Jim Crow part 4 | The Gilded Age (1865-1898) | US History | Khan Academy

[@tessjones5987]

This was very informative. I am Nola Creole. Although we went through Jim Crow Law we had already been able to be married during the our days of slavery. We were a strong society and had already partiioned ourselves. We did not try to fit in. We did stick to the trades-carpenters, plumbers, upholster, hair dressing etc. We sided with the Union, and became police and military. I think the crime against American Blacks was having their families constantly broken up.

[@ThePGplus]

"Animating spirit of abolition" I really like this phrase. haha

[@DangNguyen-xz3te]

what app do u use to get that black page and u can write on it

[@500KiloVolt]

Smoothdraw 3

[@hairdararif5474]

Thank you for a great video.

[@waterangola]

informative, Thank You

[@zifengjiang5899]

Thank u

[@felixn.burgos2340]

HAIIIIIII I'M EARLY

[@chissstardestroyer]

The conduct in these cases were really ridiculous; take that election in 1876: well, the Constitution states that the President is decided *by the electoral college vote*, not by the popular vote; so there was no need for that nonsense to begin.

[@Daniel-od6ft]

I'm really late to reply lol, but the video was a bit unclear about that so I did some additional research on the details of that election. The dispute was in fact *NOT* over the national popular vote but over who won the electors (in the electoral college which decides elections) of multiple states . In Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, both parties claimed they'd won those states and their electors, and in Oregon there was a dispute about an elector too. And of course, the combined disputed electoral votes of those states were enough to sway the result of the election in either candidate's favor, so it mattered and the Compromise of 1877 was their way of settling this dispute since nobody could agree on who had actually won those 4 states. So the issue was kinda like what happened in the 2000 election when the result hinged on who had won Florida and its electors and there were countless recounts, yet even today many say that Al Gore won Florida and thus should have won the presidency because the margin was so close and there were issues with mistakenly voting for an unintended candidate due to confusing ballots.

[@chissstardestroyer]

@@Daniel-od6ft Oh, I *quite* understand; but the electoral college vote is determined by the popular vote in the specific regions of the country know as "states", and then the electors are sent to the Capital to determine who gets the job they're applying for. It is a means of organizing data solidly; that's why we do it the way we do.

[@Daniel-od6ft]

@@chissstardestroyer yes so, the disputes of the popular votes in those states was the cause of the disputed election. So that was the cause of the nonsense. So in that sense the nonsense was very much necessary because no one could agree on who had won those states. So what was the meaning of your original comment?

[@chissstardestroyer]

@@Daniel-od6ft My original post was completely clear in and of itself.

[@Daniel-od6ft]

@@chissstardestroyer not really, if nobody can agree on who won the popular vote in those states because of how close the vote was and thus for whom those states’ electors should vote, the nonsense was unavoidable. In 2000 in Florida the Supreme Court had to intervene and put a stop to the recounts but in 1876 they didn’t intervene and thus the compromise of 1877 was the way they settled the dispute. The electors are supposed to vote for whoever won the popular vote in their state, and if that can’t be settled then the electors aren’t supposed to just vote for whoever they like. So how was there “no need for that nonsense”? What should have happened instead in your mind?

[@beaconterraoneonline]

Just a comment for Khan … its best not to hear the phrase “I think” by your presenters; which is interpreted as “your opinion”. We don’t care, or should not care about what you think and are just interested in what the facts are. If something is unknown or may be up to interpretation, then state that vs. what your presenter thinks.

[@jamesscott3230]

Another great thing democrats did that DID NOT WORK!