Confederacy. However, our methods differ. Id say this is a gradual thing, rather than an oppresive crushing force.

  16. globalist_elitist Says:

    What was unconstituional about it? The South seceded. They were a conquored territory post Civil War. And what is unconstitutional about defending the rights of blacks?

    Gradualism and military operations don’t work. I would expect you to agree there. That is a traditional conservative view. I believe that war should be exceedingly rare, the military should be much smaller, we should be involved in far less international operations, etc. I think we agree pretty soundly on Defense. But when war is to be undertaken, I think it should be swift and essentially mercifless. The goal should be well defined, and the methods for achieving it should be explicit. I do not think it was the NOrth’s job to “change the minds” of Southern racists. It was the North’s job to (1) crush the terrorist opposition, and (2) protect the rights of newly emancipated citizens. It failed in doing so.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    Technically, if they were a territory—then your arguement that blacks were citizens is incorrect. But I get your point.

    It was the WAY Reconstruction was handled. Those white people, the citizens, had no real represenation, and widescale voter fraud (as you so noted) took place. They may have been protecting the black citizens rights, meanwhile they were destroying the white southerner’s rights. (and no,im not talking rights toi property. Im talking right to peaceably assemble. Right to representation. Right to bear arms. Stuff like that).

    Also, why would the Post-Civil War republicans take on such a courageous mission when during the Civil War, they had oppressed their own citizens so heavily,indeed blurring the lines between democracy and fascism by taking away Habeas Corpus, deporting political opposition, and shutting down dissenting newpapers?

  18. globalist_elitist Says:

    Because they had corrupt, ulterior motives. That’s irrelavent, though.

    The right to “peacably assemble” in White Leagues?

  19. Trent Hill Says:

    The right to peaceably assemble at all.
    No,White Leagues could easily be called a riot or inciting a riot. So that is obviously not what I’m identifying here.

  20. John Chance Says:

    Angela, take your own advice and views-zip it and do not criticize the menfolk. Men (leaders) are talking now.

    As far as teh South being ignorant, etc, etc. is this the same South that gave us R.E. Lee? Jefferson? Washington? Madison?

    For such backward folks, there was certainly a big enough fuss to force them at gun point to stay in a union they no longer wished to have. Also, blacks were especially targeted for theft, assualt and rape by Yankee troops.

  21. Chris Campbell Says:

    Gary, I know what you mean. They go too far off deep end on almost anything. A shame that all the positive articles I send to the editors here largely go ignored.

    Well, I am only a loly National member.

  22. globalist_elitist Says:

    John Chance - Look at aggregate data. The South is behind the North under almost every intellectual, financial, and technological measure. Things are finally starting to get better now. But citing a bunch of pre-Civil War figures to “prove” that the South has not lagged since that time is ridiculous. What’s even more ridiculous is the fact that I have to say that Southerners are no different from Northerners. It is the enviornment that has held them back. Duh. What else could it be? Are they naturally inferior? Of course not.

  23. Trent Hill Says:

    Thier environment? Well, it could be that.

    However, what has directly affected our environment? At least part of it is the bad methods of Reconstruction,and the War Crimes of Sherman (who was NOT a president! lol).
    Particularly the war crimes of Sherman, protectionism of the North, destruction of the slave system, and death of a generation, left our area of the country about 5 decades behind everyone else.
    After that you count the bad policies of carpet baggars and racist democrats, and the causes of the Southern lagging becomes apparent.

  24. globalist_elitist Says:

    I generally agree. But the failure of Reconstruction was that it was incomplete… Not that it “went too far.” The old white power structure was put back in place to exploit blacks and whites alike, and this remained in effect in large part for another 100 years, and continues today in some small part. Either I’m right or Southerners are naturally dumb, lazy, and racist.

    Hey, I got a good book for you, Trent. I just got it from my conservative father-in-law and read it in one sitting two nights ago. It is called White Guilt, by Shelby Steele (a supposed “black conservative,” but I would not tag him as such). Ever heard of it?

