Why did Louisiana vote for Eisenhower in 1956?

[darklordoftech]

?

[Calthrina950]

?

I posted this question before, at this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=332841.0. Not sure if it will contain any insights to help answer your question.

[darklordoftech]

?

I posted this question before, at this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=332841.0. Not sure if it will contain any insights to help answer your question.

Looks to me like everyone but Fuzzy Bear was clueless.

[Calthrina950]

?

I posted this question before, at this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=332841.0. Not sure if it will contain any insights to help answer your question.

Looks to me like everyone but Fuzzy Bear was clueless.

It's a difficult question, that's for sure. I think it's possible that much of Louisiana's shift to Eisenhower can be explained by the increasing influence of its (at that time) increasingly Republican suburbanites. As you know, the Republicans first converted urban and suburban areas in Southern states, before branching out into the rurals. Eisenhower won Texas in 1952/56 largely because of his strength in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio; Virginia thanks to the Richmond, Virginia Beach, and Northern Virginia metropolitan areas; and Florida due to Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Orange, Osceola, etc. In Louisiana, Eisenhower's path to victory was similar, as he routed Stevenson in New Orleans and also beat him handily in Baton Rouge, Shreveport, and the New Orleans suburbs.

Moreover, like in the other states of the Deep South, many of Strom Thurmond's Dixiecratic voters from 1948 voted for Eisenhower, which helps to explain why he did so strongly in Lowland South Carolina, the Black Belt of Mississippi, and Montgomery/Jefferson Counties, as well as in Northern Louisiana. Deeply racist parishes like LaSalle, which had overwhelmingly supported Thurmond, supported Eisenhower by a decisive margin, and it has voted Republican in every election since. Another factor is that Eisenhower did very well with the Cajuns, reflecting his overall gains among Catholics nationwide.

So in sum, three separate factors: the support of former Dixiecratic voters, the support of the Cajuns, and the support of Republican-trending suburbanites/urbanites, helps to explain why the state shifted to Eisenhower. It was a perfect storm for the first Republican victory in the Bayou State in eighty years.

[mianfei]

Deeply racist parishes like LaSalle, which had overwhelmingly supported Thurmond, supported Eisenhower by a decisive margin, and it has voted Republican in every election since.

LaSalle of course voted for Wallace in 1968, but it has not voted Democratic since 1952.

I have read that Eisenhower’s win in Louisiana was due to:

• his support for state control over tidelands oil
• his surge amongst Catholics nationwide, which allowed him to win even in some of the poorer Dixiecrat parishes in the south
• a tradition of presidential Republicanism in Acadiana (like in Florida and Texas at that time)
• division in his opposition vote in racially intransigent Norrth Louisiana due to a slate of unpledged electors being on the ballot

What is really surprising is how badly Stevenson did in the poor white upcountry parishes of North Louisiana – of which LaSalle is an quintessential example. In analogous counties elsewhere in the Deep South, Stevenson received seventy to ninety percent of the vote in 1956, and poor whites in the South, Appalachia and Scandinavian-American regions remained Stevenson’s largest support base during his two campaigns. Yet, in Louisiana Stevenson got less than a third of the vote in a three-way contest in some poor white northern parishes, and in LaSalle the unpledged vote was only 7.38 percent so it is no excuse.

Why did the North Louisiana upcountry desert Stevenson in 1956?

[Calthrina950]

Deeply racist parishes like LaSalle, which had overwhelmingly supported Thurmond, supported Eisenhower by a decisive margin, and it has voted Republican in every election since.

LaSalle of course voted for Wallace in 1968, but it has not voted Democratic since 1952.

I have read that Eisenhower’s win in Louisiana was due to:

• his support for state control over tidelands oil
• his surge amongst Catholics nationwide, which allowed him to win even in some of the poorer Dixiecrat parishes in the south
• a tradition of presidential Republicanism in Acadiana (like in Florida and Texas at that time)
• division in his opposition vote in racially intransigent Norrth Louisiana due to a slate of unpledged electors being on the ballot

What is really surprising is how badly Stevenson did in the poor white upcountry parishes of North Louisiana – of which LaSalle is an quintessential example. In analogous counties elsewhere in the Deep South, Stevenson received seventy to ninety percent of the vote in 1956, and poor whites in the South, Appalachia and Scandinavian-American regions remained Stevenson’s largest support base during his two campaigns. Yet, in Louisiana Stevenson got less than a third of the vote in a three-way contest in some poor white northern parishes, and in LaSalle the unpledged vote was only 7.38 percent so it is no excuse.

Why did the North Louisiana upcountry desert Stevenson in 1956?

I am uncertain about this, although I've noticed that those same parishes largely split between Nixon and Unpledged Electors in 1960 as well, and in 1964, Goldwater dominated the region against Lyndon Johnson. LaSalle Parish, in particular, gave Eisenhower more than 60% of the vote, and it was one of the parishes to give Nixon a majority four years afterwards. I have read elsewhere, though, that Northern Louisiana is notorious for its racism, and this certainly played a factor in its voting patterns (obviously). The racial tensions in that region must have been more pervasive compared to analogous regions in Northern Alabama, Northern Georgia, Northern South Carolina, and even Northern Mississippi-where Stevenson, Kennedy, and Johnson held up in support despite civil rights.

On another note, I'm not sure if you saw my post here: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=376452.msg7600455#msg7600455, commending you for your additions to the Wikipedia electoral articles, and questioning you as to whether you plan on making further such additions in the future. I certainly think your insights would be helpful in bolstering the quality of the 1956 Louisiana presidential election article.