Is New England and the South voting opposite each other explained by slavery and the Civil War?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Much more abolitionist than average New England vs. the Southern Slave Power, the former being extremely Unionist against the latter literally being the Confederacy.

I’d argue that the specific political parties the two regions happen to be dominated by at any given point in history aren’t nearly as important as the consistent pattern of the two regions being polarized against one another politically.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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

-- One major factor is religion. Although there are areas of the west which are also relatively irreligous, in general the more religious an area is the more Republican is, and NE is much less religious than the South.

-- Another factor is culture. Those who feel most aligned with "the ruling class" of a nation tend to be most favorable of bigger government and more control. This is a large part of why rural voters in the west and south especially have tended to favor smaller government, as they generally tend to worry that they are being forced to pay higher taxes without having their concerns represented in government. This also has a great deal to do with the Rust Belt swings in 2016, as midwestern voters tend to feel less and less in touch with coastal liberals, and worry that liberal policies such as college debt forgiveness (they pay, don't reap) or socialized medicene (if you work for GM, you've already got great healthcare, so you're probably less inclined to worry about the subject). Meanwhile, suburban voters in places like OC have become to feel more and more integrated with the political class, and thus more likely to accept bigger government. New England voters, lacking (outside of parts of ME/NH/VT) really really rural areas and being much more integrated into the ruling elite, tend to be more accepting of bigger government and less suspicious of government action.

-- The question shouldn't be really NE and the South, but NE especially. In every region except for NE, white voters go overwhelmingly R. But in NE, and NE essentially alone, they go D. That can't be explained away as the Civil War, and in all honestly there is no one simple answer. But a mix of religion, trust in politicians (just think of who all our Democratic nominees have been. Biden -- from DE, a state with a ton in common with NE. The Clintons -- educated in NE, always had a lot in common, lived in New York after Bill. Obama -- perfect fit for the region. Kerry -- from MA. Only Gore really sticks out as otherwise, and even his more socially liberal positions tended to mesh with the region), and higher population density are important to consider.

[Non Swing Voter]

Yes Sen. Mark Meadows is definitely right.  It's all about religion and culture.  New England is a place that puts particularly high value on reason, education, science, social science, etc. etc., whereas the South has been reflexively religious and conservative in culture. 

This is one of the main reasons why I don't buy atlas wisdom that New England will trend Republican because it's fairly white. 

[Orwell]

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. 

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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. 

Yep, for sure. Wonder how much of that was also cultural differences (English New Englanders vs more Dutch/German Midwesterners?)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, after Barry Goldwater moderated the R views on Civil Rights during the McCain era after 2000, and Bush W signed Civil Rights 2000, 2004 and 2016 had OConner, 2000, Rehnquist 2004 and Scalia 2016 seat up, that went R due to close elections in OH that went R and Rs used LGBT and NRA to get in, and they were really against affirmative action and abortion.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

We have to remember that there have been massive cultural changes in both the North and the South.  The popular narrative of the Godless Northern industrial machine against the God-fearing Southern farmer is not an accurate picture of what actually happened.  In reality, the North had a lot of people who would be described as "Bible-thumpers" and religious imagery was common in Union propaganda.

Religious vs secular values play a huge role in the difference between New England and Southern voting patterns since the 1980s.  But it was irrelevant to the differences between voting patterns there in the 19th century.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Yes Sen. Mark Meadows is definitely right.  It's all about religion and culture.  New England is a place that puts particularly high value on reason, education, science, social science, etc. etc., whereas the South has been reflexively religious and conservative in culture. 

This is one of the main reasons why I don't buy atlas wisdom that New England will trend Republican because it's fairly white. 

Does your characterisation of Yankee New England culture apply when it was the region of Coolidge, Lodge Sr, Platt and Aldrich or is it just because most New England states have tended to vote for the party/candidates you agree with over the last few decades?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

We have to remember that there have been massive cultural changes in both the North and the South.  The popular narrative of the Godless Northern industrial machine against the God-fearing Southern farmer is not an accurate picture of what actually happened.  In reality, the North had a lot of people who would be described as "Bible-thumpers" and religious imagery was common in Union propaganda.

Religious vs secular values play a huge role in the difference between New England and Southern voting patterns since the 1980s.  But it was irrelevant to the differences between voting patterns there in the 19th century.

True. In the colonial period New England Puritans saw themselves as thrifty men of God, while they looked down upon the Southern tobacco planters as greedy godless men only interested in turning a profit. However, I would caution against those who might view this New England piety as innately "conservative". In those times religiosity, especially the sort of Protestant fundamentalism espoused by the Puritans, was highly linked with the same sort of radical anti-monarchist tendencies that had brought Cromwell to power. By contrast, the amorality of the Southern barons was perfectly in line with the libertine culture of aristocratic England.

[RINO Tom]

These types of topics have been discussed often, and I am far from the most qualified to answer, so I will just post a couple of notes to consider:

1) As others have said, the characterization of the South as being more religious (and by extension more "morally conservative") is not at all accurate across American history, even if it is today.  The same New England that some think has always been more "secular" or "science-oriented" was the home of Blue Laws and the main hotbed of Puritanism.  Primary sources of slaveholders mock the abolitionists of the North as quite literally being anti-intellectual, religious fanatics who reject the very basic science backing genetic inferiority of Blacks.  Anyone seen the seen in Django where Leonardo talks about measuring the skull?  Obviously, this shlt turned out to be wrong, but let's not pretend like the Southern plantation owners were direct political ancestors of the Evangelical White Southerners who, for example, might oppose federal intervention to protect gay rights.  The end result might be the same in your view, but I'd argue there are dangerously inaccurate conclusions to make if you treat them as ideologically the same.

