Playing off the earlier "Letting Go of the Civil War" thread...

I was studying America's great realigning elections when I noticed an interesting trend: since the outbreak of the Civil War, the first time this nation was cleaved so explicitly into competing (if not diametrically opposed) regional interests, the northern states have voted with the winning presidential candidate while the southern states have picked the loser, or a third party candidate.

The obvious problem with a comparison between realigning elections like 1896, 1932, 1968, and 2008 (which, yes, I am near-sure was a 4T realigning election) with 1860 is the admission of states into the Union since the Civil War. So I stuck only with the 32 states in existence during the 1860 election.

The overall picture is that no state traditionally described as northern picked the winner in fewer than three of the five elections, while no state traditionally described as southern picked the winner more than three of the five times. Seven states had a perfect 5/5 record (opting for Lincoln in 1860, McKinley in 1896, Roosevelt in 1932, Nixon in 1968, and Obama in 2008): California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. For whatever it's worth, the three of these seven states that existed in 1828 (Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio) did indeed vote for Andrew Jackson. While six (however significant) elections is indeed a small sample, the data make you wonder whether this slice of the Midwest is something of a barometer of the nation's attitudes at crucial moments in history.

The states with a 4/5 record were all northern: Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont (for New Jersey, the blemish was Douglas in 1860; for New Hampshire and Vermont, Hoover in 1932; for the rest, Humphrey in 1968). Meanwhile, three states were wrong three out of five times, all southern or "border southern" -- Missouri, South Carolina, and Tennessee (these states picked the same two winners, Roosevelt in 1932 and Nixon in 1968, while missing the other three times). And amazingly, all six states with a 1/5 record (picking correctly only once, for Roosevelt in 1932) are traditionally considered part of the Deep South: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

And what of the 3-for-5 crowd? (Somehow, writing 3/5 seemed inappropriate in a post about the history of North vs. South in American politics...) Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia are the southern members, with Yankees or border-Yankees (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, and Pennsylvania) rounding it out.

The victory of industrial northern Republicans in 1860 and 1896 certainly tipped the scales here in favor of the North...but if not singularly for the 1932 cycle, the South's batting average in realigning elections would be even more abysmal, while the Northeast's record would be darn near perfect. After decades of service-sector Sun Belt growth and industrial decline, there was no intuitive reason for the North to again rise triumphant in the pivotal 2008 election, but once again it did, with every one of Lincoln's 17 states breaking for Obama, even "solidly Republican" Indiana and historically challenging turf like Ohio and New Hampshire. Meanwhile, states like Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas that had been key to Democratic hopes in presidential elections since time immemorial trended further toward McCain and the Deep South's political culture.

So two questions arise, if there is any validity to comparing the results of realigning (early 2T and early 4T) elections:

1) From a saecular perspective, why does the North -- especially the industrial North -- typically come out on top at these critical junctures, even after the Dixie-centric events of prior 1Ts (Missouri Compromise, Reconstruction, Civil Rights Era) and 3Ts (Kansas-Nebraska Act, Scopes Trial and KKK political action in the 1920s, Lewinskygate and Southern domination in 1990s-era Washington)? It is true that the North was long dominant in Electoral College calculus, but that didn't seem to stop ascendant Southern/conservative influence on the national culture (especially) during the 1850s and 1920s despite the mathematical advantage of northern states. More recently, many explained away the South's post-Boom Awakening rise as pure demographic change, but somehow the surge in electoral representation for Texas, Georgia, et al. did nothing to stop the North's candidate from a solid victory in this early-4T realignment. Indeed, said demographic changes must have helped him snatch three southern states. So even as it holds more theoretical mathematical political power than ever, most of the South stands badly defeated in the nascent battle for control of this 4T's cultural direction. The supposedly moribund Rust Belt has managed to elect a White House occupant and congressional leadership who are relatively receptive to labor unions, culture war secularism, expanding civil liberties, and other traditionally "northern" values.

