Why were the Northern states Republican?

[Senator-elect Spark]

I know that the North was against slavery but what were the other reasons for this?

[RINO Tom]

I know that the North was against slavery but what were the other reasons for this?

Well, firstly the entire North wasn't solid Republican.  The inner cities, where many Irish and Italian immigrants lived, were pretty Democratic.  Additionally, the "western" (for the time) states in the Midwest were swing states, with a lot of German and Scandinavian immigrants.  The main Republican base was New England, which had a higher percentage of WASPs, a group that had a higher socioeconomic status than most in Nineteenth Century America, which (in the North) was tied to more Republican voting.  Keep in mind that NY State could outvote NYC well into the Twentieth Century, MA could outvote Boston, etc.  Northern corporations that obviously operated in a slavefree economy were also very united against the expansion of slavery (in an admittedly moderate hero way, as they didn't want to REALLY antagonize Southern planters), and they were pretty effective at convincing manufacturing workers and others in the North that it was in their interests to vote Republican.

The North was never ANYWHERE near as Republican as the South was Democratic; there were just a lot more Northerners.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I know that the North was against slavery but what were the other reasons for this?

Well, firstly the entire North wasn't solid Republican.  The inner cities, where many Irish and Italian immigrants lived, were pretty Democratic.  Additionally, the "western" (for the time) states in the Midwest were swing states, with a lot of German and Scandinavian immigrants.  The main Republican base was New England, which had a higher percentage of WASPs, a group that had a higher socioeconomic status than most in Nineteenth Century America, which (in the North) was tied to more Republican voting.  Keep in mind that NY State could outvote NYC well into the Twentieth Century, MA could outvote Boston, etc.  Northern corporations that obviously operated in a slavefree economy were also very united against the expansion of slavery (in an admittedly moderate hero way, as they didn't want to REALLY antagonize Southern planters), and they were pretty effective at convincing manufacturing workers and others in the North that it was in their interests to vote Republican.

The North was never ANYWHERE near as Republican as the South was Democratic; there were just a lot more Northerners.

This, plus the high percentage of German Protestant immigrants who were considered WASPs for the most part.

[TrumpCard]

Just the fact they were enemies with the south for decades and the south was Democrat.  Issues divided us by region more than party back then.

[NerdyBohemian]

Democrats clinging to the antiquated idea that the country should be mostly agrarian.

Republicans have always been the anti-immigrant party and immigration was a much larger factor in the northeast.

[Young Conservative]

I know that the North was against slavery but what were the other reasons for this?

Well, firstly the entire North wasn't solid Republican.  The inner cities, where many Irish and Italian immigrants lived, were pretty Democratic.  Additionally, the "western" (for the time) states in the Midwest were swing states, with a lot of German and Scandinavian immigrants.  The main Republican base was New England, which had a higher percentage of WASPs, a group that had a higher socioeconomic status than most in Nineteenth Century America, which (in the North) was tied to more Republican voting.  Keep in mind that NY State could outvote NYC well into the Twentieth Century, MA could outvote Boston, etc.  Northern corporations that obviously operated in a slavefree economy were also very united against the expansion of slavery (in an admittedly moderate hero way, as they didn't want to REALLY antagonize Southern planters), and they were pretty effective at convincing manufacturing workers and others in the North that it was in their interests to vote Republican.

The North was never ANYWHERE near as Republican as the South was Democratic; there were just a lot more Northerners.

Best description I've heard that effectively smashes the "Parties flipped" narrative pushed by the left

[JerryArkansas]

I know that the North was against slavery but what were the other reasons for this?

Well, firstly the entire North wasn't solid Republican.  The inner cities, where many Irish and Italian immigrants lived, were pretty Democratic.  Additionally, the "western" (for the time) states in the Midwest were swing states, with a lot of German and Scandinavian immigrants.  The main Republican base was New England, which had a higher percentage of WASPs, a group that had a higher socioeconomic status than most in Nineteenth Century America, which (in the North) was tied to more Republican voting.  Keep in mind that NY State could outvote NYC well into the Twentieth Century, MA could outvote Boston, etc.  Northern corporations that obviously operated in a slavefree economy were also very united against the expansion of slavery (in an admittedly moderate hero way, as they didn't want to REALLY antagonize Southern planters), and they were pretty effective at convincing manufacturing workers and others in the North that it was in their interests to vote Republican.