2) How many people here draw too many conclusions about how our parties have changed since 1990 based on how Virginia and Colorado vote?  Maybe a few, but not many ... the reason is that, being not far removed from our own contemporary politics, we see that it is quite obvious that the states themselves changing had a lot more to do with that.  Diversification of the electorate, generational displacement and an influx of out-of-state voters fundamentally changed these states politically, and since we obviously live in the modern day, it's obvious for us to see that 70-year old White men in Virginia and Colorado are probably voting exactly as they did in 1990 ... problem is, they're outnumbered now.  Now, imagine a region as fundamentally changed as the South from Antebellum until the Twenty-First Century...

[Libertas Vel Mors]

We have to remember that there have been massive cultural changes in both the North and the South.  The popular narrative of the Godless Northern industrial machine against the God-fearing Southern farmer is not an accurate picture of what actually happened.  In reality, the North had a lot of people who would be described as "Bible-thumpers" and religious imagery was common in Union propaganda.

Religious vs secular values play a huge role in the difference between New England and Southern voting patterns since the 1980s.  But it was irrelevant to the differences between voting patterns there in the 19th century.

True. In the colonial period New England Puritans saw themselves as thrifty men of God, while they looked down upon the Southern tobacco planters as greedy godless men only interested in turning a profit. However, I would caution against those who might view this New England piety as innately "conservative". In those times religiosity, especially the sort of Protestant fundamentalism espoused by the Puritans, was highly linked with the same sort of radical anti-monarchist tendencies that had brought Cromwell to power. By contrast, the amorality of the Southern barons was perfectly in line with the libertine culture of aristocratic England.

....American conservatism is highly anti aristocratic and anti monarchist. There’s a reason half our symbols (the Gadsden flag, etc) are from a literal war against a monarchy, and that one of the most popular things for our politicians to do is bash “the elites”

[RINO Tom]

We have to remember that there have been massive cultural changes in both the North and the South.  The popular narrative of the Godless Northern industrial machine against the God-fearing Southern farmer is not an accurate picture of what actually happened.  In reality, the North had a lot of people who would be described as "Bible-thumpers" and religious imagery was common in Union propaganda.

Religious vs secular values play a huge role in the difference between New England and Southern voting patterns since the 1980s.  But it was irrelevant to the differences between voting patterns there in the 19th century.

True. In the colonial period New England Puritans saw themselves as thrifty men of God, while they looked down upon the Southern tobacco planters as greedy godless men only interested in turning a profit. However, I would caution against those who might view this New England piety as innately "conservative". In those times religiosity, especially the sort of Protestant fundamentalism espoused by the Puritans, was highly linked with the same sort of radical anti-monarchist tendencies that had brought Cromwell to power. By contrast, the amorality of the Southern barons was perfectly in line with the libertine culture of aristocratic England.

....American conservatism is highly anti aristocratic and anti monarchist. There’s a reason half our symbols (the Gadsden flag, etc) are from a literal war against a monarchy, and that one of the most popular things for our politicians to do is bash “the elites”

Right, but that is why people sometimes say that the original American political system was "fundamentally liberal," as our nation rejected monarchism on all sides.  This is another example of how Hamilton does not belong anywhere but on the far right of his day's political spectrum.  Unlike other areas, America's conservatism and liberalism developed around systems that were fundamentally more "left-leaning" than monarchism, but the dynamic still maintained the BASIC dividing line between true right-wing and left-wing thinking: the concentration of wealth and power.  I would argue that, at their cores, liberalism HAS to derive from a desire to do something about that concentration, and conservatism HAS to derive from a suspicion that dismantling that concentration too quickly or too much will cause chaos.

Even something like being overly woke or shouting about racism where it isn't apparent - a trait many on the right today associate with liberal "elites" - derives itself from an inherent belief that our country has a systemic preference for a privileged White "race," and we must take action to address that.  Even climate change activism - another thing that many people now associate with well-off granola types who can afford to spend their time virtue signaling while others struggle to get by - is in some way derived from the belief that there is a power base that is destroying the environment for its own profit, and "the people" (who now too often ARE made up of upper-middle class virtue signalers, admittedly) must do something to "decentralize" the power to wreck our environment from a wealthy few in the business community.

None of this is to say that you couldn't be a conservative and oppose racism on grounds that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter Quaker abolitionists looking to rid society of sin) or be a conservative and support environmental protection measures for reasons that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter rugged individualist and self-made man who hunts and fishes and lives in the woods), but nearly all "liberal" attitudes - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that something was unfair about society, and they had to fix it.  Nearly all conservative viewpoints - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that radical or overly fast change/dismantling of hierarchy would be irresponsible and therefore dangerous to society.

American conservatism has always strictly rejected monarchy as a whole, but I think it's clear that the first American conservatives were clearly suspicious of Jeffersonians' preferred speed at which to form a brand new, "overly democratic" society, and they feared they would shed too much of the societal structure in doing so ... placing them, even if subtly, "closer to monarchists" than the liberals of their day.  And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

We have to remember that there have been massive cultural changes in both the North and the South.  The popular narrative of the Godless Northern industrial machine against the God-fearing Southern farmer is not an accurate picture of what actually happened.  In reality, the North had a lot of people who would be described as "Bible-thumpers" and religious imagery was common in Union propaganda.

