The Honest American Voter's Little Catechism for 1880

In Short

This book is a piece of campaign literature written in the form of a Socratic dialogue between an inquisitive, somewhat naive questioner and a cynical, well-informed respondent. It serves as a fervent endorsement of the Democratic Party and its candidate, Winfield Scott Hancock, while launching a scathing, relentless attack on the Republican establishment and their nominee, James A. Garfield. Because it captures the specific vitriol and political anxieties of the 1880 election, it remains a vivid, if heavily biased, artifact of American political history.

The Story

The dialogue begins with a basic primer on the mechanics of a republic, establishing the duties of Congress and the President. However, the tone shifts immediately from pedagogical to contentious when the speakers address the legitimacy of the sitting President, Rutherford B. Hayes. The respondent characterizes Hayes not as a democratically elected leader, but as the beneficiary of a fraudulent "job" orchestrated by Republican "machine" politicians. The narrative arc moves from this initial critique of the status quo to a detailed, aggressive dismantling of the Republican platform and the character of James A. Garfield.

As the conversation progresses, the respondent portrays the Republican party as a corrupt apparatus—or "machine"—run by professional politicians who manipulate the electorate. The Electoral Commission of 1877, which resolved the disputed 1876 election, is presented as a farce where legal maneuvering and partisan blocks replaced justice. The respondent paints a portrait of Garfield as an unreliable, self-serving figure, citing his alleged involvement in financial scandals like the Credit Mobilier and his manipulation of stock market figures. The text portrays Garfield as a man who serves his own ambition rather than the public interest, contrasting his legislative record against the supposed virtues of true statesmanship.

The story culminates in an impassioned defense of the Democratic candidate, Winfield Scott Hancock. Hancock is framed as the antithesis of the "machine" politician: a war hero whose leadership at Gettysburg saved the Union and whose adherence to constitutional law in the postwar South proved his character. The respondent recounts how Hancock restored order during labor riots in Pennsylvania without the use of violence, a feat contrasted sharply against the perceived cruelty and political opportunism of his opponents.

The dialogue closes on a note of hopeful, if aggressive, anticipation. The respondent asserts that the "tragedy" of the current political system will end when the American people, acting as the ultimate authority, take the stage in the upcoming November election. The text predicts that the people will sweep aside the corrupt "engineers" of the Republican machine and install a man of honor in the White House. The ending is a direct appeal to the reader's sense of duty, framing the vote as a moral act of restoration that will return the nation to its foundational principles.

How It Unfolds

The mechanics of power The dialogue opens by defining the roles of Senators, Congressmen, and the President, establishing the standard for what a republic should be. This initial consensus quickly dissolves as the speakers pivot to the reality of contemporary Washington politics.

The shadow of the machine The speakers define the "machine" as a corrupt network of wire-pullers whose primary goal is to maintain power and plunder the public treasury. They illustrate how this system operates by detailing the influence of party bosses like Roscoe Conkling.

The disputed legacy of 1876 The text examines the electoral crisis that preceded the current administration, characterizing the appointment of Hayes as a theft of the presidency. It describes the Electoral Commission as a cynical performance designed to disenfranchise the majority will.

The indictment of Garfield The conversation shifts to a granular, often blistering examination of Garfield’s legislative record. The respondent compiles a list of scandals, bribes, and hypocrisies, aiming to disqualify him from holding the highest office.

The hero enters The focus turns to the Democratic alternative, Winfield Scott Hancock, highlighting his military brilliance and his commitment to civil law. His actions in the post-war South are presented as the ultimate proof of his fitness to lead.

The final verdict The dialogue concludes with a call to action for the American voter. It frames the election as a moment of national reckoning, where the voters will finally hold the "machine" accountable for their past actions.

The People

The dialogue centers on two archetypal voices. The Questioner acts as a proxy for the general public, initially appearing unaware of the inner workings of Washington. Through their inquiries, they provide the necessary structure to extract information from the Respondent, who serves as the voice of hardened, skeptical partisan wisdom. The respondent is a sharp-tongued critic who views politics as a battle between honest citizens and self-interested knaves.

James A. Garfield is the primary antagonist, described consistently as a "political hack" and a tool of the Republican establishment. The text denies him any genuine stature, instead portraying him as a man who hides a history of corruption behind a veneer of statesmanship. In stark opposition stands Winfield Scott Hancock, the idealized hero of the argument. He is depicted as a "real gentleman" and a selfless soldier whose military victories are matched only by his respect for the Constitution and his refusal to use power for personal gain. Supporting characters like Roscoe Conkling and John Sherman are used as examples of the "machine" in action—figures who wield influence through intimidation, favors, and the ruthless enforcement of party loyalty.

In Its Own Voice

The respondent explains the inherent corruption of the political system by contrasting the needs of the country with the behavior of those in power:

He makes treaties, weeds out old political hacks, and sends them on embassies where they cannot annoy him, and have nothing to do; appoints Judges of the Supreme Court like Joe Bradley, when he wants to play eight-to-seven, commands the army and navy, gets fifty thousand dollars a year, takes all the presents he can get, lives in the White House, and does a kind of general housekeeping business for the country.

The respondent characterizes the political opposition’s strategy during the controversial 1876 election as a calculated deception:

The 'Pubs got the 'Crats to consent to have the difficulty settled by an Electoral Commission and then euchred them.

What It's Really About

At its core, this book is an exploration of the tension between democratic ideals and the reality of machine politics. It argues that the American republic is under threat from an entrenched political class that prioritizes institutional survival over the will of the people. The underlying question is whether the electorate can identify and punish political corruption through the ballot box, or if the "machine" has become too powerful to be dismantled by peaceful means. It is a work concerned with the nature of political legitimacy, questioning how a government can claim to represent the people when its leaders are installed through back-room deals and partisan maneuvers.

Why Read It Today

This book is a fascinating read for anyone interested in the raw, unvarnished rhetoric of nineteenth-century political discourse. It offers a front-row seat to the intense polarization of the 1880 election, capturing a time when political allegiances were fiercely held and expressed through stinging, direct attacks. Readers who appreciate historical documents that feel alive and confrontational will find the Socratic format engaging, as it mirrors the way everyday citizens might have debated the headlines of the day.

However, the modern reader should be prepared for the book's intense partisanship. It is not an objective history; it is a campaign weapon, and its portrayals of figures like Garfield and Hayes are designed to persuade rather than inform. The text reflects the specific prejudices and colloquialisms of the post-Civil War era, including a cynical, aggressive tone that may feel jarring. There is little attempt to provide context for the Republican side of the argument, and the reader must navigate the bias to understand the period's political grievances. Nevertheless, for those interested in the history of American campaign styles, the book provides an invaluable look at how political debate was framed in the nineteenth century, showing that the struggle between "the machine" and "the people" is a long-standing theme in the American experience.