![](https://netgalley-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/65fed9235e/images/icons/nav_back_xs.png)
Member Reviews
![](https://netgalley-profiles.s3.amazonaws.com/avatar823080-micro.png?1735207897)
I liked this book. Dana Bash has done some excellent research and clearly has passion towards the subject.
![](https://netgalley-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/65fed9235e/images/profile-micro.png)
This book focuses on the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1872, which devolved into chaos, violence, and (for a time) 2 governors. Most of us, myself included, have not heard much about this period in history; neither, says the author, had she until she began researching for this book. I think it's important for us to know, since we are living through times of violence and chaos, that there were other times in American history where elections were contested violently, accused of being "rigged," and outcomes were uncertain.
Unfortunately, for me, this book failed to make that connection. Neither did it make a strong connection to the recently ended American Civil War, even though much of the passion of Louisiana's residents apparently came from the fact that it was a divided state during and after the war (2 pages are devoted to this). Bash's treatment of the story and organization of the material is the prime reason. She takes an approach that is primarily sequential - events are described in the order in which they occurred, with bits of context included for each event and few attempts to help the reader see overarching patterns.. Bash also looks at the material with a reporter's eye - stating the details without differentiating between major and minor events and people. For a reporter this can be a valuable tool to avoid the appearance of bias. For the reader, it makes it difficult to prioritize the material, and easy to forget things that may be useful to remember later on.
As a teacher, I am also concerned about the fact that Bash does not cite any sources throughout the book, even though she uses quotations extensively. There is a bibliography at the end of the book, but it contains only 25 sources, including articles and books dating back to 1919, 2 graduate theses, several newspaper articles and the Visitor's Guide to New Orleans. It's therefore impossible to know the relative importance or even the veracity of any of the quotes.
While we are living through these interesting times, we tend to believe that we are the only ones who have experienced things like this. But even though some might say that learning history is "woke," it's a necessary part of helping us understand and work through the problems we currently face. For this reason alone, it's worth learning about events like these in history. But I'm not convinced this is the book to do it.
Many thanks to Harlequin Trade Publications and NetGalley for allowing me the opportunity to read this ARC in exchange for my honest review.
![](https://netgalley-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/65fed9235e/images/profile-micro.png)
This is a cautionary tale of what can happen when people put hatred above reason, party above country, and self importance above common sense. That it actually happened and took place in this country, is absolutely frightening! This is a nonfiction account of a gubernatorial election in Louisiana which led to the deaths of many people. They all died trying to vote. It took place after the Civil War, when Reconstruction was underway. And the south was having none of it.
Well written and highly researched, this account makes our country's divisions today seem quite tame. It is hard to believe that our experiment in democracy nearly ended in 1868, with the strife continuing until the presidential election of 1872. This book really blew my mind! And I highly recommend it.
![](https://netgalley-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/65fed9235e/images/profile-placeholder-micro.png)
Dana Bash’s America’s Deadliest Election provides a captivating look at one of the most chaotic periods in U.S. political history. Bash expertly details the events surrounding a violent and contentious election, highlighting the roles of misinformation, political divides, and extremism in fueling the unrest.
With vivid storytelling and sharp analysis, Bash captures the high emotions and tensions of the time, making the book both informative and engaging.
Overall, America’s Deadliest Election is a crucial reminder of the fragility of democracy and the need to protect the electoral process. Bash’s insights make it a must-read for those interested in the intersection of politics, media, and public trust.
![](https://netgalley-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/65fed9235e/images/profile-micro.png)
“America’s Deadliest Election” by Dana Bash is about a part of history that I was not familiar with, and I was surprised on how many similarities there were to today’s political climate. “Not only are the events similar, but many of exactly the same words were used.” Bash does a great job by providing lots of details and facts about how events would unfold over a number of years that would ultimately change the course of Reconstruction and segregation throughout the South. And, to think that everything may have been different if Governor Warmoth signed the civil rights bill instead of vetoing the bill. “America’s Deadliest Election” is heavy on details, and, at times, a little in the weeds, but it is an important read for anyone who is interested in American history and the current political climate. “Democracy has often been referred to as an experiment. This is the story of what happened, and what can happen again, when that experiment fails.”
![](https://netgalley-profiles.s3.amazonaws.com/avatar1296483-micro.png?1735207897)
I really enjoy history and learning what has happened in the past and steps we can take to keep from letting it happen again.
I wasn't really sure what to think of this book - I enjoyed learning about something I had never heard to before, but felt like maybe it was a little too detailed and in the weeds (and long). I also had a little trouble keeping the main "characters" or perpetrators straight. I think they were all at fault. The elections were definitely corrupt (both sides even agreed that it was).
