“Southern Dems”

[MillennialModerate]

I’ve asked this question before but I didn’t get an answer that really made a ton of sense to me.

In what ways were the Southern Democrats, Democrats at all? I mean how many Presidents have struggled getting traditional Democratic legislation passed with massive Democratic majorities? The more I read about it. The more it seems like their used to be 3 parties Dems, Southern Dems and Republicans.

Someone explain this all to me.... because I used to think that the difference between Democrats and Southern Dems was race issues and that’s all...

 

[Frodo]

Speaking of southern Democrats (well, southern conservatives), there was an article on this very same topic a couple of years ago:

Southern Conservatives Are America's Third Party

[RINO Tom]

This is an incredibly complex question, and any attempt to simplify the answer by either insisting that Southern Democrats were just racist versions of Northern Democrats or by acting like they were all right-wingers who just called themselves Democrats for ancestral reasons should be looked at VERY suspiciously.  It'd take too much time to go way into this now (mechaman and NC Yankee should be required reading for anyone interested in this topic), but you have to remember that the South was a de facto one party region.  Whenever you have a one party region, you will (almost by definition) most likely encompass a wide range of ideologies in one party.  Sure, you had very right-wing Democrats like the Byrd family in Virginia and Strom Thurmond who were only Democrats because it was a necessity to hold higher office, but you also had very clear progressives like Long and Black whose only supposedly "conservative" views were that they were racists and supported segregation - something that I don't even think is inherently "conservative" or fits on a left-right scale at all.  The main unifying factors in the Southern Democratic Parites were a defense of segregation, an ancestral tie to the party that was most aligned with the South in the Civil War and a desire to have the region unified when it sent its Senators to D.C., as they believed this was the best way to look out for the South's interests.  As the South was beginning to become a two party region in the 1950s, you had people like Ross Barnett claiming that the worst mistake the South could do was allow any Republicans to take advantage locally of the tension between Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats, as it would only eventually hurt the South.  In support of a Democratic gubernational candidate after he had left office (from his Wikipedia page):

Barnett employed his fiery rhetoric when he urged his state's Democratic voters to "push out this Republican threat" and added that he was "fed up with these fence-riding, pussy-footing, snow-digging Yankee Republicans", a reference to northern transplants coming into Mississippi.

Many of these transplants were bonafide conservatives (not just Republicans) moving South, so it wasn't simply a question of ideology.  I think I did a fairly decent job of explaining why it's very simplistic and dumb to just think "segregationist Democrat = conservative" in this response:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=285458.msg6141852#msg6141852

In short, Southern Democrats are far less ideologically homogeneous than many like to paint them as.  They weren't all "racists with left-of-center economic views" (though I would argue that might actually be a plurality at many times throughout the Twentieth Century), and they certainly weren't all "conservative DINOs."  If you simply can't separate "segregationist" and "conservative," I guess that is your issue, and this discussion becomes a lot less interesting.  However, I think it's a lot more complicated than that, and it truly is a fascinating party dynamic.

*Paging NC Yankee*

[The Mikado]

Whenever you have a one party region, you will (almost by definition) most likely encompass a wide range of ideologies in one party. 

This. The entire political spectrum in the South was within the Democratic Party. By the 1930s you had New Dealer liberals in Congress from the South, and hidebound reactionary opponents to Roosevelt in Congress from the South. They just battled it out in the Democratic primary because there effectively wasn't a GOP to speak of.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I find it pointless to echo the above, so I'll just point out that, up until 1948 and 1960 (and of course 1976), Democratic support in the South was crucial for victory. Seems sort of beside the point to ignore that they were an indispensable part of the Democratic coalition well into the period I think you are referring to. It was only in the twenty-first century that it was clear the Democrats could feasibly win a national election without the support of a single Southern state.

[Del Tachi]

I find it pointless to echo the above, so I'll just point out that, up until 1948 and 1960 (and of course 1976), Democratic support in the South was crucial for victory. Seems sort of beside the point to ignore that they were an indispensable part of the Democratic coalition well into the period I think you are referring to. It was only in the twenty-first century that it was clear the Democrats could feasibly win a national election without the support of a single Southern state.

And it still hasn't happened.  Dems have only been shut-out of the Former Confederacy twice, in 2000 and 2004.

[darklordoftech]

The South has always tended to be for free trade, tough on crime, hostile to labor rights, hostile to feminism, and hostile to public education. However, the south tended to support the 16th amendment (because income taxes were an alternative to tariffs) and tended to support entitlements such as the Social Security Act (which also created "welfare").

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

"State rights' which were conservative back in the 19th Century, and Secular=Labour Party, which is Federal Rights and left in the 20th century and beyond.

That's all you have to remember and the WWC benefitted from states rights when it came to segregation, slavery and lynching.

[RINO Tom]

"State rights' which were conservative back in the 19th Century, and Secular=Labour Party, which is Federal Rights and left in the 20th century and beyond.

That's all you have to remember and the WWC benefitted from states rights when it came to segregation, slavery and lynching.

