Why did the South switch parties?

[Senator-elect Spark]

[RFayette]

A few big factors:
1. After World War 2, the South got considerably wealthier, and as such, many people who used to vote Democratic on economic issues no longer felt compelled to.
2. In 1964, a Democratic President (LBJ) pushed through a civil rights law, which alienated many white Southerners; after this, white Southerners voted Republican in every Presidential election, including 1976 (in which black voters allowed Carter to carry many Southern states despite losing whites quite handily, especially in MS/AL).
3. Nixon/Reagan helped push Southerners into the GOP fold with a message of a strong military, tough-on-crime stances, and "states' rights" (which could mean many different things).

[RINO Tom]

What a stale topic.

Answer is for about a trillion reasons, and different White Southerners became Republicans at different times for different reasons.

[Ebsy]

To make it simple for the small brains on this site: it was the blacks, you see.

[smoltchanov]

To make it simple for the small brains on this site: it was the blacks, you see.

CORRECT answer. But not FULL answer...

[RINO Tom]

To make it simple for the small brains on this site: it was the blacks, you see.

Well, your answer sure is simple.  Too bad the topic is more interesting than that.

[Torie]

The single most salient reason, after some urban areas in the South like Dallas started voting for the GOP, is that when blacks began to be allowed to vote, the "Tory" Democrats could no longer control the Dem primary results in the South, and thus over time decamped to the Pubs.

[smoltchanov]

The single most salient reason, after some urban areas in the South like Dallas started voting for the GOP, is that when blacks began to be allowed to vote, the "Tory" Democrats could no longer control the Dem primary results in the South, and thus over time decamped to the Pubs.

And that too. May be it's really THE most important reason. But, surely, not a SINGLE reason..

[TDAS04]

What Torie said.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Basically, it was a combination of white backlash against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, increased levels of income and wealth, a corresponding increase in the population of metropolitan areas at the expense of rural areas (with Northern white conservative migrants making a fairly significant contribution here), the  transformation of white racial attitudes from being openly racist to being more "colorblind" in light of whites believing that civil rights issues had basically been "solved" and thus, whites being opposed to the expansion of civil rights protections against de facto segregation and inequality (as opposed to de jure segregation and inequality), the decline of the white populism of  the downtrodden in favor of the white populism of the upwardly mobile middle class and aspiring middle class, the rise of the Religious Right - which made the white evangelical Protestants who dominated Southern culture a political force to be reckoned with -, generational replacement (how many Southern whites who are alive today remember the New Deal? lol), and finally - as Torie alluded to - the Voting Rights Act precipitating the collapse of the white Democratic machines that had made the South effectively a one-party region (with their collapse creating an actual two-party system in the South in which black voters were increasingly influential within the region's Democratic Party).

[NerdyBohemian]

There were already cracks in the "Solid South" as early as 1928. The Great Depression and the ensuing large scale public works and investment in the South prevented it from happening sooner.

[RINO Tom]

There were already cracks in the "Solid South" as early as 1928. The Great Depression and the ensuing large scale public works and investment in the South prevented it from happening sooner.

Yep.  Democratic loyalty in the South ORIGINALLY mostly formed out of two things, IMO: 1) the Democrats seeming to be less in favor of civil rights legislation than their opposition and 2) agrarian populism (New Deal populism obviously reeled it right back in for a while).  As the South got less and less agrarian, it got more and more Republican (evidenced by the suburbs turning Republican well before any CRA or VRA backlash and the rural parts of the South staying loyal to Democrats longer, like Carter in 1980).  As the Republicans became less and less associated with civil rights (i.e., the line between the national parties' stances on those issues more or less disappeared), it practically doubled the trend.

[NerdyBohemian]

^^^ Yes. Despite considering myself to be a progressive Democrat I hate that historical myth that the South suddenly became Republican in 1964 after the Civil Rights Act so we can feel better about ourselves. It was long and drawn out and could be seen before that. Hell in some cases today there is STILL support for local Democrats in very rural areas in the South. I think Alabama has a lot of white sheriffs in rural areas that are Democrats.

[DINGO Joe]

There were three parts to the South, aristocratic whites, poor whites, and blacks.  Who got to vote and when varied widely from state to state in the South as many poor whites were excluded from voting too.  It's striking to look at 1960 voting and realize than WV out voted Virginia despite the latter having a white population of 3.2 million while WV had a total population of 1.9 million. 

Of course, the aristocrats biggest nightmare would have been the poor whites and blacks voting in concert against them, and the aristocrats worked very hard to make sure that never happened.

