One more stark statistic the video might have mentioned. The 1898 Louisiana Constitution eliminated voting rules that had enfranchised Black men during Reconstruction. As a result, in a state with over 650,000 Black residents, the number of Black registered voters dropped from 130,000 before the new constitution to just 5,000 by 1900. By 1904, the number dropped to just 1,000.
Thanks for sharing that information. I'm sure it was similar in many more southern states and continues now with gerrymandering and the "protecting the vote" bogus laws.
I like how Millennials and Older were essentially taught slavery ended and reconstruction was a success after the civil war. Jim Crow existed but racism was propagated by a small percentage of the population…. People talk a lot about how the country was “founded” but in reality we should reference this time period for how it currently looks.
But Jim Crow and separate but equal came from the South, which by 1876 was almost exclusively run by Democrats. Democrats got that power in the South by disenfranchising blacks with voter intimidation. The three contested states in 1876 were contested, at least in part, due to this voter intimidation (there was also allegations of ballot box stuffing on both sides). President Grant used federal troops so that blacks could vote in 1876. Democrats used other tricks too. For example, because many people couldn't read, ballots contained a picture representing each party (like the donkey and elephant today). The Democrats used a cockerel and the Republicans used a picture of Abraham Lincoln. Each party printed their own ballots and the Democrats actually put Samuel Tilden's name under Lincoln's picture to trick illiterate blacks into voting for Tilden. This video glosses over the fact that these Democrat-run states were the ones who enacted the Grandfather Clauses, poll taxes, and literacy tests. Hayes did agree to remove troops from the South, which solidified Democrat rule and the disenfranchisement of blacks in the South, but shouldn't the blame go to the Democrat-run states who implemented these policies? I do agree though that we should talk more about how Reconstruction shaped the South and the effects of that today. When people wonder why many of the Southern states are poor, they should know that these states were run almost exclusively by Democrats for more than a century. And the reason these states were run by Democrats almost exclusively for more than a century was because they implemented racist laws and used intimidation tactics to keep blacks from voting.
As an "older," I need to tell you that very few people I knew were taught anything at all substantive about slavery and reconstruction, and not many of my generation were happy with what we saw going on, what we were experiencing, then. Many were active in trying to end segregation and other forms of exclusion. We were divided then, and we're divided now. Progress was made, and yes, it barely scratches the surface of what is needed. Still, joys -- seeing my grandchildren take for granted that their friend groups are multi-ethnic; the mix of faces and genders in high places and on the media -- this didn't happen on its own, or overnight. We fought for it. Our legacy is way short of what we wanted it to be, and we are proud at those of you who are continuing the effort. But not all of you are on the same side, either. My young friends, we are all in this together. And we always have been. Fight on.
@@cherstuewe-portnoff6776 - Here's a good solution. Pay $50,000 (or more) to parents for every mixed-race child they have. In a couple of hundred years, everyone will be a beautiful shade of light brown - with no tanning! And no more basis for racism.
Who was taught that? Every American millennial I know was taught about Reconstruction and Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights movements of the 1950 & 60's. You're outright making up stuff to support your worldview.
Be glad you never heard this because it is revisionist history that completely skips over how Democrats were responsible for all of the racist legislation and voter intimidation the video decries.
This is what MANY are labeling 'woke propaganda' closing their eyes to it, until loud chants rule it 'irrelevant'. 'That's 'in the past', why dredge up the past?' Didn’t MLK, Jr erase all that? Didn't Obama prove the nation isn't racist. To both - NO!!!!!
@@robertortiz-wilson1588who said that this was the place to learn history? This video is a good primer for highlighting a moment in history that many have forgotten or have never learned about in the first place. But a 7min video is obviously not going to make you an expert on anything. Yet it can still make you aware of something that’s worth learning about, which is exactly how this video can serve others.
WE don't have to go back this far. GEORGE BUSH got his brother to hand him the win For Florida by leaving a minority populated county out of the 2000 election.
Great, but Hayes was sworn in privately March 3rd and publicly March 5th because Inauguration Day was a Sunday, not March 2nd as indicated in the film.
The reason it is marked as opinion is because it heavily misrepresents the facts to make it look like the Democrats weren't the ones responsible for disenfranchising the blacks.
It’s a very one-sided take on what it implies - that criminal justice is racist by default, or the imagery implying that there’s a direct moral line from those who fought for civil rights to those saying “abortion is healthcare”. One could just as easily write an op-ed saying that slavery depended on the belief that some people aren’t human, and this is the same “logic” used by abortion defenders today.
Correction to this video: the 15th Amendment prevents all ethnic discrimination by the government in voting, regardless of ethnicity. However, the 15th Amendment was adopted in particular to permit Blacks to vote.
The Amendment nowhere refers to ethnicity. It simply prohibits a state from using "race" to deny the vote to a citizen. The state could use literacy tests, grandfather clauses, 8-box laws, and poll tests to restrict access to the ballot.
What a horrific History! Thank you for this video. I have been studying for my Social Studies test and was confused to why the progress the African Americans had after the Civil War, changed into another 100 years of segregation…and now I found the missing puzzle. Thank you!
This is the REAL reason behind voter ID laws. It's the latest perpetuation of the voter suppression tactics that were detailed in the video. Oh, and thank you, Mr. Hanks!!!!
I wish the Democratic Party would launch a campaign in states with the Voter ID laws to make it extremely easy and cheap to get an ID for anyone who wants one, and put an end to the discrimination once and for all. I wonder why they don't just do that, to tell the Republicans "So WHAT? Have your little ID requirement. It doesn't prevent people from voting, just adds a minor hurdle".
