Please explain the change of american politics(Republican party)

[torongill]

During one of my random wikipedia sprees, I came across the following: The republican party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-FreeSoilers.
After the civil war a lot of White republicans were lynched in the South.

Can someone tell me how did that happen? How come the party that opposed slavery and was all about free men receives an apparently insignifficant percentage of the African-American vote? How come that the conservative South became republican, when the Republican party was founded in the northeastern states and drew its power from the Northeast and the Midwest? Thanks in advance for your thoughts and comments.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

There was a long thread about this, many good posts, search for "The History of American Conservatism" or something like that.

During one of my random wikipedia sprees, I came across the following: The republican party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-FreeSoilers.
After the civil war a lot of White republicans were lynched in the South.

Can someone tell me how did that happen? How come the party that opposed slavery and was all about free men receives an apparently insignifficant percentage of the African-American vote?.

Post-Civil War, freed slaves of course voted Republican....when they actually were able to vote, that is.

The switch from Black Americans from the Republican to the Democratic party happened mostly during the 1930's, during the New Deal. African-Americans by that time felt that their debt to the party of Lincoln had run its course, as after Teddy Roosevelt (some would argue, after Reconstruction ended in 1877, even) Republicans had given them very little open political support. By the early 1960's African American support for Republicans was pretty much at its present level (nil).

How come that the conservative South became republican, when the Republican party was founded in the northeastern states and drew its power from the Northeast and the Midwest? Thanks in advance for your thoughts and comments

The solidly Democratic South really swung Republican starting in 1968. Nixon's southern strategy was mostly responsible for this. At the time, many white southerners were at odds with the Democratic party. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson were all very much for the Civil Rights movement (their personal opinions varied widely, but their policies were), to the distaste of many pro-segregationist southern Democrats.

In 1947 Strom Thurmond started a pro-segregationist third party called the "State's Rights" party to challenge Harry Truman. In 1968 George Wallace also had a similar party called the American Independents, which won several "deep south states", like Alabama, Georgia, etc.

Nixon's southern strategy was a machievellian move to convince pro-segregationist southerners to vote Republican, and it was very sucessful. Nixon carried all the southern states that George Wallace did not win. While in some respects Nixon would not look like a conservative today, the conservative takeover of the Republican party had begun in the early 60's with Barry Goldwater, and continued on...

For some time, many northeastern states could really go either way in presidental elections, but as time progressed they became solidly Democratic. In 1976, most southern states temporarily bucked the trend by voting for Jimmy Carter. But with that one exception, the south has very much been a Republican stronghold since.

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

A pretty solid-post by Xanthippus. I would add that the Republicans were not what you would call "Liberal" or "Progressive" even in the 19th century. When it was founded, they were seen as a "Workingman's" party, and a white workingman's party at that - rather like certain of the Nationalist parties of modern Europe.

They opposed slavery not because they gave a flying **** about black people, but because they thought slavery was unfair competition for the white worker, and depressed wages. The Republican party was overwhelmingly Nativist, and wanted to deport the slaves after they freed them, as well as deporting the Germans, Dutch and Irish.

It was mostly the death of Lincoln that allowed a moderation of this message - if he had lived it is possible he would have pursued resettlement programs to send the slaves back to Africa, which was one of his campaign promises. After his death, reconstruction was pursued as a punishment of the South. There was no greater injustice in southern eyes than being subjected to black rule, which was it self mostly just a sideshow while the northern carpetbaggers stole everything that wasn't nailed down.

When Rutherford B. Hayes rigged the election, the south threatened to rebel and start "Civil War II", so he happily cut the black regime in the south loose and withdrew Union troops in exchange for being allowed to peacefully assume the presidency.

[Salem1]

The Republican party was overwhelmingly Nativist, and wanted to deport the slaves after they freed them, as well as deporting the Germans, Dutch and Irish.

Seriously? this would truly depopulate USA

[removeduser_4536284751384]

A pretty solid-post by Xanthippus. I would add that the Republicans were not what you would call "Liberal" or "Progressive" even in the 19th century. When it was founded, they were seen as a "Workingman's" party, and a white workingman's party at that - rather like certain of the Nationalist parties of modern Europe.