2) Why do we still have a North/South divide, and what will it mean for this 4T? It's true that Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia broke with the true heart of the South this time, and that Obama (along with Democrats in general) did fairly well in Missouri and Georgia, but still, the Republican Party is more Dixie-dominated than ever, with the vast majority of McCain's electoral votes, and an all-time high percentage of the GOP's congressional seats, located there. Maybe the result of snowbird growth in the New South is that the Mason-Dixon line is moving further south and inland (or north and inland, in Florida's case), but whatever the case, we now have a remarkably unanimous Northern Consensus of sorts, especially considering Obama's 53-46% victory was not what most folks would call a landslide. Meanwhile, if Northern liberalism remains dominant for the duration of the 4T, the inland, religiously "fervent" parts of the South are isolating themselves from America's mainstream much like wealthy New England corporate interests were the object of derision by triumphant New Dealers in the 1930s. That may be a big "if", but my interpretation of history, at least, suggests it has some weight.

Discuss!

Originally Posted by 1990

The victory of industrial northern Republicans in 1860 and 1896 certainly tipped the scales here in favor of the North...but if not singularly for the 1932 cycle, the South's batting average in realigning elections would be even more abysmal, while the Northeast's record would be darn near perfect.

1) From a saecular perspective, why does the North -- especially the industrial North -- typically come out on top

I can give you my stock answers. The Puritan urban liberals settled in the northeast. The Cavalier agrarian conservatives in the south, near Virginia. Technology change drives cultural change. Usually, urban areas feel the pressure to change more than rural areas. Fourth Turnings, and if your observations hold up, the mid cycle alignments, would favor a new alignment overturning an old alignment. Thus, transition usually comes from the cities, and thus from the north.

Some exceptions are interesting. Before 1932, the farming communities were switching over from animals pulling plows to tractors. As farming technology became more efficient, as fewer people were required to work the land, population was shifting to the cities. The nation's farm policies were a mess. People remember FDR's international and economic policies well enough, but don't tend to remember why farmers voted for him. For once, the farmers were the progressives, demanding reforms. Later on, the urban populations came to accept FDR as well.

Is there such a thing as a typical realignment? If so, does 1968 really count? I'll note that while the North voted for Nixon, the bulk of the south didn't vote Republican. It voted for Wallace. I tend to agree with you that 1968 was a realignment year, but the electoral maps didn't really flip for a bit longer. The Republican 'southern strategy' didn't really take hold until 1972.

Originally Posted by 1990

2) Why do we still have a North/South divide, and what will it mean for this 4T?

Urban societies still need to change more rapidly than rural areas. If you look at county level voting maps, you will see many states show blue cities and suburbs in a larger sea of red. California, at a county level, looks like it is a mostly red state... but the populations of the counties around San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego overwhelm the less popular rural counties. Rural areas will remain conservative and perhaps more religious. This is as basic and natural a divide as one is apt to find these days in America. So long as the two major parties focus their values and platforms along the line of this divide, the divide is apt to continue.

What that means for the 4T would depend on whether Obama can hold together a consensus. If he does well, he could build an FDR like consensus, and the Republicans won't much matter. If he fails, the Republicans are apt to remold themselves to fix the perceived cause of his failure. Until I see the perceived cause of his failure, it would be hard to judge how it would play against the urban - rural divide.

Originally Posted by 1990

Playing off the earlier "Letting Go of the Civil War" thread...


