A very brief introductory comment of the origins of the Republican Party

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Prior to the Civil War, there was more of a class and development divide between the two parties. More rural and less developed states were more Democratic leaning, while more commercial oriented ones were more Whig, with the caveat of immigrants being democratic leaning so NYC was an exception. This meant that there were a large number of people in places like Maine and Michigan who were Democrats, but also of New England/Calvinist origins, which is a important demographic to study when it comes to the first 100 years of the GOP. It is basically the same impact as white Evangelicals in the GOP today. Just like with Evangelicals, they started out divided, with a large chunk in the other party as well. As their issues became salient and the parties stacked up on either side, there was a sorting effect that led to Evangelicals becoming 78% Republican.

The same thing transpired over the twenty year period leading up to the start of the Civil War. Almost everywhere you find strong support for radical Republicans, is in districts where this demographic is most powerful, just like you see the most socially conservative Republicans in district that are the most Evangelical today. You also had satellite outposts of support among Quakers, Mennonites and so forth, which is kind of similar to the Mormons in the GOP of the 2000's.

Another movement that needs to be studied is the Anti-Masonic movement. Thurlow Weed, William H. Seward, and Thaddeus Stevens, who were on the more abolitionist wing of the GOP upon its founding and certainly counted among the "Conscience Whigs", all got their start in the Anti-Masonic movement in the 1830's. If I remember Michael Holt's "The Rise and Fall of the Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and on the onset of the Civil War" correctly, this group also were the main drivers behind support for William Henry Harrison in 1840 as opposed to Clay or Webster.
They were less moved and motivated by traditional Whig politics. I would also wager that the votes Birney siphoned off from the Whigs in 1844 were among the same group of former Anti-Masons.

I think it is a mistake to say that the Whigs split in two over slavery, and I recommend reading Holt's book on this point. The Whigs had another big problem and that was a class problem, evident in the 1854 elections when the American Party one hit killed them in their best state (MA), running a combination of low tier former Whigs and political nobodies on an anti-immigrant platform. A large number of northern Whigs, especially in Webster's camp, became Democrats or just retired from politics, an outcome almost unthinkable in the just a few years earlier. Of course a number of them had to evolve with the times to reclaim/hold their power base. A good example of such elites evolving with the times, would be the power brokers in Rhode Island who held power until the Depression, an establishment that wasn't too fond of expansive voting (Dorr Rebellion I think). The American Party definitely did split over slavery and the nomination of Fillmore in 1856, sent Massachusetts hurdling to the GOP where it remained for next 60 years, many of the American Party Congressmen elected in 1854, switched to the GOP.

The Clay Whigs that did become Republicans mostly seem to populate the more moderate wing of the party and included Lincoln himself, and were largely of non-Yankee origins (Lincoln's family hails from Virginia). Also included of course some former Democrats as well, and the last group to join was probably Democrats filling out that more moderate camp under Lincoln. different wings of the GOP pulled from different areas. The Radicals of course also pulled from German ex-pats and radicals (including yes Karl Marx).

I don't think it is accidental that the name Republican was selected, serving as both the aspiration (preserve the Republic and its institutions from the corrosive effect of slavery), as well as trying to lay claim to Jeffersonian legacy. MI and WI were heavily Democratic states prior to the 1850's, and again if I remember the book correctly, the meetings in Jackson and Ripon happened before most of the Conscience Whigs like Seward and Weed switched over.

1. It was more bottom up than top down, as the Whig politicians were responding to events as opposed to leading them. In MA they were getting rolled, in NY they hopped on board the ship before it was too late.
2. The underlying foundation of the GOP's creation was, first the expansion of Yankee whites from New England to the upper Midwest to Oregon, and then secondly the unification of this voting block into a monolith on a question of values/conscience.
3. Moderating that core message just enough to match the times and events and thus obtain enough non-Yankee voters to augment this solid base and produce an electoral college majority, as well as a majority in the House because of their relative unity and their strategic location across the Northern states, which were the fastest growing.


