Andrew Jackson: Founder of the Democratic Party (1829 - 1837)
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 12. 2017
- President #7 represents a huge shift in American political history. The first six were educated members of the upper class, but Jackson was a commoner, elected on a wave of populist enthusiasm. He was also the founder of the modern Democratic Party. Was he a champion for the common man? Was he just a racist bigot? Was he somewhere in between? Let's get through some details about his life and administration.
Script by Michael Thomas
Watch the whole American History playlist: bit.ly/ProfDaveAmericanHistory
Italian Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveItalian
Classical Physics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePhysics1
Modern Physics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePhysics2
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGenChem
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveOrgChem
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiochem
Biology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
Thanks for the shout out! What an epic video. You got the highlights, although one thing I will add was the fact that he had not one, but two bullets stuck in his chest at one time that doctors had left in because it was too dangerous to take out. Such an interesting dude, probably the most fascinating in American history.
what a crazy guy! definitely the first president of his kind.
Hey its Mr Beat
Hard for a Native American to swallow and ignore to claim allegiance to anything Jackson. He was the “kill the Indian, save the man” era of Indian policy. This campaign devastated us. It’s been hard to recover our spirits.
And yet people still think democrats are good people.
Not just a Democrat, but the Founder of it.
Technically, Martin van Buren was the one who put the organization together, albeit built around the personality of and to support Andrew Jackson.
He literally said that
Party of racists!
I didn’t know science Jesus covered history... keep being awesome
These are excellent videos! I plan on watching every single one. Hopefully more are made after Truman!
Jackson was a hardcore badass. I love that democrats have the jackass as their symbol to this day, even though 90% of them probably hate him and want him removed from the twenty. I'd bet 90% of them also don't know that he founded their party haha.
@Johnny Clay well in white History he doesn't but in real history where he slaughter women and children in a settlement I'm sure he was stressed out.
@Jungerknaut: We know this. And? Just like many Republicans in the South hate Lincoln? Another wingnut ignorant of history.
@Awesome Sauce many
@Scottie Ferguson yeayy that his final photo of him before his died at 1845
The Democratic Party has always been on the wrong side of history
Sir, I am Great Fan Of yours. Pls Can U Make Some Lectures On Computer Science Like Language processing, Hardware In detail etc.
unfortunately i know literally nothing about computers but one day i will hire someone to write computer science content for me! it might be a while though.
Thanks!
He also adopted a Native American child.
He adopted two. Theodore & Lyncoya Jackson. Both died when they were still young.
oddly enough Jefferson was said to not like him
This is, by far, the most informative video I have found thus far in my quest to learn everything about Jackson. Instead of my regular rhetoric "Jackson was a legend," this video deserves a dialectic response. I found it astounding that a frontier man such as Jackson would fail to realize the folly of a direct democratic approach to the election of President. How could he have overlooked the glaring population difference between, say, Tennessee and New York? Regardless, you have earned yourself a feverent subscriber with your amazingly unbiased delivery.
before the 17th amend the state governments picked senators, insuring that each state had 2 votes and could real in federal power.
How did Jackson become one of the largest slave owners in Tennessee? How did Jackson become extremely wealthy owning large tracts of land in the South?
Andrew Jackson was also in extremely racist man
You know these liberals won't add that bro.
Like Obama?
@@Crayon3aterGaming Dave literally said he was racist in the video.
@@samnelson4975 did obama own white slaves?
What isn’t Professor Dave Explaining?
That Good ole Andrew Jackson was a racist and the Democratic party was founded to preserve slavery? 🤔
@@Crayon3aterGaming the only thing worse than slavery was emancipation.
@@Crayon3aterGaming That he handed Native Americans infected blankets , before he marched them down the trail of tears.He was an oportunist and totalitarian.
@@Crayon3aterGaming 0:50
Lol the guys saying he didn't explain that he was "racist." As a matter of fact Dave did cover that in the video
Love him or hate him, man was a badass
I choose to hate a racist bigot from centuries ago where it doesn't even matter in modern times.
@@chrisrj9871 Well it definitely mattered then, and yeah ofc he was a racist, everyone was back then, that was the times. Not defending what he did but many founding fathers owned slaves, some of the best ones even, but it was common practice at the time. I think it’s important to take time into account.
