Welcome to The Deep Dive. We're the podcast where
we dig into a whole stack of sources to pull
out the key insights, helping you get informed
fast. Today we are diving deep into Rutherford
B. Hayes, the 19th president of the United States.
Now look, his name might not ring a bell quite
like Lincoln or Roosevelt, but as we explore
these sources we've gathered, you'll find a leader
whose life was packed with, well, drama. dedication
and some genuinely unexpected twists. Absolutely.
And what's really fascinating about Hayes, I
think, is how much of the the real story gets
lost, you know, the nuances of who he was, the
actual impact of his policies. It often just
gets boiled down to a historical footnote. So
our mission today is to push past that superficial
stuff. We want to really delve into the details.
His his incredible bravery in the Civil War,
his commitment to reform, even some really surprising
ideas he had after his presidency. We're aiming
to give you a truly well -rounded perspective.
on him and, you know, the whole turbulent era
he navigated. And we have found some real gems
in these sources for you, things that will definitely
make you lean in. Like a presidential election
so contested it nearly tore the country apart,
earned him the nickname his fraudulency. Right.
We'll also unpack his Civil War record marked
by incredible bravery and get this five combat
wounds. Plus, you'll hear about his, well, frankly,
surprising views on wealth and equality, even
flirting with socialist ideas later in life.
and a little historical first. He was the first
president ever to take the oath of office privately,
right inside the White House. Hayes' story left
a significant mark, maybe an underappreciated
one, on American history. And we're here to figure
out why. Okay, so let's start at the beginning.
Our sources paint this picture of Hayes' childhood
and it's really shaped by both loss and a lot
of family support. He was born October 4th, 1822
in Delaware, Ohio. And wow, his father died just
10 weeks before he was born, imagine that. So
he was raised by his mother, Sophia Burchard,
and his sister Fanny. But there was another key
figure his uncle Sardis Burchard He really stepped
in became like a father figure and Sardis didn't
just offer emotional support He actually helped
fund Hayes's early education even live with the
family for a while You really have to wonder
how facing that kind of loss so early But then
having this strong family net especially his
uncle how that forged his character, you know
is resilience. Oh, absolutely. That early period,
it's often where you see the seeds of leadership
being planted, isn't it? And it does raise that
question. How much of his later belief in, say,
meritocracy, self -reliance, his focus on principles,
how much of that came from this specific upbringing?
Dealing with loss, but also having that strong
guidance, especially intellectually from his
uncle. probably instilled a deep sense of responsibility,
a drive to prove himself. It really speaks to
the power of family, community, and shaping someone,
particularly back then without the modern safety
nets. And his education definitely built on that.
It was pretty rigorous for the time. He started
at Norwalk Seminary, then went off to Webb School
in Connecticut, studied Latin, ancient Greek,
the classics. So this wasn't just basic schooling.
It was building a serious intellectual foundation.
Then he went to Kenyon College, 1838 to 42, really
shown there, graduated Phi Beta Kappa, Valedictorian,
and he was already getting interested in politics,
specifically Whig politics. You know, the party
focused on economic development and moral reform.
That intellectual drive then took him to Harvard
Law School, graduated with an LLB in 1843, got
admitted to the Ohio Bar in 45, opened his own
law office in Lower Sandusky, which is now Fremont.
But those first years, they were a struggle.
Business was slow. He even got sick. They thought
it might be tuberculosis and had to travel. Sounds
like those classic early career challenges, right?
Something a lot of us can probably relate to.
Definitely. And that mix of struggle alongside
such a deep classical education, it likely created
a really unique blend in him. Fortitude, but
also intellectual depth. It suggests someone
who wasn't afraid of hard work, wasn't afraid
to pivot if needed. Those early hurdles weren't
just roadblocks, they were shaping experiences,
building the perseverance he'd need later on.
It wasn't just about knowing things, it was about
developing that critical mind, that resilience
that would be tested again and again. Okay, so
after those initial struggles, Hayes makes a
big move in 1850. heads to Cincinnati. And Cincinnati
seems to have been a real turning point for him.
It was bustling, right? Found better business
opportunities there, enjoyed the social life,
joined literary clubs, that sort of thing. And
critically, it's where he met and married Lucy
Ware Webb, December 30th, 1852. Now Lucy, she
sounds like quite the force. Devout Methodist,
a committed teetotaler, and a really staunch
abolitionist. Our sources make it clear her strong
beliefs had a huge influence on Hayes, especially
on temperance, and crucially, on slavery. It
seems like it was a marriage that really shaped
his moral framework, his public positions. They
started their family there too, had several kids,
though sadly, like many back then, they lost
two sons in infancy. Professionally in Cincinnati,
Hayes really started making a name for himself
as a criminal defense attorney. took on some
tough murder cases, even used an insanity defense
successfully once saved a woman from the gallows.