I am glad we have more secure ways to hold elections - and that, hopefully, we don't resort to violence to obtain our desired result. That being said, we need to protect our elections fiercely. Voting is our most precious and fundamental right.
This book was eye opening for sure and explains a little bit - civil rights must be protected.
I was given this from NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for a fair and honest review. All opinions are my own.
![](https://netgalley-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/65fed9235e/images/profile-micro.png)
An interesting look at the election of 1872 as it takes us thru history that majority of us had absolutely no idea about. If you follow politics this book will definitely open your eyes as you look at the past and realize its scary similar to our current situation
![](https://netgalley-profiles.s3.amazonaws.com/avatar623383-micro.png?1735207897)
America's Deadliest Election by Dana Bash is a solid nonfictional account of the gubernatorial election in Louisiana and the fallout during and as a result. The summary of the election account was incredibly interesting, even if you're not a history enthusiast you could get into it. But even more interesting is the parallel and comparison to the elections of today.
![](https://netgalley-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/65fed9235e/images/profile-micro.png)
Now that the United States has decided to stop selecting its leaders by election, it is a perfect time to look back, and celebrate some of the remarkable ones. I am sure that you have your own favorite. I remain a 1864 fan. A popular choice is 1876. America's Deadliest Election is about the Louisiana gubernatorial race of 1872, which is like saying that you liked 1876 before it was cool.
The story starts with the career of Henry C. Warmouth (honestly the names in this book are like a Dickens novel), who is what happens when you wish for civil rights on a monkey's paw, and his election in 1868 and subsequent benevolent kleptocracy, which leads (but maybe put a pin in that?) into the disputed election of 1872, the result being that Louisiana had two governments. The situation lead to violence, lots of violence, most particularly the Colfax massacre of 1873. Then the presidential election of 1867 happens, which leads to more violence, notably the Battle of Canal Street1. All then ending up in the Bargain of 1877, the end of Reconstruction, the rise of Jim Crow, and the failure of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution to amend much. Thus, we briefly end on the Civil Rights Movement of the late 20th Century.
In short, due to corruption, racism, and political opportunism, Louisiana's election in 1872 turned it into a failed state. This persisted in one form or another until the presidential election of 1876, where its electoral votes would determine the election. The end result was the federal government empowering racism for decades.
The history is good. The facts are compelling. There is lots of things worth learning here. This is a story that any U.S. citizen should know, and in a contemporary way, as opposed to the Lost Cause way that it was taught to you, even in the north, if you are not rather young. There are confusing parts, but it comes out of how the factions would shift, often through transparently corrupt means or brazen power interests. But the authors are clear on how it gets confusing, write as much. This felt cheeky at first ("isn't explaining it, like, your job?") but in consideration is a refreshing admission.
The problems are structural. It is fitting that one of the author's is a CNN anchor, as the book itself has a tendency to written with frequent self-reflective advertisements that I associate with network newscasts ('when we come back'). The authors also overuse the single-sentence paragraph mic drop.
A sentence fragment.
There are no footnotes, end notes, or citations of any kind, only a biography. I understand that it is popular history, and the perception is that scares people, but it makes my usual citation assessment impossible. There are a few points for which I want to see the citations, as I find them difficult.
The book's release date before the alleged 2024 U.S presidential election, and the title is there to connect history to current events, maybe with an implied 'so far.' This is savvy marketing. But I think that there are problems.
The first is that, prescriptively worried about allegations of bias, the authors avoid interpretation to the point of malpractice. Events get written about to create overt parallels to contemporary politics. I assume it is that way to avoid in allegations of bias, but 1) that's not history, that's research, b) we all know what you are doing, so it only makes it look like you are more biased and trying to hide it, and iii) I wager that without guardrails people will willfully misinterpret this to support their preferred positions, which frustrates the authors' purpose.
The second is…look, I know that complaining about the title makes it look like I am a 2nd year stalling for time when he didn't do the assigned reading for class. I am also not trying to engage in hair-splitting about what is or is not an election, particularly because one read is that the deadliness of the election is not the violence then, but the persisting affects of racism now. And in terms of marketing, it is a good choice.
But Louisiana was not a tipping point. Yes, it is worthy focus, because the political actions are at the level of slapstick. But the same problem is going on in Florida, with other problems in South Carolina and Oregon. Similarly, the Colfax massacre arises out of the '72 election in the sense of its material cause, but even the book points out the similar events before and after. And considering how much historical erasure surrounds the acts of terror against Black people, considering how important undoing that is rebutting contemporary racist tropes, I would rather it was differently framed.
