Ancestry and political attitudes

[All Along The Watchtower]

As to German ancestry (that is the only one I really dare to say something about), it night help to keep several things in mind:

1. Unlike in the UK and Sweden, where protestantism was decreed by royal order (Henry VIII, Gustav Wasa), German and Swiss protestants had to fight a 30 year war for their right for religious self-determination (and more indpendence from Emperor and Pope). The Dutch fight even lasted eighty years. That has surely instilled a 'republican' attitude (meant first of all in a non-partisan sense, i.e. covering issues like civil liberties, self-determination and -organisation, anti-authoritarism etc.) into the collective memory. On top of that, of course, you get Weber's famous 'protestant ethics' ('don't wait for god to decide your faith and reward you after death, take matters into your own hands, and god will prove his favour already while you are still on this earth'). Last but not least, with Catholic structures, especially Monastries, destroyed, the former's educational, social and charitable tasks had to be taken over by local governments & communities, bringing forward a different understanding of social responsibility, and the role of government.

2. Many, although by no means all protestant German immigrans into the USA had a middle-class background.  For once, virtual all Free Imperial Cities (self-ruled cities not subjunct to any Count, Duke or Bishop, but only to the Emperor) were predominantly protestant (often with a sizeable Jewish minority). Such Free Cities included many major cities such as Hamburg, Lübeck, Bremen, Magdeburg, Dortmund, Frankfurt/Main, Nuremberg, Strassburg, or Augsburg,  but also a lot of smaller towns especially in South-Western Germany (plus Alsace). There were a few catholic Free Cities (most notably Cologne and Aachen),  as well as several larger residential cities (Protestant: Hannover, Berlin, Brunswick, Kassel - Catholic: Munich, Stuttgart, - nominally Catholic but de-facto protestant: Dresden),  but essentially, I would estimate those who immigrated to the USA before the Industrial revolution  from German cities to be at least 75% protestant, maybe 15% Catholic and the remainder Jewish. I probably don't have to go into detail what urban background, and exposure to local self-government means in terms of political attitude.

3. While not fully congruent, the Catholic-Protestant border drawn after the War of Thirty Years in North-Western Germany roughly coincides with the border between traditional Roman and traditional Saxon inheritance laws. Under Saxon law, an agricultural estate (farm) is passed on to the oldest child (irrespectively of its gender), which in turn has to take care of the parents for their old age. The younger childs are compensated in kind (cattle) or cash, albeit at a reduced rate to make up for the eldest taking care of the parents. This has preserved a structure of comparatively large, wealthy farms in North-Western Germany, but at the same time fostered an emigration culture of the later-born, which was one of the driving forces behind the mideaval German Eastern Colonisation (e.g. West & East Prossia), Germans settling in Russia on the call of Catherine the Great, and, of course, immigration into the US. What we are talking about here are young people with strong agricultural (entrepreneurial) background, reasonably well-being and -educated (for their rural background), equipped with some start capital from their inheritance compensation, and aware of a century-old emigration tradition. I don't have any statistial data at hand, but anecdotal evidence leads me to guess that many of them ended up as dairy farmers in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin or the Dakotas (and quite a number saw their children continuing the migration tradition along the Oregon Trail). Oh- and before I forget - Saxon law was also about common land property (Almende'), and free access to forests for hunting (as it still exists in Sweden). After arriving in the USA, these people probably had little problem to self-identify themselves as WASP, and go with the (progressive wing of the) Republican party.

4. Things get a bit more complicated if you move further East (Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Brandenburg, East & West Prussia) - you could still find some of these medium-scale, free farmers there, but mostly the land was controlled by local low nobility, with the majority of the the rural population (a mix of germanised Slavonics and failed German colonists) subjunct to serfdom. On the other hand, the Prussian Kings attracted quite a number of Huguenots (french protestants) to the area - urban, well-educated, renowned for their handicraft skills; while the a good part of the Baltic coast was for most of the 17th and 18th century under Swedish control. So, a German Protestant from North-Eastern Germany may have been anything of the above, and you will really have to dig  deep into an individual setllement's / family history to find a connection between ancestry and political attitudes.