1) From a saecular perspective, why does the North -- especially the industrial North -- typically come out on top at these critical junctures, even after the Dixie-centric events of prior 1Ts (Missouri Compromise, Reconstruction, Civil Rights Era) and 3Ts (Kansas-Nebraska Act, Scopes Trial and KKK political action in the 1920s, Lewinskygate and Southern domination in 1990s-era Washington)? It is true that the North was long dominant in Electoral College calculus, but that didn't seem to stop ascendant Southern/conservative influence on the national culture (especially) during the 1850s and 1920s despite the mathematical advantage of northern states. More recently, many explained away the South's post-Boom Awakening rise as pure demographic change, but somehow the surge in electoral representation for Texas, Georgia, et al. did nothing to stop the North's candidate from a solid victory in this early-4T realignment. Indeed, said demographic changes must have helped him snatch three southern states. So even as it holds more theoretical mathematical political power than ever, most of the South stands badly defeated in the nascent battle for control of this 4T's cultural direction. The supposedly moribund Rust Belt has managed to elect a White House occupant and congressional leadership who are relatively receptive to labor unions, culture war secularism, expanding civil liberties, and other traditionally "northern" values.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I can give you my stock answers. The Puritan urban liberals settled in the northeast. The Cavalier agrarian conservatives in the south, near Virginia. Technology change drives cultural change. Usually, urban areas feel the pressure to change more than rural areas. Fourth Turnings, and if your observations hold up, the mid cycle alignments, would favor a new alignment overturning an old alignment. Thus, transition usually comes from the cities, and thus from the north.

Some exceptions are interesting. Before 1932, the farming communities were switching over from animals pulling plows to tractors. As farming technology became more efficient, as fewer people were required to work the land, population was shifting to the cities. The nation's farm policies were a mess. People remember FDR's international and economic policies well enough, but don't tend to remember why farmers voted for him. For once, the farmers were the progressives, demanding reforms. Later on, the urban populations came to accept FDR as well.

Is there such a thing as a typical realignment? If so, does 1968 really count? I'll note that while the North voted for Nixon, the bulk of the south didn't vote Republican. It voted for Wallace. I tend to agree with you that 1968 was a realignment year, but the electoral maps didn't really flip for a bit longer. The Republican 'southern strategy' didn't really take hold until 1972.

I think this pretty much answers your question. I've noted that the Solstice eras tend to be periods of Northern dominance (politically in a Crisis, culturally in an Awakening), while Equinox eras are periods of Southern dominance. The core cultures of the South and North are very different from each other, and whichever Americans agree with at the time depends on their mood.

Southern Culture

The South was the first to be born. It's birth year is 1607, with the founding of Jamestown. This was a 1T year, and Britain had just defeated Spain, saved Protestantism, and are building a global empire. Jamestown was founded for the purpose of expanding the British empire into the New World. The Virginia Company was heavily involved in its founding and subsequent growth. It would immediately begin exporting crops to sustain economic growth. During and after the glorious Revolution, it would make slavery legal, which would do miracles for its economic growth and dominance.

South of the Mason-Dixon line, the climate is much more favorable for the cultivation of crops. Therefore, the South could make a lot more money off of its agricultural products than the North could ever dream of. In this region of America, economic growth and production became king. As such, they value tight social stability to help sustain that growth. Social change is not valued because it would threaten those on top who exploit those lower on the economic and social ladder. This leads to the dominance of conservatism, both economic and cultural. During Solstice periods, the South is visibly slower than the North in pushing for and accepting change. The South's first experience with this was not pretty. In 1676, Virginia erupted in vicious Civil War, which was, at the core level, a class war. Variations of this war happened in the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Depression (Southern Textile Strike of 1934, for instance). In the 1930s South, fascism was a much more influencial movement than it was in the North. And it all goes back to the fact that the South values traditionalism, conservatism, and entrenched economic interests.

The North

The North, by contrast, was founded with Massachusetts Bay in 1621 by separatists. These were ultra-idealistic radicals who did not particularly respect, or care for entrenched economic interests. Instead, they wanted to create that "shiny city upon a hill". The climate there is not particularly suited for huge plantation farms as the growing season is too small, and freezing temperatures can last into May and start again as early as September. As such, slavery was never as important to the North. Also, those looking to get rich settled in the South, while those who wanted to build a paradise settled in the North. And it was not just Puritans who did this. All types of groups (including the Bohemians, Hugenots, Jews, and others) also settled in the North. New Amsterdam became a place housing many people. In Puritan Era America, the North became a place where religious and political dissenters settled, trying to escape from certain persecution. These people form the culture of the North. As such, the North is much more utopian, hopeful, progressive, and more accepting of societal upheaval and change.