"This is the REAL reason behind voter ID laws." You are right. It's a stone cold fact that whites have picture IDs in higher numbers than Blacks by 10 to 15 points. If Blacks had IDs in the same percentage of whites you'd have never heard of Voter ID.
The 1876 election had some more similarities to the 2000 election. Aside from the electoral vote margin being razor thin, then the winner losing the popular vote, the 2000 election was also on November 7th. When the Republicans wouldn't concede in 1876, one of the disputed states was Florida, as in 2000 with Florida being THE disputed state. There was a historical novel about the Hayes-Tilden election: "1876" by GORE Vidal, and the unfortunate electoral vote loser in 2000 was of course, Albert GORE.
@@busydem6161 By the time Hayes took office Reconstruction was already failing, and not taking the deal meant not only a Democrat controlled Senate and House but a Democrat President. With Hayes as President he was able to veto many Democrat Bills which would have reversed many of the gains made. Without that you would be looking at a much worse outcome. Also Federal troops were only currently stationed in TWO States, not the whole South. And the mentioned Democrat controlled Congress would not approve it's funding anyways.
The North had federal troops occupy the South after the Civil War for a decade. In 1876, the South demanded the federal troops withdraw and used the election as a political tool for removal of the federal troops. The federal troops had good reason to be stationed in the South because the South was politically unstable and still coming to grips with its loss in the Civil War. The removal of the troops allowed criminals and bandits to run wild, thereby causing even more tension because the high crime rates. The South is also the most ethnically diverse part of the country if you consider the number of people actually of different ethnicities. The North measures its diversity by a few immigrant arrivals from particular nationa.
You think federal troops should occupy American states? Wow! So the military should be sent in to oppress and control state and local government and their sovereign function. On one hand, I am shocked by how blatantly unconstitutional that is, but I’m also impressed at how blunt and honest you are about your evil desires and intentions.
@@NathanLongacre-jo6cxyeah, states that are treasonous and openly rebel against their fellow countrymen, absolutely. Sherman didn’t do enough, imo. As soon as federal troops pulled out, the racists in the south took charge again and we got Jim Crow.
@@NathanLongacre-jo6cx Did you miss the part where Nick says the troops remained in the South due to the South's instability after the Civil War? After all, much of the fighting in the Civil War took place in the South. The military set up temporary governments after the war ended to prevent the people who started the war from seizing power again. Nowhere did Nick say that he believed that federal troops should generally occupy states.
The occupation of the South by Federal troops following the end of the American Civil War was justified at that time, but if the LGBTQ community is proposing that Federal troops should do the same thing now in order to impose their will upon the rest of the country, that would be a gross violation of States’s Rights.
Don't be ashamed. Be cognizant and incorporate it into your own personal journey. As a black man, I would rather people feel proud and be aware than ashamed and fearful to offend. God bless America.
You’re furious for the wrong reasons. They literally overturned the vote of three states to rig the election for someone who didn’t actually win. Hays did NOT win. I know there are many incidents where people lie and say an election was stolen. People pretend the elections of 1960, 2000, 2016, and 2020 were “stolen,” but they weren’t. The election of 1876, however, was LITERALLY stolen from the Democrats.
Oh maybe you would also be ashamedof Channon Christian and Hugh Christopher Newsom story that happen January 6, 2007 ? And, more important, do you be also "so furious that it continues!" (c) ...
You should be ashamed that you don't know how historically inaccurate this video is. It tries to blame Hayes for racism and white supremacy when that was entirely the doing of the Democrat Party.
let's not confuse the issue that Rutherford was himself very much NOT a racist, being a Northerner wounded several times in the civil war, and who as president vetoed a number of proposed southern laws
Rutherford B. Hayes was everything revisionists wish Lincoln was on the policy front for reconstruction. History suggests this fact given Johnson had zero clue as to what to do proactively when Abe was assassinated except lean on southern individualism whilst having no idea how to reflect his constituents ideals and values. Thus, impeachment of a terrible president. Years go by and Hayes gives the South what they want in unoccupied land and the majority of American people what they wanted a refrain from division on basic human rights/societal norms. Hayes presidency can be easily looked at as underrated, particularly if the so called "corrupt bargain" is just looked at as a smokescreen for racism which it undoubtedly was.
@@corybarrett2394 That information was actually quite prominently emphasized in the video. What it didn't mention was that the Democrats were the southern conservative party, and the Republicans were northern liberals. But I guess you won't see that on Fox News.
This video leaves out so much context... By the time Hayes took office Reconstruction was already failing, and not taking the deal meant not only a Democrat controlled Senate and House but a Democrat President. With Hayes as President he was able to veto many Democrat Bills which would have reversed many of the gains made. Without that you would be looking at a much worse outcome. Also Federal troops were only currently stationed in TWO States, not the whole South. And the mentioned Democrat controlled Congress would not approve it's funding anyways.
Not relevant. Only men could vote before the Civil War, so the key point was extending it to black men too. Women weren't part of the discussion, and aren't relevant here.
@musicrecordschannel981 women could vote within the states if the states allowed it. That was the balance. The vast majority of women liked that at the time. Still liked it in 1919.
The fact is that the public sentiment toward Reconstruction by 1876 was fatigued, and people were generally over it. Reconstruction, by 1876, was all but over. The Compromise of 1877, formalizing the election of Rutherford B. Hayes and the removal of federal troops from the South was merely a formality and not an abrupt end. The "Compromise" was in name only, as the committee negotiating the Compromise was majority Republican, and accepting the removal of troops was an easy political decision as it went along with public sentiment at the cost of holding on to the office of the Executive. It was a sacrifice only a fool would have turned down.
