This might be a dumb question but.....

[Robespierre's Jaw]

This might be a dumb question but, why did the Democratic party have such a strong hold on the South until 1964 when some Deep South states voted for Barry Goldwater?

[Gabu]

Because Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were Republicans.

[Padfoot]

Because Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were Republicans.

That pretty much sums it up.  The reason the Democrats lost control of the South was because President Johnson-D was able to force the Civil Rights Acts through Congress despite the efforts of Strom Thurmond and company.  This is why you had Barry Goldwater (a southern state's rights candidate) in the 1964 race in the first place.  The South is really more economically liberal when it comes to their political persuasions but Republicans have been able to maintain control of the South by continuing to emphasizing controversial social issues like homosexuality, evolution, stem cells, abortion, flag burning ect.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Because Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were Republicans.

First, Andrew Johnson was NOT a Republican.  Which in part explains why the Republican House impeached him.

Second, to be more accurate about it, the brutal conquest of the south by the likes of 'pyromaniac' Sherman and his thugs combined with the the subsequent rape of the south by the carpetbaggers and thieir associates turned the south into solid Democrat for nearly a century.

[agcatter]

.....until mid 60s early 70s when Lib Dems began to shove busing and other social experimentation down the throats of white southerners.  Except for the 1976 Presidential Election (when southerners were fooled into believing Jimmah was going to be a southern conservative - haha - threw his ass out in 80 when it became known he was just another lib Democrat) no lib has carried a southern state.   (one exception - HHH barely won Texas in 68 when George Wallace split the conservative vote with Nixon).  I know, I know.  Some of you will say what about Bill Clinton.  Yes, was a liberal but campaiged as a southern "moderate"  and "Bubba" won some southern states.  No way Hillary pulls that off no matter how much she uses her new Selma accent.

Hillary or Obama will lose every southern state in 08 although some Dems on this board are delusional enough to think Hillary will carry Arkansas or somehow northern Va is going to flip Va.  Deam on.  Same Dems who thought in 04 pretty boy Edwards was somehow going to make North Carolina competitive.

Dems will try the strategy they tried in 04 - win all the Gore states and flip Ohio.  The Democratic nominee won't set foot in the South unless it is to go after individual donors.  The one exception will be Florida.  It will be fool's gold just as it was for Kerry.

The South is no more competitive at the Presidential level for Dems than the Northeast or California is for Republicans.

[minionofmidas]

Notice the turnout in the Deep South until the 1960s. These were not democracies.

[Gabu]

Second, to be more accurate about it, the brutal conquest of the south by the likes of 'pyromaniac' Sherman and his thugs combined with the the subsequent rape of the south by the carpetbaggers and thieir associates turned the south into solid Democrat for nearly a century.

Yes, but that doesn't entirely explain why the South decided to go with the Democrats.  That part can then be explained by noting that the commander-in-chief during the war was a Republican.  Had Abraham Lincoln been a Democrat, we would have seen the solid Republican South.

And sure, technically speaking Andrew Johnson was not a Republican, but he was on a ticket with Abraham Lincoln.  I don't think many Southerners would have cared about anything else; that's enough association with the Republican Party for them right there.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Second, to be more accurate about it, the brutal conquest of the south by the likes of 'pyromaniac' Sherman and his thugs combined with the the subsequent rape of the south by the carpetbaggers and thieir associates turned the south into solid Democrat for nearly a century.

Yes, but that doesn't entirely explain why the South decided to go with the Democrats.  That part can then be explained by noting that the commander-in-chief during the war was a Republican.  Had Abraham Lincoln been a Democrat, we would have seen the solid Republican South.

And sure, technically speaking Andrew Johnson was not a Republican, but he was on a ticket with Abraham Lincoln.  I don't think many Southerners would have cared about anything else; that's enough association with the Republican Party for them right there.

Well, lets look at the two different aspects, first of how the war was fought and second how the south was treated after the war.

If the south had been defeated by the north following the generally accepted western rules of warfare (adhered to by McClellan and Lee) the level of animosity would have been far less than the practice of Sherman, Sheridan, Butler et al. who launched despicable attacks on civilians and their property.

If the policy of Johnson had been followed to bring the south back into the union with as little disruption as possible, there would have been far less animosity than was the case when the carpetbaggers and their associates looted the south.

In short, the affiliation of white southerners with the Democrats would have been less extended (in terms of time) and less intense if an ethical method of making war, and occupation policy had followed.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Notice the turnout in the Deep South until the 1960s. These were not democracies.

Especially South Carolina. Something like, what, 2% Turnout? And with 95+% for the Democrats you have to think - those are the scores of dictatorships.

[minionofmidas]

Notice the turnout in the Deep South until the 1960s. These were not democracies.