Religious vs secular values play a huge role in the difference between New England and Southern voting patterns since the 1980s.  But it was irrelevant to the differences between voting patterns there in the 19th century.

True. In the colonial period New England Puritans saw themselves as thrifty men of God, while they looked down upon the Southern tobacco planters as greedy godless men only interested in turning a profit. However, I would caution against those who might view this New England piety as innately "conservative". In those times religiosity, especially the sort of Protestant fundamentalism espoused by the Puritans, was highly linked with the same sort of radical anti-monarchist tendencies that had brought Cromwell to power. By contrast, the amorality of the Southern barons was perfectly in line with the libertine culture of aristocratic England.

....American conservatism is highly anti aristocratic and anti monarchist. There’s a reason half our symbols (the Gadsden flag, etc) are from a literal war against a monarchy, and that one of the most popular things for our politicians to do is bash “the elites”.

None of this is to say that you couldn't be a conservative and oppose racism on grounds that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter Quaker abolitionists looking to rid society of sin) or be a conservative and support environmental protection measures for reasons that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter rugged individualist and self-made man who hunts and fishes and lives in the woods), but nearly all "liberal" attitudes - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that something was unfair about society, and they had to fix it.  Nearly all conservative viewpoints - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that radical or overly fast change/dismantling of hierarchy would be irresponsible and therefore dangerous to society.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but I'll say it again. Being religious or moralistic does not a conservative make. Like you said, conservatism is based in the defense of power, wealth, and hierarchy. Contrary to what the evangelicals of the Religious Right would have you think, these conservative values do not necessarily align with the principles of the highly religious. Was William Jennings Bryan a conservative? I'd recommend you have a look at my Puritans as democrats thread, and while I admit that some of my ideas there weren't fully fleshed out, I'll try to do more of that here.

But first I want to focus on what you said about the Quakers. Given their history, it seems especially odd to single them out as a "conservative" denomination. The Quakers were one of the most individualist Christian sects, and they believed strongly in an "inner light" connecting the believer to God. They shunned religious institutions and iconography, which manifested itself into a general opposition to clericalism and hierarchy. Quakers believed in the equality of all believers, and were one of the most progressive sects of their time in regard to women. This belief in equality is why Quakers referred to everyone by "thee" and "thou" (the informal forms of you), which was a very risky move in aristocratic England. They also refused to take oaths, which brought down upon them the ire and persecution of the English authorities. Forced into conventicles, William Penn became his age's most prominent advocate for liberal Whiggish principles of religious tolerance. As part of his dream of religious toleration he founded the colony of Pennsylvania, which became a haven for Dissenters and Nonconformists. In America, the Quakers continued to be forceful advocates for liberal causes, as noted in your parenthesis. Considering their history and what they believed in, I find it impossible to call their motivations "conservative" in any sense of the word. For the Quakers, liberal ideals like natural rights enmeshed perfectly with their religious beliefs like the equality of all before God.

In fact, liberalism itself owes much to radical Protestants of the 17th century just like the Quakers. John Locke was a fervently religious Protestant, and his contemporary Algernon Sidney, who greatly influenced him, was a Cromwellian Puritan who formulated much of early republican theory. I think there's a strong argument to be made that the political ideas underpinning liberalism, like representative government and personal liberty, evolved directly from the Protestant religion and its emphasis on the individual.

[RINO Tom]

We have to remember that there have been massive cultural changes in both the North and the South.  The popular narrative of the Godless Northern industrial machine against the God-fearing Southern farmer is not an accurate picture of what actually happened.  In reality, the North had a lot of people who would be described as "Bible-thumpers" and religious imagery was common in Union propaganda.

Religious vs secular values play a huge role in the difference between New England and Southern voting patterns since the 1980s.  But it was irrelevant to the differences between voting patterns there in the 19th century.

True. In the colonial period New England Puritans saw themselves as thrifty men of God, while they looked down upon the Southern tobacco planters as greedy godless men only interested in turning a profit. However, I would caution against those who might view this New England piety as innately "conservative". In those times religiosity, especially the sort of Protestant fundamentalism espoused by the Puritans, was highly linked with the same sort of radical anti-monarchist tendencies that had brought Cromwell to power. By contrast, the amorality of the Southern barons was perfectly in line with the libertine culture of aristocratic England.

....American conservatism is highly anti aristocratic and anti monarchist. There’s a reason half our symbols (the Gadsden flag, etc) are from a literal war against a monarchy, and that one of the most popular things for our politicians to do is bash “the elites”.

None of this is to say that you couldn't be a conservative and oppose racism on grounds that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter Quaker abolitionists looking to rid society of sin) or be a conservative and support environmental protection measures for reasons that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter rugged individualist and self-made man who hunts and fishes and lives in the woods), but nearly all "liberal" attitudes - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that something was unfair about society, and they had to fix it.  Nearly all conservative viewpoints - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that radical or overly fast change/dismantling of hierarchy would be irresponsible and therefore dangerous to society.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but I'll say it again. Being religious or moralistic does not a conservative make. Like you said, conservatism is based in the defense of power, wealth, and hierarchy. Contrary to what the evangelicals of the Religious Right would have you think, these conservative values do not necessarily align with the principles of the highly religious. Was William Jennings Bryan a conservative?...

