DC given electoral votes after Civil War

[Roll Roons]

Let's say that sometime in 1866 or 1867, DC was given the same political status that it currently has, where it's not a state but has votes in the Electoral College.

When, if ever, would it have voted Republican?

Assume that party coalitions generally stay similar to real life.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

It would vote Republican until 1932 due to having a majority black population.

It would shift left and become solid blue by 1964.

[MATTROSE94]

It would vote Republican until 1932 due to having a majority black population.

It would shift left and become solid blue by 1964.

Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 and Al Smith in 1928 I think would have won DC as well. Wendell Willkie in 1940, Thomas Dewey in 1944 and 1948, and Richard Nixon in 1960 would have kept the margin close in DC as well, probably to like a 54-44 or 55-43 margin in favor of the Democrats in those elections.

[beaver2.0]

DC had a white majority up until the 50s.  I'm honestly not sure how it would vote.  I know there was a sizable population of culturally southern people in the city, who I assume would be Democrats, but I'm not sure what the partisan makeup of migrants during Reconstruction, the Progressive era, and New Deal was.

[Skill and Chance]

So this is really interesting because it could have been decisive to elect Tilden in 1876.  Which counterintuitively could keep the civil rights cause alive in the South into the long run because Republicans don't have any reason to capitulate.

[Schiff for Senate]

1960 - Blue
1956 - Red
1952 - Red
1948 - Blue
1928-1944 - Blue

Before 1928 it'd be fairly Republican from 1892 onwards. Definitely go blue in 1912, but aside from that, maybe 1916, but other than that, I could see it going straight red from 1896 to 1924, inclusive. Regarding 1892 and earlier, I could see it being a blueish area that went for Cleveland thrice, probably Tilden and Hancock too, but also for Grant in both 1868 and 1872.

[Schiff for Senate]

So this is really interesting because it could have been decisive to elect Tilden in 1876.  Which counterintuitively could keep the civil rights cause alive in the South into the long run because Republicans don't have any reason to capitulate.

I think we're not considering the butterfly effect or any cause-or-effect thing. Like we're asking independently which candidate it'd support in each race. Not like 'DC goes blue in 1876 and swings the race to Tilden,' because then 1880 is different, 1884 is even more different, and then we end up with a different TL which could be very different and feature different candidates. Too complicated.

But re: Tilden wins in 1876. Pretty sure Reconstruction would die anyway with a Democrat in the White House. Tilden was quite anti-Reconstruction, and Reconstruction was already on the decline. 1876 was just the final nail in the coffin: if Hayes won, it'd be because of a compromise that involved giving in to the South on Reconstruction and ending it, and if Tilden won, which is the alternative, Reconstruction's dead anyway. But it makes me then wonder why Democrats would ever agree to giving Hayes the White House in exchange for ending Reconstruction when they could end it anyway - and enact the rest of their agenda - if they had their man in the White House. I guess it was basically because they knew Hayes was going to be treated as the winner anyway, and they were basically just threatening a lot of violence and rioting and refusal to acknowledge him as the winner (sound familiar?) if he didn't acquiesce to their demand and end Reconstruction.