Talk:Compromise of 1877

message: Why is this title for the event hidden only n the cided references or the loss of rights of african americans in the south until the civil rights movement? This is a very slanted article in its current state it serves only as part of the "State's Rights" conspiracy of repainting the civil war and the reconstruction. 204.63.40.47 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Betrayal

message: The article should emphasize that the "compromise" did not amount to much.  The key items had already been promised by Hayes and they were reaffirmed.  Rjensen 07:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The KKK was dead by early 1870s. The Federal troops guarded the state house and would not recognize the Democrats who had been elected  governor in the 3 states.   As soon as the troops left most of the Republicans left town too. The soldiers did *not* guard election booths in 1876-77 or prevent voter intimidation (they did that a few years earlier). In other words, the Republican governors were using the US troops to control the state capital. Critics said that was violation of the principles of self government. Rjensen 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Should we go into at least some background on this? My cats name was background.. he died NuclearWarfare (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.82.147 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election of 1876 

message: I removed the lines (reproduced below) referring to the first point of the compromise because the sourcing is improperly done.  In addition, I am uneasy about this claim without multiple sources.  
("Contrary to legend, Hayes did not remove the last soldiers from the South - he simply ordered them to return to their barracks." source : GIVE ME LIBERTY! An American History. vol 2, 2nd ed. Eric Foner. Ch 15, page 554
 
Seelie (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC
I find it funny, I'm actually studying for my History exam, and that is the History book that my college is using; I'm not saying it is a good book. So as an editor you are disallowing the addition of material that is taught as true history in many U.S. colleges. Ironic. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Troops

message: Was the Compromise of 1877 legal? Took place in a hotel room...no laws were passed by Congress that ended Reconstruction. Are there any sources that state the legality of the Compromise of 1877 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No legal controversy was involved. The only formal part of the compromise was that Congress voted to approved the recommendation of its commission on the electoral vote (which said Hayes won). Other "deals" were promises that mostly were not kept.  Rjensen (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rjensen...The Commission was legal...but how can promises made at a hotel be legally binding or constitutional ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Politicians make informal deals every day over drinks--That is of the world works is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it; however the deals are not legally binding.  Politicians who break their word too often lose their clout  rapidly. Rjensen (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rjensen...that helped ! Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of Compromise of 1877 

message: A block of material was added with this  edit and sourced to a blog entry on this .  As the blog makes clear, it advocates a POV (i.e. "history from a biblical perspective") that is not compatible with objective, academic history.  Furthermore, the part of the blog used as a resource does not support the broad claims made by the wikipedia editor that added the material. The blog does not claim that the solid south that lasted until 1966 was based on such issues as railroad rates, Union pensions, or civil war bonds that had lost their political salience back in the 19th Century.  I have reverted the material pending some sort of consensus to be reached here on adding the material back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this qualifies as an RS blog and do not think the material should be added backParkwells (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable additions

message: The last sentence of the opening (ending with federal withdrawal of troops), is not grammatically a complete sentence. It's also alluding to some contested storyline, as Heather Cox Richardson in How the South Won the Civil War states that reconstruction ended in 1870, and that the common narrative of the troop withdrawal after 1876 is false and pushed by Southern congressmen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C086:ED00:FDE4:9222:ECBF:9637 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar issue, Withdrawal of troops/end of Reconstruction