I will check out your thread and try to learn a bit more about the other content of your post; I am not tied to literally any belief I hold to the point where I wouldn't change it given other evidence, or at least refine it.  As for the part I left quoted, I was not saying that being religious or moralistic made a motive conservative.  I think if your egalitarian motive is derived from your intense religious belief, it is clearly a liberal motive.  However, I do think that the "eradication of sin" angle was not necessarily from that point of view.  There were many abolitionists who frankly couldn't have cared less what actually HAPPENED to these freed Blacks (i.e., their well-being) but rather feared what God would think of a society that enslaved a human being, even an allegedly inferior one.  I would argue a lot of this viewpoint actually came from a strictly elitist perspective, looking down on both the unrighteous masses and the godless, money-hungry plantation owners.

Maybe I should not have used the Quakers, then, but I have seen several quotes from abolitionists that came off a lot more like Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame than the kindly priest he shoves down the stairs, if you will.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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. More mainstream protestant sects were evenly divided and Catholics of course were overwhelmingly Democratic, this is why the margins were so close in CT and NY. NH was the most Democratic New England state prior to the war, drawing on a long Jacksonian tradition.

PA was very divided demographically. The Quaker influenced SE of PA and the Yankee Northern counties plus the counties linking them together (Union and Snyder) were very Republican leaning. However the block of counties along the NJ border (Northampton to Pike) tended to be non-Yankee whites, as did large portions of West Central and Southern PA, where the state was more culturally Southern, this made them more Democratic and thus it was a closely divided state, but its continued growth (especially Philly) and dependence on steel would generally keep it Republican thanks to the tariff issue going forward until the Great Depression.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have to remember that there have been massive cultural changes in both the North and the South.  The popular narrative of the Godless Northern industrial machine against the God-fearing Southern farmer is not an accurate picture of what actually happened.  In reality, the North had a lot of people who would be described as "Bible-thumpers" and religious imagery was common in Union propaganda.

Religious vs secular values play a huge role in the difference between New England and Southern voting patterns since the 1980s.  But it was irrelevant to the differences between voting patterns there in the 19th century.

True. In the colonial period New England Puritans saw themselves as thrifty men of God, while they looked down upon the Southern tobacco planters as greedy godless men only interested in turning a profit. However, I would caution against those who might view this New England piety as innately "conservative". In those times religiosity, especially the sort of Protestant fundamentalism espoused by the Puritans, was highly linked with the same sort of radical anti-monarchist tendencies that had brought Cromwell to power. By contrast, the amorality of the Southern barons was perfectly in line with the libertine culture of aristocratic England.

....American conservatism is highly anti aristocratic and anti monarchist. There’s a reason half our symbols (the Gadsden flag, etc) are from a literal war against a monarchy, and that one of the most popular things for our politicians to do is bash “the elites”.

None of this is to say that you couldn't be a conservative and oppose racism on grounds that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter Quaker abolitionists looking to rid society of sin) or be a conservative and support environmental protection measures for reasons that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter rugged individualist and self-made man who hunts and fishes and lives in the woods), but nearly all "liberal" attitudes - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that something was unfair about society, and they had to fix it.  Nearly all conservative viewpoints - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that radical or overly fast change/dismantling of hierarchy would be irresponsible and therefore dangerous to society.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but I'll say it again. Being religious or moralistic does not a conservative make. Like you said, conservatism is based in the defense of power, wealth, and hierarchy. Contrary to what the evangelicals of the Religious Right would have you think, these conservative values do not necessarily align with the principles of the highly religious. Was William Jennings Bryan a conservative?...

I will check out your thread and try to learn a bit more about the other content of your post; I am not tied to literally any belief I hold to the point where I wouldn't change it given other evidence, or at least refine it.  As for the part I left quoted, I was not saying that being religious or moralistic made a motive conservative.  I think if your egalitarian motive is derived from your intense religious belief, it is clearly a liberal motive.  However, I do think that the "eradication of sin" angle was not necessarily from that point of view.  There were many abolitionists who frankly couldn't have cared less what actually HAPPENED to these freed Blacks (i.e., their well-being) but rather feared what God would think of a society that enslaved a human being, even an allegedly inferior one.  I would argue a lot of this viewpoint actually came from a strictly elitist perspective, looking down on both the unrighteous masses and the godless, money-hungry plantation owners.

Maybe I should not have used the Quakers, then, but I have seen several quotes from abolitionists that came off a lot more like Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame than the kindly priest he shoves down the stairs, if you will.

I countered most all of his points in that thread. I also recommend you check you this out: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=301507.msg6617130#msg6617130

Yes, Protestant zealots were liberal extremists in 1649 in England, but this is not 1649 in England. There is also more this story than just the Civil War, there also the Glorious Revolution as well. For one thing, as one British politician put it around 1810 "The Gov't of this country for the past century is and could only have been a Whig Gov't". Absolutism was dead and so was 17th century Toryism. So much so that the politicians to whom the label Tory was being applied were all Whigs of some form or another. When the old paradigm is destroy typically by a complete victory for the "liberalism" of the day, a new divide often forms along new battle lines.