Actually no, the North WAS largely fatigued by the cost of Reconstruction. Democrats had gotten a majority in the House in 1874 (flipping many northern seats) and were cutting the budget, all but forcing the winding down of Reconstruction. President Grant had little choice. There were only three southern states with Federal troops in them by 1876...the three that were in the disputed election. Grant actually considered removing them himself before Hayes took office, but he wanted to make sure peace was sustained (and kind of like Trump to Biden, he would leave Hayes the blame for any disastrous pullout). Republicans could see the writing on the wall as far as their future electoral chances if they continued a expensive army occupation. I mean, just think of how the public eventually turned on our overseas wars. It's not the same of course, but it's analogous. By the election of 1876, the US had been either at war....or involved in a costly occupation of a sizeable part of its territory for nearly 16 full years. The majority of the public was sick of it.
By the time Hayes took office Reconstruction was already failing, and not taking the deal meant not only a Democrat controlled Senate and House but a Democrat President. With Hayes as President he was able to veto many Democrat Bills which would have reversed many of the gains made. Without that you would be looking at a much worse outcome. It would make no sense to take the risk of a Democrat President at that time if you really cared about civil rights going forward.
growing up we were taught racism basically ended in the 1960s and i disliked Obama and Trump for bringing it back from seemingly no where by their various supposed supporters fighting/hating each other. this video states it was there all along and never really went away. :( and i was always taught felons shouldnt be able to vote or run for office unless they are pardoned or petition to have their rights restored, donald trump with 34 felony convictions shouldnt be able to go anywhere near high office/president but this video states that some states are still to this day wrongly convicting people of crimes so they can't vote? that isnt right. :(
Didn’t rock get paid for the military recruitment, so I’m wondering if Tom hanks got paid and why the man who owned a successful shrimp boat would do such a thing
By the time Hayes took office Reconstruction was already failing, and not taking the deal meant not only a Democrat controlled Senate and House but a Democrat President. With Hayes as President he was able to veto many Democrat Bills which would have reversed many of the gains made. Without that you would be looking at a much worse outcome. This video removes so much context that it is laughable. Only TWO States still had troops stationed and the Democrats were blocking funding for those troops already.
This film demonstrates why we need CRT so all citizens learn the truth and realities of history Recall school in 60's and 70's teaching about "carpet baggers", but there was no context. I didn't get it. My white parents in southern California did not discuss the civil rights struggles. My Dad unfortunately was raised rascist and tended to stereotype people. Recall being terrified during LA race riots. As a society, much work still needs to occur.
No, clown, real history exists outside of CRT's far left hate propaganda............the collective peabrain that the Left possesses has tried to sell CRT as just the regular history of slavery and racism, which we have already had in schools for many decades, but that dog won't hunt, I'm afraid.
@Rudyjo87 .Rudyjo87 How does teaching the history of cultural and institutional racism and discrimination equate to Stalin or Mao? Yes as you say merits should be taught, as should the injustices. If we have compassion, we'll all benefit from accurate retelling of history.
@joyceread7053 CRT doesn't divide people, those who want to deny historical reality is dividing people. Those who want truth, vs those who want to sweep uncomfortable facts under the rug.
It's a history that reflects how America's founders established our system of rule by consent of the governed yet maintained the core injustices and centuries of inequities imposed by monarchs falsely posing as God’s chosen rulers on earth. The Declaration of Independence declares that "....all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, chief among them being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." But, that isn't what America's founders created when they ratified the Constitution in 1789 and allowed slavery. Had they truly followed these words from Christ there would never have been slavery, no Civil War that caused 700,000 causulities, no 150 years of Jim Crow. "Do nothing to anyone you would not have done to you. Treat all others as you would be treated for that sums up the Law and the Prophets."
The Union forever, hurrah! boys, hurrah! Down with the traitors, up with the stars; While we rally round the flag, boys, we rally once again, Shouting the battle cry of freedom!
Yes, you should look at the election of 1824 as well. John Quincy Adams was elected president despite losing the popular vote AND the electoral college
The injustice perpetrated by racists do not go unnoticed by the Lord. He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. Those who oppressed the less fortunate will regret their evil actions for eternity.
If Grant just made a national apology and a stipend for the enslaved after the war that would have been a proper foundation for reparations. However a call for reparatios is not to combat slavery but to actually finish Reconstruction and combat the recent years of Jim Crow that burned down any progress made by the decendants of Amercan slaves. This video shows how Jim Crow was a failing of the Govt and NATIONAL policy. This is what needs to be "repaired"
Not every black person in America has slave heritage. Some came as refugees in a different era or some just moved here as normal immigrants because it is an attractive place. You can't prove heritage in every case (except by skin color, which is racist) so you can never do a reparations scheme fairly.
The Republicans would still have been considered center-right and the Democrats center-left back then. Economically speaking, at least. Just like in Europe, agrarian parties began on the left but now rural folks are mostly on the right.
If Alabama's prison population was 80% black in 1870, that injustice is on the Republican Carpetbaggers. The so-called Compromise of 1877 came seven years later-as the video emphasizes-after Hayes became President
I would liked to have seen a direct correlation to the removal of troops in the South and the virtual return of slavery. I can make a connection, but seems to have been glossed over just a little.
@@JK-br1mu The had to give up their liberties and almost all of their living wages. While living in terror and being abused. It was slavery by another name which still has effects that remain today
@@FilmsMF "almost all their living wages" thanks for the gibberish. They were paid low wages, as free citizens. Instead of working for free. Some did better than that, because they were free and could choose their work. They had their liberties, they weren't whipped by the master for not picking cotton like he wanted, and they could leave the state for something better any time. The post Civil War South wasn't great for black people, but it was way better than slavery. They had freedom and opportunity, even if both were not fully realized under racist Demoncat authorities.
