Ted Cruz Is a Big Fan of the “Compromise of 1877”

Christopher Brown/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Ted Cruz, who doesn’t have Louie Gohmert’s excuse of being a moron, says he will vote to delay the Senate’s confirmation of Joe Biden’s presidential victory. Here’s part of his reasoning:

The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states — Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina — were alleged to have been conducted illegally. In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission — consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices — to consider and resolve the disputed returns. We should follow that precedent.

For those of you who slept through history class, here is the briefest possible explanation of the Hayes-Tilden race:

  • Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but received only 184 electoral votes—one less than a majority.
  • Results from three Southern states (plus one elector from Oregon) were in dispute.
  • Republican Rutherford B. Hayes agreed to end Reconstruction, withdraw federal troops from the South, and hand back control of the Southern states to their white leaders if Democrats agreed to declare him the winner.
  • Democrats agreed to this and voted to award all the disputed electoral votes to Hayes. He won 185-184.

This was one of the most disgraceful and explicitly racist episodes in American history—and Cruz knows it. I suppose he figures that none of his followers know or care about this, but it’s contemptible that he’d look to the Hayes-Tilden race for any kind of guidance on anything.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate