A New Fraud

I recently finished reading Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876 by Roy Morris Jr. It wasn't the worst book I've ever read- that honor belongs to Michael Parenti's To Kill A Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia for unconvincingly denying the genocide in Bosnia- but it's in the running.

I must admit the first half of Fraud of the Century is an interesting read. Morris does a good job giving the back story for the two candidates and his illustration of the national conventions is intriguing. The second half of the book, which wasn't as good, could have been the sequel to Birth of a Nation.

Morris portrays an America where roving gangs of black Republicans bully, intimidate, and beat up those poor southern Democrats, white and black alike. He meets every alleged black victim of white Democratic violence with skepticism and every accusation of fraud towards a Republican with certainty. According to Morris, every slanderous thing the Democratic newspapers say about Republicans is truth and every malicious thing the Republicans newspapers say about Democrats is not only a lie, but also proof of Republican wrongdoing.

With each passing page, the author's bias becomes more and more apparent to the point of absurdity. Astonishingly, Morris cites virtually no sources in presenting his evidence of black supremacy, Republican fraud, and Democratic piety. He cites newspapers, but even those are biased. After the election, the Democratic papers called the election for Tilden, while the Republican papers called the race for Hayes. To Morris, while the Democratic papers were simply reporting the truth, the Republican papers were involved in trying to steal the election. In reality, the election was still in doubt and both groups were presumptuous in declaring a winner.

Besides that misuse of newspapers, entire stories are devoid of citations. There is not a footnote or an endnote anywhere to be found. It’s reminiscent of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe accusing the opposition of instigating violence as his own forces beat and kill his dissenters. It's ridiculous. I'm not accusing Morris of making things up, but due to his lack of citations, he could have.

I'm not an expert in Reconstruction era history, but I have taken a couple of courses on the subject which means I've read about 20 books written by people who are experts. All of them paint a picture of white intimidation of black people, particularly those freedmen who attempted to vote. There certainly was plenty of Republican corruption, but the Democrats were no slouches in that department either. Remember, the party contained numerous ex-Confederates who had grudgingly come back into the union within the last decade leading up to the 1876 election.

I'm not someone who condemns an author simply for going against the grain, but doing so contains certain requirements. Morris writes a history book meant for popular consumption, which is great, but not conducive for going against commonly accepted interpretations of a certain time and place, particularly a depiction so defiant of convention. I have no doubt that every fact he writes is true, but facts are funny little things. You can pick and choose them and ignore those that hamper the atmosphere you're trying to convey. At best, this book is a dishonest representation of Reconstruction-era America. At worst, it is white supremacist propaganda, guised in the language of legitimate history.