The troops at the time were only stationed in TWO States not the whole South. This video "glosses" over A LOT to push it's own message. There was a Democrat control of the Senate and the House. Would you really have wanted them to also have a Democrat President? Where with Hayes as President he was able to veto many of their bills trying to reverse the gains made in civil rights.
While I had known about Hayes Tilden,and Hayes agreeing to pull back reconstructions.I was not aware of the price paid by blacks in the south. With the decison agreed upon by Democrats
Exactly. I'm confused. the democratic party "then the party of white supremacy" according to the video, conceded so that the republicans (Hayes) would remove union troops from the south. Would that have not happened with Tilden as president? If it were up to the president as the video states, of course Tilden would have done the same in the name of white supremacy.
Actually, both parties asked Tilden to run as their candidate. Hayes was a default choice. Tilden crushed him in the popular vote, but a “Corrupt Bargain” was made in the House. He was given the electoral college votes of 3 southern states that didn’t vote for him. This gave Hayes 185 and Tilden 184. Northern troops, who remained only in the 3 states in question, agreed to withdraw. After 12 years, Reconstruction finally came to an end in the South. White supremacy reigned again. This was also the only election in U.S. history in which both candidates were sitting governors.
Are you thinking of working as a Vote Rigger on election day? Absolutely do not! The consequences this time will be extremely dire. Not only might there be a civil war, but no one will be able to protect you and your family from the consequences after your own bosses discard you to try to add separation space between you and them. Instead, only accept the mission if forced to, and then on the actual day of the vote, defect.
How to say you long for post-Reconstruction racial balance of power without saying It. They reported on it at the time, as they do all widely reported murders or those of national importance.
Carpetbagger-controlled election returning boards counted the votes in the Southern sates. They were going to go for Hayes regardless of the true popular vote, which in at least Louisiana alone would give the votes Tilden needed to win the Presidency.
More like black people were voting heavily Republican, which combined with the minority of whites who did as well, gave Rs the majority..........so racist Dem pigs had to steal it.
I know Hayes’ direct descendants (also named ‘Hayes’) who all coincidentally live in the DC area today (2024)-judging by that family today, it doesn’t surprise me at all to learn of Rutherford Hayes’ expediency and lack of ethics that allowed Jim Crow to flourish just so he could be President.
One more stark statistic the video might have mentioned. The 1898 Louisiana Constitution eliminated voting rules that had enfranchised Black men during Reconstruction. As a result, in a state with over 650,000 Black residents, the number of Black registered voters dropped from 130,000 before the new constitution to just 5,000 by 1900. By 1904, the number dropped to just 1,000.
Thanks for sharing that information. I'm sure it was similar in many more southern states and continues now with gerrymandering and the "protecting the vote" bogus laws.
Continuing to sabotage the Negro.
wow
Now dats gangsta
Grant was Tyrannical
I like how Millennials and Older were essentially taught slavery ended and reconstruction was a success after the civil war. Jim Crow existed but racism was propagated by a small percentage of the population…. People talk a lot about how the country was “founded” but in reality we should reference this time period for how it currently looks.
But Jim Crow and separate but equal came from the South, which by 1876 was almost exclusively run by Democrats. Democrats got that power in the South by disenfranchising blacks with voter intimidation. The three contested states in 1876 were contested, at least in part, due to this voter intimidation (there was also allegations of ballot box stuffing on both sides). President Grant used federal troops so that blacks could vote in 1876. Democrats used other tricks too. For example, because many people couldn't read, ballots contained a picture representing each party (like the donkey and elephant today). The Democrats used a cockerel and the Republicans used a picture of Abraham Lincoln. Each party printed their own ballots and the Democrats actually put Samuel Tilden's name under Lincoln's picture to trick illiterate blacks into voting for Tilden.
This video glosses over the fact that these Democrat-run states were the ones who enacted the Grandfather Clauses, poll taxes, and literacy tests. Hayes did agree to remove troops from the South, which solidified Democrat rule and the disenfranchisement of blacks in the South, but shouldn't the blame go to the Democrat-run states who implemented these policies? I do agree though that we should talk more about how Reconstruction shaped the South and the effects of that today. When people wonder why many of the Southern states are poor, they should know that these states were run almost exclusively by Democrats for more than a century. And the reason these states were run by Democrats almost exclusively for more than a century was because they implemented racist laws and used intimidation tactics to keep blacks from voting.
As an "older," I need to tell you that very few people I knew were taught anything at all substantive about slavery and reconstruction, and not many of my generation were happy with what we saw going on, what we were experiencing, then. Many were active in trying to end segregation and other forms of exclusion. We were divided then, and we're divided now. Progress was made, and yes, it barely scratches the surface of what is needed. Still, joys -- seeing my grandchildren take for granted that their friend groups are multi-ethnic; the mix of faces and genders in high places and on the media -- this didn't happen on its own, or overnight. We fought for it. Our legacy is way short of what we wanted it to be, and we are proud at those of you who are continuing the effort. But not all of you are on the same side, either. My young friends, we are all in this together. And we always have been. Fight on.
@@cherstuewe-portnoff6776 - Here's a good solution. Pay $50,000 (or more) to parents for every mixed-race child they have. In a couple of hundred years, everyone will be a beautiful shade of light brown - with no tanning! And no more basis for racism.
Who was taught that? Every American millennial I know was taught about Reconstruction and Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights movements of the 1950 & 60's. You're outright making up stuff to support your worldview.
You are putting too much trust in those people to changed their ways and it's never happening..
What a wake up call I had no idea despite all those years of US history and high school. I never heard any of this.
Be glad you never heard this because it is revisionist history that completely skips over how Democrats were responsible for all of the racist legislation and voter intimidation the video decries.
Never taught on purpose
reading this makes me want to cry. I didnt learn of Emmitt Till until I was 30
Depends on where you went to school. I learned about this during the 80s in CC MD.