I heard he placed alcohol not punch on the lawn to get the people out
And the dude is still on the 20.00 bill. I say A.J. should stay on the bill as he is a significant part of American history. We should consider a similar way to honor the 40k Native Americans whose lives he tore apart so that a more accurate depiction of American history is presented.
If he saw himself on that fiat money, he'd start a new war against the fed reserve. That isnt an honor, but a mockery of his legacy
@@mfspectacular there is much to mock about his legacy.
@@MsColl90 still the only president to kill off the central banks & our debt 🤷♂️ got a hard time focusing solely on his craziness as a general & such when that's the case
@@mfspectacular Bill Clinton enters the chat bro.
@@devontaelafleur3841 didnt end the fed, barely made a dent in the debt. Was just another empty suit
@professordave, I'm a conservative (an actually well informed one), and I have to tell you how much I appreciate your videos, your insight, and the time you take to make them. Sincerely, thank you. Plus, you and I can get past our political differences, and come together in the effort to go get those flat earthers 🤣
Re sourcing
Andrew Jackson was the first president that I dislike.
Scotch is a whisky, a drink a dram even... not a people group. Already annoyed.
Can you explain who joe is
Joe mama
Native American, not Indian. C'mon man
I never thought a scientist Jesus would do a video about me. I enjoyed this tho
He demonstrated everything bad in democrat party that still exists today.
This is the best an most concise summary of Jackson’s life and presidency that I have ever experienced. Thank you Professor Dave! Doesn’t Jackson remind one of the current occupant of our White House?
why thank you! haha yes indeed there are many parallels with the rise of trump. why is populism always such a worse thing than it seems like it should be?
Soooo....we're just going to act like Jackson wasn't a racist and brutal to his slaves and that the Democratic party was the party of the kkk and proslavery? 🤷
@@Crayon3aterGaming slaves and indians were fairly minor issues during his time, best saved for kneejerk liberals
Professor Dave Explains seriously? You’re going to compare Trump with Jackson?! Lol
Typical... it’s mainstream to hate on Trump and compare him to scumbags throughout history. Which tells me that you’re a dumbass 👍
Great job!
MODA GAMING duh! Did you not just see these idiots claiming that Jackson and Trump “were similar”.
Last I checked.. there wasn’t an employment rating for blacks, when jackass Jackson was in office.
You know... cause of slavery.
Yet trump is here creating more jobs for blacks, than ever before.
This is just proof that the left has taken over universities and teaching bullshit propaganda. Too bad for them, the info is available elsewhere and universities don’t have a monopoly on info and knowledge. They’re just a breeding ground for leftist scum.
Andrew Jackson was a liberal by the standards of his time.
people tend to forget that the most forward thinking left winged liberal of today will be viewed in the same light in another 200 years. Even Obama will be seen in the same way we view Andrew Jackson by future Generations.
John Kennedy was a liberal by the standards of the early 1960s but his policies were no different than Ronald Reagan's in the 1980s and would be looked at as ultra right wing today.
That's how change and Progress is made.
Franklin Roosevelt was the most liberal President since Abraham Lincoln but his policies and world view would be out of step with most Americans today.
Uhm, Obama was not a left winger in any way. He was economically a neoliberal which is squarely on the right of the political spectrum. He has more in common with Reagan than anyone on the left. Liberals and fiscal conservatives tend to agree with the left on social issues... but don't confuse that with actual left ideology.
you my friend are correct because we keep moving in the opposite direction we should be philosophically and politically speaking of course. all the greatest civilizations have fallen from liberalism it will happen again. as life gets better there becomes less and less real stuff to complain about so the people start fighting amongst themselves about dumb ideology kinda like being woke today. look at the greek empire same thing essentially. life got so good in their time they split apart fighting over things like sex's kinda like today lol
NO. Liberal literally has the first 2 syllables of Liberty in it. There was nothing liberal about Jackson if he limited the rights and freedoms of a whole group of people.
Jackson was a conservative following the US constitution and keeping the government small. Liberals want big government and ignore the US constitution.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner was the father of the Democratic Party.
The majority faction of the Democratic- Republicans coalesced into modern day Democratic Party, and the minority faction became part of the Whig Party. The Democratic Party was founded in 1828, by Andrew Jackson, also a slave owner. The Republican Party was founded 26 yrs later in 1854, for the sole purpose of abolishing slavery. Also. Jefferson had a secret open border policy with a steady flow of illegal migrants, same with Andrew Jackson, like every other democrat since them. Although, Jackson’s wasn’t a secret.
