History Buffs: President replaced before he was sworn in???

[patricia92243]

I am absolutely positive that I have heard that some guy won the election, but before he could be sworn-in, the votes came up to different tally and he was replaced. This was in the old days when ballot boxes took a long time to count and get the message delivered to those in charge.

I know this person is NOT listed in the names of past presidents, but I know it happened. I believe I heard it from one of those historians - Doris Kearns Goodwin - or one of those sorts.

Anybody have more details on this? I don't have he slightest idea where to look or I would do some research on it myself.

[Tweed]

1. If a President isn't sworn in it, he isn't replaced.

He hasn't become President yet until he is sworn in. I'm not sure I understand your thread.

[KitSileya]

2. Could that be the Rutherford B. Hayes debacle?

The electors changed their vote because of Southern Reconstructionism. I'm sure someone knows more.

[KitSileya]

3. Election of 1876

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_B._Hayes

Hayes became president after the tumultuous, scandal-ridden years of the Grant administration. He had a reputation for honesty dating back to his Civil War years, when as a major general, he refused to campaign for Congress, saying that any officer, who left his command to run for office "ought to be scalped." As Governor of Ohio, his scrupulousness sometimes dismayed even his political allies, and Hayes was nicknamed "Old Granny." Nevertheless, his opponent in the presidential election, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden was the favorite to win the presidential election and, in fact, won the popular vote by about 250,000 votes (with about 8.5 million voters in total).

However, as with all elections, the decision was left to the U.S. Electoral College, where the votes of four states were contested. In order to win, the candidates had to muster 185 votes: Tilden was short just one, with 184 votes, Hayes had 165, with 20 votes representing four states were contested. To make matters worse, three of these states (Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina) were in the South, which was still under military occupation.

After months of deliberation and bargaining, Southern Democrats were assured that if Hayes were elected, he would pull federal troops out of the south and end Reconstruction. In return, the Democrats agreed to a committee to determine the final outcome of the election. The committee, which consisted of eight Republicans and seven Democrats, voted to give all the disputed electoral votes to Hayes. The Republicans justified this by claiming that the problem in these states was over who had the right to vote. The Democrats, on the other hand, felt that they had been robbed of the presidency, and called Hayes "Rutherfraud."

[patricia92243]

4. This sounds like it may be it. What was the name of the guy who would

have won if the electorate had followed its normal course?

Oh, and thanks for the great answer - we can always count on our DU!

[KitSileya]

6. Samuel J. Tilden

And I copied and pasted that from Wikipedia, so I didn't do anything but google Hayes. Credit where credit's due.

[Zynx]

5. Wilson thought he lost the election, but then California came in for him.

[KitSileya]

7. I didn't know that - or was that against Dewey? n/t

[patricia92243]

8. Please tell us more about this one. I guess it's easy to figure out what

I am up to - is there anyway Bush could be "out" before the swearing in event? If there are various votes discovered - out of country, mis-counts etc.

[liberalpragmatist]

9. The candidate was Charles Evans Hughes

Progressive Republican, sort of a disciple of Theodore Roosevelt. He was a Supreme Court Justice, resigned to run for the presidency, previously had been the progressive Governor of New York.

He nearly won. There are actually many parallels between 1916 and this year's election. Wilson was also the last elected incumbent to face a seriously close race before *. Truman and Ford won and lost respectively, in close races, but they weren't elected to their first terms. All other elected incumbents tend to be either reelected in landslides or lose in landslides.

One historian I read some months back said there are some eerie parallels between Wilson's presidency and Bush's. Of course, this historian believed that Wilson was generally considered great by history. Bush would be seen as a failure. Wilson's vision was extremely visionary and prescient, whereas Bush has absolutely no clue. But both had sort of a messiah complex and overreached. It all came apart for Wilson in 1918 and the midterms, and the rest of his second term he was a tragic figure. My guess is Bush will be similar. However, with Wilson it was the nation's loss that Wilson, for all his faults, was a broken man. For Bush, it will be for the nation's good.

Anyway, the person who actually wanted to run in 1916 was Theodore Roosevelt, but having split the GOP in 1912, the party was in no mood to nominate him again. Most historians believe that had the Democrats nominated a conservative candidate in 1912, Roosevelt would have won his third-party bid. However, with both Roosevelt and Wilson seen as progressives, Wilson benefitted b/c he took much of Roosevelt's vote and the GOP was split.

[yardwork]

10. One parallel between Wilson and Bush* may be illness

Wilson apparently had a stroke near the end of his second term, leaving him completely incapacitated. His wife and close aides ran the country without telling anyone else.

Parallel with chimp?