Was 1952 the beginning of the end for the "Solid South"?

[Ragnaroni]

During Ike's 2 runs for president, many Southern "Solid South" states voted Republican for the first time. Republicans, in 1952,  won Texas, Florida (less of a "Solid South" state but still), Virginia and Tennessee. In 1956, they won Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia (which arguably wasn't a Democrat state as much as the rest here). While I'm fully aware that the border states + West Virginia aren't the solid south, they are "southern". Many other states such as North and South Carolina were within swing state margins (SC '52, 1.44% and NC '56 1.33%). Now we usually associate the end of the SS with Goldwater's 1964 campaign but maybe the seeds of that sweep was a decade in the making?

Thoughts?

[darklordoftech]

1952 was the end of the Solid Peripheral South. 1964 was the end of the Solid Deep South.

[Fancyarcher]

I'd say it was a bit more gradual and complicated than that.

1948 was the true "beginning of the end", in the sense that it was the first time the South got upset because Democrats suddenly included the idea of any kind of civil rights legislation in their memo.

1952 and 1956 were huge lessonings, but Stevenson still won states like Alabama and Mississippi by large margins relative to Ike's big popular vote margin.

1960 was a continuation of that 1952, and 1956, but with that caveat that again JFK even thinking about Civil Rights, led to a protest of unpledged electors.

1964 was the ultimate conclusion of this particular arc, but it wasn't the true end of the Solid South's evolution either. They still voted for Carter in 1976, albeit by an even worse margin then 1952 or 1956.

1980 was really the end of The Solid South, when Reagan barely won most of the deep Solid South states, but a majority of them, especially Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, have never really been that close again to even sniffing for a Democrat.

[Orser67]

I tend to agree with 1948 as the best answer for this question. The Solid South to me is about Democratic dominance, and a third party winning four states is clearly a challenge to that dominance. I think it also more clearly paints the picture of how Democrats lost the South, since Thurmond's 1948 presidential candidacy foreshadows his party switch in 1964, which to some extent marked the end of Democratic congressional dominance in the South (though of course, they continued to be successful in the region for decades).

It feels like a little bit of a stretch to me, but you could also go all the way back to 1928. Hoover did notably better than any other post-Reconstruction, winning every state that McKinley and Harding did, as well as FL, NC, TX, and VA.

[Fancyarcher]

I tend to agree with 1948 as the best answer for this question. The Solid South to me is about Democratic dominance, and a third party winning four states is clearly a challenge to that dominance. I think it also more clearly paints the picture of how Democrats lost the South, since Thurmond's 1948 presidential candidacy foreshadows his party switch in 1964, which to some extent marked the end of Democratic congressional dominance in the South (though of course, they continued to be successful in the region for decades).

It feels like a little bit of a stretch to me, but you could also go all the way back to 1928. Hoover did notably better than any other post-Reconstruction, winning every state that McKinley and Harding did, as well as FL, NC, TX, and VA.

1928 seems to be more of a case of anti-catholicism then anything else. Alabama barely voted for Smith for example.

Also FL, TX, and VA had already started to become heavily urbanized by that point, and had more favorable demographics for Republicans compared to other places in The South. Truman, and LBJ also won all three of those states for examples.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

1948 was the beginning of the end due to Strom Thurmond

[TDAS04]

It arguably is.  Not only did Eisenhower win most of the Outer South, he came close in the Deep South states of South Carolina and Louisiana (latter of which he outright won in 1956).

[One Term Floridian]

I mean running a popular WWII general will do things for you electorally. I'm not sure how much of this has to do with the South necessarily shifting during this time?

[Ragnaroni]

I tend to agree with 1948 as the best answer for this question. The Solid South to me is about Democratic dominance, and a third party winning four states is clearly a challenge to that dominance. I think it also more clearly paints the picture of how Democrats lost the South, since Thurmond's 1948 presidential candidacy foreshadows his party switch in 1964, which to some extent marked the end of Democratic congressional dominance in the South (though of course, they continued to be successful in the region for decades).

It feels like a little bit of a stretch to me, but you could also go all the way back to 1928. Hoover did notably better than any other post-Reconstruction, winning every state that McKinley and Harding did, as well as FL, NC, TX, and VA.

1948 was a Democratic splinter, Thurmond was a Southern Democrat. Its not like the Whigs flipped 4 deep southern states or something. Hell the term Dixiecrat is quite telling!

[Orser67]

It feels like a little bit of a stretch to me, but you could also go all the way back to 1928. Hoover did notably better than any other post-Reconstruction, winning every state that McKinley and Harding did, as well as FL, NC, TX, and VA.

1928 seems to be more of a case of anti-catholicism then anything else. Alabama barely voted for Smith for example.

