The Party of Lincoln: WI the Republicans become the party of civil rights?

Did a search and found some threads about the Republicans not pursuing a Southern Strategy after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act but I can't find any threads about what would happen if legislature similar to the CRA and the VRA were passed under a Republican president.

Let's say that for whatever reason an anti-segregation Republican is president in the mid-60's and is able to pass civil rights legislation by getting the bulk of the Republican party on board as well as enough northern Democratic liberals to defeat the Dixiecrats and put a stake through Jim Crow.

This would produce a furious reaction from Dixiecrats, some defections from the Republicans in the south at least some northern democrats joining the Republicans and the bulk of new black voters supporting Republicans.

What would the long term effect of this be? Especially on the platforms of both parties in areas aside from civil rights?

I could see desegregation being rockier with it being spearheaded by a Republican instead of a southern Democrat like LBJ.

On the democratic side I could see civil rights tearing up the old New Deal coalition but the Dixiecrats wouldn't be able to defect and I could see labor having headaches about choosing between Dixiecrats or Rockefeller Republicans. What sort of economic policy would the Democrats go for if the Dixiecrats (and presumably the Reagan Democrats) stay on board? I could see the Democrats going strongly Pro-Life in order to keep northern Catholics on side in this universe (at this time Pro-Life was seen as mostly a Catholic issue, Evangelicals didn't make much of an issue out of it at the time).

For the Republicans this would presumably strengthen the hand of the Rockefeller Republicans with lots and lots and black voters voting in Republican primaries that'd have interesting repercussions. How far left in ways other than civil rights would the Republicans get pushed in this scenario? A lot of Nixon's domestic policies look pretty damn liberal compared to Reagan so presumably we'd see more of that, perhaps a stronger Earned Income Tax Credit?

In this universe would there be space for any third party? Perhaps an American labor and/or peace party?
 
Things fell where they did because the Republican party was always the White Collar party to the Blue Collar of the Democrats, and economically they were conservative regardless of their social liberalism or conservatism. If the Big Tents collapse (as they did) it's always more likely for the Democrats to absorb the Liberals and the Republicans to absorb the Conservatives wholesale. This is the party of Franklin Roosevelt.
 
Last edited:
Things fell where they did because the Republican party was always the White Collar party to the Blue Collar of the Democrats, and economically they were conservative regardless of their social liberalism or conservatism. If the Big Tents collapse (as they did) it's always more likely for the Democrats to absorb the Liberals and the Republicans to absorb the Conservatives wholesale. This is the party of Franklin Roosevelt.

Right, the way things sorted out IOTL is more likely but I don't think it's inevitable. In the old days of the New Deal coalition the Democrats were blue collar and the Republicans were white.

But that's pretty damn frayed these days, there are lots and lots of urban liberal white collar Democrats and the core of Trump's support is blue collar Republicans and there are enough of those to (it seems) secure him the Republican nomination.

So the class based divide largely broke down IOTL and it could break down in another TL as well in a different way as social issues become more important for determining political affiliation than class.
 
If the Republicans were in the White House when a civil rights bill was passed, they probably would have gotten the credit. As it was, the Democrats had both the White House and Congress when the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed in 1964/5 so it's hard for them not to get the credit. As it was, the Republicans had a greater percentage of their party in Congress voting in favor than the Democrats had for both acts.

If Nixon was in the White House in the 1960s, he'd probably get some of the credit for its passage, but since the Democrats control Congress, it's going to be split with Johnson, Humphrey, and other liberal Democrats.

The real question is what happens to the Southern Democrats if neither party attempts to bring them on board. Conceivably, if the Republicans retain a large bloc of black voters to keep them competitive in the northern cities, then they can tolerate southern third party Presidential candidates who take the votes from the Democrats, and can caucus with them in Congress on an ad hoc basis when their interests combine.

It should be stated that Goldwater only opposed the 1964 CRA because one title impacted the private sector. He wasn't opposed to its impact on governmental actors and had supported previous CRAs.

I think the only way for the Republicans to get sole/majority credit for civil rights (to be the party of civil rights) is if the Democrats blow up over the issue, and the Republicans take control of Congress and pass it on their own with northern Democrat support (an inverse of OTL). However, I don't see how the Republicans could have such a massive turnaround - we'd need to have a very different 1958-1966 for the Republicans to take control.
 