Edit: Accidentally said "Clay and Weed" instead of "Seward and Weed" when referring to conscience Whigs. What I get for effort posting in the early morning hours.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Another movement that needs to be studied is the Anti-Masonic movement. Thurlow Weed, William H. Seward, and Thaddeus Stevens, who were on the more abolitionist wing of the GOP upon its founding and certainly counted among the "Conscience Whigs", all got their start in the Anti-Masonic movement in the 1830's. If I remember Michael Holt's "The Rise and Fall of the Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and on the onset of the Civil War" correctly, this group also were the main drivers behind support for William Henry Harrison in 1840 as opposed to Clay or Webster.
They were less moved and motivated by traditional Whig politics. I would also wager that the votes Birney siphoned off from the Whigs in 1844 were among the same group of former Anti-Masons.

If the Anti-Masonics were Harrison's main supporters, who were Clay's main supporters and who were Webster's main supporters?

Support bases overlapped, and Clay and Harrison had a lot of support in the West. A major reason though why Harrison was selected was because he was seen as a less political figure and not tied as much to an agenda, unlike Clay. The book I referenced delves deeply into how the Whigs were formed from various different groups including former Federalists, National Republicans, Know-Nothings, State's Rights Democrats, Nullifiers and anti-Masons. It then explores the party's decline by examining how these groups peeled apart, as well as giving a state by state look. It is long but I recommend reading it. It has been three years since I read it in full, and so I might be forgetting some things. A lot of Clay's support came from former Jeffersonian Republicans who were nationalistic and from the west, while Webster's supporters were more eastern, more establishment, somewhat less nationalistic at times (though this may have been anti-clay maneuvering).

These are of course generalizations and the main thing about the Whigs, is that it was a hot mess of conflicting groups and support by class, and origin varied by state.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Another movement that needs to be studied is the Anti-Masonic movement. Thurlow Weed, William H. Seward, and Thaddeus Stevens, who were on the more abolitionist wing of the GOP upon its founding and certainly counted among the "Conscience Whigs", all got their start in the Anti-Masonic movement in the 1830's. If I remember Michael Holt's "The Rise and Fall of the Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and on the onset of the Civil War" correctly, this group also were the main drivers behind support for William Henry Harrison in 1840 as opposed to Clay or Webster.
They were less moved and motivated by traditional Whig politics. I would also wager that the votes Birney siphoned off from the Whigs in 1844 were among the same group of former Anti-Masons.

If the Anti-Masonics were Harrison's main supporters, who were Clay's main supporters and who were Webster's main supporters?

Support bases overlapped, and Clay and Harrison had a lot of support in the West. A major reason though why Harrison was selected was because he was seen as a less political figure and not tied as much to an agenda, unlike Clay.

I've been wanting to read Holt's work for a while now. I'd be really interested to read more about the Whig collapse and how issues other than slavery contributed to it. I certainly think that slavery was an important factor, even if it wasn't necessarily the dominant factor.

Anyway, for 1840, my understanding is that the primary reason Harrison was selected was that the Whigs were looking for their version of Andrew Jackson, i.e. a war hero who appealed to voters for non-ideological reasons (I'm referring to Jackson's appeal before he became president). When the economy was in shambles in 1837, a lot of Whigs believed that their nominee was a shoo-in to win and were ready to nominate Clay. After the economy recovered a bit, they instead turned to Harrison, who party leaders figured would be more popular. It was a close convention, too, but Harrison consolidated support among northern delegates after a couple ballots. The economy actually experienced a second dip late in Van Buren's tenure (the Whig national convention was held in late 1839), and whoever the Whigs nominated probably would've won.

Well certainly slavery played a role but the Democrats were just as divided. One of the major reasons why the Democrats survived though is both extremes left. The Free Soilers and abolitionists left between 1848 and 1854, and then the Southern Democrats left in 1860. That left the core of the Democratic party as both intact and largely in agreement. The Southern Democrats came back as they regained control of their states but they were subordinate to the New York machine and most of their nominees over the ensuing period were New Yorkers. The Democrats had been a populist party against the elites during the pre-Civil War era, but after the war, people were members because of region, ethnic origin and religion, regardless of class. Also the whole trade issue meant that any pro-free trade business interest was a Democrat. This is what created the whole notion of a bourbon Democrat, and for them, they were still nominally upholding the espoused positions of Jackson on hard money, free trade etc. But the positions lost touched with their purpose if that makes sense and the end result was 1896.

