History of the Republican Party | American civics | US government and civics | Khan Academy

[@someguyusa]

I appreciate that Khan Academy doesn't hide the massive economic issues that were directly tied to slavery and how each side viewed it. So many people today try to ignore this aspect as if some part of the country was purely noble and the other was purely evil as if both didn't have major monetary stakes in the overall situation.

[@fry2055]

It shines a light on the fact that the majority of the country were not directly benefiting from slavery. That’s an issue most Americans don’t know to be true. Most, especially black Americans view every white person as participants and direct beneficiaries of slavery.

[@MaxAbramson3]

My family fought on the union side, and we knew that the civil war started out as economic. Not just the high tariffs to pay for public works projects in the northwest, but that business wanted access to all of that Black labor and consumers. It wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation that Republicans started making it about a crusade, universal freedom. White working class Democrats did not want to have to compete with Black labor, and they continued to destroy Black Wall Streets and businesses for generations afterward.

[@tommy2chips]

I am a Black man and a republican. Proud to be one. However the party switch is very debatable. Some people said it did not happen some say it did.

[@xUncleA123x]

It didn't. BTW have you watched Dinesh D'souza's new movie? :)

[@tommy2chips]

***** No I have not

[@xUncleA123x]

You should go see it :) Its excellent

[@NeillGuitars]

It's something just about everyone gets wrote. The truth is that the parties did not switch positions. What happened was the Republican party gradually became the party of big business, as we see today, and the Democrats lost their conservative wing. So in the past, the ex-confederate states were referred to as "The Solid South" because they were presumed to always vote Democrat. This is not because they were "conservative" Democrats. The root word of conservative, of course, is "conserve" -- to keep things the way they were in the past. The history of the parties division goes all the way back to William Jennings Bryant (Democrat; 1860-1925), but it doesn't really kick off until William Taft takes office as a Republican in 1909. William Taft was picked by Teddy Roosevelt (former president, who was a Republican while in office) to be the next Republican nominee. Taft won the nomination and the whitehouse. But Taft ends up supporting big business interests, which Teddy doesn't like. So, in the 1912 election, Teddy creates the Bull Moose party (the modern progressive camp) and runs against Taft. This causes a massive divide in the Republican party, and allows Woodrow Wilson to become the first Democratic president in almost 16 years. Now, at this time, the Democratic party was still holding southern ex-slave states but was beginning to form a progressive wing (Wilson was socially conservative, but economically rather progressive). The next major party divide comes in 1945 President when Harry Truman signed executive orders to desegregate the armed forces. He also established executive order 9808 to create PCCR (The Presidents Committee on Civil Rights). PCCR was created to create a report to determine the state of civil rights in the USA. The report came back saying that civil rights laws should be expanded. And so, by executive orders, Truman ordered the desegregation of federal employees and the armed services (executive orders: 9980 and 9981). Truman was an ex-KKK member. And this really pissed off southern conservative Democrats. Here you had this president, an ex-KKK member and a Democrat, signing laws to desegregate? They saw him as a traitor and began to form a new subgroup of the Democratic party. They began to call themselves "Dixicrats." Dixicrats were, more or less, the group of conservative Democrats living in the ex-confederacy. They started using the confederate battle flag as their insignia. People really didn't have confederate flags as often before WWII. The next major party divide comes with president Lyndon Johnson in 1968, with the passing of the Civil Rights act. Democrats at the time hated the bill. They only approved at ~60% in congress. This is actually really interesting when you look at the voting record. So, as we all know, Republicans majorly voted in favor of the Civil Rights act. But we have to break down the demographics for a more clear picture. House Democrats from the Union: 95% approval (144 of 152). From the confederate states: 9% approval (8 of 91 votes) Senate Democrats from Union: 98% approval (45 of 46). From the confederate state: 5% approval (1 out of 21). House Republicans from Union: 85% approval (137 of 161) From the confederate states: 0% approval (0 of 11). Senate Republicans from Union: 84% approval (27 of 32). From Confederate states: 0% approval (0 of 1) There's two important things in this data: 1) Union Democrats had more support for the bill than Union Republicans. 2) There were *far more* Confederate Democrats than there were Republicans. At this point, you might be able to guess that the "Solid" Blue "South" is not exactly happy. And this would actually be the last election of the "Solid South." The next president after LBJ is Richard Nixon. And Nixon realized the party divides for the Democrats. So he created what is now referred to as the "Southern Strategy." Which was basically giving a wink and a nudge to southern conservatives, that he was on their side. Indeed, John Ehrlitchman, former adviser to Nixon, said in an interview with Harper magazine in 1994, “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” And it worked. If you look at an electoral map, the south didn't vote Democrat that year. And by Nixon's 1972 campaign, all of the former confederate states had voted for Nixon. Today the south ex-confederate states vote almost exclusively Republican. But more because they're conservatives, and conservatives today tend to be vote Republican because of the entire novel I wrote above. This is the reason Democrats almost voted in a Socialist, who was arrested protesting in favor of civil rights in 1963, in 2016 (Bernie Sanders). And why the KKK has publicly endorsed Trump. It's because it's more of an issue of conservatism and southern politics than of Democrats and Republicans. However, I must point this out: according to a poll conducted by Washington University in St. Louis, "Democrats exhibit far less homogeneity than Republicans in the ideological labels they choose. Slightly more Democrats identify as “liberal” than “progressive.” About 57 percent of Democrats call themselves liberals, while roughly 50 percent of Democrats identify as progressive. Most of the other Democrats, whether we use liberal or progressive in our question, refer to themselves as moderates. In contrast, over 80 percent of Republicans identify as conservative, with most of the rest choosing the moderate label and very few taking the liberal or progressive label. These party differences suggest why Democratic politicians are more sensitive about how they are labeled."

[@tommy2chips]

Daniel Neill Thanks for repsonding. Thanks for the education

[@zealandzen]

01:15 It's worth mentioning the anti-slavery sentiment and activism in churches, and everyone belonged to a church.