/thread

[darklordoftech]

It can't be stated enough how important trade was to making the Solid South so solid. The South hated the high tariffs that the GOP pushed.

[smoltchanov]

Generally agree with detailed post above. Will only add, that most of the southern Democrats were relatively "progressive" on "nonideological" questions like transportation, agriculture, trade, and, to some extent, even education (yes, mostly for whites, but, for some periods, when "separate, but equal" seemed possible, for Black schools too), while being mostly hawkish, anti-labor and, of course, obligatory, 100% for segregation too. So, even most conservative of them were seldom as far right as ultraconservative Republicans, people like Larry McDonald or John Rarick being closer to exception, then rule. Conservative - yes, frequently, reactionary - rather seldom. Remember, that many northern Democrats of that time were pro-life and, surely, against "gay marriage" (which wasn't even "the problem" then)

[Georg Ebner]

How the Senators were rated 1980 by certain agencies:

WildWest:

PacificCoast:

MidWest:

NorthEast:

South:

[smoltchanov]

^ Much less predictable, and - much more interesting, then now. Many moderates in both parties, some conservative-leaning Democrats, some almost liberal Republicans. Now it's absolutely predictable and boring...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

RINOTom did a good job explaining it but I will just an angle of dealing with political evolution, something that is almost always looked over as we try to super-impose modern ideological understandings on a past context without understanding that which existed in a previous time and how it differed.

The South was Democratic because the Democratic Party was formed as a Classical Liberal party that wanted to oppose the elitist, nationalist oriented National Republicans than dominated Congress and President JQ Adams, and expand the influence and power of lower class farmers and workers via expanded voting without property/wealth restrictions.

The Democrats fit the South like a glove on issues like trade and such forth. Beyond that it was the case that there was always an element of opposition to NE based banking institutions that stretched from the days of Madison all the way through Jackson to the New Deal and beyond to today. Madison for instance as a Jeffersonian, wanted to give part of the money from the redemption of the War era notes to their original holders (unpaid soldiers, farmers and such forth) and not the speculators who had stormed the back country to buy up this worthless paper for pennies on the dollar and then pushed for face value redemption via Hamilton's economic program. This comes down to today through people like Bernie Sanders and Warren in terms of opposing banking and speculative interests. It is also no accident that both Carter Glass and Henry Steagall were Southern members of Congress, Steagall also pushed for creation of FDIC in exchange for supporting the other regulations in the bill.

The Southern Democrats were most certainly unified around the liberalism of the Democratic Party, as such was understood in the 19th century. However, things began to change towards the latter part of the 19th century and into the 20th century, as the class element began to become a driving force within the Democratic Party again as it had been from the days of Jackson (Jefferson if you include the DR period) through the early 1850's. A lot of people had joined the Democrats, who being economic elites and former Whigs during the period between the 1850's and 1880's because of a combination of regional unification in support of Slavery, The CSA And Segregation. This meant that the end result was an ongoing civil war within the Democratic Party, that really only ended in the mid 20th century when upscale and middle class Southern Whites bolted to the GOP. 

Over the same time the unifying forces also broke up somewhat as liberalism evolved from the classical to modern variety and support for social reform and other such policies began to look to a powerful central government to effect change. This was a marked shift from previous when both rich and poor Democrats had unified behind Democratic support for limited Government since a powerful Government would merely be a tool for those banker crooks and rich Yankee elites.

[The Mikado]

NCYankee is right. It's also worth pointing out the effects of having a GOP that ranged from "underdog" (TN) to "gadfly" (most of Upper South) to "near-nonexistent" (Deep South) has. From the 1890s onward (barring the Smith election), if you wanted a say, you had to vote in the Dem primary, period. The total joke status of the GOP in the South surpasses the safest of safe jurisdictions in today's US (barring the poor DC GOP).

[darklordoftech]

Was the de-polarization of tariffs after Smoot-Hawley and WWII part of what allowed the Buckeyite wing of the GOP to form?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was the de-polarization of tariffs after Smoot-Hawley and WWII part of what allowed the Buckeyite wing of the GOP to form?

What it did do was remove the glue that held the GOP coalition together. Just as free trade, immigration and business regulation had always unified the Democrats for the most part, protectionism had been the unifier for the GOP like tax cuts are today. Not only did it keep progressive and conservative Republicans under the same nationalist roof, but it also got working class voters to support a coalition dominated by yankee business elites.

Once the tariff was removed as a legitimate policy tool, urban GOP machines began to collapse, because that was what kept the workers under the same roof. At the same time the GOP lost the workers, they also lost the African American urban vote to the New Deal coalition as well. This meant that the politically neutered middle and upper middle class whites who had previous dominated large segments of urban America, began to move to the Suburbs or move South.

Smoot-Hawley is important thus as one of many factors that tore apart the old GOP hegemony of the North and forced it to look South and West for new outlets of support.

[Georg Ebner]

Once the tariff was removed as a legitimate policy tool, urban GOP machines began to collapse, because that was what kept the workers under the same roof. At the same time the GOP lost the workers, they also lost the African American urban vote to the New Deal coalition as well.

