Can you explain the "Compromise of 1877" and it's effect on politics today?
395819
The disputed presidential election was thrown to Rutherford B. Hayes in return for his agreement to end Reconstruction in the south.  As far as the effects on politics today, I'm not sure.  It certainly opened the way for southern Democrats of the era to re-establish white supremacy in the south, with the help of the KKK.  The black struggle really began AFTER the Civil War, and continued for another 100 years.
177811
the Compromise of 1877 was an imaginary line to seperate the free states and the slave states during the civil war.
714224
I think here in Michigan the biggest issue is whether we are going to allow a person to buy the office of Governor. I think restoring checks and balance to the federal government is also important. Dove hunting has become an issue as well as equal rights.
865639
That was then, this is now.\n\nDuring a time before "parties" truly had a foothold, independent ideas were not exactly welcomed or respected on the surface, but the "right" thing to do was more easily done without all the media hype and financial funding.\n\nIt is a different world now.  George Washington even warned us against party politics as being the demise of Democracy, and we didn't follow his heed.  \n\nWe are now in a situation where there is absolutely nothing moderate about government, and anyone that feels moderate has to split a ticket.\n\nSad really...
707697
Americans' sense of civic virtue was shocked by the scandals associated with the Reconstruction era, including corrupt state governments, massive fraud in cities controlled by machines, political payoffs to secure government contracts (especially the Crédit Mobilier of America scandal regarding the financing of the transcontinental railroad), and widespread evidence of government corruption during the Ulysses S. Grant administration (see Whiskey Ring). Led by the Bourbon Democrats, especially Samuel J. Tilden and Grover Cleveland, there was a call for reform, such as Civil Service Reform. More generally there was a sense that government intervention in the economy resulted in favoritism, bribery, kickbacks, inefficiency, waste and corruption. The Bourbon Democrats led the call for a free market, low tariffs, low taxes, less spending and, in general, a Laissez-Faire (hands-off) government. They also denounced imperialism and overseas expansion. Many business and professional people supported this approach, although most Republicans continued to argue for a high protective tariff to encourage rapid growth of industry and protect America's high wages against the low wage system in Europe. Labor activists and agrarians expressed the same spirit but focused their attacks on monopolies and railroads as unfair to the little man.\n\nIn politics the two parties engaged in very elaborate get-out-the vote campaigns that succeeded in pushing turnout to 80%, 90% and even higher. It was financed by the "spoils system" whereby the winning party distributed most local, state and national government jobs, and many government contracts, to its loyal supporters. Large cities were dominated by political machines, in which constituents supported a candidate in exchange for anticipated patronage—favors back from the government, once that candidate was elected—and candidates were selected based on their willingness to play along. Presidential elections between the two major parties (the Republicans and Democrats), were closely contested, and Congress was marked by political stalemate. Mudslinging became an increasingly popular way of gaining advantage at the polls, and Republicans employed an election tactic known as "waving the bloody shirt". Candidates, especially when combating corruption charges, would remind voters that the Republican Party had saved the nation in the Civil War. During the 1870s voters were repeatedly reminded that the Democrats had been responsible for the bloody upheaval, an appeal that attracted many Union veterans to the Republican camp. The Republicans consistently carried the North in presidential elections. The South, on the other hand, became the Solid South, nearly always voting Democratic. The political humiliations of Reconstruction were still fresh in many minds. Conversely, the Democrats invoked images of the "lost cause" and the glorious "stars and bars" in much the same way Republicans "waved the bloody shirt". Overall, Republican and Democratic political platforms remained remarkably constant during the years before 1900. The negativity and ambiguity of politics began a shift in the press to yellow journalism, in which sensationalism and sentimental stories took as prominent a role as factual news.\n\nGreat question.  Thanks...I learned something too.
641316
The Reconstruction era scarred the South (the results can still be seen today). It was a glaring example of why a one party system does not work, and how forcing reparation or reparation type laws on the losing side of a war will spark dissension and possibly future violence.\n\nBecause they completely lost their pride and their power, certain elements in the South radicalized. Their mistreatment of minorities (namely blacks) caused widespread debate, hatred, and racism.