But maybe the defining part of his legal work
then and a real sign of his convictions was defending
refugee slaves under the Future to Slave Act
of 1850. For Hayes, who was becoming a committed
abolitionist, this wasn't just a job. It was
deeply personal and politically useful too, right?
It boosted his profile within the brand new Republican
Party. showed where he stood. He wasn't just
some lawyer. He was actively fighting against
this really divisive, unjust law. Absolutely.
That work, defending fugitive slaves, especially
in a place like Cincinnati, a border city, it
was a direct confrontation with the biggest issue.
tearing the country apart, it just underscores
how personal values can really drive public action,
can't they? And this commitment to abolition,
to civil rights, it becomes this thread, sometimes
a complicated one, running through his whole
career. His success in those cases didn't just
build his reputation, it cemented his identity
within the Republican Party early on, showed
he was serious about their anti -slavery platform.
Now, as the country is barreling towards the
Civil War, you'd think someone like Hayes, abolitionist,
rising Republican would be eager to fight from
the get -go, but the sources show a bit more
complexity there. Initially, he was described
as lukewarm about war, even suggested just letting
the self secede, let them go. It shows maybe
a practical side or perhaps just a reluctance
to embrace something so catastrophic before it
truly hit home. And interestingly, this hesitation
happened around the same time he lost his job
as city solicitor in Cincinnati. City politics
were shifting against the Republicans, but that
reluctance vanished pretty quickly. after Fort
Sumter. That pivotal moment. Hayes resolved his
doubts, joined a volunteer company with friends
from his literary society, made that leap from
lawyer to soldier. So it wasn't just a gut reaction.
It seems like a considered choice when faced
with the absolute crisis of the Union dissolving.
a transformation many leaders went through. Right.
That initial ambivalence makes his later commitment
even more striking, doesn't it? It shows that
even future heroes had to wrestle with the sheer
scale of the conflict. His decision after Sumter
was a clear turning point. And the military experience
he gained, it wasn't just about battles. It was
about leadership under fire, understanding logistics,
the human cost, all things that would deeply
inform his politics later. And his military career.
It was frankly extraordinary. June 1861, he's
appointed major in the 23rd Ohio Volunteer Infantry.
And who else joins that regiment as a private?
Future President William McKinley. Small world,
huh? Hayes moved up the ranks. Fast, Lieutenant
Colonel. then Colonel. But what really stands
out is his reputation for just sheer bravery.
The sources emphasize he was wounded five separate
times during the war. Five times. That's just
remarkable. It speaks volumes about his leadership
style. He was clearly right there in the action.
And, you know, Ulysses S. Grant, who was a pretty
good judge of military ability, had high praise
for him. Grant said Hays's conduct showed conspicuous
gallantry, but also qualities of a higher order
than that of mere personal daring. So it wasn't
just being fearless, it was about competence,
about command under extreme pressure. That whole
experience absolutely shaped his public image
and likely hardened his resolve for tackling
the tough national issues he'd face later as
president. It's just incredible stuff. Think
about this. Battle of South Mountain, September
1862. Hayes leads a charge against entrenched
Confederates. He gets shot through his left arm,
fractures the bone. Does he fall back? No. He
gets someone to tie a handkerchief above the
wound to try and stop the bleeding, and he keeps
leading his men. Only later is he taken to a
hospital. That's just... Unbelievable level of
determination. Leadership under fire. He fought
in so many key battles. Cardiff X Ferry, the
1864 Valley campaigns, 3rd Winchester, Fishers
Hill, Cedar Creek, even got hit in the head by
Spent Round at Cedar Creek. By October 64, his
bravery gets him promoted to brigadier general,
then breveted major general. This guy was no
armchair general, he was in the thick of it.
And that war record. It became a huge part of
who people saw him to be. Okay, so after becoming
this celebrated war hero, Hayes' path back into
politics was pretty much paved. While he's still
serving in the Army in 1864, the Republicans
back in Ohio nominate him for the U .S. House.
And his reaction when they told him to come home
and campaign, it's famous. He flat out refused.
Said something like, uh, an officer fit for duty
who at this crisis would abandon his post to
electioneer are to be scalped. Pretty strong
words. Shows a sense of duty, right? Overpersonal
ambition. And, incredibly, he won anyway, by
a good margin, so he gets sworn into Congress
in December 1865. Joins a big Republican majority.