[smoltchanov]

Basically, it was a combination of white backlash against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, increased levels of income and wealth, a corresponding increase in the population of metropolitan areas at the expense of rural areas (with Northern white conservative migrants making a fairly significant contribution here), the  transformation of white racial attitudes from being openly racist to being more "colorblind" in light of whites believing that civil rights issues had basically been "solved" and thus, whites being opposed to the expansion of civil rights protections against de facto segregation and inequality (as opposed to de jure segregation and inequality), the decline of the white populism of  the downtrodden in favor of the white populism of the upwardly mobile middle class and aspiring middle class, the rise of the Religious Right - which made the white evangelical Protestants who dominated Southern culture a political force to be reckoned with -, generational replacement (how many Southern whites who are alive today remember the New Deal? lol), and finally - as Torie alluded to - the Voting Rights Act precipitating the collapse of the white Democratic machines that had made the South effectively a one-party region (with their collapse creating an actual two-party system in the South in which black voters were increasingly influential within the region's Democratic Party).

And THIS (IMHO) is at least close to complete explanation....

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here's my recommendation.

[RINO Tom]

Here's my recommendation.

https://www.amazon.com/Republicans-Race-Relationship-Americans-1945-1974/dp/0700619380

^ Infinitely superior and more in-depth read.  Shatters the myth that the GOP functionally changed in terms of racial philosophy from the days of Lincoln to the days of Reagan, which is EXACTLY why it lost the Black vote.  The GOP always believed that if you just removed institutional barriers for Black Americans and allowed them the opportunity to flourish in the free market, they'd succeed, and that stance went from being considered very pro-civil rights in the days of slavery to ridiculously naive and outdated by the mid-20th Century.  It often quotes Black leaders saying they preferred the "devil they knew" (the Democrats).  If Northern Democrats are offering housing assistance, busing and VERY aggressive civil rights legislation (not to mention an economic agenda Blacks agreed with), and Republicans are out bragging about stuff they did during Reconstruction, warning that a vote for your Northern Democrat is a vote to give Southern Democrats more committee power and supporting the most basic civil rights legislation possible ("yes, we agree, the poll tax is wrong!"), why would Blacks vote GOP other than some sentimental attachment to the Party of Lincoln?

P.S.  Another super interesting anecdote from that book was that Republicans would actually aggressively initiate civil rights legislation and unanimously support it, as long as it pretty much exclusively affected Dixie (where none of its constituents were).  Once being "pro-civil rights" meant supporting busing Black kids in the North into affluent White neighborhoods (GOP Representatives had a near lock on the suburban North), notice how the party's image changed...

[Lothal1]

In 3 major waves:
1: The base Republicans already in the south in Tennessee, Kentucky, and other states helped switch their states.
2: Sunbelt cities and suburbs in the South became filled with northerners who voted Republican. this turned Florida, Virginia, and Texas into Republican locks.
3: Southern Strategy wins over the rural areas, turning dark blue into dark red.

[Kingpoleon]

The Republicans switched platforms.

[smoltchanov]

The Republicans switched platforms.

Democrats switched more. During FDR time there was almost no mentioning of Black's civil rights in Democratic platform. Of course, Roosevelt's programs helped a lot of Blacks, and he himself was, undobtlely, pro-civil rights, but, as cinically this may sound, he had other (also most important) problems, which needed to be taken care of, and he needed rather solid (and even that began to decrease to the end of his term) southern support for that. Contrast  with strong (especially - by THAT time standards) Democratic civil rights platform of 1948 is VERY clear. Before 1948 few southern Democrats thought about "alternatives" (Texas "Regulars" come to mind immediately, and, yes, there was anti-Catholic Smith backlash even in 1928, but these were isolated cases), but since 1948 search for "alternatives", and gradual understanding that "Democratic party is irrevocably changed", settles in mind of white Southern elites... And long process, mostly (some conservative white counties are STILL conservative Democratic on local level) completed by now, began..

[RINO Tom]

The Republicans switched platforms.