Now cross over to America where as I said before, the American Revolution was a bunch of a Whigs rebelling against a Whig British gov't for not adhering to Whig principles and just like Whigs in the mother country, they sought to tar (literally) their opponents with the label of Tory. Even before the Revolution ended there was a growing divide between radicals like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine and more conservative revolutionaries like John Adams and later James Madison. A good example of this was the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania, with all of its Quaker influence, it was the first state to do it but took forever to implement meaning that almost to the 1830's, there were still slaves in PA. People like Thomas Paine were aghast by this slow process. You would think that a state influenced by such an "egalitarian" group as Quakers, wouldn't be so cautious and restrained (almost Burkean) in its elimination of slavery over several decades. I would also draw attention to the fact that CT taxed its citizens to support a state church (Congregationalism), which is a rather hierarchical establishment of an albeit non-hierarchical denomination (see how this works now?).
  

This is the important point and why I always stress when dividing 19th century conservatism from period liberalism that "Dominant religious order" as opposed to a specific religious entity, precisely because that is going to differ by country. Protestantism was the dominant group in the US by far and furthermore, regardless of fervor in that regards, when confronted with a demographic challenge from Catholic immigrants, these voters unified behind the existing power structure to preserve their traditional dominance of society, against the newcomer.

This is why abstract consideration of internal Catholic hierarchy versus "egalitarianism" in protestant sects is misleading, because the latter was the dominant political, social and economic group in America and the former were the outsiders trying to break their way into the action. This means that historical internal (religious) considerations are irrelevant and Pious Northern Protestants in MA for example, became heavily in favor of the American Party (tossed out the elitist whigs in 1854) and then almost immediately folded into the Republican Party once the American Party split on abolition. Yes you see spurts of the egalitarianism (1854), but it is clear what the priority is, abolitionism and religious hegemony and dominance and thus why they joined the Republicans after voting out the Whigs for a nativist party.

Before this tribal polarization, there was indeed a strong Jeffersonian tradition in rural New England against the Mercantile elite that backed the Federalist Party. Likewise there were pockets of Jacksonian support in rural New England (mainly in CT, NH and ME, but also parts of MA) that were against the elitist textile mill owners and old line blue blooded aristocrats that dominated the Whigs. Massive Catholic immigration eroded this egalitarian tradition and lead to tribal polarization behind the more anti-egalitarian party (anti-Immigrant), which ended up being the more elitist party as well. .

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Much more abolitionist than average New England vs. the Southern Slave Power, the former being extremely Unionist against the latter literally being the Confederacy.

I’d argue that the specific political parties the two regions happen to be dominated by at any given point in history aren’t nearly as important as the consistent pattern of the two regions being polarized against one another politically.

I would say slavery more so than the Civil War itself. The existence of slavery restricted and defined the manner in which the South could develop economically. This meant that the North would pursue developmental capitalism, while the South remained stagnant with its plantation economy. This explains the increasingly vast differentials in railroads, canals, factories, bank deposits and even agricultural output of food stuffs being so increasingly lopsided towards the North. This dictated a desire for different economic policies as the New England states increasingly benefited from infant industry protectionism while the South wanted to be able to take their massive profit margins derived from essentially stolen labor to important British and other European finished goods.

This explains the divergence on trade policy and by extension the fundamental economic difference between the two regions and that stems from the roll slavery played in the Southern economy.

[Intell]

New England was characterised by a division of WASP republicans and white ethnic democrats for a long time, politics were not fought over ideology but over identity (this why in MA you had liberal republicans vs conservative democrats races into the 1990's). The only exception were for the times during the new deal, and WWII where there were anglos that switched over to vote for democrats at the federal level. The 1952 senate election in Massachusetts was an election that reflected the ethnic divide in New England. Post-WWII this divide in New England dissipated, especially with the nomination of Goldwater which lead to liberal WASP republicans finally voting for democrats. This is why Humphrey did better than Kennedy in Massachusetts.

In New England, its also the case that the old new deal coalition never fell apart as they did in the rest of the country, and with WASP becoming less attached to the Republican Party and becoming more democratic. The 1992 election was the nail in the coffin for republicans in New England, due to the Republican Party becoming associated with evangelical republicans-toxic for both white ethnics and protestants, but Trump has resulted a revival in republican strength in New England because of his populism. Trump has also probably done the most to cause New England republican parties to move to the right.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

We have to remember that there have been massive cultural changes in both the North and the South.  The popular narrative of the Godless Northern industrial machine against the God-fearing Southern farmer is not an accurate picture of what actually happened.  In reality, the North had a lot of people who would be described as "Bible-thumpers" and religious imagery was common in Union propaganda.

Religious vs secular values play a huge role in the difference between New England and Southern voting patterns since the 1980s.  But it was irrelevant to the differences between voting patterns there in the 19th century.

True. In the colonial period New England Puritans saw themselves as thrifty men of God, while they looked down upon the Southern tobacco planters as greedy godless men only interested in turning a profit. However, I would caution against those who might view this New England piety as innately "conservative". In those times religiosity, especially the sort of Protestant fundamentalism espoused by the Puritans, was highly linked with the same sort of radical anti-monarchist tendencies that had brought Cromwell to power. By contrast, the amorality of the Southern barons was perfectly in line with the libertine culture of aristocratic England.

....American conservatism is highly anti aristocratic and anti monarchist. There’s a reason half our symbols (the Gadsden flag, etc) are from a literal war against a monarchy, and that one of the most popular things for our politicians to do is bash “the elites”.