Now, he considered himself more of a moderate
Republican, but the sources show he often voted
with radicals, especially on Reconstruction issues,
for party unity. He strongly believed the South
needed strict requirements for readmission, especially
protecting the rights of freedmen. That put him
directly against President Andrew Johnson's more
lenient plans. Hayes backed things like the 14th
Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. He even
voted for the first impeachment inquiry against
Johnson. And even back then, he was already pushing
for civil service reform, though unsuccessfully
at that point. You see this pattern emerging
early, right? fighting for civil rights, pushing
back against what he saw as presidential overreach,
even from his own party's president. Exactly.
And that consistent stance on rights for black
Americans, plus his ability to win elections
repeatedly in a key state like Ohio, that really
put him on the national map. This whole period,
it's like the bridge connecting his military
heroism to his later presidential run. It shows
his political skill, his broad appeal, his willingness
to stand on principle, even when it wasn't easy,
suggests it was more than just political calculation.
It seems deeply held. his political rise just
kept going. Let him to become governor of Ohio
not once, but three times, first elected in 1867.
And get this, he campaigned hard for black male
suffrage, even though the state amendment actually
failed that year. He still won, but narrowly.
His first term was tough democratic legislature,
no veto power, but he still managed to get things
done, like establishing schools for the deaf
and a reform school for girls. Showed his interest
in social welfare. Then he gets re -elected in
1869, with a bigger majority in a Republican
legislature. That allowed him to secure Ohio's
ratification of the 15th Amendment, guaranteeing
Black men the right to vote. His second term
saw more progress. Expanded suffrage, setting
up the state agricultural and mechanical college,
which of course became Ohio State University,
plus pushing for tax cuts and prison reform.
He actually retired briefly in 1872, turned down
a Senate run, wanted to keep party unity, spend
time with his family, but politics pulled him
back. In 1875, he accepted the Republican nomination
for governor again. Now, this campaign had some
controversy. Our sources mentioned he campaigned
against state aid to Catholic schools, and that
apparently fueled some anti -Catholic sentiment.
Despite that, he won a third term. And in that
term, he kept focusing on reform, cutting the
state debt, reestablishing the board of charities.
His consistent success as governor, especially
winning three times in Ohio, a major swing state,
it absolutely cemented his reputation. Set the
stage for the presidency. Okay, so Hayes' wins
in Ohio made him a major player on the national
scene, a serious contender for the Republican
presidential nomination in 1876. James G. Blaine,
he was the big name, the front runner, but he
couldn't quite lock down the majority. So on
the seventh ballot, the convention turns to Hayes.
Kind of a compromised candidate, maybe? And for
VP, they pick William A. Wheeler from New York.
Hayes famously said, I am ashamed to say, who
is Wheeler? Which is pretty funny shows how these
things can happen the campaign strategy for Hayes
was interesting They took a conciliatory approach
trying to appeal to southern white voters former
wigs Signaled a bit of a shift maybe away from
solely focusing on protecting black civil rights
in the south He talked about needing to get along
without the vote of the black man, which is quite
a statement His opponent was Samuel J Tilden
the Democratic governor of New York Tilden also
had a reputation for honesty supported civil
service reform, but the economy was tough. The
Panic of 1873 was still hurting people, making
the incumbent Republicans unpopular. So the campaign
was fierce, focused on swing states, and critically,
those three southern states still under Reconstruction
Rule, Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida. There
was violence, voter suppression. A real mess.
Republicans pointed to the Democrats of the Civil
War. Democrats pointed to grand administration
corruption. Yeah, this election really pushed
the country to the brink. You had two reform
-minded candidates, technically. But against
this backdrop of economic pain and these still
raw wounds from the Civil War, it was just an
incredibly volatile mix. And that shift in Hayes'
campaign, the outreach to the South, it shows
the intense political pragmatism involved. Maybe
even at the expense of earlier principles, it
really highlights the mess see moral and political
realities of that post -reconstruction moment.
And then election night, November 7, 1876. It
just descends into chaos. Tilden wins the popular
vote. Looks like he has 184 electoral votes,
just one short of the majority needed. Hayes
has 166. But then 20 electoral votes become disputed.
19 from those three southern states, Florida,
Louisiana, South Carolina, plus one from Oregon.
Both sides were accusing the other of fraud,
and frankly, both sides were probably right to
some extent. The results were just completely
uncertain, utter chaos. Through the whole election
up in the air, there was no clear constitutional
mechanism to solve this. So Congress and President
Grant eventually agreed to create a special electoral
commission in January 1877. Bipartisan, five
representatives, five senators, five Supreme
Court justices. Now, the crucial 15th member
was supposed to be Justice David Davis. He was
seen as independent. But then, in a crazy twist,
Democrats in the Illinois legislature elected
Davis to the U .S. Senate, pulled him right off
the commission, which meant a Republican justice,
Joseph P. Bradley, ended up being the tiebreaker.