WHITE wash
Unbelievable! So glad you brought this to light. EVERYONE needs to see this video.
This is what MANY are labeling 'woke propaganda' closing their eyes to it, until loud chants rule it 'irrelevant'. 'That's 'in the past', why dredge up the past?' Didn’t MLK, Jr erase all that? Didn't Obama prove the nation isn't racist. To both - NO!!!!!
Yeah, everybody should see how ignorant the Washington Post is when it comes to history.
@@corybarrett2394 Care to explain what was "ignorant" about anything that was portrayed in this video?
If this is your first time hearing about this then you should just stop because this is not the place to learn history.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588who said that this was the place to learn history? This video is a good primer for highlighting a moment in history that many have forgotten or have never learned about in the first place. But a 7min video is obviously not going to make you an expert on anything. Yet it can still make you aware of something that’s worth learning about, which is exactly how this video can serve others.
They don’t want this kind of history in the curriculum, but it’s so vital
Expect videos like this to be taken down.
WE don't have to go back this far. GEORGE BUSH got his brother to hand him the win For Florida by leaving a minority populated county out of the 2000 election.
Great, but Hayes was sworn in privately March 3rd and publicly March 5th because Inauguration Day was a Sunday, not March 2nd as indicated in the film.
Why is this marked "opinion?" None of it is a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
The reason it is marked as opinion is because it heavily misrepresents the facts to make it look like the Democrats weren't the ones responsible for disenfranchising the blacks.
Because it's on the opinion page of the Washington Post
It’s a very one-sided take on what it implies - that criminal justice is racist by default, or the imagery implying that there’s a direct moral line from those who fought for civil rights to those saying “abortion is healthcare”.
One could just as easily write an op-ed saying that slavery depended on the belief that some people aren’t human, and this is the same “logic” used by abortion defenders today.
@@connerclark3678 When you begin talking about oranges... then it goes on to bananas... then well: I hate donkies. Messy soup your train of thoughts.
@@connerclark3678 good points.
It only took 100 years and it's still not resolved
Correction to this video: the 15th Amendment prevents all ethnic discrimination by the government in voting, regardless of ethnicity. However, the 15th Amendment was adopted in particular to permit Blacks to vote.
Black men.
@@yvonneplant9434 indeed
Black people
@@foodscrazy9229 same thing
The Amendment nowhere refers to ethnicity. It simply prohibits a state from using "race" to deny the vote to a citizen. The state could use literacy tests, grandfather clauses, 8-box laws, and poll tests to restrict access to the ballot.
What a horrific History! Thank you for this video. I have been studying for my Social Studies test and was confused to why the progress the African Americans had after the Civil War, changed into another 100 years of segregation…and now I found the missing puzzle. Thank you!
This is the REAL reason behind voter ID laws. It's the latest perpetuation of the voter suppression tactics that were detailed in the video.
Oh, and thank you, Mr. Hanks!!!!
I wish the Democratic Party would launch a campaign in states with the Voter ID laws to make it extremely easy and cheap to get an ID for anyone who wants one, and put an end to the discrimination once and for all. I wonder why they don't just do that, to tell the Republicans "So WHAT? Have your little ID requirement. It doesn't prevent people from voting, just adds a minor hurdle".
"This is the REAL reason behind voter ID laws." You are right. It's a stone cold fact that whites have picture IDs in higher numbers than Blacks by 10 to 15 points. If Blacks had IDs in the same percentage of whites you'd have never heard of Voter ID.
Amen your right we need to wake up.
@@RobS123 your so correct. That's what republicans and right winger's do that.
It's 2023, have an ID if you are a functional adult.
I didn't even noticed the narrator was Tom Hanks.
you would get more views if you mention that on the title
Good idea
Imagine the comments if they did ?
I knew his voice sounded familiar lol
You could less views, as well.
The 1876 election had some more similarities to the 2000 election. Aside from the electoral vote margin being razor thin, then the winner losing the popular vote, the 2000 election was also on November 7th. When the Republicans wouldn't concede in 1876, one of the disputed states was Florida, as in 2000 with Florida being THE disputed state. There was a historical novel about the Hayes-Tilden election: "1876" by GORE Vidal, and the unfortunate electoral vote loser in 2000 was of course, Albert GORE.
Very interesting how American history tends to rhyme like this. Reminds me of the Lincoln/Kennedy coincidences as well.
What a great video! I didn't notice at first, but realized halfway through that it was Tom Hanks narrating.
I realized that within 2 seconds
It took me a minute to realize Woody from Toy Story was telling this tale.
I thought it was Forrest Gump?
I thought it was Epstiens friend.
It was Steven Gold
The Great Betrayal.
Yep set the country back 100 years. A back door deal between the donkey and the elephant. Which is why I refuse to endorse either party.
@@busydem6161 By the time Hayes took office Reconstruction was already failing, and not taking the deal meant not only a Democrat controlled Senate and House but a Democrat President. With Hayes as President he was able to veto many Democrat Bills which would have reversed many of the gains made. Without that you would be looking at a much worse outcome. Also Federal troops were only currently stationed in TWO States, not the whole South. And the mentioned Democrat controlled Congress would not approve it's funding anyways.
This video oversimplifies the context greatly see other comment I made...
That video was factual.
Not at all, it leaves out so much context.
The North had federal troops occupy the South after the Civil War for a decade. In 1876, the South demanded the federal troops withdraw and used the election as a political tool for removal of the federal troops.
The federal troops had good reason to be stationed in the South because the South was politically unstable and still coming to grips with its loss in the Civil War. The removal of the troops allowed criminals and bandits to run wild, thereby causing even more tension because the high crime rates. The South is also the most ethnically diverse part of the country if you consider the number of people actually of different ethnicities. The North measures its diversity by a few immigrant arrivals from particular nationa.
