At what point did the Southern Strategy begin? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 05:15:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  At what point did the Southern Strategy begin? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: At what point did the Southern Strategy begin?  (Read 2305 times)
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,615
United Kingdom


« on: November 26, 2022, 11:05:31 PM »
« edited: November 27, 2022, 12:31:54 AM by Statilius the Epicurean »

In 1935, southern Democrats were given a fairly important exception to the expansion of the Fed's power over labor relations (which I think is probably the area in which they were the most uncomfortable with the New Deal). The Social Security Act of 1935 specifically excluded domestic workers and agricultural workers. Black southerners did this work, and the exclusion of domestic workers and farm workers simply does not make sense without this context (fyi: the SSA wrote a hilarious article trying to deny that this exclusion was racially motivated by drawing on some scant legislative history, but their argument is pretty weak and doesn't capture the Administrations frequent backroom dealing with Southern Dems, imo – check it out if you're interested).

This is the Ira Katznelson thesis from "When Affirmative Action Was White", which I remember doesn't hold up to scrutiny in this instance. Interesting review of the evidence for why domestic and agricultural workers were excluded from Social Security in this article. It notes that about three times as many white workers were excluded as black, that there was no unified Southern opposition to the inclusion of agricultural and domestic workers, that every unemployment insurance scheme in Europe before 1935 excluded either or both categories of workers, and the architects of Social Security in the administration, inspired by those European programmes, were concerned with the administrative difficulties in covering informal workers like farm labourers and servants. For example it notes that Senator Tom Connally of Texas, who wiki says "led the opposition to federal anti-lynching legislation in the late 1930s, filibustering the Anti-Lynching Bill of 1937", actually advocated for the inclusion of agricultural workers out of a concern that they would be excluded from the benefits.

Probably the most relevant passage to the general discussion about Southern Democrats and the New Deal:

Quote
Southern Democrats acted in concert against Northern Democrats only nine times between 1933 and 1949: five times to block anti-lynching legislation, twice against wage increases for the Works Progress Administration, once against an antidiscrimination provision in federal education financing, and once against a Fair Employment Practices measure. Southern Democrats failed to display their characteristic "solid" tendencies for the other 580 roll call votes (...) As a whole, southern legislators were more liberal than northerners between 1933 and 1937.* The one additional issue that tended to unite southern Democrats was the strong concern that federal funding should not be biased against their region.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,615
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2022, 12:51:24 AM »
« Edited: December 05, 2022, 12:55:40 AM by Statilius the Epicurean »

The problem is that the post-Reconstruction Republican Party never had any incentive to dump serious political capital into voting rights in the South, because the GOP could write off the region and dominate federal politics by sweeping the North and West. Politics revolved around winning Northern moderates, and they were apathetic at best about the voting rights of Southern blacks. It was only after a few decades of the Great Migration, when black voters established themselves as a key swing demographic in EV-heavy Northern states that civil rights forced its way up the political agenda.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,615
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2022, 07:54:33 PM »
« Edited: December 06, 2022, 07:58:47 PM by Statilius the Epicurean »

The problem is that the post-Reconstruction Republican Party never had any incentive to dump serious political capital into voting rights in the South, because the GOP could write off the region and dominate federal politics by sweeping the North and West. Politics revolved around winning Northern moderates, and they were apathetic at best about the voting rights of Southern blacks. It was only after a few decades of the Great Migration, when black voters established themselves as a key swing demographic in EV-heavy Northern states that civil rights forced its way up the political agenda.

An outright Tilden win would complicate this, though, and early enough to plausibly change the longer term planning.

Not really, because Tilden would have won by carrying states like New York and Indiana. Those two states alone were worth more EVs than the entire Deep South put together. Where to build the Republican coalition was a no brainer.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 12 queries.