None of this is to say that you couldn't be a conservative and oppose racism on grounds that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter Quaker abolitionists looking to rid society of sin) or be a conservative and support environmental protection measures for reasons that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter rugged individualist and self-made man who hunts and fishes and lives in the woods), but nearly all "liberal" attitudes - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that something was unfair about society, and they had to fix it.  Nearly all conservative viewpoints - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that radical or overly fast change/dismantling of hierarchy would be irresponsible and therefore dangerous to society.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but I'll say it again. Being religious or moralistic does not a conservative make. Like you said, conservatism is based in the defense of power, wealth, and hierarchy. Contrary to what the evangelicals of the Religious Right would have you think, these conservative values do not necessarily align with the principles of the highly religious. Was William Jennings Bryan a conservative?...

I will check out your thread and try to learn a bit more about the other content of your post; I am not tied to literally any belief I hold to the point where I wouldn't change it given other evidence, or at least refine it.  As for the part I left quoted, I was not saying that being religious or moralistic made a motive conservative.  I think if your egalitarian motive is derived from your intense religious belief, it is clearly a liberal motive.  However, I do think that the "eradication of sin" angle was not necessarily from that point of view.  There were many abolitionists who frankly couldn't have cared less what actually HAPPENED to these freed Blacks (i.e., their well-being) but rather feared what God would think of a society that enslaved a human being, even an allegedly inferior one.  I would argue a lot of this viewpoint actually came from a strictly elitist perspective, looking down on both the unrighteous masses and the godless, money-hungry plantation owners.

Maybe I should not have used the Quakers, then, but I have seen several quotes from abolitionists that came off a lot more like Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame than the kindly priest he shoves down the stairs, if you will.

I countered most all of his points in that thread. I also recommend you check you this out: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=301507.msg6617130#msg6617130

Yes, Protestant zealots were liberal extremists in 1649 in England, but this is not 1649 in England. There is also more this story than just the Civil War, there also the Glorious Revolution as well. For one thing, as one British politician put it around 1810 "The Gov't of this country for the past century is and could only have been a Whig Gov't". Absolutism was dead and so was 17th century Toryism. So much so that the politicians to whom the label Tory was being applied were all Whigs of some form or another. When the old paradigm is destroy typically by a complete victory for the "liberalism" of the day, a new divide often forms along new battle lines.

Now cross over to America where as I said before, the American Revolution was a bunch of a Whigs rebelling against a Whig British gov't for not adhering to Whig principles and just like Whigs in the mother country, they sought to tar (literally) their opponents with the label of Tory. Even before the Revolution ended there was a growing divide between radicals like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine and more conservative revolutionaries like John Adams and later James Madison. A good example of this was the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania, with all of its Quaker influence, it was the first state to do it but took forever to implement meaning that almost to the 1830's, there were still slaves in PA. People like Thomas Paine were aghast by this slow process. You would think that a state influenced by such an "egalitarian" group as Quakers, wouldn't be so cautious and restrained (almost Burkean) in its elimination of slavery over several decades. I would also draw attention to the fact that CT taxed its citizens to support a state church (Congregationalism), which is a rather hierarchical establishment of an albeit non-hierarchical denomination (see how this works now?).
  

This is the important point and why I always stress when dividing 19th century conservatism from period liberalism that "Dominant religious order" as opposed to a specific religious entity, precisely because that is going to differ by country. Protestantism was the dominant group in the US by far and furthermore, regardless of fervor in that regards, when confronted with a demographic challenge from Catholic immigrants, these voters unified behind the existing power structure to preserve their traditional dominance of society, against the newcomer.

This is why abstract consideration of internal Catholic hierarchy versus "egalitarianism" in protestant sects is misleading, because the latter was the dominant political, social and economic group in America and the former were the outsiders trying to break their way into the action. This means that historical internal (religious) considerations are irrelevant and Pious Northern Protestants in MA for example, became heavily in favor of the American Party (tossed out the elitist whigs in 1854) and then almost immediately folded into the Republican Party once the American Party split on abolition. Yes you see spurts of the egalitarianism (1854), but it is clear what the priority is, abolitionism and religious hegemony and dominance and thus why they joined the Republicans after voting out the Whigs for a nativist party.

Before this tribal polarization, there was indeed a strong Jeffersonian tradition in rural New England against the Mercantile elite that backed the Federalist Party. Likewise there were pockets of Jacksonian support in rural New England (mainly in CT, NH and ME, but also parts of MA) that were against the elitist textile mill owners and old line blue blooded aristocrats that dominated the Whigs. Massive Catholic immigration eroded this egalitarian tradition and lead to tribal polarization behind the more anti-egalitarian party (anti-Immigrant), which ended up being the more elitist party as well. .

No need to go any further; you've already convinced me. In fact, in this thread I went over why New England changed from the most liberal (Anglophobic) region to the most conservative (Anglophile) one^*. At this point I've begrudingly accepted that the Federalists and Whigs were the conservatives of their day, though I'm still not convinced about the 19th and early 20th century Republicans. But that's a topic for a different thread (you know the one).

So then why make such a long post about the Quakers? Well, I feel that when people focus on the American 19th century they sometimes lose sight of other important history. Sure, that other history may not be relevant to 19th century America, but I still think it's important to remember that there was a time and place (most of history throughout most of the world) where Protestants were the liberals and Catholics the conservatives. Whenever someone describes Protestants as rich elitists or Catholics as poor immigrants, I feel obligated to jump in and say that that wasn't always the case, even if it was true in 19th century America.