The North was never ANYWHERE near as Republican as the South was Democratic; there were just a lot more Northerners.

Best description I've heard that effectively smashes the "Parties flipped" narrative pushed by the left

It doesn't do that, but nice try.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I know that the North was against slavery but what were the other reasons for this?

Well, firstly the entire North wasn't solid Republican.  The inner cities, where many Irish and Italian immigrants lived, were pretty Democratic.  Additionally, the "western" (for the time) states in the Midwest were swing states, with a lot of German and Scandinavian immigrants.  The main Republican base was New England, which had a higher percentage of WASPs, a group that had a higher socioeconomic status than most in Nineteenth Century America, which (in the North) was tied to more Republican voting.  Keep in mind that NY State could outvote NYC well into the Twentieth Century, MA could outvote Boston, etc.  Northern corporations that obviously operated in a slavefree economy were also very united against the expansion of slavery (in an admittedly moderate hero way, as they didn't want to REALLY antagonize Southern planters), and they were pretty effective at convincing manufacturing workers and others in the North that it was in their interests to vote Republican.

The North was never ANYWHERE near as Republican as the South was Democratic; there were just a lot more Northerners.

Best description I've heard that effectively smashes the "Parties flipped" narrative pushed by the left

It doesn't do that, but nice try.

Actually it would if it was a more comprehensive and a lot longer.

[RINO Tom]

I know that the North was against slavery but what were the other reasons for this?

Well, firstly the entire North wasn't solid Republican.  The inner cities, where many Irish and Italian immigrants lived, were pretty Democratic.  Additionally, the "western" (for the time) states in the Midwest were swing states, with a lot of German and Scandinavian immigrants.  The main Republican base was New England, which had a higher percentage of WASPs, a group that had a higher socioeconomic status than most in Nineteenth Century America, which (in the North) was tied to more Republican voting.  Keep in mind that NY State could outvote NYC well into the Twentieth Century, MA could outvote Boston, etc.  Northern corporations that obviously operated in a slavefree economy were also very united against the expansion of slavery (in an admittedly moderate hero way, as they didn't want to REALLY antagonize Southern planters), and they were pretty effective at convincing manufacturing workers and others in the North that it was in their interests to vote Republican.

The North was never ANYWHERE near as Republican as the South was Democratic; there were just a lot more Northerners.

Best description I've heard that effectively smashes the "Parties flipped" narrative pushed by the left

It doesn't do that, but nice try.

Anyone who believes two major political parties could literally switch ideologies is an absolute moron and not worth typing out a post that explains as much.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Prior to the Republican Party forming, you had a divide in the Northern States. More rural frontier states were more Jeffersonian and the more cosmopolitan, but "established" voters were inclined towards Federalists and National Republicans. Immigrants typically favored the more egalitarian Jeffersonian and later more populist Jacksonian movements.


By 1850. The Whigs had established themselves as the dominant force in the last bastion of Federalism (MA) as well as CT, RI, VT, and OH. Aside from favorite son Harrison, Indiana, as well as ILL, MI, ME and NH were heavily tilted towards the Democrats. Beginning in 1846 the Democrats were at a disadvantage in PA because of the tariff issue, but the decline of the Whigs bought them some time. In New York there was still some upstate voters that supported the Democrats but by this point you have the clear divide between City and upstate taking shape.


The divide over slavery helped shift many free soiler Democrats away from their party and to the various anti-slavery Parties and eventually the Republicans. This would see the upper Midwest and Northern New England, which would previously have been heavily Democratic, become solidly Republican and remain so for close to a century in some places.

However, it would be a mistake to attribute all of this to slavery politics or at least fail to account for the economic and demographic factors at play, and this explains why things didn't just revert to the way they were afterwards. One thing that should be mentioned is that the shift almost invariably followed the paths that economic interest naturally would have favored. One big transformation was the shift caused in the flow of commerce by first the Erie Canal and then the railway.