5. In contrast to Saxon inheritance law, under Roman law estates are equally split among all, or at least all male, children. Thus, in (predominantly Catholic) South-Western and South Germany, average farm sizes tended to get pretty small over the course of a few generations (unless there were major wars or epidemics to 'control' population growth). The rural population, while (as land owners) having less incentives for emigration, was forced to search for additional income sources outside agriculture, making them more industrous [The different terrain, more mountaineaous, i.e. better energy supply (wood, charcoal, water power) in comparison to Northern Germany, facilitated at the same time the development of pre-industrial processing activities}.  Thus, a typical Catholic German pre-WWI US immigrant would be much more likely than his Protestant counterpart to emigrate in order to escape poverty, arriving with hardly anything but his skills in the USA, and these skills might be more in blacksmithing or wheelwrighting than in agriculture. He would often also be less formally educated than a Protestant immigrant, maybe having undergone only some four years of church school training. In other words, he would be rather working-class than middle-class, and as such quite likely to be a staunch democrat (until when? Wilson entering WWI against Germany? Hoover/ Eisenhower, American Germans both becoming US Presidents on a Republican ticket? Post-Kennedy / Civil Rights party realignment in the US?).
 
6. Last but not least, there is the post WW-II "I married an american soldier" German immigration (2 friends of my parents, 1 friend of my parents-in-law), which, as I have been told, is not just an issue of the late 1940s, but has continued at least until the 1970s, as Army officers that had erved in Korea or Vietnam got to choose their foreign posts, and usually opted for Germany. Now, while there is probably little doubt about how retired US Army officers vote, their German-born wifes' vote may be more swingy ...

Don't know if this helped ..

Very informative post. Thanks!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In other words, he would be rather working-class than middle-class, and as such quite likely to be a staunch democrat (until when? Wilson entering WWI against Germany? Hoover/ Eisenhower, American Germans both becoming US Presidents on a Republican ticket? Post-Kennedy / Civil Rights party realignment in the US?).

The party realignment dodn't occur over civil rights, it wasn't until 1980 that the South became strongly Republican and not until 1992 that the Dems' current areas or strength started consistently voting that way.

[traininthedistance]

In other words, he would be rather working-class than middle-class, and as such quite likely to be a staunch democrat (until when? Wilson entering WWI against Germany? Hoover/ Eisenhower, American Germans both becoming US Presidents on a Republican ticket? Post-Kennedy / Civil Rights party realignment in the US?).

The party realignment dodn't occur over civil rights, it wasn't until 1980 that the South became strongly Republican and not until 1992 that the Dems' current areas or strength started consistently voting that way.

The South was Goldwater's best region in 1964, and it's almost impossible to argue that wasn't because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.  (Even if his opposition was more principled than your average Southerner's.)  At a presidential level, 1964 is in fact the signal turning point, with Carter being an aberration which can be attributed to his blatantly evangelical campaign.  Obviously, local elections were a lagging indicator, and took longer to switch.

It would be most accurate that the realignment took a very long time, as it started all the way back with Al Smith and took until the 1994 midterms to really resolve itself. 

[soniquemd21921]

1968 was an aberration, too, because of Wallace.

In New England, Republicans still do better at the local level than the presidential level. For example, in Vermont Randy Brock ran 7 points higher than Romney, and in Massachusetts Scott Brown did almost 10 points better than Romney.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In other words, he would be rather working-class than middle-class, and as such quite likely to be a staunch democrat (until when? Wilson entering WWI against Germany? Hoover/ Eisenhower, American Germans both becoming US Presidents on a Republican ticket? Post-Kennedy / Civil Rights party realignment in the US?).

The party realignment dodn't occur over civil rights, it wasn't until 1980 that the South became strongly Republican and not until 1992 that the Dems' current areas or strength started consistently voting that way.