You think federal troops should occupy American states? Wow! So the military should be sent in to oppress and control state and local government and their sovereign function. On one hand, I am shocked by how blatantly unconstitutional that is, but I’m also impressed at how blunt and honest you are about your evil desires and intentions.
@@NathanLongacre-jo6cxyeah, states that are treasonous and openly rebel against their fellow countrymen, absolutely. Sherman didn’t do enough, imo. As soon as federal troops pulled out, the racists in the south took charge again and we got Jim Crow.
@@NathanLongacre-jo6cx Did you miss the part where Nick says the troops remained in the South due to the South's instability after the Civil War? After all, much of the fighting in the Civil War took place in the South. The military set up temporary governments after the war ended to prevent the people who started the war from seizing power again. Nowhere did Nick say that he believed that federal troops should generally occupy states.
The occupation of the South by Federal troops following the end of the American Civil War was justified at that time, but if the LGBTQ community is proposing that Federal troops should do the same thing now in order to impose their will upon the rest of the country, that would be a gross violation of States’s Rights.
@@NathanLongacre-jo6cx Your ability to spin is astonishing.
I am so ashamedof this history, and so furious that it continues!
Don't be ashamed. Be cognizant and incorporate it into your own personal journey. As a black man, I would rather people feel proud and be aware than ashamed and fearful to offend. God bless America.
I don’t think there’s anything to be ashamed of, at all. It happened. We learn from it. ✊🏿
You’re furious for the wrong reasons. They literally overturned the vote of three states to rig the election for someone who didn’t actually win. Hays did NOT win. I know there are many incidents where people lie and say an election was stolen. People pretend the elections of 1960, 2000, 2016, and 2020 were “stolen,” but they weren’t. The election of 1876, however, was LITERALLY stolen from the Democrats.
Oh maybe you would also be ashamedof Channon Christian and Hugh Christopher Newsom story that happen January 6, 2007 ? And, more important, do you be also "so furious that it continues!" (c) ...
You should be ashamed that you don't know how historically inaccurate this video is. It tries to blame Hayes for racism and white supremacy when that was entirely the doing of the Democrat Party.
let's not confuse the issue that Rutherford was himself very much NOT a racist, being a Northerner wounded several times in the civil war, and who as president vetoed a number of proposed southern laws
Also as a lawyer defended many run away slaves.
Rutherford B. Hayes was everything revisionists wish Lincoln was on the policy front for reconstruction. History suggests this fact given Johnson had zero clue as to what to do proactively when Abe was assassinated except lean on southern individualism whilst having no idea how to reflect his constituents ideals and values. Thus, impeachment of a terrible president. Years go by and Hayes gives the South what they want in unoccupied land and the majority of American people what they wanted a refrain from division on basic human rights/societal norms. Hayes presidency can be easily looked at as underrated, particularly if the so called "corrupt bargain" is just looked at as a smokescreen for racism which it undoubtedly was.
What a tragic mistake. We still pay a heavy price today and will for decades to come.
So which part of this is “opinion”?? Sounds like a whole lotta FACTS to me.
I teach about this every semester in my History of Jazz. This is so they will understand what was going on right after the Civil War
This was very accurate and well done.. I will be sharing this..THANKS.
It's actually not accurate at all. It completely skips over how Democrats were responsible for the racism the video decries.
@@corybarrett2394for forgot to say "...Democrats at that time and not now"...
@@corybarrett2394 That information was actually quite prominently emphasized in the video. What it didn't mention was that the Democrats were the southern conservative party, and the Republicans were northern liberals. But I guess you won't see that on Fox News.
This video leaves out so much context...
By the time Hayes took office Reconstruction was already failing, and not taking the deal meant not only a Democrat controlled Senate and House but a Democrat President. With Hayes as President he was able to veto many Democrat Bills which would have reversed many of the gains made. Without that you would be looking at a much worse outcome. Also Federal troops were only currently stationed in TWO States, not the whole South. And the mentioned Democrat controlled Congress would not approve it's funding anyways.
The amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War did NOT confer voting rights on all persons... Only men. A big omission in this great short.
That is true, women (both black or white) were not allowed to vote.
Not relevant. Only men could vote before the Civil War, so the key point was extending it to black men too. Women weren't part of the discussion, and aren't relevant here.
@musicrecordschannel981 women could vote within the states if the states allowed it. That was the balance. The vast majority of women liked that at the time. Still liked it in 1919.
Did we watch the same video? He literally said that.
We gave women the right to vote decades before France did.
Thank you so much for this
The fact is that the public sentiment toward Reconstruction by 1876 was fatigued, and people were generally over it. Reconstruction, by 1876, was all but over. The Compromise of 1877, formalizing the election of Rutherford B. Hayes and the removal of federal troops from the South was merely a formality and not an abrupt end. The "Compromise" was in name only, as the committee negotiating the Compromise was majority Republican, and accepting the removal of troops was an easy political decision as it went along with public sentiment at the cost of holding on to the office of the Executive. It was a sacrifice only a fool would have turned down.
The military was removed. Civilians were allowed to impliment dejure law, and the lynching began.
You are so wrong, Kennym. You need to read and study. The only people who were “fatigued” or “over it” were racists!
Actually no, the North WAS largely fatigued by the cost of Reconstruction. Democrats had gotten a majority in the House in 1874 (flipping many northern seats) and were cutting the budget, all but forcing the winding down of Reconstruction. President Grant had little choice. There were only three southern states with Federal troops in them by 1876...the three that were in the disputed election.
Grant actually considered removing them himself before Hayes took office, but he wanted to make sure peace was sustained (and kind of like Trump to Biden, he would leave Hayes the blame for any disastrous pullout).