  25. Trent Hill Says:

    I’ll agree it was a White Power Structure. But it wasn’t the Old White Power Structure.
    It was a northern dominated power structure. The fight between the old gaurd and the new gaurd, with rival factions of racists and integrationists in each group intensified until the 1960’s,when it came to a head.
    Iv read the book, and agree with large portions of it (despite the fact that he is a Republican apologetic). It makes a great case for how Blacks traded hand-outs for self-determination. He makes some over-arching statements that I disagree with, but in general—I like it.

    As for the failure of Reconstruction, it could have been carried out better. We both agree on that. You think it should have been a more systematic destruction of the Old Gaurd. I think the Old Gaurd would have faded off without the Abuse of the Northerners…there would have been nothing to fuel that Old Guard’s hatred.

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    RE: Shelby Steele… As someone who has made his own ideological conversion, it seems as though Mr. Steele has swung a little too far in the opposite direction, in his loyalties if not his views. He basically makes the case of Jeffersonian liberal values and then makes apologies for the modern GOP. I agree with you on this point. Also, it was completely disingenuous how he completely ignored the fact that Eisenhower DID have an open affair. But those are very small nitpicks. The bigger one is that he makes the case that white guilt has undermined American legitimacy, but he doesn’t really offer much of an appropriate alternative. It was good for the U.S. and its people to acknowledge racism and its history, but then what? Clearly, “disassociation” at all costs and as the end-all be-all is not the solution.

    RE: Reconstruction… The Old Guard did re-emerge shortly after Reconstruction ended. Slaves, who had rightfully been given property that was built by their labor, had it confiscated and returned to their old slavemasters, who were enemy combatants and refused to swear allegiance to the Constitution. I guess I don’t get your argument. We seem to be saying the same thing, and yet at the same time, the opposite thing.

    My point is that if a war is to be fought, it should be fought entirely. I am not making excuses for illegalities or cruelties of the North during the war, but the goal should have been the complete anihilation of the enemy. Every time this has been America’s goal, we have won wars. Every time it has not, we have not. This was the goal of the North (“America” in this case), but it was not seen through to completion.

    There were people and groups in the South still in open rebellion. Just look at the Battle of New Orleans. My belief is that these people should have been treated no differently than insurgents in Iraq or members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any former Confederate who refused to swear allagience to the Constitution should have been deported, jailed, or executed for treason. Anyone guilty of infringing upon the constitutional rights of others should have been sentenced to prison. There should have been no tolerance for a return to the Old Way. And this was one vote in the Senate away from being the way it would have been, if Johnson would have been convicted and Wade had become president.

  27. Trent Hill Says:

    Ohk. As long as you are playing apologetic for the “illegalities and cruelties” of the North, I think we can agree here.
    We can also agree that everytime America has sought to destroy its enemy, it has succeeded. Whereas in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and to a certain degree,the South…they did not.

    We disagree on the “being jailed and deported” thing. But only because of how Lincoln talked about the war. Had he jailed everyone who refused to swear allegiance to the Union…he would’ve had to dedicate one state (a large one) as a penal colony. And even then, he’d be hard-pressed to fit everyone. Because of the way the war was handled by the North…he couldnt, and he shouldn’t have as he had no right to. However. We agree on principle, in an unnamed/random war…Congress should declare war (so the PEOPLE are the ones declaring,rather than the president. And the President can’t be blamed and public opinion turned against him),and the goal shouldn’t be occupation but destruction of the enemy.

  28. Andy Says:

    “The Confederacy was a white-supremacist terrorist insurrection and it needed to be crushed as totally as Nazi Germany.”

    Unlike the Union which also had slave states and which was a base of operations for slave trading ships. Discrimination and brutal treatment of blacks was actually quite common in the Union states, as was brutal treatment of American Indians.

    Why don’t you get your facts straight instead of spewing forth propaganda?

  29. globalist_elitist Says:

    No shit. That doesn’t negate that fact that the South was fighting explicitly to ensure that slavery would endure, or that, by the war’s end, it was a battle for black emancipation.

  30. twrdschzik Says:

    Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! qembpdxfimrhqv

  31. gljqedpmtv Says:

    Thanks for this site!

Leave a Reply