The results of this can be seen in pretty much every turning. Northerners dominate Crisis and Awakening Eras, Southerners Highs and Unravelings. The Great Awakening seemed to be much more centered in the North than the South, especially since these types of events tend to encourage slave uprisings, such as the Stono Uprising of 1739. The American Revolution was also more centered in the North (and Virginia, which is on the northern periphery of the South). The South was not as friendly towards rebellion against and separation from mothern England as the North. Most of the initial moments happened in the North. In New England, the Crisis culture was so radical that slaves were freed by the end of the Crisis. In the Mid Atlantic, the slaves were freed by the following Awakening. In the immediate Post-Crisis years, the South ruled again, with Virginia taking up the mantle. Southern-style racism began to infect Northern areas such as New York and Massachusetts. By the time, King Cotton was in vogue, trading with a nation they had just defeated in war.

Transcendentalism was also mostly Northern centered, as was abolitionism, feminism, labor protest, etc. And of course, the Civil War was a period of Northern dominance. The Missionary Awakening showed Northern cultural and political dominance, before switching back to the South in the 1910s and 1920s. By the Depression Era, there was a sudden and rapid shift back towards Northern political and cultural dominance, which switched back again by the 1950s. Northern Values clearly ruled during the 1960s and 1970s. The South ruled during the 1980s and 1990s.

Given this history, it should be no surprise that we are now back into a period of Northern dominance. This will be the case before the Southerners swing back into power sometime in the 2020s.

2) Why do we still have a North/South divide, and what will it mean for this 4T? It's true that Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia broke with the true heart of the South this time, and that Obama (along with Democrats in general) did fairly well in Missouri and Georgia, but still, the Republican Party is more Dixie-dominated than ever, with the vast majority of McCain's electoral votes, and an all-time high percentage of the GOP's congressional seats, located there. Maybe the result of snowbird growth in the New South is that the Mason-Dixon line is moving further south and inland (or north and inland, in Florida's case), but whatever the case, we now have a remarkably unanimous Northern Consensus of sorts, especially considering Obama's 53-46% victory was not what most folks would call a landslide. Meanwhile, if Northern liberalism remains dominant for the duration of the 4T, the inland, religiously "fervent" parts of the South are isolating themselves from America's mainstream much like wealthy New England corporate interests were the object of derision by triumphant New Dealers in the 1930s. That may be a big "if", but my interpretation of history, at least, suggests it has some weight.

Discuss!

The North is making inroads into the South, but this is to be expected. It won't outlast the Crisis, though. This happend during each Crisis Era. The Patriots made inroads with the South in the 1770s, again in the 1860s, and again in the 1930s. But before 2030, the South will be making inroads in places such as New York and Boston. Count on it. My prediction is that in this Crisis, racism will become a less influential force in the South. More than ever, whites and blacks will accept each other as equals. But beyond that, the South will remain more conservative, and more concentrated in entrenched economic interests. The South will still be the South (relatively speaking), but with much more watered-down racism. There could also be political battles between the North and South on how to fix the economic and energy Crisis.

To add to my prior post, when people believe that the status quo is not working, that corruption is rampant, that rights are being violated, and are thirsting for change, they vote Northern. When people become tired of social upheaval, disorienting change, and desire stability, they vote Southern.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think this pretty much answers your question. I've noted that the Solstice eras tend to be periods of Northern dominance (politically in a Crisis, culturally in an Awakening), while Equinox eras are periods of Southern dominance. The core cultures of the South and North are very different from each other, and whichever Americans agree with at the time depends on their mood.