Put a different way, my concern is someone focuses on the local political misbehavior as opposed to the regional domestic terrorism. The book is clear that this is not the authors' intent. But I worry that the tyranny of narrative is going to blow a great opportunity to correct a wrong in the telling of U.S. History.
But to reiterate, it is a good book, and I think that some of my complaints might be why others like it. There are flaws, but it is a useful history and relevant today in obvious and subtle ways.
My thanks to the authors, Dana Bash and David Fisher, for writing the book, and to the publisher, Harlequin Trade Publishing, for making the ARC available to me.
![](https://netgalley-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/65fed9235e/images/profile-micro.png)
Thank you Harlequin Trade Publishing for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley. All opinions are my own. No review was required as a condition for receiving the advance reading copy and no review was promised.
I just finished America’s Deadliest Election, by Dana Bash. The book is about the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1872 and the events of the following four years. Over those following years, we had the dispute over the infamous 1876 presidential election and the Supreme Court’s awful ruling that essentially ended Reconstitution and legalized segregation.
The first main character that we meet, and the most interesting one in the book, is Henry Clay Wadmoth, the Republican incumbent governor. According to the New York Times, “It is difficult to exaggerate the evils…he has brought on the state” while other newspapers described him as “a despot”, “a demagogue” and “a tyrant.”
Wadmoth was just 25 years old when he was elected. He was elected to his position despite already being indicted in Texas a few years earlier for embezzling $21,000, but the voters didn’t seem to care. His tenure as governor was as disastrous as it sounds like it would be. This is another good example of one of the most common themes in history: things that wouldn’t be believable in a TV series happen very frequently over the course of U.S. history.
The governor was a big believer that the law didn’t apply to him and more than a hundred years before Nixon occupied the White House and almost 150 years before Trump, was a believer that if the governor does it, it is not illegal. His administration even set up a specific office where anyone who wanted to give bribes could do it there.
The book provides a very good look at how the counting of the vote in the 1872 election showed the results were nothing more than a farce. Violence was rampant in Louisiana throughout Wadmoth’s tenure. In fairness to him, it started shortly before he took office, but there is no indication that he showed any interest in doing anything about it.
The author points out that the election of 1872 raised the issue of what happens when a significant chunk of the electorate doesn’t accept the result of an election. Unfortunately, that sounds very familiar to us. The Republican, William Pitt Kellogg, and the Fusionist-Democratic candidate, John McEnery both claimed victory. Eventually, after the federal government intervened, Kellogg was certified as the winner.
Meanwhile, during his time as lame duck governor, the legislature impeached Wadmoth, who was term limited to a single team. Under state law, the act of being impeached immediately resulted in his suspension from holding the office. I won’t spoil the outcome of how the case against him was resolved. There are some analogies I’d like to make, but that would end up giving things away.
Initially after the election, there were not only two governors purporting to be the correct one, but also two separate legislatures operating in Louisiana. And, I also need to mention that the elected judges and similar chaos existed there. As the author points out, McEnery and his legislature exerted no actual power, but as long as they had enough people who will follow them, they were a legitimate threat to the legitimate government.
Initially, after the competing gubernatorial inaugurations, it was a non violent situation. But, it was only a matter of time before that changed.
The tension eventually erupted in the Colfax massacre. That then led to the Supreme Court’s infamous ruling in the Cruikshank case, which effectively ended Reconstruction as well as having a devastating impact on the 14th Amendment—which lasts to this day—as well as bringing about the Jim Crow era. I just checked my records and, prior to this, Mr. Book had read three books on the Colfax massacre and that case. But, none of them came close to this one in going into such great detail about all of the events leading up to it. That is why none of them ended up even getting close to the grade that this one is getting.
Estimates on how many blacks were killed in the massacre range from 150 to several hundred. But, whatever the total was, it is regarded as the worst mass racial killing in United States history.
In 1876, in the Battle of Little Creek, that was a briefly successful insurrection in which Governor Kellogg’s government was overthrown. But, thanks to the Grant administration, Kellogg’s administration was reinstated.
I gave this book an A+, which means it is immediately inducted into my Hall of Fame . Amazon, Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A+ equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
One of the first things I did after finishing this book was to go place a preorder for the Audible edition. So I will be able to once again enjoy this excellent book when that is released.
This review has been posted at NetGalley and Goodreads. It will also be posted at Amazon, as soon as the book is released to the public and I will also be posting it at my new book review blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews, which I expect to have up and running later in the week