Previously, nature determined that the Midwest would be dependent on Dixie (and by that I mean New Orleans specifically). Early settlement in KY and OH necesitated the acquisition of New Orleans once Spain closed it off several times, and even motivated a botched attempt to break KY off and join it to the Spanish empire. This motivated Jefferson to proceed with the LA Purchase (which initially started as merely an attempt to buy New Orleans). Had this state of affairs continued, the settlement patterns of the Midwest would be different.  Cincinnati would be the largest city in the Midwest and the bulk of the settlement would be along the OH River, not the Great Lakes.  It is hard to image a Nawlins dependent Midwest, dominated within those states by the Democratic leaning Southern portions of those states, ever voting for a Lincoln.

New York, Democratic leaning though itself was because of immigration, is litteraly the key to the Republican Party's existance in the first place. And that is entirely because of DeWitt Clinton building the Erie Canal. Perhaps the most productive, profitable and consequential infrastructure project in human history, this made New York City the largest city in the US for a long time and turned what was already a mecha for immigrants into, "America's Front Door".  It was now cheaper and quicker to go east instead of South, both to access the Coastal cities, but also Europe. This enabled the spread of manufacturing across the Midwest, to the heavy concentrations of iron located in those states and thereby increased the interest and support for protectionism/economic nationalism in those states, which the Republican Party was all about. The Railroads only furthered this development because the flatest, and easiest path east is the same path the Erie Canal took from Buffalo to Albany, and the easiest path from there is naturally down the Hudson River Valley to NYC.

Not only was the economy of the Midwest placed in New York's orbit, but the development pattern shifted making the Northern portions of OH, ILL and IN, the natural place to settle, just in time for the wave upon waves of German immigrants.

A big factor that is overlooked and one big different between Fremont and Lincoln was that Lincoln broadened his message on economic matters, whereas Fremont was more solely anti-slavery.

After the war, economics continued to drive the equation. Republicans owned what was the contemporary equivalent of the "College educated, white vote", the rural vote aside from select areas (Southern Parts of ILL, IN, OH, and some counties in PA), as well as those African-American that could still vote. The tariff issue allowed them to peal off a substantial number of industrial workers and of course they would over time come be the dominant party among Northern business interests to the extent they weren't already so. However, this coalition was very vulnerable in economic downturns so you saw massive losses as those working class votes switched en masse to the Democrats in times like 1874.

[kcguy]

Anyone who believes two major political parties could literally switch ideologies is an absolute moron and not worth typing out a post that explains as much.

If I were to ask you which party were more sexually permissive, what would you answer?  Has that always been so?

I heard a story about a month ago, which provides an example.  The Republicans held the Massachusetts legislature for decades after the Civil War.  The Democrats, led by Tip O'Neill, finally captured it in the 1948 election, running in part on a platform of accusing the Republicans of being in favor of legalizing birth control devices.

You see, in 1948, the Republicans were mostly in favor of legal birth control, while the Democrats, then the more devoutly religious (i.e., Catholic) of the two, were strongly opposed.  Seven decades later, it feels like the Republican stance has barely moved, at least at the national level, while the Democrats have gone from being more prohibitionist than the Republicans to being more libertine.  This is of course a fairly petty example.  But it is one example. 

A senator once said of spending, "A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."  By analogy, an issue here, an issue there, accumulating over time, and pretty soon party ideologies are barely recognizable from what they were a lifespan ago.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Anyone who believes two major political parties could literally switch ideologies is an absolute moron and not worth typing out a post that explains as much.

If I were to ask you which party were more sexually permissive, what would you answer?  Has that always been so?

I heard a story about a month ago, which provides an example.  The Republicans held the Massachusetts legislature for decades after the Civil War.  The Democrats, led by Tip O'Neill, finally captured it in the 1948 election, running in part on a platform of accusing the Republicans of being in favor of legalizing birth control devices.

You see, in 1948, the Republicans were mostly in favor of legal birth control, while the Democrats, then the more devoutly religious (i.e., Catholic) of the two, were strongly opposed.  Seven decades later, it feels like the Republican stance has barely moved, at least at the national level, while the Democrats have gone from being more prohibitionist than the Republicans to being more libertine.  This is of course a fairly petty example.  But it is one example. 