They opposed slavery not because they gave a flying **** about black people, but because they thought slavery was unfair competition for the white worker, and depressed wages. The Republican party was overwhelmingly Nativist, and wanted to deport the slaves after they freed them, as well as deporting the Germans, Dutch and Irish.

It was mostly the death of Lincoln that allowed a moderation of this message - if he had lived it is possible he would have pursued resettlement programs to send the slaves back to Africa, which was one of his campaign promises. After his death, reconstruction was pursued as a punishment of the South. There was no greater injustice in southern eyes than being subjected to black rule, which was it self mostly just a sideshow while the northern carpetbaggers stole everything that wasn't nailed down.

When Rutherford B. Hayes rigged the election, the south threatened to rebel and start "Civil War II", so he happily cut the black regime in the south loose and withdrew Union troops in exchange for being allowed to peacefully assume the presidency.

this is made up propaganda

[Admiral Piett]

this is made up propaganda

There are some pretty good points in his post. Republicans were not pro-equality with blacks. Only the radical Republicans, which Lincoln wasn't.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

There are some pretty good points in his post. Republicans were not pro-equality with blacks. Only the radical Republicans, which Lincoln wasn't.

yes I've read that ting lincoln wrote about blacks being "inferior" but that they should still be allowed liberty

but both US parties have a huge spectrum of views.

[Phier]

And yet it was the Republicans who forced integration.

Someones history is lacking.

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

And yet it was the Republicans who forced integration.

Kennedy and Johnson did more than Eisenhower, and all but Johnson did so reluctantly - and I don't think what any of them did was the most effective or the best move, although Ike's and Kennedy's moves were more understandable as they were spurred by events beyond their control. Johnson just did it as a political stunt.

Someones history is lacking.

Not mine. I didn't argue that the Republicans remained what they were when they were founded. They sort of floated around aimlessly between the eras of Rutherford B. Hayes and Richard Nixon, united by nothing but a support of Big Business until they eventually settled into the role of social and fiscal conservatives which the Democrats gleefully abdicated over the course of the 20th century.

The Republicans mostly stopped being a "workingman's party" by the time of Hayes, but the lingering elements of this ideology still expressed themselves in Progressivism and other bursts of working-class populism predating the New Deal. The support of Big Business is the only plank in the party's platform that has not changed since the 19th century.

[Sphere]

- if he had lived it is possible he would have pursued resettlement programs to send the slaves back to Africa,

I think that is rather debatable, especially given his last public speech in which citizenship for blacks was hinted at.

And yet it was the Republicans who forced integration.

Eisenhower (R) should be commended for his actions after the 1954 Supreme court decision on school segregation (as well as Trumans integration of the armed forces in 1948). However, the "southern strategy" of Nixon after LBJ's Civil Rights Bills was essentially welcoming the southern segregationists into the Republican party with open arms, instead of letting them wither into obscurity as a small regional party.

[Phier]

Eisenhower (R) should be commended for his actions after the 1954 Supreme court decision on school segregation (as well as Trumans integration of the armed forces in 1948). However, the "southern strategy" of Nixon after LBJ's Civil Rights Bills was essentially welcoming the southern segregationists into the Republican party with open arms, instead of letting them wither into obscurity as a small regional party.

In 1970, seven states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina—continued to enforce the dual school system. This was in clear defiance of the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which declared dual school systems to be unconstitutional. It was also in defiance of a 1969 Supreme Court decision ordering an end to further delay.

The whole subject was intensely controversial. Argument was superheated. Tensions were mounting. In March 1970, President Richard Nixon decided to take action. He declared Brown to be “right in both constitutional and human terms” and expressed his intention to enforce the law and to carry out the Supreme Court’s mandate. He also put in place a process to carry out the Court’s mandate.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3058541.html

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3058541.html

True story, but your source says a lot about the intent.

Republicans have never stopped trying to talk up Nixon's achievements because today, they owe so much to his legacy, for better or worse. Sure Nixon has a few accomplishments. Relations with China, SALT I, presiding over integration of schools. But his many flaws (no need to restate them here) draw him down as one of the worst presidents of all time.