Also FL, TX, and VA had already started to become heavily urbanized by that point, and had more favorable demographics for Republicans compared to other places in The South. Truman, and LBJ also won all three of those states for examples.

Even more than either of those things, I would just point to the fact that FDR dominated the South in all four elections, and Republicans made very little (if any) headway in the South at any level until the 1950s. Also the fact that Hoover won by almost 20 points, with FL the only aforementioned state anywhere near the NPV margin.

I tend to agree with 1948 as the best answer for this question. The Solid South to me is about Democratic dominance, and a third party winning four states is clearly a challenge to that dominance. I think it also more clearly paints the picture of how Democrats lost the South, since Thurmond's 1948 presidential candidacy foreshadows his party switch in 1964, which to some extent marked the end of Democratic congressional dominance in the South (though of course, they continued to be successful in the region for decades).

1948 was a Democratic splinter, Thurmond was a Southern Democrat. Its not like the Whigs flipped 4 deep southern states or something. Hell the term Dixiecrat is quite telling!

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The South in 1948 was essentially a one-party region, so of course Thurmond was a Southern Democrat. Southern Democrats like Thurmond looking for alternatives to the national Democratic Party, and ultimately leaving it, is a huge part of what led to the end of one-party dominance in the region.

[Ragnaroni]

It feels like a little bit of a stretch to me, but you could also go all the way back to 1928. Hoover did notably better than any other post-Reconstruction, winning every state that McKinley and Harding did, as well as FL, NC, TX, and VA.

1928 seems to be more of a case of anti-catholicism then anything else. Alabama barely voted for Smith for example.

Also FL, TX, and VA had already started to become heavily urbanized by that point, and had more favorable demographics for Republicans compared to other places in The South. Truman, and LBJ also won all three of those states for examples.

Even more than either of those things, I would just point to the fact that FDR dominated the South in all four elections, and Republicans made very little (if any) headway in the South at any level until the 1950s. Also the fact that Hoover won by almost 20 points, with FL the only aforementioned state anywhere near the NPV margin.

I tend to agree with 1948 as the best answer for this question. The Solid South to me is about Democratic dominance, and a third party winning four states is clearly a challenge to that dominance. I think it also more clearly paints the picture of how Democrats lost the South, since Thurmond's 1948 presidential candidacy foreshadows his party switch in 1964, which to some extent marked the end of Democratic congressional dominance in the South (though of course, they continued to be successful in the region for decades).

1948 was a Democratic splinter, Thurmond was a Southern Democrat. Its not like the Whigs flipped 4 deep southern states or something. Hell the term Dixiecrat is quite telling!

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The South in 1948 was essentially a one-party region, so of course Thurmond was a Southern Democrat. Southern Democrats like Thurmond looking for alternatives to the national Democratic Party, and ultimately leaving it, is a huge part of what led to the end of one-party dominance in the region.

The point was : he's a Democrat, his policies are Democratic, his party's name is a spinoff of the Democrats. They voted for him knowing he's a Democrat. It's not like the Socialist Worker's Party swept the region. It's essentially the southern wing of the party. A message to the rest of the party "hey listen to us or we leave!".

[DS0816]

Election 1924 was the last time the presidency of the United States was won without carriage of at least one of the eleven Old Conderacy states.

Election 1928, a Republican hold for Herbert Hoover, dealt with five pickup states among the Old Confederacy: Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

From that point going forward, every U.S. presidential election has included being able to carry at least one Old Confederacy state.

By the way: No U.S. presidential election has been won carrying zero of the Rust Belt states.

[Alben Barkley]

1952 was the end of the Solid Peripheral South. 1964 was the end of the Solid Deep South.

Considering SC nearly voted for Ike in '52 and LA did in '56, not sure that's a great argument unless you exclude those states when referring to the "Deep South" which most don't.

[Alben Barkley]

It feels like a little bit of a stretch to me, but you could also go all the way back to 1928. Hoover did notably better than any other post-Reconstruction, winning every state that McKinley and Harding did, as well as FL, NC, TX, and VA.

1928 seems to be more of a case of anti-catholicism then anything else. Alabama barely voted for Smith for example.

Also FL, TX, and VA had already started to become heavily urbanized by that point, and had more favorable demographics for Republicans compared to other places in The South. Truman, and LBJ also won all three of those states for examples.

Even more than either of those things, I would just point to the fact that FDR dominated the South in all four elections, and Republicans made very little (if any) headway in the South at any level until the 1950s. Also the fact that Hoover won by almost 20 points, with FL the only aforementioned state anywhere near the NPV margin.

I tend to agree with 1948 as the best answer for this question. The Solid South to me is about Democratic dominance, and a third party winning four states is clearly a challenge to that dominance. I think it also more clearly paints the picture of how Democrats lost the South, since Thurmond's 1948 presidential candidacy foreshadows his party switch in 1964, which to some extent marked the end of Democratic congressional dominance in the South (though of course, they continued to be successful in the region for decades).