A senator once said of spending, "A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."  By analogy, an issue here, an issue there, accumulating over time, and pretty soon party ideologies are barely recognizable from what they were a lifespan ago.

But that owed itself as much to being anti-Catholic. The Republicans opposed school choice for a long time, not because they believed in public education per se, but because they wanted everyone tought in public schools and taught from the King James Bible. Protestant moralism has long been prevalent in the GOP save for a short time between 1920's and the 1960's.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Anyone who believes two major political parties could literally switch ideologies is an absolute moron and not worth typing out a post that explains as much.

It's really just a sad excuse that liberals use to blame the Democrat's horrendous and murderous record of racism, sexism, treason, imperialism, economic mismanagement, forced migration, and (arguably) genocide onto Republicans.  You are absolutely correct Tom.

[JerryArkansas]

Anyone who believes two major political parties could literally switch ideologies is an absolute moron and not worth typing out a post that explains as much.

It's really just a sad excuse that liberals use to blame the Democrat's horrendous and murderous record of racism, sexism, treason, imperialism, economic mismanagement, forced migration, and (arguably) genocide onto Republicans.  You are absolutely correct Tom.

When your party courts those types of people, you are going to be criticized.

[AN63093]

I haven't been posting here long, but I've popped in now-and-then for probably close to a decade to get a read on what people are saying on certain issues (this sub-forum has always been one of my favorites, as studying demographic trends is a personal hobby of mine).  It seems like every few months this same question is asked.  Of course, understandably so- the fact that electoral maps now look like mirror images of the past is one of the interesting things about US political history.

RINO Tom's post is a good start, and so is NC Yankee's.  That being said, this is a complex question that doesn't have a neat and easy answer.  To say that the parties "flipped" is not only overly simplistic, as a blanket statement, it's just wrong.  On the other hand, to suggest that the parties haven't changed positions on anything either.. well, that would be equally wrong.  There are certainly issues that the parties have "flipped" their positions on.

One of the big problems people have in analyzing the parties over time is attempting to apply a modern perspective on historical issues.  For example, what would've been considered "conservative" or "liberal" changes over time, and in fact, the use of those words themselves with their current meaning is a relatively recent phenomenon.

A good example of this might be the tariff.  Is this a "conservative" or "liberal" position?  Well, in the current era, protectionism tends to be advocated by the left, since large American businesses are mostly now multi-national corporations that generally benefit from free trade.  However, that was not the case through the 1800s and even through the early 1900s, when the tariff had its strongest support from the GOP.  Did that mean that the GOP was the "liberal" party?  Well, again, not so simple- until the late 1800s or so, US industry, mostly prevalent in the North, was significantly less developed than Britain and had difficulty competing with cheaper British imports in stuff like textiles, iron, and other consumer goods.  Global trade was quite a bit less sophisticated at this time, but to the extent it existed, the UK was king.  There were also start up costs to consider- procuring textile manufacturing machinery was not exactly an easy task.  By the late 1800s, US steel exports had caught up with the UK, but the GOP still advocated the tariff until the Great Depression.

In contrast, Southern Democrats tended to oppose tariffs and promoted free trade, so were they the more "conservative" party?  Well, the South was not very reliant on manufacturing at the time, and their industry was based almost entirely on agricultural export, so cheap British imports were not a concern.  On one hand, they were less concerned about Northern US manufacturing interests (so maybe they were less "pro-business?"), but on the other hand, they promoted business, just a different kind of business than the North; the South was still based on an economy rooted in old-style feudalism and generating income from large landholdings.  In that sense, maybe the South was more 'conservative,' since the South was the only place where you could find people that actually had lineage going back to real English nobility.  Areas in particularly Virginia and Maryland had large estates modeled precisely on British aristocratic fiefdoms in places like Yorkshire.  Contrast this to the North, which was settled mainly by groups like the Quakers (PA), or Puritans (MA).. these people tended to be middle-class; merchants, tradesmen, teachers, etc., who were commoners and had no relation to aristocracy back in England.