The commission meets in February, and bam, an
eight to seven party line vote. All 20 disputed
votes go to Hayes, just like that. It's one of
those huge what if moments, isn't it? One Senate
election in Illinois, potentially deciding the
presidency? Absolutely. And while that decision,
you know, technically resolved the immediate
crisis, it begs that huge question. What was
the real cost? Especially the cost of the compromise
that followed. What did it mean for African Americans
in the South? This is such a pivotal moment.
It reshaped the South for generations. Connecting
it to the bigger picture, it just lays bare that
complex tension between political necessity,
maybe, and moral compromise in American government.
The decision avoided immediate breakdown, sure,
but it paved the way for decades of disenfranchisement
and segregation, a truly heavy legacy. Yeah,
the Democratic response was fury. Total outrage.
They tried to filibuster in Congress, block the
commission's results, potentially stop the inauguration.
So to avoid plunging the country deeper into
crisis, Republican and Democratic leaders huddled
up, met at the Wormleys Hotel in Washington,
negotiated a deal. Basically, the Republicans
made promises in exchange for the Democrats letting
Hayes become president. The biggest promise.
Hayes agreed he would withdraw the remaining
federal troops from the South. He'd accept the
newly elected Democratic state governments there.
The Democrats took the deal. The filibuster ended
March 2, 1877. Hayes was officially declared
the winner, 185 electoral votes to 184. And with
that, Reconstruction was effectively over, leaving
black Southerners largely unprotected as white
Democrats consolidated power and rolled back
rights. Now, because March 4th, the traditional
inauguration day, was a Sunday in 1877, Hayes
actually took the oath privately the day before,
Saturday, March 3rd, did it in the Red Room of
the White House, makes him the first president
ever sworn in inside the executive mansion. Kind
of a quiet, almost secretive start to a presidency
born in controversy. He then had the public inauguration
on Monday, March 5th. In his address, he tried
to calm things down, pledged wise, honest, and
peaceful local self -government for the South,
talked up civil service reform, returning to
the gold standard, famously said, he serves his
party best who serves his country best. But despite
the words, many Democrats just never saw him
as legitimate. Stuck him with those nicknames.
Rutherfrod. His fraudulency. It really makes
you think, doesn't it, how deep the divisions
can run when people question the very legitimacy
of their leader. and what a huge challenge it
is to try and heal that. So, Hayes takes office,
and despite his past support for Reconstruction,
his first major act is essentially to end it.
To bring about that home rule in the South. It
wasn't just the Wormley's Hotel deal, though
that was part of it. He was under massive pressure.
The Democratic House was refusing to fund the
Army garrisons needed in the South, and even
within the Republican Party, support for military
Reconstruction was fading. There was ongoing
violence and insurgency in the South, making
it seem unsustainable to many. When he came in,
only South Carolina and Louisiana still had Republican
governments backed by federal troops. In April
77, Hayes orders the troops out of both states.
And without those troops there to enforce voting
rights, the Republican governments just collapsed,
fell to Democratic control almost immediately.
Now, Hayes did try later to find ways to protect
Black southerners rights, but those efforts didn't
really amount to much. He did, however, put up
a real fight against Congress when they tried
to weaken federal election oversight. Democrats
kept trying to attach writers to army funding
bills, writers designed to repeal the enforcement
acts. Those are the laws used against the KKK
and others suppressing black votes. Hayes vetoed
those bills five times. He was determined to
keep those laws on the books. Congress finally
passed the funding without the writer, but then
they just refused to allocate money for the federal
marshals needed to actually enforce the laws.
So kind of a hollow victory. It's a diary entry
from Hayes around this time is really striking.
He wrote, my task was to wipe out the color line.
to abolish sectionalism, to end the war and bring
peace. Noble goals, maybe. But the actual result,
the end of Reconstruction, had devastating consequences
for millions of African Americans. Pave the way
for Jim Crow. It's such a critical juncture.
Hayes' actions here, regardless of the pressures
or his intentions, undeniably mark the end of
a crucial era, and the consequences, as you said,
were the rollback of rights and nearly a century
of legalized segregation and oppression. It forces
you to ask, was this pragmatic leadership necessary
to hold the union together after the disputed
election, or was it a fundamental failure to
uphold the promises of emancipation and citizenship?