Furthermore, when the Quakers distinguished themselves in colonial America by being early supporters of abolition, Northern Protestants were still in their phase as Anglophobic liberals. Even post-independence when they had transitioned to being Anglophile conservatives, I doubt the Quakers would have done so. It seems unlikely to me that such an egalitarian sect would adopt the elitist views favored by other WASPS.


*That's not to say that Anglophobia or Anglophilia were necessarily liberal or conservative, respectively. Far from it. Like you said, 18th century England was a Whiggish and liberal country, but the Americans (New Englanders especially) outWhigged them, and thus the British of the 1770s suddenly found themselves being called Tories. In the 1790s Britain once again found itself the defender of the old conservative order, this time against the radical and republican French. They were still a Whiggish constitutional monarchy, but by that point such a system was no longer so liberal anymore. As Truman said in the Puritans as democrats thread, "what had been eminently democratic in the seventeenth century became undemocratic and conservative in the nineteenth century."

[Orser67]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have to remember that there have been massive cultural changes in both the North and the South.  The popular narrative of the Godless Northern industrial machine against the God-fearing Southern farmer is not an accurate picture of what actually happened.  In reality, the North had a lot of people who would be described as "Bible-thumpers" and religious imagery was common in Union propaganda.

Religious vs secular values play a huge role in the difference between New England and Southern voting patterns since the 1980s.  But it was irrelevant to the differences between voting patterns there in the 19th century.

True. In the colonial period New England Puritans saw themselves as thrifty men of God, while they looked down upon the Southern tobacco planters as greedy godless men only interested in turning a profit. However, I would caution against those who might view this New England piety as innately "conservative". In those times religiosity, especially the sort of Protestant fundamentalism espoused by the Puritans, was highly linked with the same sort of radical anti-monarchist tendencies that had brought Cromwell to power. By contrast, the amorality of the Southern barons was perfectly in line with the libertine culture of aristocratic England.

....American conservatism is highly anti aristocratic and anti monarchist. There’s a reason half our symbols (the Gadsden flag, etc) are from a literal war against a monarchy, and that one of the most popular things for our politicians to do is bash “the elites”.

None of this is to say that you couldn't be a conservative and oppose racism on grounds that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter Quaker abolitionists looking to rid society of sin) or be a conservative and support environmental protection measures for reasons that have nothing to do with liberalism (enter rugged individualist and self-made man who hunts and fishes and lives in the woods), but nearly all "liberal" attitudes - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that something was unfair about society, and they had to fix it.  Nearly all conservative viewpoints - no matter how bastardized and distorted - found their origins in a belief that radical or overly fast change/dismantling of hierarchy would be irresponsible and therefore dangerous to society.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but I'll say it again. Being religious or moralistic does not a conservative make. Like you said, conservatism is based in the defense of power, wealth, and hierarchy. Contrary to what the evangelicals of the Religious Right would have you think, these conservative values do not necessarily align with the principles of the highly religious. Was William Jennings Bryan a conservative?...

I will check out your thread and try to learn a bit more about the other content of your post; I am not tied to literally any belief I hold to the point where I wouldn't change it given other evidence, or at least refine it.  As for the part I left quoted, I was not saying that being religious or moralistic made a motive conservative.  I think if your egalitarian motive is derived from your intense religious belief, it is clearly a liberal motive.  However, I do think that the "eradication of sin" angle was not necessarily from that point of view.  There were many abolitionists who frankly couldn't have cared less what actually HAPPENED to these freed Blacks (i.e., their well-being) but rather feared what God would think of a society that enslaved a human being, even an allegedly inferior one.  I would argue a lot of this viewpoint actually came from a strictly elitist perspective, looking down on both the unrighteous masses and the godless, money-hungry plantation owners.

Maybe I should not have used the Quakers, then, but I have seen several quotes from abolitionists that came off a lot more like Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame than the kindly priest he shoves down the stairs, if you will.

I countered most all of his points in that thread. I also recommend you check you this out: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=301507.msg6617130#msg6617130

Yes, Protestant zealots were liberal extremists in 1649 in England, but this is not 1649 in England. There is also more this story than just the Civil War, there also the Glorious Revolution as well. For one thing, as one British politician put it around 1810 "The Gov't of this country for the past century is and could only have been a Whig Gov't". Absolutism was dead and so was 17th century Toryism. So much so that the politicians to whom the label Tory was being applied were all Whigs of some form or another. When the old paradigm is destroy typically by a complete victory for the "liberalism" of the day, a new divide often forms along new battle lines.

Now cross over to America where as I said before, the American Revolution was a bunch of a Whigs rebelling against a Whig British gov't for not adhering to Whig principles and just like Whigs in the mother country, they sought to tar (literally) their opponents with the label of Tory. Even before the Revolution ended there was a growing divide between radicals like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine and more conservative revolutionaries like John Adams and later James Madison. A good example of this was the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania, with all of its Quaker influence, it was the first state to do it but took forever to implement meaning that almost to the 1830's, there were still slaves in PA. People like Thomas Paine were aghast by this slow process. You would think that a state influenced by such an "egalitarian" group as Quakers, wouldn't be so cautious and restrained (almost Burkean) in its elimination of slavery over several decades. I would also draw attention to the fact that CT taxed its citizens to support a state church (Congregationalism), which is a rather hierarchical establishment of an albeit non-hierarchical denomination (see how this works now?).
  