Republicans could see the writing on the wall as far as their future electoral chances if they continued a expensive army occupation. I mean, just think of how the public eventually turned on our overseas wars. It's not the same of course, but it's analogous. By the election of 1876, the US had been either at war....or involved in a costly occupation of a sizeable part of its territory for nearly 16 full years. The majority of the public was sick of it.
By the time Hayes took office Reconstruction was already failing, and not taking the deal meant not only a Democrat controlled Senate and House but a Democrat President. With Hayes as President he was able to veto many Democrat Bills which would have reversed many of the gains made. Without that you would be looking at a much worse outcome.
It would make no sense to take the risk of a Democrat President at that time if you really cared about civil rights going forward.
This has to be taught in schools! It’s a shameful travesty and abomination but those who don’t learn from the past . . .
Wonderfully done, love the animation.
growing up we were taught racism basically ended in the 1960s and i disliked Obama and Trump for bringing it back from seemingly no where by their various supposed supporters fighting/hating each other. this video states it was there all along and never really went away. :(
and i was always taught felons shouldnt be able to vote or run for office unless they are pardoned or petition to have their rights restored, donald trump with 34 felony convictions shouldnt be able to go anywhere near high office/president
but this video states that some states are still to this day wrongly convicting people of crimes so they can't vote? that isnt right. :(
3:03 The good old days when they spelled it "to-day."
This makes the extremely complicated history of the 1876 election seem very simple.
Thanks for this great video. This was completely sanitized in school.
Thanks for that Wooooodddyyyyyy :)
This is what they want when they say, "make America great again."
It is beyond shameful that we are not taught about these things in school.
Didn’t rock get paid for the military recruitment, so I’m wondering if Tom hanks got paid and why the man who owned a successful shrimp boat would do such a thing
waw you got Tom Hanks 😃
Are you allowed to show this in Ron DeSantis' Florida? Just asking?
This is something conservatives don't mention when they talk about the Reconstruction.
By the time Hayes took office Reconstruction was already failing, and not taking the deal meant not only a Democrat controlled Senate and House but a Democrat President. With Hayes as President he was able to veto many Democrat Bills which would have reversed many of the gains made. Without that you would be looking at a much worse outcome. This video removes so much context that it is laughable. Only TWO States still had troops stationed and the Democrats were blocking funding for those troops already.
this was a great history lesson. thank ou
History Repeats Itself In Modern Time - 2024 !!
Excellent video!!
A high school in Brooklyn, NY, was named the Samuel J Tilden High School.
This film demonstrates why we need CRT so all citizens learn the truth and realities of history Recall school in 60's and 70's teaching about "carpet baggers", but there was no context. I didn't get it. My white parents in southern California did not discuss the civil rights struggles. My Dad unfortunately was raised rascist and tended to stereotype people. Recall being terrified during LA race riots. As a society, much work still needs to occur.
No, clown, real history exists outside of CRT's far left hate propaganda............the collective peabrain that the Left possesses has tried to sell CRT as just the regular history of slavery and racism, which we have already had in schools for many decades, but that dog won't hunt, I'm afraid.
@Rudyjo87 .Rudyjo87 How does teaching the history of cultural and institutional racism and discrimination equate to Stalin or Mao? Yes as you say merits should be taught, as should the injustices. If we have compassion, we'll all benefit from accurate retelling of history.
So CRT would fix that? CRT continues to divide people. We need to bring people together, not continue the division.
@joyceread7053 CRT doesn't divide people, those who want to deny historical reality is dividing people. Those who want truth, vs those who want to sweep uncomfortable facts under the rug.
@@joyceread7053 Are you making excuses for those running from the truth?
It's a history that reflects how America's founders established our system of rule by consent of the governed yet maintained the core injustices and centuries of inequities imposed by monarchs falsely posing as God’s chosen rulers on earth.
The Declaration of Independence declares that "....all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, chief among them being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
But, that isn't what America's founders created when they ratified the Constitution in 1789 and allowed slavery.
Had they truly followed these words from Christ there would never have been slavery, no Civil War that caused 700,000 causulities, no 150 years of Jim Crow.
"Do nothing to anyone you would not have done to you. Treat all others as you would be treated for that sums up the Law and the Prophets."
We have not learned a damn thing in 150 years...
“He kept the Union together at the expense of Black Americans.” LMAO. Then it isn’t a union, it’s a plantation!
Just like everyone who works at Starbucks
The Union forever, hurrah! boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitors, up with the stars;
While we rally round the flag, boys, we rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!
😂
GQP be taking notes...
To be fair, the GOP today are pretty much the same as the white supremacists in 1876 (minus the lynchings).
Right
Thank you for sharing this informative primer on the contested 1876 presidential election.
It's good to remember we've seen much contention in the past.
Looks like the Electoral College thing has always sucked.....
Yes, you should look at the election of 1824 as well. John Quincy Adams was elected president despite losing the popular vote AND the electoral college
The injustice perpetrated by racists do not go unnoticed by the Lord. He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. Those who oppressed the less fortunate will regret their evil actions for eternity.
This is so well done. Thank you for the edumacatin'. ;)
I hope Elon Musk watches this video and learns something.
Tilden and Reform, love Tilden
And yet they dont understand when we refuse to stand for the pledge of allegiance!!!
There really is nothing new under the sun.
Thanks Tom, I enjoyed watching that!
The 13th amendment abolished legal chattel slavery for people not in prison. It did not abolish slavery.