That was a different party.
I’m not sure he was racist. He adopted a Creek Native baby who was left to die and raised him as his own. He also led men of every race and creed and allowed no racist remarks or racist treatment to the people of color who served underneath him.
@@lostintranslation8163 Hmm, I think he was a slave master, but not a racist. Would a racist raise a Creek Indian as his own?
E
Interesting Trumps Oval Office featured Andrew Jackson's portrait. Federal Reserve hater or Democratic Party founder? Have a Great Day!
Tbh I just wanna feel his hair…looks so ✨f l u f f y✨
Now that's a Democrat I would would vote for!
Job lost
Jackson was a man of the mob.
That was a different democratic party
nope, that's the one of today.
Lourens Vd berg
Lol different? Prove it. What good things have Democrats done “for the people”?
Part I:
It really depends on what events you’re focusing on or perhaps the narrative you’re looking for. What’s true is this. The Democratic Party for the majority of its history has dealt with the underlying tension of whether it’s the party of the struggling common American or the party of particularly Southern interests. Sometimes those goals overlapped and other times they were in conflict. And at different times one of the issue the politicians representing those factions would decide to side with their historical partisan rivals instead.
To Godwin’s Law level extremes a lot of people like to project all modern political conflicts onto the dynamics of the Civi War and act like they are a direct continuation of them. And the sad part is it seems that many people have been brought into believing this. Strangely Neo-Confederates and modern Progressives have a tendency to gaslight each other on a number of faulty historical premises. Like that the consensus view of the Founding Fathers closely approximated those of the Confederates which is patently not so if you actually look at what they wrote, that Lincoln represented a breaking away from the tradition of the American Founding rather than a continuation of its principles as he plainly stated and even now pushing the King Cotton thesis which inflated the importance of plantation Cotton production in the world economy.
The Civil War Era is undeniably important for a number of reasons, but it represented something of a detour in the traditional political discussion and the participatory factions are more complex than often perceived. When looking in the modern day the most obvious divide between the Republican and Democratic parties is on economics. The former being friendly with big business and advocating individual striving while the latter leads a crusade against major corporations in the name of of the struggling common American. That has always been the case.
Look on either side of the Civil War prior to when the party switch is pegged to have happened and this is still very much the dynamic at play. Before the Civil Was the Jacksonian Democrats among other things fought the Bank of the United States which they decried as an exploitative institution, sought to discontinue the use of paper “fiat currency” that’s specie backing it was held by bankers and transfer the nation’s funds into a state run Independent Treasury system rather than putting it into a privately owned institution as the Federalist tradition back to Alexander Hamilton had always advocated. And after the Civil War but befire the turn of the 20th Century the Populist Democrats spearheaded by William Jennings Bryan again among other things strove to break down all trusts which they saw as intrinsically oppressive to the common American, argued to expand the monetary supply for indebted farmers to gain by reintroducing silver into the system after the Grant Administration had established a Gold Standard and called for the removal of corporate influence from politics. While Bryan unlike Jackson never won the presidency Woodrow Wilson would go on to adopt much of Bryan’s platform for his own agenda. One of the issues he put an to being that of trusts by passing the Clayton Antitrust Act which set firm limits which prevented them from forming in the first place.
They were also the ones pushing to transform the government and the understanding of its relationship with the people. The Jacksonians had fought to democratize the system so as to put greater political power into the hands of the common man rather than just the monied landowners while the populists were the first to argue that the scope of the government needed to be expanded to meet the democratically decided will of the people rather than simply being a referee that was hands off on economic issues. Loathe as any leftist might be to admit it Jackson and Bryan in practical politics were each in essence the Bernie Sanders of his day including leading insurgencies in the party to set it back on a radical course after years of largely malaise and came into conflict with then establishment factions then friendly with the ecomics elites represented by figures like Henry Clay, Grover Cleveland and Bill Clinton.
Both movements were the spiritual heirs to the Jeffersonians. Thomas Jefferson argued fiercely against the establishment of a National Bank and would be the one to get rid of the first Bank of the United States as president. His successor Jackson would kill the second and Polk would successfully create the Independent Treasury. Down the line their heir Woodrow Wilson would split the difference by establishing the modern Federal Reserve System which while technically a private institution had more oversight and tighter controls placed upon it to keep them in line with the national Interest. An attempt to get the best of both systems. Wilson managed to get the approval of William Jennings Bryan on it who was a hardline anti-big bank crusader.
Though many modern self-identifying conservatives are drawn to Jefferson due to his Anti-Federalist beliefs his views on labor were decidedly more left-wing than often realized. He promoted the agrarian lifestyle because he saw factory work as oppressive given that one didn’t have the same control of their work environment, process or profit as they would on their own plot of land. And he ultimately saw manual labor as the only truly virtuous kind of work. The best example was probably the debate over payment to speculators when they do all came around to paying off the Revolutionary War debt. The speculators had picked up the debts off of many waiting veterans and Jefferson argued that they shouldn’t be paid on the basis that it was unfair since they hadn’t been the ones to do the physical fighting. It was Hamilton who in opposition argued that they had established a system that respected private contracts regardless of whatever anybody in the government felt about them and thus said they should be paid. Furthermore while the Jeffersonians has a tendency to only place value on agriculture while the Hamiltonians extolled that of industry, trade and finance as being equal.
There is a tendency to portray the New Deal as something that represented a fundamental transformation of the Democratic Party rather than what it more closely resembled which was a return to form so to speak. While the Populist movement of William Jennings Bryan and Progressive agenda carried out by Woodrow Wilson got it going Franklin Roosevelt completed the process of in essence restoring the Jackson coalition by again becoming the party of the working class across the country rather than being the party of particularly southern interests with the addition of attaining the majority of the vote from laboring African Americans. A process expedited by the presence of the Great Depression. That’s not to say none conceded to or agreed with them on certain things, but their main pitch was broader in scope, was focused on transformation and appealed to people across the country.
Part II:
In contrast to the Age of Jackson and the New Deal spearhead by Democrats you have periods like the Gilded Age and the Roaring 20’s that emerged under the watch of Republican governments. While a number of modern Democrats like to claim Ulysses S. Grant as one of their own due to his handling of Reconstruction he was actually a hardline fiscal conservative who not only vetoed a bill that would have put more “greenbacks” into the economy or even simply go back to a currency backed by metal specie but established an outright gold standard rather than a bimetal system. That along with his lowering of the national debt, abolishing of the Federal Income Tax that was implemented by the Lincoln Administration as a war measure and holding to a non-interventionist position during the Panic of 1873 while finishing off the infrastructure projects set the stage for the Gilded Age.
Warren G. Harding’s “Return to Normalcy” agenda that was carried on by Calvin Coolidge that included eliminating wartime government controls on the economy, slashing taxes and establishing a Federal budget system. Harding like Grant decided not to interfere during the Depression of 1921 which wound up lasting a year and a half rather than several as the Great Depression wound up going. After that was the Roaring 20’s which like the Gilded Age saw a boom in economic growth, industrial production, technical innovation and higher end consumer products became more widely available. It should also be noted that Grant, Harding and Coolidge were concurrently fiscal conservatives and vocal opponents of the Ku Klux Klan. Grant beating down the original Reconstruction area variant while the latter two supported the Dyer Antilynching Bill that was made to crackdown on the second iteration.
There’s an argument to be made as to whether it not these periods in the long run face way to the Panic of 1896 or the Great Depresson that allowed the Populists and the New Dealers to gain prominence respectively, but what is illustrated is that the Republican Party traditionally has been the party that was friendly to business and as fiscally constrained as capable. There’s a reason that pop historiography tends to talk about Abraham Lincoln but then skip decades all the way ahead to Theodore Roosevelt before doing so again to Dwight Eisenhower. But even discussion about those figures is often oversimplified and not put into full context. Making that case would be a long discussion unto itself be here are the basics.
Much is made of measures taken to fight the Civil War, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that he was always a bank and railroad business friendly politician who wound up granting land to private companies when carrying out his infrastructure projects. TR put through his reform agenda out of just as much concern over the rising Populist movement as he did excesses of big business as and was much more moderate about it. Hoping to keep the people from turning to the radicals if not raising a full-scale revolution. He sought to go after not all trusts but only those who were demonstrably taking part in malfeasant behavior, thinking that ones that didn’t were actually good for the country as they efficiently got out reliable products on a massive scale, and was committed to maintaining the gold standard to preserve sound money as well as because he thought it was underhanded for people to pay off their debts with doars that were of less value than the ones they were loaned due to inflation. Eisenhower accepted that he had to work within the framework of the New Deal, he told his brother Edgar it was political suicide not to, but made business friendly concessions like granting offshore drilling rights to the states which had far less red tape and supporting favored the development of private energy resources rather than getting the government into it like the Truman Administration pushed to.
It at least should be seen that they are not fire brand left-wing radicals as they often get portrayed as. Each man directly referred to himself as a conservative and was essentially cut out of the same cloth as Edmund Burke. They accepted that the moderate incrementalist change was necessary to maintain civil order but didn’t think sweeping change for its own sake to radically transform society was a good thing. The tragic thing is perhaps that rather than switching this strain of thinking has largely withered away to the point of irrelevancy at present.
Many tend to argue that the Roosevelts represent a kind of baton pass between the parties but that’s ignoring a couple of things. Like that during the heated election of 1912 FDR supported Teddy’s arch-rival Woodrow Wilson instead of his distant cousin and that his greatest philosophical opponent Herbert Hoover was a self-described Progressive Republican who was a committed supporter of TR including his run with the Progressive Party. He certainly espoused views very close to Teddy’s, his famous “Rugged Individualism” speech reflected many of the same themes as the latter’s about the “Strenuous Life”, and he felt FDR was taking things too far. Not just using the government to alleviate a presssing crisis but to regiment people into a collectivist way of thinking antithetical to the country’s founding principles and bringing it close to being like the tyrannies springing up in Europe at the time. He was not averse to a government response to the Great Depression at all and was actually castigated by Roosevelt’s running mate as leading the country down the path to socialism. It wasn’t until the New Deal left its mark that the mythology of Hoover being a laissez-faire zealot took hold. It should also be noted that Theodore Roosevelt Jr. whom shared many of the same political convictions as his father campaigned on behalf of the Republicans rather than FDR.
Anyway, in case you haven’t figured it out already based upon examples given earlier the idea that fiscal conservatism and racism are inextricably linked is fallacious. The Civil Rights Era provides another example. The Johnson Administration particularly had two categories of legislation. Traditional Civil Rights legislation and War on Poverty initiatives. Northern Democrats tended to support both while a majority Republicans at the time only supported the former. They voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 while voting against the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act, Medicare and the 1964 Food Stamp Act. This was before the switch was supposed to have hallebed. Ironically enough those pieces of legislation would only passed with the support of Southern Democrats who historically tended to vote in favor of left-wing ecomic policy even by today’s standards if it wasn’t directly tied to Civil Rights. The South has also previously provided some of the most reliable support for the campaign and policies of William Jennings Bryan and Franklin Roosevelt.
To my mind, what happened was this. Socio-ecomic conditions changed drastically for about a century following the Civil War. While we tend think of the conditions of the Civil War as the being north being urban and the south as agrarian that’s only half true, particularly as you head west. While there were more prosperous cities in the north than the south the population was still more involved in agricultural than industrial work and provided far more in food crops than the south. It wouldn’t be until the industrial boom during the Gilded Age that you saw factories become the norm in the north and large movements from all across the county including even white southerners and African Americans to those areas for the jobs. As such the Rust Belt was born. Even by the 20th Century the transformation was a work in progress. Take California for instance which even at the dawn of the 20th Century still only had eight electoral votes which would eventually grow to the fifty-five it has today, largely due to population growth in the city centers. That pattern tracks across the country.
Part III:
As brought up earlier, working class agrarian citizens north and south often supported the Jacksonian Democrats. They saw the Whigs as representing monied elites and industrial interests while still living in an agrarian world themselves. Things changed in the lead-up to the Civil War where agrarian northerners and southerners once united on debates like the banking system polarized on the issue of slavery. It needs to be stressed however that northern Democrats wven before the Civil War made moves to gain influence in cities by appealing to laborers and immigrants. They even managed to gain massive power in New York City and Boston due to their disproportionately high Irish immigrant populations. Members of the Whig Party went so far as to blame the victory of Democrat James Polk on the influx of “Irish Catholic Hordes”.