Southern Culture

The South was the first to be born. It's birth year is 1607, with the founding of Jamestown. This was a 1T year, and Britain had just defeated Spain, saved Protestantism, and are building a global empire. Jamestown was founded for the purpose of expanding the British empire into the New World. The Virginia Company was heavily involved in its founding and subsequent growth. It would immediately begin exporting crops to sustain economic growth. During and after the glorious Revolution, it would make slavery legal, which would do miracles for its economic growth and dominance.

South of the Mason-Dixon line, the climate is much more favorable for the cultivation of crops. Therefore, the South could make a lot more money off of its agricultural products than the North could ever dream of. In this region of America, economic growth and production became king. As such, they value tight social stability to help sustain that growth. Social change is not valued because it would threaten those on top who exploit those lower on the economic and social ladder. This leads to the dominance of conservatism, both economic and cultural. During Solstice periods, the South is visibly slower than the North in pushing for and accepting change. The South's first experience with this was not pretty. In 1676, Virginia erupted in vicious Civil War, which was, at the core level, a class war. Variations of this war happened in the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Depression (Southern Textile Strike of 1934, for instance). In the 1930s South, fascism was a much more influencial movement than it was in the North. And it all goes back to the fact that the South values traditionalism, conservatism, and entrenched economic interests.

The North

The North, by contrast, was founded with Massachusetts Bay in 1621 by separatists. These were ultra-idealistic radicals who did not particularly respect, or care for entrenched economic interests. Instead, they wanted to create that "shiny city upon a hill". The climate there is not particularly suited for huge plantation farms as the growing season is too small, and freezing temperatures can last into May and start again as early as September. As such, slavery was never as important to the North. Also, those looking to get rich settled in the South, while those who wanted to build a paradise settled in the North. And it was not just Puritans who did this. All types of groups (including the Bohemians, Hugenots, Jews, and others) also settled in the North. New Amsterdam became a place housing many people. In Puritan Era America, the North became a place where religious and political dissenters settled, trying to escape from certain persecution. These people form the culture of the North. As such, the North is much more utopian, hopeful, progressive, and more accepting of societal upheaval and change.

The results of this can be seen in pretty much every turning. Northerners dominate Crisis and Awakening Eras, Southerners Highs and Unravelings. The Great Awakening seemed to be much more centered in the North than the South, especially since these types of events tend to encourage slave uprisings, such as the Stono Uprising of 1739. The American Revolution was also more centered in the North (and Virginia, which is on the northern periphery of the South). The South was not as friendly towards rebellion against and separation from mothern England as the North. Most of the initial moments happened in the North. In New England, the Crisis culture was so radical that slaves were freed by the end of the Crisis. In the Mid Atlantic, the slaves were freed by the following Awakening. In the immediate Post-Crisis years, the South ruled again, with Virginia taking up the mantle. Southern-style racism began to infect Northern areas such as New York and Massachusetts. By the time, King Cotton was in vogue, trading with a nation they had just defeated in war.

Transcendentalism was also mostly Northern centered, as was abolitionism, feminism, labor protest, etc. And of course, the Civil War was a period of Northern dominance. The Missionary Awakening showed Northern cultural and political dominance, before switching back to the South in the 1910s and 1920s. By the Depression Era, there was a sudden and rapid shift back towards Northern political and cultural dominance, which switched back again by the 1950s. Northern Values clearly ruled during the 1960s and 1970s. The South ruled during the 1980s and 1990s.

Given this history, it should be no surprise that we are now back into a period of Northern dominance. This will be the case before the Southerners swing back into power sometime in the 2020s.




The North is making inroads into the South, but this is to be expected. It won't outlast the Crisis, though. This happend during each Crisis Era. The Patriots made inroads with the South in the 1770s, again in the 1860s, and again in the 1930s. But before 2030, the South will be making inroads in places such as New York and Boston. Count on it. My prediction is that in this Crisis, racism will become a less influential force in the South. More than ever, whites and blacks will accept each other as equals. But beyond that, the South will remain more conservative, and more concentrated in entrenched economic interests. The South will still be the South (relatively speaking), but with much more watered-down racism. There could also be political battles between the North and South on how to fix the economic and energy Crisis.