[@stevena88]

Are you saying this cause it’s seems to be the opposite now? Less “woke” and accepting?

[@riskingeuphoria]

things were so much happier back when this was recorded.

[@gracewalhus364]

Glad to see someone else here watching this in today's circumstances... I'm seeing so many false "facts" being thrown around on the internet now

[@AestheticSloth420]

@@gracewalhus364 it's hard to comprehend how people can so blindly support clear lies but schools have done a number on them

[@buzzerbeatertalk6366]

Same just going back over it now

[@Other3.5]

Though the Republican north technically won the Civil War, with the death of Lincoln and the presidency of Andrew Johnson, effectively the influence of the South outweighed that of the North after the war. For a well-researched account, read American History professor Heather Cox Richardson’s “How the South Won the Civil War” - it is eye opening and explains a lot of what is happening now.

[@JoeBiden69696]

The north won the war. Lee surrendered. Jefferson surrendered. If you're talking about Reconstruction or Golden age, then you are admitting that the North won the war and tried to rebuild the south, after its destruction.

[@juandelreal91]

Democrats couldn't keep people of color in chains. So they made us all wage slaves. Yes master may I have some food stamps.

[@jeremiahj3565]

As a black man I was never taught this.

[@radicalcentreleftist6275]

has this changed your mind on anything?

[@radicalcentreleftist6275]

@em ! Look up FDR and Noam Chomsky.

[@radicalcentreleftist6275]

Look up FDR and Noah Chompsky.

[@earlofmar7987]

If you will come back on the page and look up my post. You will find out a lot about what Franklin D. Roosevelt did to the blacks & how he got your vote.

[@radicalcentreleftist6275]

@@earlofmar7987 yeah, he lifted them out of poverty.

[@ThaiZeo]

Best party ever invented, God bless american, Proud Hispanic Republican :)

[@macho6596]

Murder Motion Pictures Asian Republican here.. what made you choose the Republican Party? Were you a democrat before? How many people in your circle is a Republican?

[@omegapointil5741]

So you're admitting you're sub human and clueless.

[@rayshamrock]

@@omegapointil5741 no u

[@Jack-qe2bk]

@lit lit you're probably black who thinks the Democrats fought for freedom

[@georgie9303]

Lmao look at these leftist lunatics attacking a man for his beliefs. You’re all scum :)

[@PrimalMiltos]

At 5:49 - Must mention that the 1929 market crash would have lasted one year if it wasn't for Hoover doing the same mistakes as Bush - Greenspan and Obama - Bernanke/Yellen did. It wasn't regulation that was needed. The application of Keynesian economics actually prevented any real recovery and caused the Great Depression. In contrast in 1920-1921 there was another market crash but the US government did the exact opposite of a Keynesian solution: Due to the expansion of Federal Debt during WW1 the US market crashed. But from FY 1919 to 1920, federal spending was slashed from $18.5 billion to $6.4 billion-a 65 percent reduction in one year. The budget was pushed down the next two years as well, to $3.3 billion in FY 1922. On the monetary side, the New York Fed raised its discount rate to a record high 7 percent by June 1920. To be sure, the 1920-1921 depression was painful. The unemployment rate peaked at 11.7 percent in 1921. But it had quickly dropped to 6.7 percent by the following year, and was down to 2.4 percent by 1923. After the depression the United States proceeded to enjoy the “Roaring Twenties,” arguably the most prosperous decade in the country’s history. Compare that to the 1929 Depression and our 2008 Great Recession that keeps on lingering.

[@holypig777]

Do you mean like the 1920 depression that was over quickly because Republican Coolidge cut taxes?

[@tomservo75]

Every recession prior to the Great Depression, the government did next to nothing, and there was recovery in 1-2 years. Then the stock crash in 1929. Hoover is attacked for being laissez-faire and not doing anything. If only that were true! Hoover did too much, and then FDR rightly attacked him for it in 1932. So then FDR gets elected and he puts Hoover's policy on steroids! Modern recessions aren't as deep but they last longer because now the Federal government is expected to meddle in the economy instead of letting it run its course. We now EXPECT the Feds to "do something about it." That is the new standard. Thanks a LOT FDR! x

[@divyangvaidya1999]

Hoovervilles. As much as people were happy before the crash, people were even more unhappy after the crash.

[@kayking3488]

What's your thoughts now? TRUMPS doing a great job

[@1sinister80]

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with our schools today.

[@sparkyranger4737]

How so?

[@youreokayboah2128]

@@sparkyranger4737 Do a bit of research buddy, claiming there is a “switch” in the 1950’s, yet you got KKK members like Robert Byrd praised by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

[@sparkyranger4737]

@@youreokayboah2128 the rest of that story is that Byrd quit the KKK and came a long way in his views.

[@youreokayboah2128]

@Kyle Prather Yes I know about the “new” kkk that the left talks about. Doesn’t compare to popular Democratic racists like Robert Byrd and Governor Newtham

[@lamaripiazza5226]

@@youreokayboah2128 There are racists in both parties it’s impossible not to meet a racist republican or democrat.

[@junior2404]

Clearly (and sadly) a lot of folks in the comment section did not objectively listen this clip.

[@embracethesuck1041]

Every political party and geographic area of the United States had dark periods, granted some more than others, but trying to draw direct parallels between the issues today is less and less useful the further back you go. We need to revert to a discussion of first principles to guide our course forward as a nation. The toxic "party on party" culture today makes that less and less possible and can only lead to ruin.

[@nono-fv9qx]

This was really informative and interesting. Thank you.

[@kirkdarling4120]

The switch in Republican ideology happened in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt pulled the "progressive" contingent out of the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party. It took the rest of the century for the Democratic Party to make its own gradual change of ideology, but the Republican Party abruptly lost its progressive element by that particular act by Teddy Roosevelt.

[@eldog8671]

The Democrats started what is now the Kkk and forced the ancestors to be democrats.. We were very intelligent Republicans.

[@ronny028]

What video were you watching? sounds like you need their remedial classes!

