You're hearing a lot of talk about "irregularities" in the election of 1876 that led to a "disputed" outcome. What is being referred to in this hazy terms?

Across the state of South Carolina, white conservatives had used terror and massacre to deter former slaves from voting in 1876. Here's the story of an attack upon the small town of Hamburg in July https://t.co/W47UQ5QVuc
Hundreds of black South Carolinians were killed by white conservative militias. Blacks fought back in many places, but they were out-gunned.

The killings were not spontaneous outbursts. They were part of planned campaign of anti-black voter suppression.

https://t.co/92OLBuQij3
Some of the elements of the conservative plan to suppress black votes in South Carolina in 1876 sound queasily familiar in our own time, adjusting for the antique language and technology.
But back of it all was terror and violence, more violence than could be contained by the limited federal forces in the area - who were anyway constrained by the white conservative Democratic House majority elected in 1874.
The terror and violence worked. States where large black populations had formerly cast ballots were "redeemed" for the conservative cause - and for the presidential nominee of the racial conservatives, the Democrat, Samuel Tilden.
In the face of this campaign of terrorism, the two national parties struck a deal. The Republicans would accept the validity of white conservative voter suppression at the state level - if they could retain the presidency and its patronage. The bargain was made.
When modern senators propose to repeat 1876, they are not endorsing some Solomonic compromise. They are endorsing a negotiated concession to violent conservative minorities.
Over the next half century, the states "redeemed" by white conservatives shriveled into tight oligarchies. I described the process in my book Trumpocracy, p. 141
Democracy in the United States has a contested history. It's being contested again right now. The foundational idea of democracy is that each person counts. Let's commit to proving that theory true in the dangerous week ahead. END.

More from David Frum

More from Politics

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".