It really starkly illustrates how political deals,
even those aimed at peace or stability, can have
these incredibly found and damaging long -term
social costs. Right. OK, so beyond that massive
issue of ending Reconstruction, Hayes came into
office really determined to reform the government
itself, to dismantle the spoils system. He wanted
federal jobs awarded based on merit through exams,
not just handed out as political favors, which
was a pretty radical idea back then. And this
put him immediately on a collision course with
a powerful faction in his own party, the stalwarts.
They loved the spoils system. Their leader was
the very influential Senator Roscoe Conkling
of New York. Conkling fought Hayes on reform
every step of the way. Hayes appointed Carl Schertz,
a big reformer, as Secretary of the Interior,
and he ordered an investigation into the New
York Custom House that was like Conkling's personal
patronage machine. The report found that maybe
20 % of the jobs there were just political hires,
totally unnecessary. Hayes couldn't get Congress
to outlaw the system, but he issued an executive
order. forbade federal employees from being forced
to make campaign donations or do party work.
Now, Chester A. Archer, yes, the future president
was the collector of the Port of New York, a
big Conkling ally. He basically refused to comply.
Hayes demanded his resignation. Arthur refused,
so Hayes fired him. During a congressional recess
in July 1878, it was a huge fight. Conkling battled
him in the Senate over the replacements. But
Hayes eventually won, getting his reformist candidates
confirmed. Firing Arthur and cleaning up the
Custom House, that was seen as a major victory
for civil service reform. And Hayes' constant
pushing on this, it really laid the groundwork
for the Pendleton Act, the law that finally created
the professional civil service, ironically signed
by Chester Arthur himself after Garfield's assassination.
It just shows Hayes' determination right. taking
on powerful figures in his own party for a principle
he believed in. It really does. And this fight
wasn't just about shuffling jobs around. It was
a fundamental battle over the integrity of government.
Was it going to be run by political machines
or by professional standards? Hayes's persistence,
even though he didn't get the full legislative
victory himself, created that essential momentum.
It set a crucial precedent, started shifting
the whole culture of government work, and had
effects that lasted for generations. Really changed
how the bureaucracy functioned. Then just months
into his presidency, Hayes gets hit with another
crisis, the great railroad strike of 1877. This
was the biggest labor uprising the country had
ever seen up to that point. Started because railroads
cut wages again after the Panic of 1873. Began
with B &O workers, but spread like wildfire across
major rail lines. Thousands walked off the job,
riots broke out, governors started calling for
federal help. Hayes was initially reluctant,
but as things escalated, he sent in federal troops,
mostly, he said, to protect federal property.
But this was historic. and controversial. The
first time U .S. Army troops were used to intervene
in a strike against a private company, to essentially
break the strike. The violence eventually ended
by late July. People died in clashes between
strikers and state militias. Interestingly, public
opinion seemed to largely blame the railroads,
not the strikers. It actually forced companies
to improve conditions somewhat. And Hayes' own
thoughts on it, recorded in his diary, are really
revealing. He wrote something like, the strikes
have been put down by force, but now for the
real remedy. He wondered, Can't something be
done by education of strikers, by judicious control
of capitalists, by wise general policy? He even
called the strikers generally good men, sober,
intelligent, and industrious. Shows a surprising
amount of empathy, right? A recognition of the
deeper issues at play. That constant tension
between labor, capital, and government power,
it's a theme that just keeps coming back. Okay.
Beyond the strike, Hayes also had to deal with
these really tricky economic issues, especially
around currency. What kind of money should the
country use? Two big fights. Silver coinage and
what to do about greenbacks. See, the Coinage
Act of 1873, sometimes called the Crime of 73,
had stopped the minting of silver dollars. Put
the U .S. firmly on the gold standard. This shrank
the money supply, which made the panic of 1873
worse, especially for people in debt, farmers,
laborers. They wanted silver back. They wanted
more money circulating, believed it would raise
wages, property values. So Congress passes a
bill, the Blandallison Act of 1878, to bring
back silver coinage, requiring the Treasury to
mint millions in silver dollars each month. Hayes
hated the idea. He thought it was inflationary,
basically dishonest because it would devalue
debts contracted under the gold standard. He
vetoed it, said expediency and justice both demand
an honest currency. But Congress overrode his
veto. It was the only time his veto was overridden
during his entire presidency. This whole fight,
gold versus silver, it wasn't just technical.
It was about who held economic power, whose debts
got easier to pay, whose got harder. The other
issue was greenbacks. That paper money issued
during the Civil War, not backed by gold or silver.
An earlier law, the Specie Payment Resumption
Act of 1875, said the Treasury had to start redeeming
greenbacks for gold beginning in 1879. Hayes
and his treasury secretary, John Sherman, worked
really hard to build up the government's gold
reserves before that date. And when the day came
in 1879, public confidence was high enough that
very few people actually bothered to trade in
their greenbacks for gold. They trusted the paper
money again. So between the overridden silver
bill and the successful resumption of specie
payments, they kind of ended up with this workable
compromise. The economy was slowly recovering
anyway. Right. And these debates, they might
seem really dry and technical now, but they had
huge impacts on everyday people, farmers, workers,
businesses. Hayes' position, even being overridden
on silver, it clearly shows his economic philosophy.
He prioritized stability, worried about inflation.
It's that classic hard money versus soft money
debate. And it's a debate that, in different
forms, we still see playing out in economic policy
discussions today, isn't it? Who benefits from
inflation? Who benefits from stable currency?
These questions So Hayes wasn't just dealing
with massive domestic stuff. He was actually
pretty busy on the world stage, too, asserting
American interests. Allade's focus was on Latin
America. In 1878, he acted as an arbitrator in
a really messy border dispute between Argentina
and Paraguay, left over from the Paraguayan War.
Hayes ended up awarding the disputed area, the
Gran Chaco region, to Paraguay. And Paraguay
was so grateful they actually renamed a city
Villa Hays and a whole administrative region
Presidente Hays after him. That's pretty remarkable
international recognition. He also got very involved
in the idea of a canal across Central America.
Ferdinand de Lesseps, the guy who built the Suez
Canal, had plans for Panama. Hays too have very
strong stance based on the Monroe Doctrine. He
told Congress flat out, the policy of this country
is a canal under American control. So the U .S.
cannot consent to the surrender of this control
to any European power." That was a really forward
-looking statement, wasn't it? Basically, it
staked America's claim to dominance over any
future canal, setting the stage for Teddy Roosevelt
and the Panama Canal decades later. It really
does show him thinking strategically long term
about America's place in the hemisphere and the
world. It wasn't just reacting to events, it
was anticipating future geopolitical importance
and firmly planting an American flag, metaphorically
speaking, on that canal concept, a clear assertion
of national interest. The border with Mexico
was another hot spot. There were frequent raids
into Texas by groups from Mexico in the 1870s.
Pretty early in his term, Hayes actually authorized
the U .S. Army to cross the border. pursue these
bandits into Mexico. Predictably, the Mexican
president Porfirio Diaz protested strongly. Things
got tense. Eventually, they worked out an agreement
for joint pursuit, and Hayes promised not to
let Mexican revolutionaries organize on U .S.
soil. As the raids decreased, Hayes pulled back
that order in 1880. And then there was China.
This became a major foreign policy issue, tied
up with domestic politics, especially immigration.
An earlier treaty, the Brilliant Game Treaty
of 1868, had allowed pretty much unrestricted
immigration from China. But after the Panic of
1873, anti -Chinese sentiment exploded, especially
out West. Immigrants were blamed for taking jobs,
lowering wages. So Congress passed a bill in
1879, the Chinese Exclusion Act, which would
have basically torn up the treaty. Hayes vetoed
it. His reasoning. He believed the U .S. shouldn't
just unilaterally cancel treaties. It had to
be done through negotiation. There's a principled
stand based on international law. Earned him
praise in the Northeast, but furious condemnation
out West. Democrats in the House even tried to
impeach him over it, though that failed. Eventually,
after Hayes left office, a new treaty was negotiated,
leading to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
But Hayes' veto, it really highlights that tension
between domestic pressure and international obligations.
Okay, shifting focus back home, let's talk about
Native American policy under Hayes. He and his
interior secretary, Carl Schertz, pushed a policy
of assimilation, trying to integrate Native Americans
into white culture. This involved education,
trying to teach farming, and importantly, breaking
up tribal lands into individual family plots.
This really foreshadowed the Dawes Act of 1887.
Hayes seemed to genuinely believe this approach
would lead to self -sufficiency, peace between
Native Americans and settlers. They also tried
to reform the Bureau of Indian Affairs, cut down
on the rampant corruption. But despite maybe
good intentions, we now know this whole assimilationist
approach, especially the Dawes Act, ended up
being disastrous for Native Americans, led to
massive land loss, cultural disruption, and Hayes's
term still saw significant conflict. The Nez
Perce War in 1877, with Chief Joseph's famous
fighting retreat. They were ultimately defeated,
tragically forced onto reservations in Indian
territory. There were also uprisings involving
the Bannock and the Ute tribes. One instance
where Hayes may be intervened more positively
was with the Ponca tribe. There had been a mistake
under Grant. They were forced off their land.
Hayes appointed a commission in 1880. They ruled
the Ponca could choose to go back to Nebraska
or stay where they were and should get compensation.
