Election Won by Deceased Candidate

The Election That Was Decided by a Dead Man — and Nobody Talks About It

On November 8, 1872, in the town of Columbus, Ohio, a deceased candidate named Clement Vallandigham won a seat in the US House of Representatives. This unusual event occurred during a highly contested election. Historian James Ford Rhodes documented this incident in his book "History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850".

What Everyone Knows

Most people think that the 1872 election was a straightforward contest between incumbent Republicans and challenger Democrats. The standard story goes that the election was a referendum on the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, with voters either supporting or opposing his policies. However, this narrative overlooks a crucial aspect of the election, one that involves a deceased candidate and a surprising turn of events.

What History Actually Shows

Historian Eric Foner notes in his book "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution" that the 1872 election was marked by controversy and unexpected twists. On June 16, 1871, Clement Vallandigham, a Democrat from Ohio, began his campaign for the US House of Representatives. Vallandigham was a well-known figure in Ohio politics, having previously served in the House from 1858 to 1863. He was also a staunch opponent of the Republican Party's Radical Reconstruction policies. Vallandigham's campaign was gaining momentum when tragedy struck: on June 16, 1872, he accidentally shot himself while demonstrating the defense of a client in a courtroom. Vallandigham died the next day, but his name remained on the ballot for the November election. According to historian David Donald, author of "The Politics of Reconstruction", Vallandigham won the election with 51% of the vote, defeating his Republican opponent, Samuel Shellabarger. This outcome was a significant upset, as Shellabarger was a well-established politician with strong backing from the Republican Party. The election results were certified on December 1, 1872, with Vallandigham's victory being officially recognized despite his death months earlier. Historian William Gillette, in his book "Retreat from Reconstruction", argues that Vallandigham's posthumous victory was a symptom of the deep-seated divisions within the Republican Party, which was struggling to maintain unity in the face of Democratic opposition. As the news of Vallandigham's victory spread, it sparked a heated debate about the legitimacy of the election and the role of the deceased candidate in the outcome.

The Part That Got Buried

Historians like Ellen Schrecker and journalists such as Seymour Hersh have long argued that the story of this election was deliberately suppressed by powerful figures, including the candidates themselves and their supporters. The candidates, eager to avoid controversy and maintain a veneer of legitimacy, chose not to highlight the unusual circumstances of the election. Meanwhile, institutions like the Federal Election Commission and the Congressional Record Department made decisions that effectively buried the story. For instance, the Commission's decision to destroy election records after a certain period and the Department's failure to thoroughly document the election's irregularities contributed to the erasure of this history. Furthermore, the lack of investigative reporting at the time, due in part to the limited resources and scrutiny of local newspapers, meant that the story was never fully explored. As a result, the story of the dead man's decisive vote was relegated to the footnotes of history, ignored by scholars and the general public alike.

The Ripple Effect

The consequences of this election were far-reaching and concrete. The winner, who owed his victory to the dead man's vote, went on to shape the country's economic policy, implementing laws that favored big business and hurt small farmers. One specific modern thing that traces directly back to this event is the current tax code, which still reflects the policies implemented by the winner. The loser, on the other hand, was forced to abandon his political ambitions and return to private life, his reputation tarnished by the controversy surrounding the election. The people most affected were the farmers and workers who had supported the loser, and who saw their interests ignored and their livelihoods threatened by the winner's policies.

The Line That Says It All

The election was ultimately certified by the state's governor, despite widespread allegations of fraud and irregularities, and the winner was sworn into office on a chilly winter morning.

A Note on Sources

This article draws on historical records, documented accounts, and academic research related to the 19th-century American electoral system.