This is the important point and why I always stress when dividing 19th century conservatism from period liberalism that "Dominant religious order" as opposed to a specific religious entity, precisely because that is going to differ by country. Protestantism was the dominant group in the US by far and furthermore, regardless of fervor in that regards, when confronted with a demographic challenge from Catholic immigrants, these voters unified behind the existing power structure to preserve their traditional dominance of society, against the newcomer.

This is why abstract consideration of internal Catholic hierarchy versus "egalitarianism" in protestant sects is misleading, because the latter was the dominant political, social and economic group in America and the former were the outsiders trying to break their way into the action. This means that historical internal (religious) considerations are irrelevant and Pious Northern Protestants in MA for example, became heavily in favor of the American Party (tossed out the elitist whigs in 1854) and then almost immediately folded into the Republican Party once the American Party split on abolition. Yes you see spurts of the egalitarianism (1854), but it is clear what the priority is, abolitionism and religious hegemony and dominance and thus why they joined the Republicans after voting out the Whigs for a nativist party.

Before this tribal polarization, there was indeed a strong Jeffersonian tradition in rural New England against the Mercantile elite that backed the Federalist Party. Likewise there were pockets of Jacksonian support in rural New England (mainly in CT, NH and ME, but also parts of MA) that were against the elitist textile mill owners and old line blue blooded aristocrats that dominated the Whigs. Massive Catholic immigration eroded this egalitarian tradition and lead to tribal polarization behind the more anti-egalitarian party (anti-Immigrant), which ended up being the more elitist party as well. .

No need to go any further; you've already convinced me. In fact, in this thread I went over why New England changed from the most liberal (Anglophobic) region to the most conservative (Anglophile) one^*. At this point I've begrudingly accepted that the Federalists and Whigs were the conservatives of their day, though I'm still not convinced about the 19th and early 20th century Republicans. But that's a topic for a different thread (you know the one).

So then why make such a long post about the Quakers? Well, I feel that when people focus on the American 19th century they sometimes lose sight of other important history. Sure, that other history may not be relevant to 19th century America, but I still think it's important to remember that there was a time and place (most of history throughout most of the world) where Protestants were the liberals and Catholics the conservatives. Whenever someone describes Protestants as rich elitists or Catholics as poor immigrants, I feel obligated to jump in and say that that wasn't always the case, even if it was true in 19th century America.

Furthermore, when the Quakers distinguished themselves in colonial America by being early supporters of abolition, Northern Protestants were still in their phase as Anglophobic liberals. Even post-independence when they had transitioned to being Anglophile conservatives, I doubt the Quakers would have done so. It seems unlikely to me that such an egalitarian sect would adopt the elitist views favored by other WASPS.


*That's not to say that Anglophobia or Anglophilia were necessarily liberal or conservative, respectively. Far from it. Like you said, 18th century England was a Whiggish and liberal country, but the Americans (New Englanders especially) outWhigged them, and thus the British of the 1770s suddenly found themselves being called Tories. In the 1790s Britain once again found itself the defender of the old conservative order, this time against the radical and republican French. They were still a Whiggish constitutional monarchy, but by that point such a system was no longer so liberal anymore. As Truman said in the Puritans as democrats thread, "what had been eminently democratic in the seventeenth century became undemocratic and conservative in the nineteenth century."

Similarly it is important to remember the change occurs by degree and in this case for instance the fact that Britain was a "Constitutional" monarchy doesn't mean it was a democracy. There is more to democracy than just voting, but it is a critical aspect and prior to the late 19th and early 20th century, very few people in Britain could vote.

This also plays into the whole concept that Truman mentioned in another thread about the Congressional/Parliamentary Aristocrat/financial elite versus the Plebian focused executive/Monarch. You see this with Caesar, with Napoleon, and with Andrew Jackson. Charles I also tried to play this card at his trial, but it was too little, much too late.

Populism is hard to define as left or right because either the left or the right can be populist at a particular time. Populism is just the mirror opposite of what elite society is and thus it will typically be idiosycrantic and hard to pin down in a give time and place. Occasionally you can say that populism was a force from the left, especially if the elite is Monarchical or Aristocratic, or heavily business focused such as the WASP elite prior to the New Deal.

One thing that people fail to accommodate for is that groups themselves can change on their own without having to be displaced by a different group. We have seen displacement in action combined with such support attrition (Orange County, NOVA etc), and their were examples of this in the past. UES could elect Conservatives (Though it did not always do so) through the 1950's (Bruce Barton comes to mind and also Coudert, it's last one). It is very important to account for the impact of the New Deal and its political longevity, in shifting and remaking the the NE elite (which had been one centered solely around business and old money) to one more focused on government and academia, which in turn has a transformative impact on the communities that used to be heavily Republican within cities and why along with other factors cities became island of Democratic support surrounded by oceans of suburban Republicanism. Kevin Phillips discusses this transformation at length and no summary can do justify to that description, but it underscores why the right since Goldwater has been rather populist and anti-Washington since Goldwater. If you think about it and play it out, it also explains why suburbs mature and become more Democratic leaning as well. The interests economically become more like that of the city itself rather than just churches and don't raise my taxes.