[@ronny028]

@長いライブゴミVФЖ I see you're an idiot also! I posted that video because it was taught to me in history when I was in school I'm 48 now ; I know the KKK was formed by the members of the democratic party ; I also know those members shifted to the republican party when others of the democratic party shifted thier ideology towards the welfare of all of the US citizens not just whites! You people are a bunch of morons ; only wanting to see what truths about this country that make you feel good about yourselves! Makes me no difference though ; the country is about to change drastically ; whether you like it or not! Find another should to cry on ; my is cold!

[@knowledgeeverything6890]

ronny028 When did this big switch happen? And tell the number of political figures who switch parties during this time. Because if their was this big switch then the political officials should have followed suit and changed their party affiliation. Please, where is your proof?

[@ppeater2552]

ronny028 you literally just proved him, they funded them, they were democratic for a period of time, you said that yourself, they funded them lmao

[@ronny028]

@@ppeater2552 Lmao! Boy you might have a V8 between your shoulders, but you got 5 fouled plugs!

[@macrumpton]

This is fascinating stuff. I would love to see a piece about the history of American rejection of expertise and intellectualism and how the parties dealt with that. It is tempting to see the slide from Presidents like Ike and FDR to where we are today as a continuous slope, but I am sure it is more complicated than that.

[@NazriB]

Lies again? Republic Polytechnic

[@efoxkitsune9493]

This was extremely helpful, thank you. Wish me luck on Tomorrow's final...

[@javon2950]

Hope you did well!

[@efoxkitsune9493]

@@javon2950 Haha, thank you! Yeah, I did actually! 😄 Just finishing my 2nd year now... 🙂 Luckily, we only had history classes in year 1, so I don't have to deal with that anymore...! Haha

[@kittykitty435]

How did it go? Good, I hope!

[@efoxkitsune9493]

@@kittykitty435 Haha, good, thank you! (Funny to still be asked about a final from 3 years ago, haha!

[@emmamckinney7248]

(Looks at comment section) Huh, not as bad as I thought

[@ElaineWalker]

You give Democrats credit for the 19th amendment, in that video, and don’t even mention it in this video, yet it was Republican majorities that proposed and passed it. I usually think Khan Academy is great, but can NO one teach real genuine history?

[@brandons9536]

They work for the Government. Why would these peasants praise anything that goes against them? We see through the Bs though.

[@Aaron_Berry]

@Elaine Walker to be fair, most people don't know nor care about real history, most of them don't even care about "fake" history. He's just saying what his textbook tells him to say.

[@w3n33dam1racl3]

This is why I started collecting books because that's the only way to get the real history as it happened, not based on someone's interpretation. I'm collecting them for my kids.

[@dongf5628]

@@Aaron_Berry cause it’s what happened. Under Woodrow Wilson woman got the right to vote. You want him to take a right wing eyes view on everything like y’all lmao

[@Aaron_Berry]

@@dongf5628 oh, my comment wasn't meant to be political at all, i don't even know the first thing about politics. XD

[@marcog7924]

Lincoln, the founder of the Republican Party was most definitely an abolitionist. That's the whole reason the party was formed.

[@marcog7924]

@علي يا سر He founded the party

[@republicanconstitutionalis8061]

I am a proud republican

[@David-zi9nr]

Ok?

[@SixteenVoice]

Let's talk about when slavery was common legal practice in the northern states. Funny how the democrat party always want to leave that out...

[@casualgerm]

Khan already did mention that...i recommend going to their website and looking at their US Civil War history videos and documents. they're very informative and unbiased when talking about the Union and Confederates

[@SixteenVoice]

casualgerm Alright. I'll take your word for it and check it out. Thanks.

[@casualgerm]

SinoSoothsayer no prob, it's a lot easier than trying to put together their videos on KZbin.

[@Dasmaster1]

You do realize that the democratic party back then switched into the republican party today right? Not as in the actual party but the members and policy.

[@dadrianacooper4245]

Sorry, but no they didn't. They stayed in their party and started laws like the jim crow laws until they realized that they would accomplish much more with the Black Americans on their side, than against.

[@miketo201]

Nice video, finally something of real interest, by that I mean somthing a little more KZbin and less university

[@manfromthepast]

Starting at 8;50 nailed it.

[@chano176]

The Federal Reserve System should have cut short the process of monetary deflation and banking collapse. If the Fed had done that the economic downturn would have been far less severe and much shorter.

[@teriyaki_chicken]

Thanks for keeping it non-biased

[@koyotecow7102]

it's not the lack of regulation that caused crash. it was income tax and federal reserve controlling money supply. over regulation caused depression. over regulation and government intervention is why it lasted so long.

[@wyndiefeatherstone948]

Thank you so much for this informative video, short, to the point and easy to understand! Love it do more!

[@wowfrosted13]

heard Ronald Reagan mentioned, *salutes*

[@powerfulstrong5673]

Ronald Reagan is the most overrated president and is a myth of Personality Cult.

[@TheEnigmaProductions]

They should've never enable comments on this video

[@AestheticSloth420]

Ew a worthlessness

[@octizhm]

Why not? Afraid the truth might be told?

[@bigal-san2k197]

Freedom of speech, booooii

[@kylecrane5751]

No Coolidge? :(

[@anthonyhui1322]

ikr!!

[@Undxrgrxundmusxc]

It’s Kyle crane from dying light

[@Berserker006]

The two parties did not switch sides. Liberals,democrats,socialists, communists and regressives. All claim that it happened, there was no switch.

[@GANTZ100pts]

They only claim there was one because they're embarrassed about what there party has done in the past.

[@NotYourTypicalNegro]

The parties did switch political priorities on a number of issues, states rights being one of them. So stop saying that. There WAS a switch or realignment. Quite a few of them actually.

