er as the
rightful inheritance or the fraudulent prerogative of the Democratic
part), he would, in connection with the vote he received in the North,
have had a majority over General Grant in the Electoral College.
Considering the time of the election, considering the record and the
achievements of the rival candidates, the Presidential election of 1868
must be regarded as the most remarkable and the most unaccountable in
our political annals.

The result was not comforting to the thoughtful men who interpreted its
true significance and comprehended the possibilities to which it
pointed. Of the reconstructed States (eight in number) General Grant
received the electoral votes of six,--North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida. A full vote was secured
in each, and the lawfulness and fairness of the result under the system
of Reconstruction were not questioned. The vote of Georgia was
disputed on account of some alleged irregularity in her compliance
with the Acts of Reconstruction, and the suspicion that the
Presidential election was not fairly conducted. But in Louisiana there
was no moral doubt that violence and disorder had done their evil work.
The result in that State was declared to be in favor of Mr. Seymour.
The subject was brought before Congress, and the counting of the votes
of these States was challenged; but as the alleged irregularity in
Georgia and the alleged fraud in Louisiana had not been legally
investigated, Congress (Republican at that time by a large majority in
both branches) declined to exclude them from the electoral count.

There was great dissatisfaction on the part of a considerable number of
Republicans in Congress with the determination to admit the vote of
Louisiana without some qualifying record or explanation. In the House
General Schenck offered a resolution, declaring that "the vote of the
State was counted because no proof was formally submitted to sustain
the objections thereto." General Shanks of Indiana offered a much
more decisive resolution, declaring that "in the opinion of the House
the acceptance of the electoral vote of Louisiana will encourage the
criminal practice of enforcing elections in the States lately in
rebellion, and involves the murder of thousands of loyal people." The
rule of the House required unanimous consent to admit these
resolutions, and they were strenuously objected to by Fernando Wood,
Charles A. Eldridge, and other