392 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
HAYES-TILDEN CONTROVERSY.
There is a saying, "Happy is the
nation that has no history." We
doubt the truth of that trite-ism and
would certainly take issue with
its philosophy. To say a nation has no
history is to brand it as having
been one lacking necessity and activity.
These latter elements wanting,
a nation would speedily lapse into
lassitude and retrogression. Certain
it is that the nations that have contributed
the most to the progress of
civilization are the nations which have
led the "strenuous life" both
within themselves and with their
environment. This is particularly true
of our own United States. Born amid the
throes of a sturdily-fought
Revolution it grew to lusty manhood amid
the strengthening struggles
incident to untrodden territory and
untried forms of government. Having
won the perilous victory of
independence, it next had to learn the lesson
of self control. That lesson it learned
in the contest of Civil War--the
greatest internecine strife ever
experienced by a civilized nation. The
world stood aghast at the magnitude and
fierceness of that war in which
brother-states contended against brother-tates
for the dissolution of the
perpetuity of the Union. The end of that
bloody clash sealed forever
the unity of our government and the
universal liberty of its inhabitants.
Scarcely had the vast armies of the
North and South been dispersed
to their peaceful homes when the
strength of this dearly bought unity
was to be tested, not upon the field of
battle, but in the forum of bitter
political strife. This was the unique
and unparalleled controversy known
as "The Hayes-Tilden Disputed
Presidential Election of 1876." A history
of that intensely interesting event was
never fully written and put in
historical form until the appearance of
a volume with that title, just
quoted, by Paul Leland Haworth, Lecturer
in History, Columbia Univer-
sity, a volume in convenient form of
some 370 pages, published by the
Burrows Brothers Company, Cleveland,
Ohio, at $1.50, net.
We have carefully perused the pages of
this book and cannot too
highly commend the thoroughness and
impartiality with which Professor
Haworth has performed his task, one
difficult, delicate and tedious. To
the handling of his subject Professor
Haworth has brought the advantage
of the specially trained methods of a
scholar; the historical temperment
and the untiring patience requisite for
the acquisition and digestion of a
vast amount of detail. He has consulted
practically all the material extant
of any value concerning his topic, and
from this mass he has sifted that
which was reliable and pertinent to the
proper presentation of both sides
of the controversy. With rare judgment
he has impartially and fully pre-
sented the facts of both sides.
Professor Haworth has chosen the oppor-
tune time for the preparation of such a
political dispute. Up to within
comparatively a few years ago it would
have been difficult to have obtained
an unbiased survey of the claims of
either party, and a few years hence
there will probably have passed from the
stage the witnesses who alone
could give testimony at first hand. Professor
Haworth seems to have