[@NotYourTypicalNegro]

@@GANTZ100ptsDemocrats are not embarrassed about the history of the party. They know the history very well and have fought the Democratic party vigorously to make it change. It isRepublicans and conservatives who don't know the history of the democratic party. As a matter of fact they don't even know the history of the Republican party which is just as bad. Need to study the history of the Republican Party during Reconstruction more specifically, The Compromise of 1877, and two Supreme Court decisions issued by Republican courts (the Civil rights cases of 1883, in the Plessy versus Ferguson case). The Republican party never talks about how it betrayed black people, and how it was responsible for making Jim Crow segregation the law of the land.

[@grapecanz]

I find it interesting how you danced around the infamous "southern strategy" by not calling it implicitly racist, but instead said it was "conservative and traditional"

[@c0p13dn4m3]

This is still a history lesson aimed at kids, right?

[@fettishferrubbish8012]

"Our mission is to provide a free, world class education for anyone, anywhere." My answer to you question is no. www.khanacademy.org/about

[@c0p13dn4m3]

Christine Jigau Your answer is incorrect.

[@fettishferrubbish8012]

kids can be anyone..but not anyone is a kid. just like...all rectangles are squares..but not all squares are rectangles...Come on. Please show me where it is explicitly stated that this is aimed at kids. I have supported my claim. Show me why I am wrong.

[@c0p13dn4m3]

Christine Jigau Are you seriously telling me that this video was not made with kids in mind?

[@thomgorman]

It is unbelievable that our nation's ONLY civil rights president was ignored in that regard. The CRAs of 1957, 1960, 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 ALL had their genesis under Ike. How could any honest story about the Republican Party have missed that?

[@macho6596]

One of the most objective videos on party politics.

[@youngconservative96]

I remember when George W. Bush was in office. I started to understand why gas was cheap, groceries was cheap, we had a great education programs, affordable housing and was able to afford Christmas gifts. Versus democrats everything goes high and don’t depend on no one but themselves for money, greed and power. And under Bush’s administration we was able to go outside in our communities and made friends. I was reading very well and started to learn more because of Bush

[@3.6Roentgen]

You didn't call it by name but you did allude to the "Big Switch" in your video. Can you provide a comprehensive list of the individuals that made the switch?

[@josecarranza7555]

It's more of regions of millions of people that switched parties. The 1930's and 1960's is when the South went republican, and the north democrat.

[@aubreypico]

Brad Howard it for economic reasons rather than race. the Republicans didn't become Democratic party as stupid people believe

[@josecarranza7555]

Aubrey Pico Really? is that why the klan is republican?

[@andrewliu9744]

The Klan is not Republican. The South was Democratic congressionally and competitive on a Presidential stage until the 1990s and Contract with America.

[@scottelkin562]

Woodrow Wilson Democrat,only U.S. President in KKK. Robert Byrd Democrat, only U.S. Senator in KKK.

[@barbieellis5915]

Eisenhower was my great-grandmother's nephew

[@bambipardisitsarightsong5557]

my grampa skinner was head of the republican party 1800's -1942

[@yc2877]

Bambi Pardis it's a right song that’s neato

[@dalatinobrother_1688]

Everyone: Democrats vs Republicans Me: Liberal federalist (North) vs Conservative states' rights (South)

[@NorwoodingSkullMask]

How is it that modern conservatism/republicanism has a lot more in common with anti-federalism which was prectically the proto-democratic party?

[@johnweber4577]

There were more fundamental concerns underlying the Federalist versus Anti-Federalist debate at the founding of the country. The Federalists, who evolved into the Republicans, were already largely concerned with economic development and national security while the Anti-Federalists, whose dominant left-wing faction evolved into the Democrats, were concerned with equality and feared big business as a threat to that. The government intervention of the Federalists, Conscience Whigs and Lincolnian Republicans often gets construed as being left-wing when it actually leaned closer to old school mercantilism than progressive socialism, meant to build up the country’s manufacturing sector so that the country would not become reliant on its foreign rivals for manufactured goods and would have the means to innovate. The Jeffersonian Anti-Federalists on the other hand believed that it would be easier to retain relative equality in a world of yeoman farmers held to particular plots of land than one filled with giant corporations that could transcend state if not national lines. They did not believe that the environment that would promote such innovation at the price of creating more complicated social hierarchies was worth it and therefore opposed such government action. On the other hand, business owners large and small supported those interventionist policies like a tariff and internal improvements as means to broaden the horizons of their business opportunities. Just look at the major economic debates that have been framed as “the elites versus the people” on each party system. It was the Republicans, as well as their precursors among the Federalists and Whigs, who tended to take the side of big business while it was the Democrats, as well as their predecessors among the Anti-Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, who accused them of defending those who exploited the common American. Just look at Alexander Hamilton versus Thomas Jefferson on the issue of the Revolutionary War debt speculators, Henry Clay versus Andrew Jackson on the issue of the National Bank or William McKinley versus William Jennings Bryan on the issue of free silver. The Republican lineage of politics has always tended towards the right in terms of the structure of government and the economy while the Democratic heritage has leaned towards the left in both domains. The switch in terms of their use of federal power came after wide spread industrialization had been largely achieved. The Republicans decided that further intervention would mostly just hamper growth and thus decided to become more hands off while the Democrats embraced it because they saw it as the only means to curb corporate power. Each party’s recalibration in policy would wind up leading to individuals each looking out for their own interests within established voting blocks making different choices in their party affiliation.

[@mandolorian25]

should have mentioned the southern strategy and use of identity politics for rise of Nixon and Regan gop

[@cyrus3967]

Ali Husain Well, there’s no evidence to support that Democratic Party hoax.

[@factpolice1865]

Ali Husain / why don’t you try to prove the supposed fairytale “Switch” with actual facts...good luck, I will be waiting...

[@cmarev3509]

Eisenhower’s maternal grandmother Elizabeth Link was black.

[@yc2877]

C Mare V ooookay?

[@lisacox3750]

She is believed to have been biracial which is not the same as black. Yes, Eisenhower had some black ancestry and did not shy away from attending Several presidents have supposedly had black ancestry.

[@maximhashem1989]

All Past Present Future - Presidents Of United States Of America , ( God Lord Creator...) American Eagle - Maxim Ben David General Consul Of America

[@boyraceruk]

Don't forget that slavery still existed in almost all of those "free states" at the start of the Civil War!