Especially South Carolina. Something like, what, 2% Turnout? And with 95+% for the Democrats you have to think - those are the scores of dictatorships.

Mississippi was just as bad.

[memphis]

Nobody has yet hit upon the main reason the South remained Democratic for so long, the tariff. There wasn't all that much money or industry down here, so people would rather buy cheap imports than pay more for Nothern manufactured goods. To make things worse, the South has always been strongly anti-tax as well. All that, together with the legacy of Lincoln and suppression of black voting meant that the Republicans were locked out of the South.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Notice the turnout in the Deep South until the 1960s. These were not democracies.

Especially South Carolina. Something like, what, 2% Turnout? And with 95+% for the Democrats you have to think - those are the scores of dictatorships.

Mississippi was just as bad.

No. SC until the 70s had an ABSURD political system.

[JSojourner]

Second, to be more accurate about it, the brutal conquest of the south by the likes of 'pyromaniac' Sherman and his thugs combined with the the subsequent rape of the south by the carpetbaggers and thieir associates turned the south into solid Democrat for nearly a century.

Yes, but that doesn't entirely explain why the South decided to go with the Democrats.  That part can then be explained by noting that the commander-in-chief during the war was a Republican.  Had Abraham Lincoln been a Democrat, we would have seen the solid Republican South.

And sure, technically speaking Andrew Johnson was not a Republican, but he was on a ticket with Abraham Lincoln.  I don't think many Southerners would have cared about anything else; that's enough association with the Republican Party for them right there.

Well, lets look at the two different aspects, first of how the war was fought and second how the south was treated after the war.

If the south had been defeated by the north following the generally accepted western rules of warfare (adhered to by McClellan and Lee) the level of animosity would have been far less than the practice of Sherman, Sheridan, Butler et al. who launched despicable attacks on civilians and their property.

Carl is correct, that there was a certain arrogance on the part of some Northern military men -- the contempt shown Southerners was, in some instances, remarkably offensive.  Ben Butler may be a better example of this than Sherman, who is sometimes misunderstood.  Sherman, like Grant, waged total war.  However, as is pointed out in Mark Grimsley's, "The Hard Hand of War: Union Military Policy toward Southern Civilians, 1861-1865", the loss of civilian life at the hands of Sherman's men was almost nil. 

Sherman DID destroy Southern railroads.  He also destroyed subsistence stores that could have been used to feed local militia or guerillas.  The theory, and it is a sound one, is that if you reduce the infrastructure in enemy territory, you reduce the ability and will to fight.  Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan twice was hardly humane.  But the lives lost, even among just the Japanese, would almost certainly have been greater had the U.S. proceeded with Operations Olympic and Cornet in 1946.

Most historians also reject the claim that Sherman ordered the burning of Columbia, South Carolina.  This is simply untrue. 

Unquestionably, crimes were committed against the South and its people throughout the Civil War.  Remember that scene in "Glory", where the troops burned that farm?  That happened.  (This was not Sherman's command.)  Such crimes are always inexcusable.  And the Northerners who claim "lily white purity" and nobility for our side are intellectually dishonest.

But the other side of the coin is also worth a look.  Southern troops could be, and sometimes were, horrendously brutal.  The burning of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania was no accident.  And unlike Columbia, S.C., the fire was order by the Confederate commander and set by his men.

My point is this:  For every hell-hole like Camp Douglas or Elmira, there was Andersonville.  For every massacre of unarmed Federal troops (as at Fort Pillow), there were brutal crimes committed against Rebels.

Each side must own its good history.  And its bad.

But the overarching question -- what brought about Democratic dominence in the South for so long? -- is answered in the fact that for most people, perception is reality.  Southerners were told and believed (and many still believe) that the Union Army was made up of murderous thugs, rapists and arsonists.  And that Republicans, like old Abe Lincoln, were to blame for such crimes.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, it must be acknowledged that there were incidents by low level confederate commanders (Quantrill comes to mind) where clearly violated the accepted norms at the time (there was no Geneva Convention at the time).

Further, it must be acknowledged that Andersonville was a hellhole.

Having said that, let me make a few distinctions.

First, the northern prison camps were generally as bad as the confederate camps, and unlike the confederates they did NOT have the argument of a lack of resources.

Second, not only did Sherman REPEATEDLY ignore the outrages committed by his troops (no, there is no evidence that Sherman ORDERED the outrages, but, he never did anything to stop them, and took actions to encourage them).

Third, in addition to Sherman and 'Beast' Butler, Sheridan committed himself to wrecking destruction on the south.  He once bragged that the devestation his troops inflicted on the Shenadoah valley was such that a vulture would have to carry provisions with him when crossing the valley.

