Stealing Elections—Same as it Ever Was

The 1868 Contest and New York

My research on Grant for the book that one day will see the light has been fruitful in many respects. Much of what I read will not make it in the book because it does not directly relate to Grant, or reveal something of The Lion’s character.¹

In the 1868 election between Grant-Horatio Seymour was not a close contest, electorally speaking—214 for Grant, 80 for Seymour. The popular vote was closer than one might expect: 3 million for Grant, 2.7 for Seymour.

Soon after the election stories began to pop up that fraud occurred in Philadelphia, and New York City. No one knew at the time how expansive the fraud was at the time. However, the election was odd in New York because Seymour could not seem to put Grant away on election night. It was too close to call for many hours. The margin was too close. Shocking? For many it was. Seymour was a “popular” Democrat and was Governor of the state between 1863-1864. He was quite popular with immigrants (as Democrats were even then!), and helped to spur on the draft riots in New York City during the Civil War. See Harper’s 👇

Seymour Calling the Rioters “My Friends”

By all accounts, Seymour was supposed to be a lock for the State. However, something happened to tip off the Democrat Party he was not going to carry it all that handily. A systematic operation was then put into place. Grant had been quite crafty in campaigning for votes in the city. He lined up many immigrants (especially the Fenians!) and other moderates who publicly supported his cause. Democrats supported him in large number (we should make note that New York has been largely Democrat through the entire 19th Century).²

A special committee was set by the House to look into the matter. As reported by the New York Tribune,

these frauds were the result of a systemic plan of gigantic proportions, stealthily prearranged and boldly executed…with the direct sanction, approval, or aid of many prominent officials and citizens of New-York, with the shrewdly concealed connivance of others, and almost without an effort to discourage or prevent them by any of those in whose interest and political party associations they were successfully executed, who could not fail to have cognizance of them, and whose duty it was to expose, defeat and punish them.³

The committee stated that the frauds were so great, it likely was stolen, robbing “the people…of their rightful choice.” How did the Democrats do it and what were the conclusions?

1. Aliens procured certificates of naturalization illegally

2. Many certificates were granted to people with false names

3. Many voted 2-40 times in NYC

4. People voted who did not vote did so anyway and then for only on one side of the ticket (Democrats who did not vote, voted)

5. The organization of the fraud was a criminal enterprise

6. The electors in the state for President were fraudulently elected

7. The State laws in the NY were insufficient to prevent future fraud

8. The Courts were involved to grant fraudulent naturalization status

9. While printing of naturalization papers usually amount to 9,000 before the election, over 100,000 were printed blank, with 60,000 certifications of naturalization were printed (requested by the clerks)

The particular details are what you might expect, and I omit them here. What was astonishing is that at one point the Clerks (of the court) began issuing naturalization without court appearances—they were that shocked Grant was so popular in the City and State they then violated the law to secure power.

As is the case with all fraud, the extent cannot be known, and this was reported to the House at the time. However, there was some diligence to demonstrate the fact of fraud and its extent:

1. names to addresses were tracked. Found—names and addresses did not match

2. fictitious naturalization were demonstrated to have repeated their votes

3. witnesses testified that they saw the fraud in real time by stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent ballots

4. the vote was in some places in excess of the voting population

5. some participants in the fraud confessed

Key finding? It will sound familiar to you:

There is evidence to show that it was a part of the gigantic scheme of carrying the Democratic [Democrat] ticketing the State of New York by fraud to delay the canvassing of the vote in the City of New York until the result in the counties of the State should be known, and then make up any deficiency not supplied by repeating and other fraudulent canvass, or count of the vote.

To put it in 2020 terms, let’s stop voting, send people away, and run unfolded votes through the machines repeating the vote for our guy to make up the difference. The Commission decided that the “strongest sources of the fraud were in Democrat counties and were overwhelmingly cast for the Democrat party.” That might sound unconvincing or specious, yet the increase in the vote during this time outstripped the normal increase of any given election year.

Conclusion? Seymour needed a lot of help. Was it enough to flip New York to Seymour when it should have been Grant’s? Tribune:

It has already been shown that illegal or fraudulent certificates of naturalization were issued, probably to the extent of 66,343…

This outstrips the spread Seymour won the state by 50,000 votes.

In 1868 it is almost a certainty Grant actually carried the state of New York.

1. Grant was nicknamed The Lion. The cartoonist Thomas Nast frequently depicted Grant as one in Harper’s Weekly.

2. There were exceptions, but the city has always been a largely Democrat stronghold since the Federalists collapsed. There was more success in the early 20th century, but Democrats still won more contests. This may make NYC the longest running single party governing city in the Union.

3. February 23, 1869, p. 1.