The South was Goldwater's best region in 1964, and it's almost impossible to argue that wasn't because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.  (Even if his opposition was more principled than your average Southerner's.)  At a presidential level, 1964 is in fact the signal turning point, with Carter being an aberration which can be attributed to his blatantly evangelical campaign.  Obviously, local elections were a lagging indicator, and took longer to switch.

It would be most accurate that the realignment took a very long time, as it started all the way back with Al Smith and took until the 1994 midterms to really resolve itself. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson

Read this.  Goldwater may have done well in the South because of civil rights in that election (which is ironic because he was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP, was instrumental in integrating his family's department stores, and voted in favor of the 1957 and 1960 CRAs.)  But in 1968, Wallace split the Democratic vote over civil rights.  In all likelihood, the South would have flipped back to the Dems that year were it not for that (remember the "Yellow Dog" Democrats).  Nixon carried the South in 1972 the same way he carried nearly every other state: by portraying McGovern as a left-wing extremist (and don't give my any of this Southern strategy garbage: http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/)  And even when the real realignment took place in 1980, most of the closest states were in the South.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Oldiesfreak:

Please, please, please don't clog up this thread with your...um..usual stuff.

Thank you.

[traininthedistance]

WND and National Review?  Nice unbiased, intellectually honest sources you got there.

1980 had Carter at the top of the ticket (as well as John Anderson to slow the flight of moderate northerners to the Democratic Party, in a counterpoint to Wallace), and as I already mentioned, he ran the most Southern and evangelical candidacy probably ever.  Any other Dem candidate, and the patterns would likely have emerged eight years sooner- and they already had started emerging in the Northeast, he mainly just held onto the South at the expense of not taking the West Coast.

And, of course, the Southern Strategy is undisputed fact.

[Franknburger]

In other words, he would be rather working-class than middle-class, and as such quite likely to be a staunch democrat (until when? Wilson entering WWI against Germany? Hoover/ Eisenhower, American Germans both becoming US Presidents on a Republican ticket? Post-Kennedy / Civil Rights party realignment in the US?).

The party realignment dodn't occur over civil rights, it wasn't until 1980 that the South became strongly Republican and not until 1992 that the Dems' current areas or strength started consistently voting that way.

It would be most accurate that the realignment took a very long time, as it started all the way back with Al Smith and took until the 1994 midterms to really resolve itself.  

Interesting - I was not aware of Al Smith, but after reading the Wikipedia article on him, I can imagine that, with his opposition to the "New deal",  he might have been quite instrumental in gradually turning away small-town / rural catholics outside the Deep South (and these would have mostly been of German, Polish or Irish ancestry) away from the democrats.

Looking at past election results, it appears that German Catholics started voting Republican long before other Catholic groups did, and were not as lopsidedly Democratic as other Catholics were (like in New England, where Catholic support for Democrats was in the 80-90 percent range). JFK's percentage of the vote in German Catholic counties was below Al Smith's percentage in those counties (Stearns, Minnesota was 71% Smith but 58% Kennedy, for example).

I can imagine quite different voting patterns for Catholic German vs. Irish vs. Italian ancestry, as well as Kennedy surely having a different appeal to Irish Americans than to Catholic German Americans (especially when running against a half-German American, as was Nixon - from his mother's side) Those ancestrial differences of course become apparent when comparing the Non-Latino Catholic vote in New England or upstate New York to, say, Western Ohio, Indiana, Illinois or Missouri.

What is not that clear to me -  and difficult to figure out statistically, since settlement areas often cluster together - is whether there is substantial difference between ancestral German Catholic, Czech Catholic and Polish Catholic voting. I would tend to believe that these ancestral groups are more synchronised, if alone for the fact that when immigration took place, many of them might have more identified themselves as Silesian or Bohemian than as German, Polish or Czech.

