No. The Midwest and the Western states were also just as much opposed to slavery, but both are red/purple today. Even for New England, if NE had the same demographics today as it did then, it would probably be only 50-60% D instead of 60-70%. There is no simple answer, but
There is an argument to be made New England was less against the abolition of Slavery than the Midwest and West.
Lincoln carried New York by 1% or 7,000 votes
Pennsylvania by 3% and 18,000 votes
Connecticut by 3% and 2,000 votes
New Hampshire by 5% and 3,000 votes
If the Battle of Atlanta had gone a different way it is extremely likely that Lincoln loses in 1864 and General McClellan is President.
This is very misleading. For one it is a very expansive definition of New England beyond the normal six states to include the Mid-Atlantic states of NY and PA as well, and that is problematic for various reasons.
Pius Yankee New Englanders were overwhelmingly Republican.
Yeah, the comment you're replying to here really jumped out at me as I don't agree with it at all.
As opposed to 1864, I would point to the 1856 election (here's a
county map) as a better indicator of Republican strength during the period. As one can see from the map, the key areas of strength for the Republican Party pre-Civil War was in New England and areas settled from New England (so the Upper Midwest, Ohio's Western Reserve, and Upstate New York). And a major part of Lincoln's appeal at the 1860 RNC was that, compared to William Seward and Salmon Chase, he was seen as more moderate and thus could potentially appeal to Northern voters (in states like IL and PA) who had voted for Buchanan or Fillmore in 1856.
Poll