So, long story short, the point is- it's a heck of a lot more complicated than you might think.  Another one of the big problems people have in analyzing parties over time is assuming demographics are stable and population groups don't migrate.  The people that live in the South now are not the people that lived there in the mid 1900s, and especially not the 1800s.  Going back to my example of VA- at the time of the Revolution, the people living there were a combination of rich British aristocrats, slaves, and some poor British that worked the estates.  Compare that to today, where the state has little to do with agriculture and has a multicultural society with an economy rooted mostly in supporting the federal bureaucracy.

Another good example of this is the North, whose demographics now are completely different than they might've been in the 1800s or even mid 1900s.  RINO Tom does a good job discussing the WASP demographic- this is a demographic that is simply not as prevalent in the North as it might have been.  For example, in Westchester NY, or Fairfield CT, you had a lot of towns that were very WASP-ish, e.g., Rye, or Darien, and so on.  These towns have seen, over the past 50 years, a large influx of Irish, Italians, Jews, and so on, a lot of them relatively recently wealthy "new money."  So the character of a lot of places have changed.

In a similar way, the South has changed too.  It's too simplistic to just say the Dixiecrats all started voting Republican.  For starters, how many of these people are even alive, that might've voted for Thurmond in 1948?  There are perhaps more that would've voted for Wallace in '68.  What happened to these voters?  Did some switch to voting R after the Dems pushed the Civil Rights Act?  Well, some probably did, sure.  Others didn't- it's important to remember that Dems were competitive down-ballot throughout the South up through the 90s.  What about the Dixiecrats' progeny?  Well, one thing we can say for them, is they are probably more conservative.  One reason for this could be that the South has significantly changed in the past 50-60 years, transforming from an agrarian society to an industrialized one with a much larger "big business" presence.  For example, in the "New South," someone is much more likely today to be a white-collar worker at a large corporation in a place like Houston or Atlanta, than one would've been before the 1960s.

At the same time, the South has also seen a significant amount of migration from people from the North, coming down to large Sunbelt metros, such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, and so on.

One final point, one thing that people get confused sometimes is thinking the South was always more "conservative" because it tended to be more hard-line on segregation.  But that doesn't mean the region was more "conservative" overall necessarily.  It was more segregationist perhaps, but a few things on that.  First, the North was actually quite segregationist too, just a little more subtle about it (I gave the example of Darien CT above.. a lot of towns like this practiced racially discriminatory housing practices well into the 1960s or later).  Second, the North could be quite conservative on other issues.  For example, for a long time, New England was associated pretty strongly with some of the original colonists- very religious puritans that had a "sticking my nose in my neighbor's business" attitude about a lot of things.  Consider that the temperance movement had its roots in the North and there was a definite teetotaler streak there.  Was this a "conservative" issue?  Well, people today might consider it somewhat conservative.  At the time it was certainly associated with the upper classes- the working classes were the group most opposed to prohibition.


Anyways, long post, I know.  And I doubt anyone will actually read the whole thing.. but the long and short of it is- the North didn't just vote GOP once because the GOP was the "liberal" party.  Similarly, the North didn't stop voting GOP because it was once "conservative" and now is "liberal."  It's a heck of lot more complicated than either of those two generalizations.

Maybe the best "generalization" one can make, is that the groups of people that tend to support the GOP were once heavily located in New England, but are not any longer; and that the issues that the GOP stands for change over time, and what is considered "conservative" or "liberal" also changes over time.  Maybe that's the best way to summarize this all.

[RINO Tom]

I read it, good post!!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I read it, good post!!

[King of Kensington]

Maybe the best "generalization" one can make, is that the groups of people that tend to support the GOP were once heavily located in New England, but are not any longer; and that the issues that the GOP stands for change over time, and what is considered "conservative" or "liberal" also changes over time.  Maybe that's the best way to summarize this all.

I think that sums it up best.

[Orser67]

I know that the North was against slavery but what were the other reasons for this?

The Republican Party was founded as a sectional, Northern party opposed to the expansion of slavery in the territories. It continued to be the dominant party in the North until the Democrats started making in-roads during FDR's presidency. Between 1860 and 1930, and especially between 1860 and 1896, both parties were arguably more unified by ethnicity and sectionalism than ideology. A complex process of realignment began after 1930 as ideology came to the fore and the parties eventually sorted by ideology.