[@spiffygonzales5899]

Not almost all of it. But for sure four or five

[@brandoncliff5653]

And don't forget that those people fought and died to end slavery.

[@spiffygonzales5899]

@@brandoncliff5653 No they didn't. PART of the reason the south fought WAS to keep slavery. But the united states most certainly did not fight to end it

[@brandoncliff5653]

@@spiffygonzales5899 It was not the main reason but yes they did fight for that. Literally the end of the war forced the emancipation proclamation to take effect. Just like Lincoln wasn't to big on freeing slaves he used the war to push that idea and just like Ulysses S Grant said. We will not accept anything but a complete and total surrender from the south.

[@spiffygonzales5899]

@I'm wrong because, . The letters of succession from each state listed slavery as A reason. Im from Texas and our state alone said that slavery, Mexican and Indian raids, the U.S's actions in Kansas (looking into it more specifically the fact that they intentionally allowed harm to cone to southerners but not northerners) as well as the fact that they were using Kansas (and other territories) to increase political power in favor of the North, as well as lack of aid were all reasons Texas left. In EVERY letter of succession, slavery was never the only reason. And that's JUST those specific documents. There were over 20 reasons for the civil war and slavery was not the primary one.

[@modernjosephus356]

There also was a Republican split in the 19teens to 1930s between progressive Republicans and conservative Republicans.

[@rechtsiscorrect8218]

Also worth mentioning is that the South did not get republican because of the civil rights act. It started when Eisenhower won some of the States in the South because more busseniss came to the South. Also Nixon did not win the area's where racism was most prevelent. The racist congressmen stayed democrats and that did not change until around 1990

[@montrelouisebohon-harris7023]

That's exactly right because it's so much cheaper to live in the south and the north was so crowded even during the civil war era. A lot of people that live in Massachusetts New Jersey and northern states they don't have cars in those smaller northern states because car insurance too expensive so they ride the Subway or rail station to work. Now Pennsylvania in some areas of New York they drive but not New Jersey Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut and places like that because car insurance cost a fortune and property cost two or three times as much up north and you don't get what you pay for and then the insurance taxes and everything cost more up North so a lot of businesses were moving south in the 20th century and that added to more Republicans being down here and being for less government. Government got too big I mean it was just like kind of big when Abraham Lincoln was in office because he did some pretty dirty things to win the civil war like taking over the railroad and telegram. That's dirty and it's also fascist. Not much different than today because our federal government with Joe Biden and Obama worked side by side with social media and FBI and CIA did spy on people. I've never seen anything like this in my life where we're censored on social media the way we are

[@modernjosephus356]

No mention of US Grant? I'm disappointed. Grant was the most Civil Rights President in US history (including current presidents).

[@ThisSentenceIsFalse]

Reading the comments is weird. The Big Switch 8:03.

[@radiantcenturyproductions7044]

Also, watch - PEOPLE ARE BORN LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE on KZbin. Very interesting.

[@aubreypico]

the greatest party ever.

[@NotYourTypicalNegro]

Aubrey Pico, not for black people.

[@T0mat0_S0up]

NotYourTypicalNegro I’m Black and I love it

[@davidchavez81]

The weird part was when they both pretended to be alive when Eisenhower was elected president.

[@johnnyyash1130]

Lack of regulation didn't cause the stock market crash. The Federal Reserve did.

[@kylehill3643]

Actually the lack of regulation means any bozo will bet into things that they know nothing about (the non evil version) people like Soro's will mess the economy up on purpose to create discord so people will move closer to the UN.

[@divyangvaidya1999]

After the crash the social security act was created in 1935 and the banking act of 1935 as well as the Works Progress Act. But the big lift-up from the deppresion was World War 2. Roosevelt really had a big responsibility to get us outta the Depression.

[@inkiisuh3127]

Why don’t we bring Gingrich back for Republican house speaker? Nancy Pelosi was much older and she had done heck of good job for Democratic party. Gingrich would do a great job for Republican party!

[@HaoSci]

**update it!**

[@1cooledge]

Thank you.

[@allleygreen8093]

The ELEPHANT has left the building. Oh wait a minute, I was mistaken. It was Elvis.

[@nessbeck8839]

Thank u. Thus was very educational.

[@markmarz]

Nice start, but PLEASE drop the annoying initial 'So'. Dropping 'sort of' and 'kind of' would also be an improvement. It's all annoying enough right now, but in a few years it will be plain embarrassing when these fads fade.

[@ray1995mon]

K

[@breezybriza19]

I know it will be hard to learn about unbiased history but can I trust Khan Academy for learning more about politics and U.S./World History? Where can I go to find a more less unbiased version of history?

[@rainersainvil7632]

I feel like parties are a detriment to the nation

[@FruchteisMitErdbeer]

Parties are just organisations of somewhat likeminded people, there's nothing bad about that. You could make an argument that the 2 party system is quite a bad one, but parties themselves are completely normal in any nation

[@freydawg56]

A two party system is just a result of a winner take all system. When more than 50 percent of votes go to the winner, it is really hard to effectively vote third party.

[@tster4494]

+FruchteisMitErdbeer until corruption is involved.

[@FruchteisMitErdbeer]

Travis G Corruption is also not a result of parties but present in nearly everything,

[@johndoen884]

Yup, and Republicans are the worst.

[@devildog757]

I know this is an old piece, but I have a question. "Why would the Republican Party be the insurgency party in the 1900s? Wouldn't that term better describe the Southern Democrats who broke off from the union?

[@chano176]

It seems the new deal wasn't that much of a great deal

[@patriotictoast8539]

Chano it definitely extended the Great Depression

[@kylehill3643]

It was a great deal just not for America but works great for the union mob bosses!

[@joshuasaha5068]

It is a flawed argument to suggest democrats switched to Republicans because of the liberal support for civil rights... by percentage more Republicans voted for the 1964 civil rights act than the democrats.