[traininthedistance]

In other words, he would be rather working-class than middle-class, and as such quite likely to be a staunch democrat (until when? Wilson entering WWI against Germany? Hoover/ Eisenhower, American Germans both becoming US Presidents on a Republican ticket? Post-Kennedy / Civil Rights party realignment in the US?).

The party realignment dodn't occur over civil rights, it wasn't until 1980 that the South became strongly Republican and not until 1992 that the Dems' current areas or strength started consistently voting that way.

It would be most accurate that the realignment took a very long time, as it started all the way back with Al Smith and took until the 1994 midterms to really resolve itself.  

Interesting - I was not aware of Al Smith, but after reading the Wikipedia article on him, I can imagine that, with his opposition to the "New deal",  he might have been quite instrumental in gradually turning away small-town / rural catholics outside the Deep South (and these would have mostly been of German, Polish or Irish ancestry) away from the democrats.

Al Smith's opposition to the New Deal was less a matter of ideology and more a personal beef with FDR.  He felt slighted that he didn't get the nomination in 1932, and that FDR snubbed him after the election.  So he became embittered afterwards- with reasonable cause, but unreasonable results.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

WND and National Review?  Nice unbiased, intellectually honest sources you got there.

1980 had Carter at the top of the ticket (as well as John Anderson to slow the flight of moderate northerners to the Democratic Party, in a counterpoint to Wallace), and as I already mentioned, he ran the most Southern and evangelical candidacy probably ever.  Any other Dem candidate, and the patterns would likely have emerged eight years sooner- and they already had started emerging in the Northeast, he mainly just held onto the South at the expense of not taking the West Coast.

And, of course, the Southern Strategy is undisputed fact.

No, it's not.  Nixon trying to pander to racists with Wallace in the race would be like a Republican presidential canidate campaigning in California or a Democrat in Texas today.  The Southern strategy was about winning the pro-civil rights moderates who had moved to the South after WWII as a protest against the segregationist Democrats.

[soniquemd21921]

And middle-class and urban southerners were already beginning to move away the Democratic Party as early as the 1940's, as the increase in GOP presidential percentages in major urban southern counties illustrates:

Fulton County (Atlanta) - 16% in 1940, 17% in 1944, 29% in 1948, 40% in 1952
Dallas County - 25% in 1940, 26% in 1944, 38% in 1948, 63% in 1952
Harris County (Houston) - 22% in 1940, 14% in 1944, 35% in 1948, 58% in 1952
Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) - 20% in 1940, 27% in 1944, 35% in 1948, 57% in 1952
Duval County (Jacksonville) - 18% in 1940, 25% in 1944, 26% in 1948, 48% in 1952
Shelby County (Memphis) - 11% in 1940, 18% in 1944, 22% in 1948, 48% in 1952

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

WND and National Review?  Nice unbiased, intellectually honest sources you got there.

1980 had Carter at the top of the ticket (as well as John Anderson to slow the flight of moderate northerners to the Democratic Party, in a counterpoint to Wallace), and as I already mentioned, he ran the most Southern and evangelical candidacy probably ever.  Any other Dem candidate, and the patterns would likely have emerged eight years sooner- and they already had started emerging in the Northeast, he mainly just held onto the South at the expense of not taking the West Coast.

And, of course, the Southern Strategy is undisputed fact.

No, it's not.  Nixon trying to pander to racists with Wallace in the race would be like a Republican presidential canidate campaigning in California or a Democrat in Texas today.  The Southern strategy was about winning the pro-civil rights moderates who had moved to the South after WWII as a protest against the segregationist Democrats.

*sigh* To actually believe this is some pretty insane cognitive dissonance.

This is the 1968 election map:



Now do you see the three light blue states in the south? Those are all states where Wallace came in second, but Nixon still won. And South Carolina had a prominent Republican politician and staunch Nixon supporter: Strom Thurmond! Great example of a pro-civil rights moderate right there who switched parties in protest of the segregationist Democrats.

Also this is exactly now Nixon's political strategist described the Southern Strategy:

You must be logged in to read this quote.