what was the importnat issure of election 1876 and why this election held?

Answer 1

Short answer -- 'the future of Reconstruction' (Democrats called it corrupt and promised to end it; Republicans were changing tactics, but promised to maintain the GOAL of Reconstruction, protecting rights of the freedmen...)
_____________________

Odd thing -- the "issue" of that election is generally seen to be something that didn't happen till AFTER election day! And that is what I assume you are after -- so that's the main part of my answer below (in which I contend there was NO "corrupt bargain")

But there WERE issues in the election itself. It is usually said that there was no great difference between the candidates' positions, and we hear mostly about the things they BOTH emphasized, such as the need to 'clean up' government. In fact, there were a few key areas of difference in their party platforms. Some of these were not central issues in the campaign itself (such as the Republican party's encouragement of expanding the rights of women, mainly referring to the right to vote).

Others, though, were significant. Not least of these the fact that the Democrats explicitly attacked all Reconstruction efforts and promised to rid the south of the government of "carpetbaggers" (Northerners who had gone South after the war). whereas the Republicans pledged to UPHOLD the rights (of the freedmen) to vote, etc., though they did not specify how. Arguably, the Republican winner DID attempt to keep this promise.

_____________________

The answer usually given is the one found in the cut-and-paste from wikipedia that's already been posted.. It's also what I've instructed my high school sophomore to answer if the question came up on his AP history exam ... but it's doubtful this notorious "corrupt bargain" EVER happened!

In fact, it appears that Hayes had already suggested, BEFORE the election, that he would withdraw the rest of the North's troops from the South. Because Hayes did as he said he would Reconstruction did end in 1877, but NOT because of a special compromise that he (or his supporters) made with Democrats to "steal" electoral votes after the election was over.

Note that the so-called Compromise of 1877 is nowhere documented and was only first put forward (at least in its full-blown form) as a hypothesis in 1951!

Here's the background:

When two slates of electors showed up for four disputed states (Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana and Oregon) the Commission appointed by Congress to settle which slates to accept actually ended up voting (along party lines) for the Hayes electors in every case. It was only at this point, when the Senate had to vote on whether to accept the Commission's decision that any idea of a "deal" came up -- NOT a deal to 'throw' the election, but to avoid a possible Democratic filibuster (Republicans had a majority in the Senate).

The idea that there was an informal compromise made to smooth the way has never been proved. The phrase "Compromise of 1877" was coined by historian C. Vann Woodward in his 1951 book Reunion and Reaction. He claimed that the compromise consisted of:

* Troops will be recalled from the statehouse property in the three states.
* Funds will be provided to build the Texas and Pacific Railroad.
* A southerner will be appointed as Postmaster General.
* Funds will be appropriated to rebuild the economy in the South.
* The solution to the race problem will be left to the state governments.

But there is something very odd about his list. Of the five items in the list, THREE never happened, and the two that DID (troop removal and the appointment of a Southerner to the cabinet) were things Hayes had already indicated he would do! (note: he thought he could do so WITHOUT 'abandoning' the freedmen) So there was no NEED for him to "Compromise" on these points! (The wikipedia article notes some of this in passing, but does not give these facts their due.)

For that matter, the idea that this man whom all agree served honorably and scandal-free both as Ohio governor and as President supposedly pulled a sudden secret 'double-cross' (for which we have NO record, mind you)... it's a VERY questionable hypothesis.

There's one other major piece that people get confused about. The suggestion is made that Hayes, in order to gain the Presidency suddenly changed the national policy and brought Reconstruction to an end is very misleading. In fact, the Reconstruction effort had been losing political support in the North for several years. As a result Grant had already removed most of the federal troops before the election of 1876. And everyone was expecting it all to end shortly. (This was a sad outcome, but Hayes was NOT the cause.)

The explanation for all this is complicated, but it boils down toward the North tiring of the expense (in blood and money) of maintaining troops in the South, and the fact that a group of Southern whites had worked determinedly -- often through fraud, intimidation, even lynching-- to neutralize the vote of Southern Republicans (esp. blacks).

In other words, there is really NO reason for the contention that Hayes chose to betray the freedmen in order to settle this dispute and gain the Presidency. There is serious doubt that any such Compromise ever happened. The most that could credibly be suggested is that Hayes's supporters simply assured the Democratic Senators that Hayes would indeed do as he had promised. (This is possible --since people sometimes doubt promises made during a political campaign! -- but it would hardly be a dirty deal or merit the name and notoriety of "the Compromise of 1877.)
_________________

By the way, more recent authors who have focused on this subject have tended NOT to agree with Vann Woodward's hypothesis (including, most recently, M. Fitzgerald --see sources below)

But as is often the case with these things, the reference works and text books will take YEARS to catch up! (and "many historians" typically includes a lot of people who are experts in OTHER areas and have made no special study of the specific question... so they just follow the "consensus" view)

One expert on the period --John Hope Franklin (cited below)-- shows that the only thing approaching a "bargain" was apparent last minute RE-assurances given to Southern Senators (esp former Whigs) already supportive of much of the Republican agenda but who had grown nervous from some recent anti-Southern newspaper rhetoric.

In fact, what the Republicans did was NOT to make some new deal to gain vote. It was, instead, to prevent a FILIBUSTER some Democrats were attempting. Congress had actually agreed BEFORE the Commission ever reported that they would accept its report. (The filibuster would have effectively reneged on the original terms.)

_________________

Finally, note that Hayes DID ask for and receive assurances from Southern governments that the rights of the freedmen WOULD be honored. In hindsight this seems foolish to us because we know that by the century's end the South had effectively destroyed most protections. BUT

a) as noted above, Hayes was not in a position to do much more than this, since Reconstruction had ALREADY effectively fallen apart for lack of political support

b) in fact (usually missed by critics) the South DID behave much better for a number of years, that is, there was some effort to keep the promises. (It is NOT true that everything was dismantled overnight as MIGHT have happened if the Democratic candidate and platform had triumphed)

Answer 2

The United States presidential election of 1876 was one of the most disputed and intense presidential elections in American history. Samuel J. Tilden of New York defeated Ohio's Rutherford Hayes in the popular vote, and had 184 electoral votes to Hayes' 165, with 20 votes yet uncounted. These 20 electoral votes were in dispute: in three states (Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina) each party reported its candidate had won the state, while in Oregon one elector was declared illegal (on account of being an "elected or appointed official") and replaced. The votes were ultimately awarded to Hayes after a bitter electoral dispute.

Many historians believe that an informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute. In return for Southern acquiescence in Hayes' election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, effectively ending Reconstruction. This deal became known as the Compromise of 1877. The Compromise effectively pushed African-Americans out of power in the government; soon after the compromise, African-Americans were barred from voting by poll taxes and grandfather clauses.

Answer 3

Obama is Chavez with opposition. That being said Hugo Chavez is a scumbag dictator who will never give up his power or stranglehold on Venezuela or it's people. Chavez is destroying his country and stealing it's resources. Oh and he stole Cargill from us last week and Obama did nothing about it.