[@timkellyD2R]

The Civil Rights Act was only passed because of Republicans.

[@BerserkxELF943]

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all. "My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861. "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year. Lincoln did not claim slavery was a reason even in his Emancipation Proclamations on Sept. 22, 1862, and Jan. 1, 1863. Moreover, Lincoln's proclamations exempted a million slaves under his control from being freed (including General U.S. Grant's four slaves) and offered the South three months to return to the Union (pay 40 percent sales tax) and keep their slaves. None did. Lincoln affirmed his only reason for issuing was: "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said (tax) rebellion." Khan Academy needs to learn some ACTUAL history.

[@aubreypico]

Tommy Allen as I would not be a slave, nor will I be the master, that's my idea of freedom. -- Abe Lincoln

[@BerserkxELF943]

Aubrey Pico I'm debating the man's personal politics or beliefs here (nor whether he was great,) but rather his public statements and actions.

[@cordeg6724]

way to cherry-pick a quote without even bothering to spend 2 seconds wondering WHY such a quote might have been enunciated in the first place. Lincoln said MANY things regarding Slavery during his legal and political career. the vast majority of them backed up his explicitly-stated belief that "If Slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong.", but a relatively small number of them were more coy/cagey because of serious political considerations. for example, Lincoln was quite certain that federal interference in Slavery would be recognized by Slave-owners AND most abolitionists as unconstitutional, and he therefore had to thread a delicate needle to ensure its destruction without getting himself impeached or having his actions blocked. he was acutely aware upon his election that Southerners were stoking the fires of rebellion because THEY knew (even if you seem clueless) that his ultimate plan was to overturn Slavery. he was diligent in public to make it seem they were being paranoid, because it was necessary in the political arena of the day, but his private writings were always explicitly geared toward this aim. meanwhile, he tried to convince Southern Democrats that he would be satisfied merely to keep Slavery out of the North, even as he described this plan as imposing a "cordon sanitaire" on the South -- even eliciting help from Mexico and Caribbean countries to form a Southern bound to this, and while the phrase may mean nothing to you, to the educated people of the day, it had a transparent meaning -- one encircled something one wanted to eradicate with a "cordon sanitaire", choking it off from what might sustain it, to ensure its demise. the South CLEARLY understood this thing which appears so mysterious to you, which is why they began to secede almost immediately -- even before Lincoln could act on his plan -- and why each seceding state EXPLICITLY declared in their written proclamations of "reasons for secession" that federal interference with SLAVERY was the cause of the secession (NOT "taxes"), and thereby the cause of the Civil War that resulted. even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was ONLY constrained by what Lincoln clearly recognized was the Constitutional limits on his presidential powers -- which explicitly were expanding only in the case of "rebellion", which was why it's effects were limited only to the states explicitly declaring themselves to BE in rebellion. nevertheless, the terms of the EP were expanded to the border states NOT in rebellion after the war was over. if you actually spent some effort in reading Lincoln's words chosen at random rather than only those words that Democratic and Confederate apologists want you to know about, it is inconceivable that you could be so obtuse as to miss the clear fact that Lincoln was intent on Slavery's destruction from the beginning, regardless of the very real consideration that he had to routinely pour water on the fires its defenders regularly stoked in an attempt to have him rendered impotent to do so. THEY knew what was up even if you still don't. or maybe you think YOU know more about what the Confederates thought than THEY did (and freely admitted to on a routine basis)? you are suffering from a horrible mis-education on this subject, though in your defense, most Americans are -- a result of an early 20th century trend by which Democrats gained control of school boards across the nation and made sure to indoctrinate American schoolchildren in successive generations in a revisionist history in which the Southern Democrats were merely seeking to secure a future for their idyllic agrarian lifestyle against a crude industrialization of the North; where these Southern Democrats sought to secure "State's Rights" without mentioning that the only such "right" they were overly concerned for was the right to treat certain other Humans as Property -- and to obscure the fact that the Republicans ALSO had a "State's Rights" position in that conflict, whereby they insisted that the Northern states had a Right NOT to be impressed into service as slave-catchers under the recently-passed Fugitive Slave Law, and that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America EXPLICITLY DENIED a "State's Right" to have their own citizens vote to outlaw Slavery within their own borders (look it up and learn something); and where it was a noble "Lost Cause" for which the South fought. the REALITY was that

[@dnad1522]

You have to redo this list you have to add Richard Nixon 1969. Southern strategy

[@dylansnowrove3732]

Well, the federal reserve’s booms and busts actually caused the stock market crash. Which would not exist in a truly free market society.

[@earlofmar7987]

A lot more complicated that just the stk mkt shorts or longs. JP Morgan starts an ugly rumor about another bank not being solvent and it starts a panic. Ppl ran to the banks and started withrawing their funds. They had to close the banks to stop the banic, but 16K banks went out of business. Which, llet the BIG BANKS to take up the slack & get their business. But a lot of ppl were Bank Shy after that and kept their money under a mattress.

[@dennispifer1500]

Joe Biden's theme song IT WASN'T ME

[@thejunkmanlives]

i like how she tries to cover a bigger welfare state with "social progress". like a bigger welfare state is a positive thing. please stop.

[@JW-uy2on]

Reducing poverty, hunger, homelessness and inequality does constitute social progress.

[@tonywalker158]

Social programs designed to give back to tax payers isn't a 'welfare state'. Republicans never call it welfare when excessive funds go to banks, corporations, and massive military budgets; it's only welfare when it goes back to low income taxpayers.

[@stayswervin554]

im assuming you two commenters are just stupid

[@thejunkmanlives]

@@stayswervin554 i guess i have to comment on this now. @tony walker it doesnt give back to tax payers, the people that get these programs barely pay taxes. @J W nothing was reduced. in fact its worst now. people need opportunity for growth not hand outs. come to ny and ride the train with me. ill show u "social progress".

[@billkohrman107]

Can,t you afford a mic for EACH person talking?

[@theTOOLshed1]

God, the cringe is insane...