1126203
There's not exactly complete control by the Republican party.  And we've had long runs with the Dems at other points in history... in fact, the Democrats had twenty years (1933-1953) of executive control with F.D.R. and then Truman.  And we did alright.  ;)  In any case, these are elected officials, so if things go sour for a considerable amount of time, the American people will demand a change.  That is a check in and of itself.
186202
The Connecticut Compromise of 1787 in the United States, later known as the Great Compromise, was struck in the creation of legislative bodies. It joined the Virginia Plan, which favored representation based on population, and the New Jersey plan, which featured each state being equal. Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, played a large role in constructing the compromise.
84091
As President Grant said in his memoirs, the South stopped working for compromise when they could no longer command political dominance of the country. Back in the early 1980's, the Commerce Department put out a series of books on the economic history of the United States, which brought up many aspects of early US history that are now forgotten.\n\nAfter the revolution, when the country was a bankrupted swath of states along the Atlantic Ocean, there seemed no way the country could survive economically. Then, the industrialization of the American Northeast was financed in large part by hard currency achieved through the export of cotton and tobacco. These were the only resources the US had in large quantities that had a monopoly throughout the world, and this was of course produced exclusively in the South. The grains produced in the Northeast and later in the Midwest were largely barred from European markets because of the British Corn Laws and other agricultural protective measures across the world.\n\nYou must remember, this was before the advent of sectionalism, and many across the country gave their political loyalty to the Whig Party, which represented Business both large and small. As a result, the South would reap huge profits on cotton (which thus became an industry only for those rich and powerful enough to hold large amounts of land and large numbers of slaves) and then invest those profits in the North to build industry. This also gave the South a certain amount of extra influence in how things were done across the country.\n\nAs the North began to also grow rich because of its expanding industrial base, leaders in the North began to also throw their political and economic weight around. In the 1830's, Northern and Midwestern sections brought about a very protective tariff against foreign manufactured goods and European luxuries (hence the name Sectionalism).\n\nAs we have seen all throughout our history, when a domestic industry is protected by increasing the price of foreign competition, rather than using the protection to increase their market share and long term health, American business will simply increase their prices to maximize their short term profits. This was the case here as well. The leaders in the North, because they needed semi-skilled labor which is not condusive to slavery, started to fund the political movement to abolish slavery which, when gold was discovered in California and people had to travel through Missouri and actually see the way slaves were treated, became an uncontrollably emotional issue. The South found themselves now having to pay higher prices for goods they could not produce themselves, even though they had made those goods possible, and found their peculiar institution which was the basis of their own wealth attacked as being immoral.\n\nThe two sections of the country had found themselves growing farther apart, and the differences were becoming too stark for the Southern leaders to deal with. While they defended African slavery as moral and humanitarian, they lived in mortal fear of becoming slaves themselves. The Whig Party began to unravel, with those in the North going to the Republicans and the South going to the Democrats. With the very idea of slavery being called into question, the South demanded a concession in the Compromise of 1850 that they felt would force the whole country to recognize the institution of slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act. This completely backfired on the South, because now to the people in the North, slavery was no longer just some bad thing that was happening far far away that you could pretend was someone else's problem (like Darfur today). The new law now required Northern communities to arrest and hold captive black people in their local jails with their local police for no other reason than because someone in the South said the black person was a runaway slave (there was no hearing, and no evidence allowed other than the statement of
534956
I seriously suggest you choose the answer yourself.\n\nStill, I'll give a few possible choices for you to think through.\n\nThe Constitution\nFreedom of Speech\nRight to Assembly\nDemocratic voting\nDiscovering electricity or harnessing steam, etc.\n\nPlus, the Civil War, as mentioned in another person's answer
437119
