1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
goblinko [34]
3 years ago
9

Why did the presidential election of 1876 anger Democrats? Democrats believed their candidate had actually won. Democrats though

t the voting system was unfair. Democrats wanted a second recount to decide a winner. Democrats thought the result was unconstitutional.
History
2 answers:
Artemon [7]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

The presidential election of 1876 angered Democrats because they thought the voting system was unfair.

Explanation:

The presidential election of 1876 resulted in the election of the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes against the Democrat Samuel Jones Tilden, who had nevertheless obtained the absolute majority of the popular votes.

This election was acquired only after a very important litigation, which almost led to a constitutional impasse. The acceptance by the Democrats of the election of Hayes was undoubtedly a political trade by which the Republicans put an end to the Reconstruction, and thus to the trusteeship of the Southern States.  

In any case, the Southern Democrats, called Dixiecrats, were able, after 1877, to regain power in all the former Confederate States and reintroduce a policy of racial discrimination through the Jim Crow Laws. At the same time, Republicans were disappearing from the political landscape of the southern states before reappearing only in the 1960s and 1970s.

Travka [436]3 years ago
3 0
The reason why the presidential election of 1876 angered Democrats is because "Democrats thought the voting system was <span>unfair" since Tilden actually won the majority of the popular vote. </span>
You might be interested in
Describe the similarities and differences in foreign policy during the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations.
Paha777 [63]

<em>Differences .</em>

Dwight D. Eisenhower tenure was from 1956 to 1961. John F. Kennedy tenure was from 1961 to 1963.

With Eisenhower, the Foreign Policy was that United States forces help the Middle East to combat the spread of Communism. In this region, Eisenhower had some political differences with England and France. The reason: the Suez crisis of 1956 due to President of Egypt -Gamal Abdel Nasser- wishes to be more independent.

In 1955, USSR President Nikita Khrushchev called his Foreign policy "peaceful coexistence", but Eisenhower did not believed in this. He was skeptic of the Soviet’s intentions.  

Eisenhower accepted to participate in a meeting with Russian leaders in Geneva, Switzerland, in July 1955. That meeting was called the "Spirit of Geneva".

Kennedy considered that Eisenhower had lost emerging states in Latin America, Asia, and Africa to the communists

Kennedy fought against Communism in South and Central America using propaganda.

Kenndy supported and funded NASA’s space programs.

Kennedy had to confronted and resolve the Misil’s crisis in Cuba.

Similarities.

Both presidents fought against Communism, in his own way. They reaffirmed the U.S. Foreign policy against Russia and defended its positions in the world.

Both presidents were reluctant to send troops to enforce civil rights

They were concerned about the problems with the application of federalism, but at th end they did to enforce civil rights.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Tim keller when martin luther king jr, confronted racism in the white church in the south
nydimaria [60]
Tim Keller on Dr. King’s rejection of relativism:

When Martin Luther King Jr. confronted racism in the white church in the South, he did not call on Southern churches to become more secular. Read his sermons and “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” and see how he argued. He invoked God’s moral law and the Scripture. He called white Christians to be more true to their own beliefs and to realize what the Bible really teaches. He did not say, “Truth is relative and everyone is free to determine what is right or wrong for them.” If everything is relative, there would have been no incentive for white people in the south to give up their power. Rather, Dr. King invoked the prophet Amos, who said, “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.” The greatest champion of justice in our era knew the antidote to racism was not less Christianity, but a deeper and truer Christianity.

(Reason for God, pp.64-65)
5 0
3 years ago
How do bad or evil leaders take control of their country and gain the support of their people?
strojnjashka [21]

You can do this in a variety of ways. If one has the money for it you can start bribing mayors and law enforcement officials to look the other way and gain influence. If there is a racist movement going on campaign in favor of that to feed off of those angry people. This is like how Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

Another way is to start a revolution in the country against something that the citizens are very unhappy with. Declare yourself as the leader of the revolution. Make sure the revolution is a success. When the revolution is a success, you will be seen as a hero and instantly gain favor of the people. Once this happens make sure you remove all rivals (personal rivals, political rivals, so on) from the country and start centralizing your power. Start spending country funds on militarization and starve your people to intimidate them. Make your people worship you. Have pictures of you, the Great Leader, in the living rooms of every house by law. This is how the leaders of North Korea have done, and they are still worshipped by their people today.

7 0
3 years ago
GIVING 30 POINTS PLS HELP ITS MY FINAL EXAM AND I JUST MOVED I HAVENT STUDIED WELL PLS HELP
Phoenix [80]

Answer:

the cold war

Explanation: can I get brainiest

8 0
3 years ago
NEED ASAP I WILL MARK BRAINLIEST Why would punishments for breaking the law be different for corporations and individuals?
algol13

Answer: D, Individuals could not afford as large a fine as corporations could.

Explanation:

A and D are good answers but D is the one which is the most different between them. Individuals cannot afford to pay a large fine while corporations can. The U.S. justice system is more susceptible to heft a fine on corporations than average citizens.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which Eastern European nation resisted communism the longest?
    13·2 answers
  • What motivated new imperialism
    5·1 answer
  • The Great Depression was caused by all the following reasons except:
    5·1 answer
  • Which of the following caused the most conflict within Russia after the end of the Cold War?
    9·2 answers
  • What is a police ride along
    13·1 answer
  • Why the Articles of Confederation was tossed out​
    12·1 answer
  • Name four arcas these trade routes went to that are outside the boundaries of this map.​
    13·1 answer
  • African American History of the Discrimination?
    11·1 answer
  • The Scientific Revolution was not a WAR revolution. What type of revolution was it?
    7·2 answers
  • Read the two sentences from the
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!