[@danielnewhouse5044]

inverted petrologic - whoever understands the problem is the one who caused it.

[@tylerpape4382]

The cringe is so bad...Gods...

[@What7641]

the south lost

[@tylerpape4382]

What7641 Still fighting

[@MegaTouchy]

+Tyler Pape Get over it.

[@What7641]

The US Military would crush a southern rebellion

[@tylerpape4382]

What7641 Yeah good luck.

[@colt38superherenciamexican77]

I love this country !! Vivan los republicanos !!! Very Grateful! God bless the united estates of america 🇺🇸. Im mexican adopted by a great country USA 🇺🇸 🙏🙏

[@AnthonyAnthony-tk4ye]

The lack of REGULATIONS in the 1920…??? Nothing to do with creating the Federal Reserve in the early 19teens??? Jekyll Island???

8:00 Yes, because we were bullied by the KKK to do so😠 It was a losing battle considering we had a Dema Demon for president at the same time😠 1912 was the gun and 1964 was the bullet that killed my community 😠

[@shoveljunk-americanpatriot7603]

Read the book “Bamboozled” by Angela McGlowan.

[@LoneWolfCrooner]

Thank you!!!!!!!!

[@erikhyndman1115]

I think we might be facing another demographic shift

[@americanajumma2110]

Bravo...you need to get together with Prager University! History is important!!!

[@ZhenLiZhao]

Except PragerU isn't a real uni

[@TheModernLibertarian]

@@ZhenLiZhao they make historically accurate videos tho, more than real universities

[@buffaloc20]

@@TheModernLibertarian they don't you half dense conservative

[@TheModernLibertarian]

@@buffaloc20 they actually do you Libtard, there’s a reason good teachers use their videos in their classrooms. Leftist idiot

[@radicalcentreleftist6275]

@@TheModernLibertarian Prageru is an example of REAL indoctrination in school.

[@flikerpicker]

What about other parties beside Republican and Democratic

[@ElaineWalker]

You perpetuate the great switch myth in this video too?! Show your proof! Only one or a handful switched. People moved to different states for other reasons.

[@ryanm6914]

Please make up to date Democrat Part history Video!

[@Princessmmviii]

Actually as a LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN (Illinois/Missouri) and historian. The WINNERS WRITE the history...but if you READ HISTORY before 1850/55 the problems were not really slavery but the INDUSTRIAL (Cotton mills) NORTH not wanting the AGRICULTURAL (cotton) shipping all the Cotton to England and even sending their children to be Educated in Europe. The North was basically another COUNTRY from the South even before the Civil War. So the North was doing everything in their power to force (just like today over ALL THE ISSUES OF SCHOOLS AND MORAL ISSUES) The LIBERALS/ North was trying to Force THEIR ECONOMIC VIEWS on the South and their lifestyle as well. One of the problems was the south being agricultural and having a much smaller population and much of that population...JUST LIKE TODAY was not really interested in the ECONOMIC PROBLEMS and so the only way to PUSH THEM TO THEIR LIMIT was to have the PEOPLE in the south who were NOT RICH AND NOT LAND OWNERS and NOT SLAVE OWNERS to get them to RISE UP AND REVOLT against the north. All we ever hear about are the PLANTATION OWNERS. So, the north was INFLAMED by the Slave Issue (Harriet Beecher Stowe) which was NONSENSE and have the Abolitionists who were the NUT CASES for most people to become inflamed and push the TARIFF ISSUES on the South so they would be forced to sell their COTTON to the Mills of the North and not to the BETTER PAYING Mills of England. It was simply Economics and even today common people are so busy WORSHIPING the European ROYALS that they don't literally care about all the poor people that going back to Charles Dickens were suffering under the yoke of the VERY PEOPLE that Dickens and Marx were writing about all during the 19th Century...they are STILL DRINKING THE SAME KOOLAID. Today the UBER RICH are still through the MEDIA still working to have the average and below average worship at the alter of MONEY and the RICH AND FAMOUS. The Republicans are still for the FOUNDING FATHERS who left Europe (read the Constitution NO NOBILITY!!!) to become RICH AND FREE OF THE ROYALS OF EUROPE...It wasn't as much about MONEY as it was about FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY and ending any vestige of the Feudal system...the ROYALS. No sooner had they done that and the Constitution which forbid any system of NOBELITY they started building it all over again. The SOCIETY became based on NOT BIRTH but family wealth. YOU COULD BUILD YOUR OWN NOBILITY...read about the Vanderbilts. They were PURE ROYALTY...just didn't have the birth petigree. They went to Europe to MARRY POOR ROYALTY and become NOBILITY. The DAR is nothing more than WHO ARE YOUR ANCESTORS. Same with the Southerners. So it is still and will always be a CLAWING YOUR WAY TO THE TOP and it doesn't matter who it is or what your skin color is...MARRRY PRINCE HARRY and get that ROYAL HERITAGE!!!!! How ridiculous for King Edward VIII for a day and Wallis Simpson. She would DO ANYTHING TO BE ROYAL...she couldn't do that as an American citizen...the ONLY WAY you can become a ROYAL is to marry into it. If you really understand the SOCIAL PECK ORDER...Democrats want the FEUDAL SYSTEM and to be ROYAL SOMEWHERE. Once it is "in the blood" no one can take it away from you...that is the WHOLE POINT OF THE LOSS of the Russian ROYAL FAMILY...TZAR NICHOLAS and Tarnia Alexandra. They achieved prominence after the Tsarina, Anastasia Romanova, was married to the First Tsar of Russia, Ivan the Terrible. As long as that ROYAL BLOOD was in the veins...they were IMPORTANT. The South in the USA had always had this GWTW royalty mentality and they are TRULY SNOBISH about it. Has anyone ever considered that THE KENNEDY CLAN had MARRIED ROYALTY...and than makes them ROYALTY. GIVE ME A BREAK. Joe in his IGNORANCE has totally missed this. WITH ALL HIS GRAFT AND CORRUPTION...he didn't have any of HIS CHILDREN MARRY ROYALTY. So all Joe is, is a RICH CORRUPT POLITICIAN and doesn't have the BLOODLINES OF THE KENNEDYS. Neither did LBJ. In a profile of Lady Bird Johnson, Time magazine described Lady Bird's mother as "a tall, eccentric woman from an old and ARISTOCRATIC Alabama family, Don't you love that word!!!! It is so DEMOCRATIC. Even the Bush's go to GREAT TROUBLE to TRACE THEIR HERITAGE back to NOBILITY in Europe. GIVE ME A BREAK. But that was all part and partial of the Civil war. Whether we would FOLLOW THE NOBODIES the Squires who came to the AMERICAS and made their fortunes and then couldn't wait WITH ALL THAT MONEY to go back to EUROPE and have their FEUDAL SLAVE SOCIETY and marry some royal who by luck of the DRAW had some drops of ROYAL BLOOD and the NORTH MILL PEOPLE were basically Irish hardworking slugs that became REPUBLICAN and hated snobbery and the SOUTH sending all their children and money back to EUROPE TO MARRY RICH. The only thing that could RILE UP THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTH was an issue which had NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES but it was a MORAL ISSUE that with enough prodding could make them MAD ENOUGH TO MAKE LAWS THAT WOULD INFLAME THE SOUTH and the only way the MINORITY IN CONGRESS could win was to be SOUTHER DEMOCRATS, HATE LINCOLN., get the PEOPLE RILED up enough (IT'S ALL PROPAGANDA) over something that really had little or nothing to do with the AVERAGE PERSON. Most farmers in the SOUTH were simply poor dirt farmers and didn't own ANY SLAVES...and the tariff issues didn't affect them at but THEY IN THE NORTH AND IN THE SOUTH would fight to the DEATH OVER THE MORAL PROPAGANDA OF SLAVERY. If you go to any of the PLANTATIONS in the south (think Montecello) SLAVES WERE A LOT BETTER OFF THAN ANY OF THE WORKING class who were on their own...NOBODY gave a hang and that was what hit the South SO HARD...the CARPETBAGGERS who came south and wanted to have the slaves make SLAVED OF THE LANDOWNERS and take their land through TAXING. When they couldn't get the LAND through taxes...they simply became poor Southern trash. NOT NOBILITY... THAT YOU HAD TO MARRY INTO. AND THAT IS REAL HISTORY and the KKK was the WORST OF THE DEMOCRATS of the SOUTH. It went all the way up through Virginina and WEST (BY GOD) Virginia.