Only about 5% of African Americans voted for Nixon (1968 NBC poll). If that doesn't go to show how much the Republicans had alienated black voters by this time, I don't know what does.

However when it comes to Republicans and integration...I will give it up for Ike among some others.

I would add that the Republicans were not what you would call "Liberal" or "Progressive" even in the 19th century. When it was founded, they were seen as a "Workingman's" party, and a white workingman's party at that - rather like certain of the Nationalist parties of modern Europe.

I would say that the Republicans were a Liberal party, albeit a Classical Liberal party in a 19th century sense.

They opposed slavery not because they gave a flying **** about black people, but because they thought slavery was unfair competition for the white worker, and depressed wages. The Republican party was overwhelmingly Nativist, and wanted to deport the slaves after they freed them, as well as deporting the Germans, Dutch and Irish.

Really, the Republicans were a coalition.

John C. Fremont ran for president in 1856 with the slogan "Free soil, Free Land, Free Men...Fremont".

The platforms of the early Republican party are right there. Westward expansion, opportunity for the growing middle class, and opposition to slavery.

To an extent you are right about the nativism, but there were many huge abolitionists in the party too. They were far and away the most dominant part of the party. But as you say their motives varied person to person. There were plenty of people who were aganist slavery not because they thought it was morally wrong...but for economic reasons. There were also many with deep religious or moral convictions that led them to be against slavery.

Although the party was mainly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant (reflective of mid 19th century America), the early Republicans didn't have anything aganist any white ethnic group in praticular. There were many German abolitionist Republicans, who took this very seriously...serfdom having just ended in the last few areas in Austria/some German states by 1848. The Dutch were by and large old stock Americans even then. While the Irish mostly voted Democratic in the North, there were Irish Republicans too.

It was mostly the death of Lincoln that allowed a moderation of this message - if he had lived it is possible he would have pursued resettlement programs to send the slaves back to Africa, which was one of his campaign promises. After his death, reconstruction was pursued as a punishment of the South. There was no greater injustice in southern eyes than being subjected to black rule, which was it self mostly just a sideshow while the northern carpetbaggers stole everything that wasn't nailed down

I don't think this would have happened. By the Civil War, the experiment in Liberia had largely ended.

On Reconstruction...I don't buy into the Dunning School, nor do pretty much any American Historians anymore. The Reconstruction administrations were hardly "black rule"...although the ex-Confederates would have probably called it that. All the Republican southern administrations post-war still had majority white legislatures, including pro-Unionist southerners and the so called "carpetbaggers", who actually largely came to stay in the south. What made the southerners cringe is that there were many black politicans as well. Plus, black Federal troops were a common sight.

[Azog 150]

I had no idea that the American South was once a Democrat stronghold and that Republicans led the way in terms of equality and integration. You learn something new every day.

[Admiral Piett]

I had no idea that the American South was once a Democrat stronghold and that Republicans led the way in terms of equality and integration. You learn something new every day.

The Democratic Party's ideological background was states' rights, strict constitutionalism, agrarianism, and suspicion of monied interests. Totally clashed with its new found image in the 60s revival under Kennedy/Johnson.

[Jabberwock]

When it was founded, they were seen as a "Workingman's" party, and a white workingman's party at that - rather like certain of the Nationalist parties of modern Europe.

Source?

They opposed slavery not because they gave a flying **** about black people, but because they thought slavery was unfair competition for the white worker, and depressed wages. The Republican party was overwhelmingly Nativist, and wanted to deport the slaves after they freed them, as well as deporting the Germans, Dutch and Irish.

Source?

I think you're confused with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Republican_Party They are not the same as the GOP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing_Party

[Jenuensis]

Civil Rights during the 60's.

LBJ

[Sphere]

Kevin Phillips, Nixon's political strategist for the 1968 election....

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

This is how the odd mix of the agrarian south and big business interests got intertwined into the modern Republican party.

[Big War Bird]

One thing certainly hasn't changed. Republicans are still on the side of free labor, democrats are still on the side of unfree labor.