The Democrats started the long and painful transition of appealing to disaffected largely white agrarian populations to disaffected inner city populations. Naturally those movements accelerated as cities boomed after the Civil War. Further and larger waves of immigration as time went on would play a major role in that. From fairly on Democrats we’re becoming competitive in northern cities but they weren’t the monumental deciding factor then as they are now in a lot of cases. An inverse pattern that you find when comparing the two parties is that the more industrialized the county became the more hands off the Republicans felt the government could be while Democrats on the other hand felt it necessary to embrace federal power. That being because the modernization of the county was the goal of the Republicans to begin with and they thought too much tinkering going forward would only get in the way while Democrats felt that government power became necessary to curtail the rising tide of corporate power. When widespread civil unrest arises you’ll see Republicans adress it with moderate reform while Democrats might become more market friendly if times are particularly prosperous. There have of course been exceptions, but in the grand scheme of things these are the patterns that have generally played out over time.
The North as nearly a whole rallying behind the Republican Party was a break from tradition that even involved large groups of former Democrats changing over. There were disaffected anti-slavery Jacksonian Democrats led by Martin van Buren who formed the Free Soil Party which would eventually be one of the multiple political factions that would be absorbed by the Republicans when they established themselves. When the secession crisis broke out other Democrats like Stephen Douglas, Andrew Johnson and Martin van Buren who in an attempt to maintain peace went back to the other party threw their support behind the Union as a faction that became known as “War Democrats” while many others directly switched over. On the outset adamant pro-slavery politicians representing the Southern planters managed to take power and put up candidates to their liking with Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan until the Jacksonian Douglas managed to wrestle back control of the party before the election of 1860 . It was a debacle that as said before they only fully recovered from during the New Deal.
Ironically however, during the Age of Jackson the alliance in a sense was flipped. The Whig Party is often perceived as simply being the forerunner to the Republicans, but that is an incomplete picture. It was a wide tented coalition with major northern and southern wings known as the Conscience Whigs and the Cotton Whigs respectively. The former drew support from northern business owner while the latter drew it from southern planters. To really get the point across consider the fact that both Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens, the future Vice President of the Confedeacy, both started their political careers as Whigs.
Neither faction was happy with Jackson’s strident populism or activist view of the presidency but the most pressing issue for the Conscience Whigs was his war on the Bank of the United States while the final straw for the Cotton Whigs was when he showcased his unionism by forcing South Carolina to yield to federal authority during the Nullification Crisis of 1832. It was an alliance not without precedent. Their forebears among the Federalists and Tertium Quids during the First Party System despite initial friction found themselves perfectly capable of collaboration over their shared discontent with the Jefferson Administration. It just goes to show all the combinations these alliances ca take at different times depending upon the issues at play. And arguably the Whig coalition is the historical entity that the modern Republican Party resembles most today. Being a party that struggled to figure out what it’s chief goal was and more united what they are against than anything else while the other party with some difference over implementation had much greater agreement about their goals.
As said before the modern industrial economy boomed in the north following the Civil War and that attracted a lot of people. Not everywhere in the north became urban but the infrastructure plans that finally came to fruition gave almost every community access to the market cities drove. Railroads being an important factor in bringing in goods from other places and sending out your own. It solidified the north as a whole rather than just the northeast as a Republican stronghold for a long time. There would be hiccups of course including the Populists picking up midwestern family farms who felt left behind by the modern economy at the tail end of the 19th Century. But trends would be established, and districts outside of the cities in the north, as they do in every region of the country, still tend to vote Republican to this day.
When the cities were prosperous is when there was a fairly even playing field between Republicans and Democrats. They faced some of the social problems that come with an city environment which gave the Democrats a foothold while the modernized but not urban areas were laregely Republican. The South did not modernize at the same time or rate as the north however and the Republican didn’t start becoming truly competitive there until the mid-20th Century. A lot of people prefer to pin the change over on the Republicans making covert racist appeals which raises three questions unto itself. Firstly, were those appeals actually made? Secondly, were those indicative of the party wanting to put in oppressive policies or was it a cynical ploy to get votes? And thirdly, when all is said and done were those the actual reasons the swayed southerners to move over?
I liked Andrew .
But he said we need to retire both parties to ladies party and gentlemen party.
2nd comment
Why does the president insist on pronouncing Democratic Party like a Russian. He says Democrat Party. Is he Russian?
Using the term Democrat is a derogatory term.
The father of American Imperialism
Teddy roosevelt would be more accurate