[@tweedle_g]

Started watching Starwars videos and ended up here…😂

[@ericjardine8210]

At the end.. little did they know...

[@206-HoneyBadger]

Where's the Nixon era/affect on the Republican Party? You jumped right to Reagan.

[@dollysmith2596]

Amen X’S 3 ❤️❤️❤️🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾❤️❤️❤️🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙌🏾🙌🏾❤️❤️❤️🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾 Thank you Jesus ! Thank you Jesus ! Thank you Father ! Thank you a Lord ! The Lord is my Shepard ……………. 👸🏽

[@imabigscrewball]

Abe didn't really care about slavery though, he just didn't want war

[@Colddirector]

I think he always had emancipationist sympathies, but considered it more of a long term goal than something to force on the south quickly. He became the Great Emancipator because the war presented an opportunity, but only in the seceding states because he couldn't afford to lose any northern states to the south. Maybe this makes him less worthy of reverence but a lot of politics is threading needles to get the change you want.

[@jeffhucks713]

well done video.......

[@Daniel-nm8sr]

I'm a proud native American republican and the 8 nephew of president Ulysses s grant

[@timburton4150]

Nothing on Nixon or Goldwater? Kind of important parts of the story

[@aquarius6791]

They were more dogwhistles for their party but their rhetoric didn’t have much influence over voters imo Especially not in a partisan way Even when Nixon was impeached it looked worse for corporate bought out establishment politicians than it did for republicans as a collective which is why carter was so popular in the 1976 democratic primaries

[@IMARMY-qw9fy]

The undeniable appearance of Mahdi is regarded as an obligatory belief by Muslim scholars. The hadiths concerning his emergence reach the level of Tawaatur, implying an overwhelming consensus across multiple narrations. Muhammad Qasim is Mahdi

[@theamericanspirit8590]

Are we listening? Their words are the same," the NEW DEAL".

[@danielnewhouse5044]

Their position on the IQ test is that there should be no test, scores should be assigned to make the IQ conservative.

[@greymane2090]

The amount of material they are glossing over to make their blanket statement is absurd.

[@robertmontgomery3778]

Please do one on the Democratic party!

[@onomatopoeia162003]

they did one but I don't know if they finished it when they talked about it at the end, where they talk about Bill Clinton and Obama made in the same sort of video

[@mamabear7258]

Why am i Democrat?

[@bobbybraun464]

I don't know.

[@richards555]

You win🙄

[@gordonadams5891]

Keep in mind the southern shift to the GOP is also viewed as the Dixiecrat wing changing parties.

[@earlofmar7987]

KEEP in mind, that what you said is a lie. That is taught by Marxist to subvert the blacks into voting for Demonrats.

[@dominickowalczyk8253]

What a dumb take

[@earlofmar7987]

@@dominickowalczyk8253 Are you talking to me?

[@branfordmonticello853]

You're really downplaying the effect the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act had on the parties switching. Calling the Civil Rights Movement "social chaos" and how Dixiecrats wanting to go Republican for a less chaotic environment is foul.

[@jro7815]

There was no “party switch”. The GOP platform has alway been pro business and industry while the Democrats have always claimed the “pro common citizen” policies. The voting base of each party did change a bit due to resentment towards civil rights legislation and migration to Southern states. But both party platforms remain largely the same. Also, the civil rights act of 64 was bipartisan.

[@JDF1]

you can be Republican and not conservative... calling them a rino only creates more Independents which is fine with me

[@kristianolliviere9045]

Moderate Republicans like Bush Sr. George w was not that conservative