1948 was a Democratic splinter, Thurmond was a Southern Democrat. Its not like the Whigs flipped 4 deep southern states or something. Hell the term Dixiecrat is quite telling!

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The South in 1948 was essentially a one-party region, so of course Thurmond was a Southern Democrat. Southern Democrats like Thurmond looking for alternatives to the national Democratic Party, and ultimately leaving it, is a huge part of what led to the end of one-party dominance in the region.

The point was : he's a Democrat, his policies are Democratic, his party's name is a spinoff of the Democrats. They voted for him knowing he's a Democrat. It's not like the Socialist Worker's Party swept the region. It's essentially the southern wing of the party. A message to the rest of the party "hey listen to us or we leave!".

I think his point WAS that the Dixiecrats were saying "Listen to us or we leave!" to the rest of the party. After all, that's ultimately exactly what they (Thurmond chief among them) did.

[Benjamin Frank]

If I recall correctly, Nixon won 5 Southern States in 1960, as did Goldwater in 1964, but only 1 of the five states was the same.

[darklordoftech]

If I recall correctly, Nixon won 5 Southern States in 1960, as did Goldwater in 1964, but only 1 of the five states was the same.

Arizona is the only Nixon 1960 - Goldwater 1964 state.

[Benjamin Frank]

If I recall correctly, Nixon won 5 Southern States in 1960, as did Goldwater in 1964, but only 1 of the five states was the same.

Arizona is the only Nixon 1960 - Goldwater 1964 state.

I thought there was one.

These are the states I consider as 'Southern'
1.Alabama
2.Arkansas
3.Florida
4.Georgia
5.Kentucky
6.Lousiana
7.Mississippi
8.North Carolina
9.Oklahoma
10.South Carolina
11.Tennessee
12.Texas
13.West Virginia
14.Virginia

In 1960, Nixon won Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia, while Harry Byrd won Alabama and Mississippi. Nixon basically won 'border' Southern States.

In 1964, Goldwater won Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.
I was likely thinking of Alabama as the Democratic candidate didn't win it in either 1960 or 1964.

Interesting that Nixon won 4 Southern states while Goldwater won 5 and none of them were the same.

Certainly this indicated the end of the Democratic 'Solid South' at the Presidential level anyway.

[Mr. Smith]

If I recall correctly, Nixon won 5 Southern States in 1960, as did Goldwater in 1964, but only 1 of the five states was the same.

Arizona is the only Nixon 1960 - Goldwater 1964 state.

I thought there was one.

These are the states I consider as 'Southern'
1.Alabama
2.Arkansas
3.Florida
4.Georgia
5.Kentucky
6.Lousiana
7.Mississippi
8.North Carolina
9.Oklahoma
10.South Carolina
11.Tennessee
12.Texas
13.West Virginia
14.Virginia

In 1960, Nixon won Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia, while Harry Byrd won Alabama and Mississippi. Nixon basically won 'border' Southern States.

In 1964, Goldwater won Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.
I was likely thinking of Alabama as the Democratic candidate didn't win it in either 1960 or 1964.

Interesting that Nixon won 4 Southern states while Goldwater won 5 and none of them were the same.

Certainly this indicated the end of the Democratic 'Solid South' at the Presidential level anyway.

Nixon did almost win South Carolina, and LBJ barely won Florida.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It is difficult to say that 1948 was the beginning of the end because Thurmond only carried the states in which the Democratic Party electors were pledged to Thurmond/Wright and Truman/Barkley was a 3rd party slate.  Georgia, a Deep Southern state, carried for Truman.  Louisiana, a Deep Southern state, carried for Eisenhower in 1956 only because of the Tidelands Oil issue.

What happened in 1952 was that the Republicans made a conscious decision to contest the peripheral South because it represented their best chance to expand their base vote.  Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas were the Hoovercrat states, and they were states where the GOP had a small base in Mountain Counties (TN, NC, VA), the German Counties (TX) and in Northern Migrants (FL).  This was a strategic move on the part of the GOP, and in Eisenhower they had the sort of candidate that could make a non-partisan appeal and push for ticket splitting. 

After 1952, the South was no longer "Solid".  It is quite possible that had the GOP nominated a regular Republican politician instead of a War Hero, the peripheral South would have remained with the Demcoratic Party.  Had Stevenson not taken the side of the Federal Government over the issue of Tidelands Oil and had the GOP nominated the sort of nominee they had been nominating, there would not have been a GOP breakthrough in the South in 1952.

[°Leprechaun]

Look at 1880-1924.
The GOP won one southern state in 1896 and one in 1920.
1924 was interesting when OK (just barely) joined with the eleven previously confederate states. With one exception all the other states were won by the GOP.