Not immediately, though - famously the AfroAmericans were the only group, that continued to prefer the GOP 1932.

[Orser67]

The more I read about it. The more it seems like their used to be 3 parties Dems, Southern Dems and Republicans.

Without disagreeing with what others have written, this is an entirely valid way of looking at the parties from the 1930s to the 1970s (so long as you understand that we're talking about how groups acted, and not about formal political affiliation). During the 1950s, some academics contended that the United States had a "four party system":
1)the presidential wing of the Democratic Party (controlled by northern liberals)
2)the congressional wing of the Democratic Party (controlled by southern conservatives)
3)the presidential wing of the Republican Party,
4)the congressional wing of the Republican Party

Because the two wings of the Republican Party had fewer differences than the two wings of the Republican Party, I tend to think of it as a three-party system. Northern Democrats, who were generally more liberal than Northern Republicans, generally got to choose the party's presidential nominee. Southern Democrats generally made up a huge portion of the Democratic congressional caucuses, and by virtue of their seniority often chaired the important committees. Congressional Republicans often allied with Southern Democrats (an alliance known as the conservative coalition) to block liberal legislation (especially during the presidencies of FDR, Truman, and JFK), while Republican presidential candidates were more conservative than their Democratic opponents but less conservative than the occasional Southern third party presidential candidate.

Even prior to the 1930s, the Democratic Party was kind of a weird alliance of Southerners and Northern hyphenated-Americans (e.g. Irish-Americans).

[smoltchanov]

The more I read about it. The more it seems like their used to be 3 parties Dems, Southern Dems and Republicans.

Without disagreeing with what others have written, this is an entirely valid way of looking at the parties from the 1930s to the 1970s (so long as you understand that we're talking about how groups acted, and not about formal political affiliation). During the 1950s, some academics contended that the United States had a "four party system":
1)the presidential wing of the Democratic Party (controlled by northern liberals)
2)the congressional wing of the Democratic Party (controlled by southern conservatives)
3)the presidential wing of the Republican Party,
4)the congressional wing of the Republican Party

Because the two wings of the Republican Party had fewer differences than the two wings of the Republican Party, I tend to think of it as a three-party system. Northern Democrats, who were generally more liberal than Northern Republicans, generally got to choose the party's presidential nominee. Southern Democrats generally made up a huge portion of the Democratic congressional caucuses, and by virtue of their seniority often chaired the important committees. Congressional Republicans often allied with Southern Democrats (an alliance known as the conservative coalition) to block liberal legislation (especially during the presidencies of FDR, Truman, and JFK), while Republican presidential candidates were more conservative than their Democratic opponents but less conservative than the occasional Southern third party presidential candidate.

Even prior to the 1930s, the Democratic Party was kind of a weird alliance of Southerners and Northern hyphenated-Americans (e.g. Irish-Americans).

Mostly agree. Will add only, that almost until Truman (FDR was too busy with economic recovery and war) South was, essentially, left to itself in internal policy matters, and could do almost all it wanted to preserve it's "lifestyle": mostly agrarian, with strong segregation system, and so on. As long as it was so - South was generally content to stay Democratic, and decide it's problems in Democratic primaries (white Democratic, of course). Al Smith candidacy in 1928 was almost sole exception. When South began to change demographically, becoming much more urban, and attempts to apply general law in the South on par with other parts of US became more persistent - Southern transformation in direction to "the most conservative (at least - socially, but - not only) party", i.e. - Republicans - began. It was predictably slow in state legislatures, where going from Democrat to Republican meant going to dire minority for a long time, but it finally happened. Now, with Republican majorities in almost all southern state legislatures, it makes very little sense for conservative-leaning person to go Democratic (except, in some cases, very local offices)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The reason that that South dominated the Congressional Democrats was because of the fact that they had the safest seats and never lost.

In other parts of the country, save for a few urban enclaves, Republicans could and very often did wipe out Democrats and take a majority of Representatives outside of the South. This happened in 1920 - 1928, 1942, 1946, 1952 etc. This made it difficult to build seniority in places like the Midwest or New York State outside of say immigrant/irish districts like Emanuel Celler's. Meanwhile a Democrat elected in GA to Congress in 1918 could easily hold onto office for 40 plus years.

Only beginning with the election of 1958 and cemented with 1964 and 1974, did the Democrats begin to skew decisively away from the South in its Congressional delegation.

[Orser67]

The reason that that South dominated the Congressional Democrats was because of the fact that they had the safest seats and never lost.

Yup. Just for fun, here are some chairmen of some key House committees during the 89th Congress, probably one of the four most productive congresses of the 20th century:

Agriculture: Harold Cooley (NC)
Appropriations: George Mahon (TX)
Financial Services: Wright Patman (TX)
Education and Labor: Adam Clayton Powell (NY)
Foreign Affairs: Thomas Morgan (PA)
Rules: Howard Smith (VA)
Ways and Means: Wilbur Mills (AR)

One of Johnson's greatest accomplishments was in getting Smith and Mills on board with his programs (or working around them).