Just as proud then as now
now this is hiw it should be taught! Im from Fremont Ohio, look him up
If Grant just made a national apology and a stipend for the enslaved after the war that would have been a proper foundation for reparations. However a call for reparatios is not to combat slavery but to actually finish Reconstruction and combat the recent years of Jim Crow that burned down any progress made by the decendants of Amercan slaves. This video shows how Jim Crow was a failing of the Govt and NATIONAL policy. This is what needs to be "repaired"
Not every black person in America has slave heritage. Some came as refugees in a different era or some just moved here as normal immigrants because it is an attractive place. You can't prove heritage in every case (except by skin color, which is racist) so you can never do a reparations scheme fairly.
Most Government programs and policies fail.
lots of facts
It’s crazy how the republican and democrat parties have completely switched and it’s totally lost on today’s republicans
The Republicans would still have been considered center-right and the Democrats center-left back then. Economically speaking, at least.
Just like in Europe, agrarian parties began on the left but now rural folks are mostly on the right.
If tilden had won the same thing would have happened
If Alabama's prison population was 80% black in 1870, that injustice is on the Republican Carpetbaggers. The so-called Compromise of 1877 came seven years later-as the video emphasizes-after Hayes became President
No, it's all on the Demoncats......and any of those black people who committed crimes.
Revisionist. No evidence of this and it is the racist Democrats that did Jim Crow. Peanut brain doesn't get the Republicans ended slavery.
I would liked to have seen a direct correlation to the removal of troops in the South and the virtual return of slavery. I can make a connection, but seems to have been glossed over just a little.
Slavery didn't return, black people no longer worked for free, but basic liberties were infringed upon.
When they had to give up their entire income (or most of it) for living at their workplace, it essentially was slavery all over again.
@@JK-br1mu The had to give up their liberties and almost all of their living wages. While living in terror and being abused. It was slavery by another name which still has effects that remain today
@@FilmsMF "almost all their living wages" thanks for the gibberish.
They were paid low wages, as free citizens. Instead of working for free. Some did better than that, because they were free and could choose their work.
They had their liberties, they weren't whipped by the master for not picking cotton like he wanted, and they could leave the state for something better any time.
The post Civil War South wasn't great for black people, but it was way better than slavery. They had freedom and opportunity, even if both were not fully realized under racist Demoncat authorities.
The troops at the time were only stationed in TWO States not the whole South. This video "glosses" over A LOT to push it's own message. There was a Democrat control of the Senate and the House. Would you really have wanted them to also have a Democrat President? Where with Hayes as President he was able to veto many of their bills trying to reverse the gains made in civil rights.
Early version of trump vs clinton.
This is CRT
which is true
No this is history........CRT is Marxist hate-propaganda.
I was going to say call Elon and then realized you were talking about the 1800s
While I had known about Hayes Tilden,and Hayes agreeing to pull back reconstructions.I was not aware of the price paid by blacks in the south. With the decison agreed upon by Democrats
Rutherford Be Trippin.
So good
The title sent me flying to the next country 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I tell people about this all of the time.
Seems like a big omission for such a great short.
I'd like to know how republican and democrats interchanged value and believes or it's just that they all changed parties?
So what would have been the scenario if Tilden had won?
Exactly. I'm confused. the democratic party "then the party of white supremacy" according to the video, conceded so that the republicans (Hayes) would remove union troops from the south. Would that have not happened with Tilden as president? If it were up to the president as the video states, of course Tilden would have done the same in the name of white supremacy.
Using an old timey film aesthetic for an 1876 election makes no sense when the first ever moving image recording was in 1888.
That's your take-away?
@@christophermoore2398 It's a production note.
Just look at 2020.
😂😂 yes.... Trump lost 🤣🤣🤣
Actually, both parties asked Tilden to run as their candidate. Hayes was a default choice. Tilden crushed him in the popular vote, but a “Corrupt Bargain” was made in the House. He was given the electoral college votes of 3 southern states that didn’t vote for him. This gave Hayes 185 and Tilden 184. Northern troops, who remained only in the 3 states in question, agreed to withdraw. After 12 years, Reconstruction finally came to an end in the South. White supremacy reigned again. This was also the only election in U.S. history in which both candidates were sitting governors.
It’s always Florida…
When are we going to get it rigght?
Are you thinking of working as a Vote Rigger on election day? Absolutely do not! The consequences this time will be extremely dire. Not only might there be a civil war, but no one will be able to protect you and your family from the consequences after your own bosses discard you to try to add separation space between you and them. Instead, only accept the mission if forced to, and then on the actual day of the vote, defect.
"Make America Great Again":
Are these the times MAGA Maniacs™ are referring to?
Or it just the 1950's?
Hey TOM and the NYT all of these mesures are BACK you need to update this vid
Sherman didn’t go far enough.
I remember those dark days quite well ..
this is the miscount problem for black america
Germany was forced to deal with their racism immediately after WWII. Us, not so much. B.S.
Bro why is Tom Hanks narrating this
Totally biased by my studies
I bet WP will not make "animated short film" on Channon Christian and Hugh Christopher Newsom case from Knoxville, Tennessee ...
How to say you long for post-Reconstruction racial balance of power without saying It.
They reported on it at the time, as they do all widely reported murders or those of national importance.
Carpetbagger-controlled election returning boards counted the votes in the Southern sates. They were going to go for Hayes regardless of the true popular vote, which in at least Louisiana alone would give the votes Tilden needed to win the Presidency.
More like black people were voting heavily Republican, which combined with the minority of whites who did as well, gave Rs the majority..........so racist Dem pigs had to steal it.
The klux ain't got a klue
I know Hayes’ direct descendants (also named ‘Hayes’) who all coincidentally live in the DC area today (2024)-judging by that family today, it doesn’t surprise me at all to learn of Rutherford Hayes’ expediency and lack of ethics that allowed Jim Crow to flourish just so he could be President.
grazie TH