While Rutherford B. Hayes tried to ignore the newspapers and the vocal citizens who charged he had “stolen” the election in a ploy reminiscent of John Quincy Adams’s victory over General Andrew Jackson, the controversy continued to swirl and threaten his plans for a strong presidency. International situations temporarily diverted attention from the election process to a question of his abilities to lead the nation in an era often dominated by global interactions.

Only three months into the administration, issues with Mexico dominated the news as “lawless bandits” regularly crossed the border, attacking ranches and families, stealing cattle, and creating havoc. Texans cried out for protection and national support. Hayes responded by ordering the U.S. Army to capture and punish the bandits “even if it had to cross into Mexico” to stop the border incursions.

The newly elected president of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz, protested U.S. action and sent his own troops to the border to protect Mexican sovereignty. However, a compromise created a partnership between the two military forces to control the lawlessness and, three years later, a calm settled in the region. Hayes withdrew his authorization to pursue the bandits, and Diaz and Hayes would work together during the U.S. president’s remaining time in office.

Almost simultaneously, issues arose regarding the unrestricted influx of Chinese immigrates authorized by the 1868 Burlingame Treaty. Originally, the 1840s California Gold Rush era had attracted Chinese workers, and with the movement of settlers westward and new work opportunities over the next three decades, more Chinese opted to leave their homeland and seek economic improvements. Thousands found work on the transcontinental railroad and, when that enormous undertaking was completed, shifted to work in agriculture, factories, homes, and wherever opportunity was presented. Because they often worked for lower wages than “white” employees, racial tensions increased and hit a fevered pitch in the 1870s as recessions rippled across the economy, frightening all. The result — the Great Strike of 1877 — led to anti-Chinese riots and a new California political party, the Workingmen’s Party, whose goal was to bar Chinese immigration.

California’s elected officials responded by disallowing Chinese citizens’ voting rights and rejecting their employment on public works projects or any industrial or business site headquartered in California.

The federal courts declared such laws unconstitutional, but California’s strong voice in national political circles could not be ignored. The U.S. Congress responded with a bill limiting any ship from transporting more than 15 Chinese to the U.S. Hayes vetoed the legislation and was rewarded with outrage and calls for his removal from office from elected officials and citizens west of the Rocky Mountains.

Suddenly, the controversial election was old news.

President Hayes understood the political climate and responded by appointing a commission to examine the issues related to Chinese immigration. Within months, the commission negotiated new treaties with China that regulated and severely limited immigration and prohibited the import of opium into the United States. The effect of these new treaties, not ratified until after Hayes’s departure, calmed westerners for a period of time.

Then an issue related to business and military security raised its head — a transoceanic route between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In a Parisian meeting, Ferdinand de Lesseps of Suez Canal fame suggested a sea-level canal across Panama and projected a cost of only $240 million.

Excitement grew until Aniceto Garcia Menocal, a U.S. naval officer present at the meeting, raised questions. Menocal had earlier surveyed several options for a possible canal and realized that the Panamanian route would require locks, increasing the cost exponentially. Menocal and other expert civil engineers offered statements, all of which were ignored due to De Lesseps’s fame. The group opted to move forward with his plan but ultimately was unable to secure funding.

Why did this speculative plan concern President Hayes?

Only a decade earlier, France had been involved in the Maximillian plan to place a French noble on the throne of Mexico. While that plot had ended badly — especially for Max — Hayes was suspicious of French motives. Even when the French government assured him that De Lesseps had no official relationship to the French government, his fears did not subside.

He responded with a strong statement: “The true policy of the United States as to a canal across any part of the Isthmus is either a canal under American control or no canal.”

Hayes was reflecting U.S. policy since the Monroe Doctrine and foreshadowing Teddy Roosevelt’s corollary. The role of the United States in the Western Hemisphere required strong statements regarding international policy and actions, and Hayes would not be deterred from taking a strong stand.

How would that statement be accepted? We shall see.