Excellent post! I'm of the opinion that the "South" will contract in this 4T, losing Virgina (Northern Virgina is now very "Northern"), Florida, and maybe Texas (demographic trends) for good.

These are very edifying replies and I hope to see more! Here's a relevant article from Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...econstruction/

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

In 1676, Virginia erupted in vicious Civil War, which was, at the core level, a class war.

I remember reading where, in the immediate aftermath of that conflict, along with hanging the rebel leaders, Gov. Berkeley and the House of Burgesses passed some laws clearly designed to divide Virginia's working class against itself along racial lines. The whole sordid story of southern racism, from then to now, according to this theory, is the working out of those intentionally divisive laws, and the putrid framework of the whole slavery and Jim Crow racial systems reflects the provisions which went into those laws. Might American race relations have been a far less ugly story if Nathaniel Bacon and his rebels had defeated and ousted Gov. Berkeley and his planter cronies (who dominated the House of Burgesses)? I, for one, would like to think so.

Your entire premise is flawed. Here's the county level map from 2008:




It's not about North vs. South. It's cities vs. everybody else. Look at NY, PA, FL, WA, OR, CA, CO...in 2004 it was even more pronounced:




The only region that is entirely Democratic is New England. The Upper Midwest is close behind. Interestingly enough, those are the whitest places in the country, by a huge margin. Not sure what that means.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Urban societies still need to change more rapidly than rural areas. If you look at county level voting maps, you will see many states show blue cities and suburbs in a larger sea of red. California, at a county level, looks like it is a mostly red state... but the populations of the counties around San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego overwhelm the less popular rural counties. Rural areas will remain conservative and perhaps more religious. This is as basic and natural a divide as one is apt to find these days in America. So long as the two major parties focus their values and platforms along the line of this divide, the divide is apt to continue.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your entire premise is flawed. Here's the county level map from 2008:

It's not about North vs. South. It's cities vs. everybody else. Look at NY, PA, FL, WA, OR, CA, CO...in 2004 it was even more pronounced:

The only region that is entirely Democratic is New England. The Upper Midwest is close behind. Interestingly enough, those are the whitest places in the country, by a huge margin. Not sure what that means.

I don't think the premise is flawed. The urban progressive pattern is just clearer on the county level maps. State level maps just don't give as much resolution.

I'd suggest that New England was settled by the Roundhead Puritan culture. After The Year without a Summer, many of the New England farmers moved to the northwest. Part of the reasons these areas remain white is that they were settled for the most part before the Civil War, and were free states.

Still, while the rural areas might remain very white, many urban areas are not. Note also the Great Migration. Between Jim Crow, the Klan and the Mississippi Flood of 1927, there was considerable black migration from the south to the midwest in the early to mid 20th Century.

Originally Posted by Odin

Excellent post! I'm of the opinion that the "South" will contract in this 4T, losing Virgina (Northern Virgina is now very "Northern"), Florida, and maybe Texas (demographic trends) for good.

I don't know. Virginia has always been on the periphery between the North and South. One way that winter storm forecasts often bust is that people don't give warm air advection enough respect. They could seemingly turn Northern (as has often been the case for Virginia) during periods of Awakening and Crisis but the southern flow can just as quickly return after the peak of the social moment.

Nothing new to contribute... just wanted to acknowledge how fascinating this thread is. Most of what I read here confirms my thinking; this is honestly something I haven't thought of before.

Originally Posted by 1990

These are very edifying replies and I hope to see more! Here's a relevant article from Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...econstruction/

Nice article, but one thing he didn't consider is the impact that digital manufacturing might have on a new Reconstruction.