What turned southerners into republicans and northerners into democrats?
first let me say im not really political and english isnt really my first language so if i say something off the wall or that doesnt make sense tell me because i might not fully understand this whole political spectrum. lol I always hear that people blame democrats for being racist because it was the southerners who were democrats in the past. but times have changed, and so many southerners are the conservative republicans and the northerners are typically more liberal and democrat. Almost everyone i know here in SC is conservative republican. The VALUES of the people in the local area are the same values, but the it's just the political parties that switched. This means it's just silly that people can judge today's democrats based on democrats in the slavery times, because the meaning of democrat and republican was different to people back then. Back then, it was typically the dems that were racist, because being dem was a different meaning to people, but now for some reason it's the dems who are known for being open minded and understanding of everyone and not focusing soo much on religion. I'm not really political person but I don't get this on why southerners are now rep and northerners are now dem???? and why change the parties around if you still have the same values, and then blame people, when the meaning is changed in people's mind??
Was Abraham Lincoln a Democrat or Republican?
His views evolved. Having known poverty and hard physical labor as a boy, he chose as his career the law, both more lucrative and less physically demanding. Since one of his clients was the Illinois Central Railroad, it's tempting to surmise that today he'd be an insurance defense lawyer, a traditionally Republican field because of its ties to big corporations. In choosing as his wife Mary Todd, from a socially prominent family, he married up; but Mary would not have married him had she not regarded him as a good catch. She didn't anticipate ever living in a log cabin with him, and she never did. He joined the Whig Party upon his entry into politics but switched to the Republican Party over the issue of slavery. He favored emancipation but apparently never came around to a belief in racial equality. Foreseeing the era of Jim Crow, he thought it was in the freed slaves' best interest to be resettled in Africa. Lincoln said that at the start of the Civil War, his goal was preservation of the Union. Emancipation was only a means to that end, perhaps not even the only or the best means. When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he didn't expect that it would free any slaves, because it applied only to the states that had already seceded, which obviously no longer recognized Lincoln as their president. The proclamation's purpose was to keep Great Britain from join the war as an ally of the Confederate States. Britain was a major customer for Southern cotton, but by spinning the war as a crusade to end slavery, Lincoln succeeded in mobilizing British public opinion against an alliance with a slave-holding nation. By the end of the war, Lincoln had decided that abolishing slavery was as important a goal as preservation of the Union and abandoned the idea of sending the freed slaves to Africa. He did not intend to be vindictive toward the South, hence the phrase "with malice toward none, with charity for all" in his second inaugural address. Today he probably would be a Republican who, having become disgusted with his party's extremism, would switch and join the Democratic Party. But he would probably be more of a Blue Dog, not a member of the Sanders-Warren wing.
At one time, Republicans were liberal and Democrats were conservative; when did this reverse?
Basically it began to start in the decades after the Civil War and the parties came to the way they today in the 1960s (some say the 1980s, but i would disagree) The Democratic party was a Southern party, made so by the actions of the Republicans (Abe Lincoln) during and after the civil war. After the civil war, blacks moved north in large numbers to escape the jim crow south. When they got there they encounter an industrialized economy. In the north the democratic party started to take up issues that had to do with labor (think unions and regulation to make work places safe..that type of thing) The Democratic party became something altogether different in the north while Democrats in the South remained largely unchanged. Politicians, even FDR, knew that this was a problem because they wanted to be elected to national office...which meant not pushing race issues too hard for fear of loosing democratic votes in the south. Fast forward to the 1960s. Civil rights is a heavy issue made so my LBJ who decideds that he is going to make the civil rights a central issue in his campaign in 1964. LBJ basically cut of the South (so to speak) from the Democratic party when he championed that civil rights cause. He made it clear that the Democratic party was in favor of unions, working men/women, and minorities (and other novel Dem. causes). A conservative Republican from Arizona, Barry Goldwater, voted against the civil rights bill. The actions of LBJ let Southern Dems know that the Dem. party was no longer that place for them...and Goldwater's actions let Southerners know that the Republican party was the party that was going to the party for them. There are a TON of wholes in what i have just said...but these are the high points. A simple answer to your question would be simply, The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, but that would have been a little confusing without some history. And certainly there is more to it then just Civil Rights...but this is the basic, big picture of how the parties became what they are today
What's the difference between Democrat and Republican?
i would like to know
What do Republicans and Democrats believe in?
Republicans think, and Democrats feel. Democrats feel the government is the answer, Republicans think the government is the problem. Democrats trust big government, Republicans trust big business. Democrats feel, it is ok to kill an innocent fetus, and let a convicted murderer live. Republicans think it is ok to kill a convicted murderer, and let an innocent fetus live. Democrats feel the answer to any problem is to raise taxes. Republicans think the answer to any problem is to cut taxes. Democrats hate the rich, Republicans want to be rich. Democrats hate guns, Republicans like guns. Democrats feel global warming is more of a threat then terrorism. Republicans think terrorism is more of a threat then global warming. Democrats feel the USA is occupying Iraq, Republicans think the USA is liberating Iraq.
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today, would he be a member of the modern Republican Party?
Most of the issues then are different from issues now. However, one that is still around is states' rights vs. federal rights. Lincoln was in the latter group - like the Democrats today. Another issue is suffrage - Lincoln was for expansion of suffrage, like the Democrats. And he was for a less interventionist military strategy abroad (re the Mexican American war) - again like the Democrats. Another hint is demography. The states that were in the Confederacy are mostly Republican now. And Lincoln's home state of Illinois is mostly Democratic.Conclusion: Although one can't say for sure, Lincoln is more like modern Democrats than modern Republicans.
Can anyone think of a nickname for the Democratic party?
Did you hear this on Hardball on Friday? OMP - Open Minded People's Party
Did any liberal/democrat actually take US History?
I am a libertarian, I minored in History as an undergrad. I hated the fact that all, not most, but all, of my professors where biased liberals; and I felt that they mostly taught a one-sided view of history. Without reading non-sanctioned supplementary material, one could easily fall into the trap of believing only the facts presented by the esteemed professors. So, I don't think that liberals "slept" through history class, well may be some of the women, pun intended. They just choose to examine only facts that support their viewpoints. For everyone who claims to have 165 or 170 IQs. Don't forget Sharon Stone supposedly has an IQ of 154, and one of the most brilliant Physicists of the 20th Century, Richard Feynman, had an IQ of 125. I seriously doubt Sharon Stone is more intelligent than Feynman. I don't think Sharon Stone would have much luck developing a unified field theory. By the way, I wonder how many of the super geniuses even know who Richard Feynman was. Anyway, I would love to debate Joe Prosnick on any historical topic.