The Whigs were divided by slavery, but the problem the Whigs had was that it was one of many divisions. Class, region and religion also played enormous factors. For instance the book talks about how Catholics in Maryland had been Whigs for decades, but after Fillmore embraced the Know Nothings, they flipped to the Democrats and the Fillmore's strength in the state was driven by anti-catholic protestant voters. Similar to patterns seen in 1928 and 1960, where catholic areas trend Democratic and protestant Republican when faced with a Catholic Democratic candidate.


Another interesting chapter was describing the events of the 1846 election. Largely overshadowed in this election by the Mexican War and its impact, was the fact that pro-tariff policies had a resurgence and the Whigs banked serious votes in industrial districts in Pennsylvania for instance.

I think if it were just the split over slavery, the party would not have been so screwed, but those other factors were problems that existed back to the 1830's in one form or another. I think the class divide was a big obstacle to Northern Whigs bringing in the former Democratic free soilers and enable a realignment within the party. Plus you still had Southern Whigs like Alexander Stephens who were just as radical as people like Jefferson Davis. And when you look at generational change, you also had the sections of the leadership that were actually anti-abolitionist, and supported Webster's compromising. To younger Whigs and abolitionists this was treason.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Whigs were the same thing in England, which Queen Victoria was very close to, due to the fact that she was close to Mary Todd Lincoln, upon Lincoln's death.

After Lincoln's death, Morrison Waite became Chief Justice after Samuel P Chase died and reformed the GOP party into the Torie party which it now becomes. Close to big business. Eventhough, there were reform GOPers until Eisenhower.

They allowed Jim Crow to establish itself in the Deep South, but Brennan and Warren abolished it in the 1950's with Brown v Board of Ed.

Jim Crow wouldn't have survived if Lincoln, wasn't assassinated, although, he would have died of a disease and just like JFK, would have died anyways. We could look closely at what would have Ulysses S Grant would have done, differently, had Lincoln lived longer.

Well that is an interesting Supreme Court driven perspective. I found an interesting quote from a documentary I watched a few weeks back, about their being a desire to turn the GOP into a pro-business nationalist party in 1876 and to try and get similar minded Southerners on board by abandoning reconstruction. If this sounds familiar, it should. Of course it didn't happen quite like that.

I would certainly agree with the comparison of the Republicans with the Tories, as they had a lot of similarity. Protestant moralists were the religious establishment in terms of political influence, whereas the Anglicans in Britain were the ones regarded with suspicious by both non-conformists and Catholics. Of course the puritanical moralists would have been counted among the non-conformists were they in Britain, but in America such were far more numerous. This gets confusing since there Episcopalians were certainly more "establishment oriented" but they are also more evenly divided. Leaving doctrinal and theological differences aside in terms of being hitched to a religious order and having an opposition question or oppose said religion's political influence, there is a great similarity between the GOP and the Tories, especially from the 1870's onward.

Both were protectionist, both were seen as tools of the elites, both were less favorable to immigrants. At the same time both were opposed by parties with history of seeking expanding voting (beyond based on wealth), not as elitist, in favor of free trade and in favor of immigration.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Democrats had been a populist party against the elites during the pre-Civil War era, but after the war, people were members because of region, ethnic origin and religion, regardless of class.

I guess "identity politics" is nothing new.

Reading Kevin Phillips illustrated that to me quite clearly. A lot of places voted as they shot for a hundred years after the war, with only demographic change by immigration or economic development breaking up the pattern. Eventually that is what eroded the dynamic and created a new balance of power of Chicago versus rest of Illinois for instance instead of Northern Illinois Yankees, versus Southern Illinois non-Yankees.