Hayes specifically urged Congress to act with
justice and humanity towards the Ponca. It's
just such a complex and often tragic history,
isn't it? Even policies intended as reforms could
have devastating outcomes. All right, let's lighten
things up a bit. White House life under the Hayes
has had some unique aspects. Most famously, his
wife Lucy Webb Hayes. She became known nationwide
as Lemonade Lucy. Why? Because she banned alcohol
from the White House completely. Apparently their
very first reception had wine, but he himself
was reportedly appalled by how drunk some guests
got at other Washington events. So he got fully
behind Lisey's strong temperance views. No more
booze served in the Hayes White House ever. Now,
critics called him cheap, but the sources say
he actually spent more of his own money on lavish
food and entertainment after the ban. to make
up for the lack of alcohol. And this policy,
it wasn't just personal, it had political benefits
too. Really shored up support from product administrators,
helped convince prohibitionists to stick with
the Republican party, it's kind of a fun detail,
right? Humanizes them. Shows how the first family's
values could shape even social customs at the
highest level. It's a great example, isn't it?
How deeply held personal beliefs, especially
those of a prominent first lady like Lucy, could
directly influence White House policy and even
national politics. Lemonade Lucy isn't just a
cute nickname. It reflects a real cultural force
in alignment with a powerful social movement
temperance. It makes you wonder how often we
might overlook these personal dynamics when we
analyze a presidency, its policies, its image.
And quickly, on judicial appointments. Hayes
put two justices on the Supreme Court. First
was John Marshall Harlan in 1877. Harlan became
famous later for his powerful dissent in civil
rights cases like Plessy v. Ferguson. He was
often a lone voice arguing for a broader interpretation
of rights. The second was William Burnham Woods
in 1880. He was a Southern Republican, a so -called
carpet -bagger, but apparently disappointed Hayes
by often siding with the more conservative, Southern
Democratic view of the Constitution. Hayes also
tried to appoint Stanley Matthews in 1881, but
the Senate balked because of Matthews' ties to
railroads and corporations. Matthews did get
confirmed later under President Garfield, and
interestingly, he went on to write some important
decisions protecting minority rights, like in
Yequo v. Hopkins. So maybe Hayes' initial instinct
about him was right after all. So after that
incredibly intense single term, Rutherford B.
Hayes did exactly what he promised. He didn't
run for reelection in 1880. He was a big believer
in a single presidential term, ideally six years,
he thought. Still a debate we have today, right?
He leaves office, goes back home to Spiegel Grove
in Fremont, Ohio. But he didn't just disappear
from public life. Not at all. He stayed very
active. especially with veterans groups, like
the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, became
its commander -in -chiefs, and interestingly,
even though he was a staunch Republican, he actually
approved of Grover Cleveland, the Democrat, winning
in 1884. Why? Because he liked Cleveland's stance
on civil service reform, shows how committed
Hayes remained to that issue, putting principle
above party. He also apparently took a lot of
satisfaction watching the political rise of his
old army buddy and protege, William McKinley.
who of course would follow in his footsteps to
the presidency later. Yeah, his post presidency
really shows a man still deeply wrestling with
the big issues facing the country. His continued
advocacy, especially crossing party lines for
something like civil service reform, it just
underscores that commitment to principle we saw
earlier. It wasn't just politics for him. It
really challenges those easy labels we sometimes
stick on historical figures, shows a complexity,
a depth of thought that went way beyond his time
in the White House. And in retirement, Hayes
really threw himself into advocating for education.
educational charities, federal funding for schools
for all children. He genuinely seemed to believe
education was the key, the way to heal the country's
divisions, the way for people to lift themselves
up. And he practiced what he preached. Served
on the board of trustees for Ohio State University,
the school he'd helped start as governor. He
talked about the importance of both vocational
training and academics. Famously wrote, I preach
the gospel of work. I believe in skilled labor
as a part of education. He pushed hard for Congress
to pass the Blair bill. which would have provided
federal aid for education though it didn't pass.
But his work did have direct impact. He encouraged
black students to apply for scholarships from
the Slater Fund, an organization he was involved
with, and notably a young W .E .B. Du Bois got
one of those Slater Fund scholarships in 1892.
