Jeffersonian strength in VT, Jacksonian strength in NH & ME

[TDAS04]

New England was the Federalist base during the First Party System, and the strongest Whig region during the Second.  However, Vermont was unusually strong for the Jeffersonians; it was the only New England state to vote for James Madison in both 1808 and 1812.  During the Age of Jackson, New England mostly voted Whig, but New Hampshire voted Democratic in every presidential election from 1832 through 1852, and with the exception of 1840, so did Maine.

Does anyone have a possible explanation for either of these?

[kcguy]

By the time the Jacksonians came into power, slavery was a much bigger issue and Vermont could not side with the party of slaveholders, the Democrats.

On the other hand, the Whigs had two factions- one supported in the North (Conscience), and one in the South (Cotton).

I'm confused by the meme that the Democratic Party was "the party of slaveholders".  You mention that the Whigs had two wings, but imply that the Democrats had only one.

Last time I checked, Martin Van Buren was a fairly integral member of the Democratic Party, and he went on to become a credible enough abolitionist to be nominated for president by the Free Soil Party.  In fact, the Democratic Party would go on to supply two Free Soil presidential nominees, which is two more than the Whigs would ever manage to supply.

Of course, after the collapse of the Whig Party, this did change.  In 1856, slaveholders could choose between the Democratic Party or the American Party, but would probably choose the Democrats.  In 1860, the choice was between the Democratic Party or the Constitution Party.

By 1864, I would agree with you.  Although never really the party of slaveholders, the Democrats very much became the party of former slaveholders and would remain so for their descendants for the next century.

But I don't see what that had to do with the Jackson era.  I don't vote for parties based on the platforms they'll have in 2048--mainly because I'm not prescient--and I don't believe early 19th-century New Englanders were either.

[kcguy]

You need to look at the main areas that voted for the Democrats at that point.

OK.  I took your advice.  I picked the 1838 U.S. House elections because it was in the middle of that era and was one of the closer elections.  I have no idea whether this is typical or not; I picked one entirely at random.

Thirteen states had legal slavery.  They elected 47 Democrats, 45 Whigs, and 2 Conservatives to the House.

Thirteen states had abolished slavery.  They elected 75 Democrats, 61 Whigs, and 6 Anti-Masons.

Well, I'm convinced now.  The slave states were obviously the stronghold of the Democratic Party.

[Sumner 1868]

You need to look at the main areas that voted for the Democrats at that point.

OK.  I took your advice.  I picked the 1838 U.S. House elections because it was in the middle of that era and was one of the closer elections.  I have no idea whether this is typical or not; I picked one entirely at random.

Thirteen states had legal slavery.  They elected 47 Democrats, 45 Whigs, and 2 Conservatives to the House.

Thirteen states had abolished slavery.  They elected 75 Democrats, 61 Whigs, and 6 Anti-Masons.

Well, I'm convinced now.  The slave states were obviously the stronghold of the Democratic Party.

1838 was in the early stages of an economic depression under a Democratic president. The 1840s and 1850s would see great increase in Democratic share of the southern vote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Uh, what? Martin Van Buren had a very well known history with compromising with slavery. FFS, he owned a slave at one point. He certain became an abolitionist in his later years, but when he was President he had little problem with slavery. The Amistad case was seen as being about the slave trade, not slavery.

You need to look at the main areas that voted for the Democrats at that point, and look at what differences they have from VT, and what similarities they have to NH and ME. Franklin Pierce was the only President from NH, and he was a doughface that supported the South. That was the main wing of the Democrats in NH.

The Liberty and Free Soil party even split from the Democrats because the Democrats were too pro slavery, and this was in New York.

Vermont had strength among the Whigs and their predecessors for twenty years before slavery became enough of an issue to lead to the Free Soil party as a major force.  Whigs ended up with a relatively stronger anti-slavery faction because they were the party that was stronger in New England, but this was not the main reason the Whigs began with a strong base there.   The slavery issue cannot explain the enthusiasm in Vermont for electing William Henry Harrison.  What can explain it is Vermont's large number of sheep, and the policies the Whigs advocated which were protective of the domestic wool industry.

[Mechaman]

When it comes to determining why the Democrats did so well in a few areas of the North one must really keep in mind more issues than slavery.  Especially in regards to a lot of the demographics, especially groups like the Dutch, the Germans, and the Irish all who had cultures that many of the Puritanical Anglo New Englanders found to be profoundly immoral and enabling of vice.  Research the history of the Temperance Movement as well as social conservatism on Wikipedia and be shocked to learn that many of the advocates of such things tended to identify as Whigs when there was not a strong third party alternative like the Anti-Masons or the Know Nothings around.  Hell, you go back to the Alien and Seditions Act and you will find Federalist New Englanders warning of a vicious Fenian tide overflowing the shores of America if the Alien and Seditions Acts were not passed. (yes I know I have made this observation dozens of times, but it is very relevant to the voting patterns in these states)

You also have to keep in mind that places like New York and parts of Connecticut were originally settled by the Dutch, whose influences on the governance of the colony of New York (defense of religious freedom was one of the concessions the conquering British made in that area) ran counter to the supremacist nature of Puritan society.  Namely, strong support for civil liberties such as free speech and freedom of religion.  Arguably, one of the original influences on "social liberalism" in this country at least in regards to defending political rights and expression that would later carry over to even many of the middle-upper class protestants who might have been descendants of Mayflower settlers but be wary of the connection between Church and State.

Not to mention, you also had some latent anti-French racism still around from the time of Jefferson.  I would suspect that many Franco-Americans, particularly those from Canada, would resent the treatment they would get from the nationalistic Feds who used the ghost of an invasion by Frenchmen to justify their antagonistic agenda.  Vermont has always had a significant French/French Canadian population, so this would not surprise me if that was a factor during the time of Jefferson.  Not to mention, New Hampshire and Maine also had large numbers of "Scots-Irish" that settled in those areas to work on the mills and such.  Vermont had very few of "Irish" settle there post Democratic-Republican era.  Up to about the late 1830s very few people differentiated between the largely dissenter protestant "Scots-Irish" and the overwhelmingly Catholic "Irish".  It would only be when the latter increased greatly in number and became pariahs that people started differentiating the two, particularly many of the Scots-Irish who wanted to avoid the discrimination that came from being regular "Irish".  But before that though they generally shared both the same ethnicity and were generally hostile to the "native" Anglo-Protestants for obvious reasons.

You also got to keep in mind that Lower New England had some very strict voting restriction laws for the time:



These taxpaying and property holding qualifications disqualified a very large number of people from voting.  Given the economic nature of these restrictions, it is very obvious as to who they disadvantaged.

TO the surprise of many people, even I won't use that aspect to blanketly label the Whig Party as "anti-immigrant", especially given that some members (like a young Abraham Lincoln) actually condemned nativism when they saw how morally inconsistent it was with being supportive of abolitionism (though I should note again that many abolitionists were anti-immigrant, especially against the Irish, precisely because of their strict moral views).  Really, I would go more along the lines of Shua's point that generally the Whigs fell more on the old school economic nationalist wing of the spectrum that happened to share an interest in defeating the "slave power" with many of the abolitionist of the North.

But in regards to the observation about Democratic performances in the North: influenced largely by reactions to the moralistic governance of Yankee conservatism with a heavy helping of immigration patterns.