Democrats switched more. During FDR time there was almost no mentioning of Black's civil rights in Democratic platform. Of course, Roosevelt's programs helped a lot of Blacks, and he himself was, undobtlely, pro-civil rights, but, as cinically this may sound, he had other (also most important) problems, which needed to be taken care of, and he needed rather solid (and even that began to decrease to the end of his term) southern support for that. Contrast  with strong (especially - by THAT time standards) Democratic civil rights platform of 1948 is VERY clear. Before 1948 few southern Democrats thought about "alternatives" (Texas "Regulars" come to mind immediately, and, yes, there was anti-Catholic Smith backlash even in 1928, but these were isolated cases), but since 1948 search for "alternatives", and gradual understanding that "Democratic party is irrevocably changed", settles in mind of white Southern elites... And long process, mostly (some conservative white counties are STILL conservative Democratic on local level) completed by now, began..

LOL, I think he posted that as a joke.

At least I hope, I've never taken him as stupid before!

[Kingpoleon]

The Republicans switched platforms.

Democrats switched more. During FDR time there was almost no mentioning of Black's civil rights in Democratic platform. Of course, Roosevelt's programs helped a lot of Blacks, and he himself was, undobtlely, pro-civil rights, but, as cinically this may sound, he had other (also most important) problems, which needed to be taken care of, and he needed rather solid (and even that began to decrease to the end of his term) southern support for that. Contrast  with strong (especially - by THAT time standards) Democratic civil rights platform of 1948 is VERY clear. Before 1948 few southern Democrats thought about "alternatives" (Texas "Regulars" come to mind immediately, and, yes, there was anti-Catholic Smith backlash even in 1928, but these were isolated cases), but since 1948 search for "alternatives", and gradual understanding that "Democratic party is irrevocably changed", settles in mind of white Southern elites... And long process, mostly (some conservative white counties are STILL conservative Democratic on local level) completed by now, began..

LOL, I think he posted that as a joke.

At least I hope, I've never taken him as stupid before!

Thanks?

[hopper]

Its not as simple as a Black/White thing I don't think. After the 1994 Republican Revolution some Conservative Dems in the US House felt more in line with Republicans on fiscal issues I guess. Many Southern State Legislatures didn't switch over to Republican Control till the Y2era as the Virginia State Legislature was the first Southern State to switch over to complete Republican Control in 2000. The State Senate was in Spilt Control in 1996-1997 as the 2 parties agreed to  "Power Sharing Control" as the Dems retained a slim majority in the" House Of Delegates" 52D-47R, and 1I. In 1998-1999 the Republicans gained control of the State Senate and the 2 parties were tied in "The House of Delegates" 50D-49R, and 1I but the Dems retained the Speakership through another "Power Sharing Agreement".

It is fact that alot of White Evangelicals switched over to Reagan in 1980 after supporting Carter in 1976. They felt Carter was a failure.

[hopper]

.
2. In 1964, a Democratic President (LBJ) pushed through a civil rights law, which alienated many white Southerners; after this, white Southerners voted Republican in every Presidential election, including 1976 (in which black voters allowed Carter to carry many Southern states despite losing whites quite handily, especially in MS/AL).

Yeah but Carter only lost Whites to Ford by a 5 point margin(52-47%) and Ford did win 16% of the Black Vote which is a pretty high % of the Black Vote nationally for a Republican after 1964-present day.

[TDAS04]

Here's my recommendation.

https://www.amazon.com/Republicans-Race-Relationship-Americans-1945-1974/dp/0700619380

^ Infinitely superior and more in-depth read.  Shatters the myth that the GOP functionally changed in terms of racial philosophy from the days of Lincoln to the days of Reagan, which is EXACTLY why it lost the Black vote.  The GOP always believed that if you just removed institutional barriers for Black Americans and allowed them the opportunity to flourish in the free market, they'd succeed, and that stance went from being considered very pro-civil rights in the days of slavery to ridiculously naive and outdated by the mid-20th Century.  It often quotes Black leaders saying they preferred the "devil they knew" (the Democrats).  If Northern Democrats are offering housing assistance, busing and VERY aggressive civil rights legislation (not to mention an economic agenda Blacks agreed with), and Republicans are out bragging about stuff they did during Reconstruction, warning that a vote for your Northern Democrat is a vote to give Southern Democrats more committee power and supporting the most basic civil rights legislation possible ("yes, we agree, the poll tax is wrong!"), why would Blacks vote GOP other than some sentimental attachment to the Party of Lincoln?

P.S.  Another super interesting anecdote from that book was that Republicans would actually aggressively initiate civil rights legislation and unanimously support it, as long as it pretty much exclusively affected Dixie (where none of its constituents were).  Once being "pro-civil rights" meant supporting busing Black kids in the North into affluent White neighborhoods (GOP Representatives had a near lock on the suburban North), notice how the party's image changed...

Good post.