Pretty amazing connection. Hayes also pushed
for prison reform. just a broad commitment to
social improvement. Okay, now strap in for this
because here's where the Hayes story takes a
really unexpected turn. His post presidency critique
of wealth inequality and his, well, sympathy
for socialist ideas. This really flies in the
face of the typical image of a Gilded Age Republican
president, doesn't it? In an 1886 speech, he
said something startling. Free government cannot
long endure if property is largely in a few hands
and large masses of people are unable to earn
homes, education, and a support in old age. I
mean, that's a powerful warning about economic
inequality coming from him then. And he kept
thinking about it. The next year, 1887, he wrote
in his diary calling the vast wealth owned or
controlled by a few persons the giant evil and
danger in this country. He saw how money was
influencing everything, politics, courts, the
press. And he directly linked that extreme wealth
to extreme poverty, ignorance, vice, and wretchedness
for the majority. He even suggested that maybe
the answer lay in changing laws about corporations,
property, inheritance, taxes. And then, even
more remarkably, the sources point to his sympathy
with socialism. One journal, after he died, explicitly
mentioned this. Said socialism isn't necessarily
revolutionary. And it credited Hayes with giving
the famous writer William Dean Howells his first
socialistic direction. Hayes apparently used
things like the post office and public schools
as examples of practical socialism. Things run
for the common good. Even like Edward Bellamy's
famous utopian novel Looking Backward, which
imagined a socialist future. So the 19th president,
a Republican. expressing sympathy for socialism,
warning about concentrated wealth as the giant
evil that is a major surprising twist to his
legacy. It's absolutely fascinating, isn't it?
The foresight in those observations is really
striking. His worries about concentrated wealth,
its corrosive effect on democracy, they sound
incredibly relevant today. It reminds you these
aren't new problems. And it really forces that
question, how often do we miss these deeper philosophical
currents in historical figures because we just
box them in by party label. Connecting it to
the bigger picture, it suggests the intellectual
land landscape of that era was maybe more complex,
more critical of capitalism's excesses than we
sometimes assume. He sought the potential danger
long before many others. Hayes' final years involved
continued public work, but also deep personal
sadness. His wife, Lucy, died in 1889. He was
devastated, wrote that the soul had left Spiegel
Grove when she passed. His very last words, apparently
just before he died, were, I know that I'm going
where Lucy is. Very touching. He stayed involved,
though. In 1890, he chaired the Lake Mohon Conference
on the Negro Question, still engaging with issues
of race. Rutherford B. Hayes died on January
17, 1893. He was 70. Complications from a heart
attack at home in Spiegel Grove. His funeral
was attended by major figures, President -elect
Grover Cleveland, Governor William McKinley,
assigned to the stature. He was buried there
at Spiegel Grove next to Lucy. So how do we remember
him? His place in history is definitely complicated.
His biographer Ari Hugenboom argues his biggest
achievement was restoring faith in the presidency
itself, stopping the decline of executive power
after Lincoln. Supporters point to his unwavering
fight for civil service reform, but critics,
and this is a heavy criticism, point to his handling
of Reconstruction's end, his perceived leniency
towards the South, and especially the withdrawal
of federal protection for black civil rights.
The consequences were just immense and long lasting.
So historians generally rank him Kind of in the
middle, maybe average to below average, reflecting
that really mixed legacy. But despite the debates,
he has been honored. The Hayes Presidential Library
and Museums at Spiegel Grove, that was actually
the very first presidential library in the country,
opened in 1916. He's been on stamps, a dollar
coin. And then there's that incredible international
legacy in Paraguay, the Presidente Hayes department,
Villa Hayes, even an official holiday commemorating
his arbitration decision. So their legacy is
definitely still visible. etched in places and
institutions, even if it remains complex and
sometimes controversial. Hashtag tag tag outro.
So as we wrap up this deep dive on Rutherford
B. Hayes, here's something to think about. Here's
a man often remembered for how he got into office,
that disputed election, his fraudulency and for
overseeing the painful end of reconstruction.
Yet in his labor years, he dedicated himself
to warning about the dangers of extreme wealth
concentration, even finding common ground with
socialist thinking. It really makes you wonder,
doesn't it? If a leader from the heart of the
Gilded Age could be so insightful, so concerned
about economic inequality, what does that tell
us about these cycles in history, about the challenges
that maybe we're still wrestling with today?
What part of Hayes' journey, his contradictions
stood out most to you? That's exactly the point,
isn't it? It forces us to look past those simple
narratives, the easy labels, and really grapple
with the complexity of leadership, especially
during times of huge national upheaval. Hayes'
story is a powerful reminder of how the initial
controversy surrounding a figure can sometimes
overshadow the full arc of their life, their
evolving ideas, their lasting impact, both positive
and negative, his insights, his struggles with
governance, economic fairness, racial justice.
still resonate with surprising clarity. It urges
us to consider the long shadow cast by decisions
made in moments of crisis and to appreciate the
unexpected relevance we can find even in figures
history has sometimes overlooked.