The Union Reconstructed\n\nThe United States in April 1865, a time of crisis\n\n—Union faced a const. Crisis—what to do with 11 former confed. States?\n\nLincoln’s position—they were “out of their proper relation” with the US\n\nLincoln opponents maintained they were now conquered provinces.\n\n—Executive branch had assumed broad powers during the war.\n\n—Politically, Republicans supreme.\n\n—Opposition virtually nonexistent.\n\nPost-war economics\n\n—stark contrast between north and south.\n\n--South in ruins, physically and economically. plantations\nNational Reconstruction Politics\n\nPresidential Reconstruction\n\n5/29/1865 Johnson outlines two Reconstruction policies. Based on idea the South had never left the Union.\n1) Swear allegiance to the Const. And the Union. Would get amnesty and pardon and propertyrights back.\n\n2) Next proc. Set up way in which state govts. Could be reestablished. First, pres. Appointed a loyal governor. Then a state convention called of persons loyal to the union. Must ratify 13th amend. Void secession, repudiate confederate debt, elect new officials to congress.\nProblem-southern states send former confederates to congress.\n\nCongressional Reconstruction:\n—Split develops between C. and Pres.\n—14th Amendment\nWhy did Congress Amend the Constitution?\nSouthern attempts to regain economic and civil control\nBlack codes\nRacism, alive and well in north and south.\nCongressional Reconstruction Triumphant\n--at the end of the day it was clear president’s plan not working.\n1867---Congress outlines plan\nThe President Impeached\n—Congress restricted the presidents powers by passing the Tenure of Office Act\nBuilding an African-American community\n--FAMILY\n--Reunion\n--Privacy\n--SEPARATE CHURCHES\n--POLITICS\nEmancipation and the Nation\n1. Expanded Rights\n--1866 Civil Rights Act\n--14th Amendment, 1866\n2. Expanded Govt Power\n--Federal Level\n--Freedmen's Bureau\n--State level\nE. Retreat from Reform\n1. Southern Causes\n--Racial Violence\n--"Redemption"\n2. Northern Causes\n--Supreme Court\n--Panic of 1873\n--Election of 1876/Compromise of 1877
555760
The Virginia Plan was the compromise in which the House of Representatives was determined by population, while the Senators were two per state.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan\n\nSo the answer is House and Senate.
674658
The Ohio River.\n\nThe Compromise established a boundary between the slave states of the south and the free states of the north... This boundary became referred to as the Mason-Dixon line because it began in the east along the Mason-Dixon line and headed westward to the Ohio River and along the Ohio to its mouth at the Mississippi River and then west along 36° 30' North.\n\nhttp://ask.yahoo.com/20000829.html
23933
During the 1850s, the compromise over land had made the country divided. Not only was it due to slavery, it was the lack of state's rights (that differ from the federal government). President Andrew Jackson even argued with his Vice President that states do not have any reason to disband from the country and its rules after the states have signed the ultimate contract, the Declaration of Independence. The secession of South Carolina demonstrated the frustrations of state's rights and slavery disputes.\n\nIf you need to cite any failed compromises, the biggest one that could be used would be the Missouri Compromise. It was eventually considered as a failure once Dred-Scott jurisdiction contested with it.
139932
Kind of open ended there...which country etc.  Perhaps the great compromise refers to the compromise made between the large and small states at the time of the creation of the United States which gave each state 2 Senators to serve in the Senate and Representatives based on population to serve in the House of Representatives.  That way in one House of Congress every state had equal representation and in the other House of Congress states with larger populations had more representation.
985942
The Connecticut Compromise of 1787 in the United States, also known as the Great Compromise, was struck in the creation of legislative bodies. It joined the Virginia Plan, which favored representation based on population, and the New Jersey Plan, which featured each state being equal. Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, played a large role in constructing the compromise
709265
Ok homework question right?????c'mon dont lie.\nOk here it is in a nut shell,\nthe south and north were at odds with each other,some of this was on slavery but most of it was on the economical ideas on where Gov't should place the nations money and interests.\nThe north had more seats in congress at this time(per capita of how many voting persons per state there were living in them)since the north had more voting persons in them they held more congressional seats in the Gov't,while the sourthern part of the United States had fewer people(that could vote)in them giving them less representation in the senate and congress.So the the southerm states came up with an idea of using the number of slaves to get them more house seats but not representing them as a voting population(no rights etc)this was seen as an outrage by the north and the abolisionists in the northern states so the  resentments of north and south increased to a point of attack(Ft.Sumtner) in the south which was the start of the civil war.slavery only became an issue after the fact..but I believe this is what you should be skimming through in your history books and what your teacher is looking for