Fourth, as bad as the methods employed by many major northern commanders were, the subsequent brutal occupation of the south cemented the understanding of the north for its inhumanity for many southerners.

[JSojourner]

Carl's correct about northern prisons on both counts.  They were almost always as bad as southern ones, occasionally worse.  And they did not suffer from lack of resources.  Camp Douglas may have been the worst, not just because Confederate soldiers were deprived of food, potable water and medical care, but because they were sometimes shamelessly subjected to sport and ridicule by the population of Chicago.  Elmira was a pit.  Johnson's Island was hideous.  And there was no excuse for this whatsoever.  Any Union man worth his blue should be ashamed.  In some prisons, Quakers and Unitarians (who were ironically the staunchest abolitionists) ministered as best they could to the needs of Confederate soldiers.

I collect Civil War documents, photographs, relics and so forth.  In my possession is a Bible carried by a Private in the 51st Georgia Infantry.  He was wounded and captured at Boonsboro, Md. just before Antietam.  Attached to the front cover of the Bible is a CDV photograph of the male nurse who attended him in the prison hospital.  The bond of friendship this Reb and Yank forged is obvious from the tender inscription on the back of the CDV.  That said, such stories -- though true -- are nonetheless individual and anecdotal. And the overarching reality is that most Northerners treated most Southerners with contempt and brutality in captivity.  And vice-versa.

With regard to Sherman, however, just about everything Carl has said has been proven to be inaccurate or misunderstood.  Sherman likely could have done more to prevent some of the wrong done by his troops.  But historians view him much more kindly today.  (I will be happy to cite references if requested.)  This is not to say he bears no blame or resposibility.  He also bears some of the blame for what part he played in the ongoing genocide against First Americans after the Civil War.  But in both conflicts, he is hardly the beast than Ben Butler was. 

I can't fault Sherman for the crimes committed by his troops unless I am also willing to fault Nathan Bedford Forrest for the crimes committed by his.  And to my knowledge, Sherman's men never massacred unarmed, surrendering and wounded soldiers.  Even at Fort Pillow however, Forrest did not order the massacre.  And accounts of his reaction to it vary too much to draw any substantive conclusion.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl's correct about northern prisons on both counts.  They were almost always as bad as southern ones, occasionally worse.  And they did not suffer from lack of resources.  Camp Douglas may have been the worst, not just because Confederate soldiers were deprived of food, potable water and medical care, but because they were sometimes shamelessly subjected to sport and ridicule by the population of Chicago.  Elmira was a pit.  Johnson's Island was hideous.  And there was no excuse for this whatsoever.  Any Union man worth his blue should be ashamed.  In some prisons, Quakers and Unitarians (who were ironically the staunchest abolitionists) ministered as best they could to the needs of Confederate soldiers.

I collect Civil War documents, photographs, relics and so forth.  In my possession is a Bible carried by a Private in the 51st Georgia Infantry.  He was wounded and captured at Boonsboro, Md. just before Antietam.  Attached to the front cover of the Bible is a CDV photograph of the male nurse who attended him in the prison hospital.  The bond of friendship this Reb and Yank forged is obvious from the tender inscription on the back of the CDV.  That said, such stories -- though true -- are nonetheless individual and anecdotal. And the overarching reality is that most Northerners treated most Southerners with contempt and brutality in captivity.  And vice-versa.

With regard to Sherman, however, just about everything Carl has said has been proven to be inaccurate or misunderstood.  Sherman likely could have done more to prevent some of the wrong done by his troops.  But historians view him much more kindly today.  (I will be happy to cite references if requested.)  This is not to say he bears no blame or resposibility.  He also bears some of the blame for what part he played in the ongoing genocide against First Americans after the Civil War.  But in both conflicts, he is hardly the beast than Ben Butler was. 

I can't fault Sherman for the crimes committed by his troops unless I am also willing to fault Nathan Bedford Forrest for the crimes committed by his.  And to my knowledge, Sherman's men never massacred unarmed, surrendering and wounded soldiers.  Even at Fort Pillow however, Forrest did not order the massacre.  And accounts of his reaction to it vary too much to draw any substantive conclusion.

Well, first lets start with a list of actions that Sherman took to stop the looting and pyromania of his troops.

Go ahead Soujourner, provide a list the (general and special) orders, the officers and troops punished, etc.  I'm not going to hold my breath.

Now, I'm not reluctant to criticize any officer from taking actions to control the troops under his command and punish those guilty of violations of the rules of land warfare.  Don't care whether its Sherman, Forrest or others.

Now, it is true that there is no record or even credible evidence that either Sherman or Forrest ordered these actions.

But to again be clear, actions to prevent/stop/punish were lacking!