I think you need a much earlier POD. The dawn of the Democratic Party as the party of civil rights truly arose with Harry Truman. If Byrnes, a segregationist, was chosen instead of Truman and many thought he would, he would not push the Democrats to the left. Furthermore, Dewey wins in 1948 and he's probably the one to desegregate the army through executive order. This would push the Republicans to the left and deliver them the northern black vote, and the Democrats would probably only somewhat support it, with Southern Democrats being opposed. The latter would probably never support the Republicans, as they would be pushed to the left in terms of civil rights due to black support.
 

Cryostorm

Donor
Honestly, you need for the Republicans to allow Theodore Roosevelt his third run and not pick Taft and force Roosevelt to go third party, since this is where the decline of the Republican Progressive wing started. If they have a more economically progressive wing then they are more likely to become more progressive on social issues as well, especially since the South is dominated by the Democrats. But like said above if they are an economic conservative party then they are likely to be all over conservative in an attempt to expand their base into the South to use it and eventually get taken over in turn, thanks Nixon:rolleyes:.
 
Part of the dilemma for the GOP is pure electoral politics.

In order to win elections they needed to either gain greater black support or make a play for southern votes.

It's not pretty but it is reality and when black voters stuck with the Democrats in the 50's despite GOP support for (and Southern Dem opposition to) civil rights it became a real problem.

Politics often stinks
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
there really has been an honest to gosh switching of the parties regarding economic growth vs. distributive justice.

Previously, the Republicans had been more pro-growth and the Democrats more in favor of poor people getting a fair shake.

Now, the Democrats are more pro-growth, and the Republicans more focused on the distributive question of governmental sector of economy vs. private sector.

Now, how this would play out with a Democratic Party which uses code phrases to tap into racial resentment would probably be pretty interesting.
 
A list I made on this sort of scenario:

Solid South Forever or The Party of Lincoln
1944: Franklin Roosevelt/James Byrnes (Democratic) [1]
def. Thomas Dewey/John Bricker (Republican)
1945: James Byrnes [2]
1948: Thomas Dewey/Harold Stassen (Republican) [3]
def. James Byrnes/Brien McMahon (Democratic) and Henry Wallace/Glen Taylor (Progressive)
1952: Thomas Dewey/Harold Stassen (Republican) [4]
def. Adlai Stevenson/Robert Kerr (Democratic)
1956: Estes Kefauver/Robert Wagner Jr. (Democratic)[5]
def. Harold Stassen/George Bender (Republican)
1960: Estes Kefauver/Robert Wagner Jr. (Democratic) [6]
def. Henry Cabot Lodge Jr./Goodwin Night (Republican)
1961: Robert Wagner Jr. (Democratic) [7]
1964:George Romney/Mark Hatfield (Republican)[8]
def. Robert Wagner Jr./Albert Gore (Democratic) and Strom Thurmond/Orval Faubus
1968: Lyndon Johnson/John Kennedy (Democratic)[9]
def. George Romney/Mark Hatfield (Republican) and George Wallace/Lester Maddox
1972: Mark Hatfield/William Scranton (Republican)[10]
def. Lyndon Johnson/John Kennedy (Democratic)
1976: Henry Jackson/Jimmy Carter (Democratic) [11]
def. Mark Hatfield/William Scranton (Republican)
1980: George H.W. Bush/Nancy Kassebaum (Republican) [12]
def. Henry Jackson/Terry Sanford (Democratic)
1984: George H.W. Bush/Nancy Kassebaum (Republican) [13]
def. Terry Sanford/John Glenn (Democratic)

[1] Byrnes managed to get on the Democratic ticket, like many thought he would in OTL. Byrnes was less useful to the ticket than Truman, as his anti-labor stance and his status as a South Carolinian alienated many northern liberals, but FDR still won reelection.
[2] After FDR's death, James Byrnes became President of the United States. His clashes with organized labor lead to a demoralized Democratic Party, which lost control of both Houses of Congress in 1946. Byrnes was more successful in his foreign policy, as the Cold War began and he stood up to the Communists. Despite a spirited challenge from the left of his party, he managed to win the nomination, stopping a civil rights plank from being added in the process.
[3] With the Democratic Party split, Thomas Dewey easily won the 1948 election, ending 16 years of Democratic rule. Dewey managed to get a weak civil rights bill passed (like OTL 1957 or 1960) and issued an executive order desegregating the military, actions which made him popular among black Americans, but very unpopular among Southern whites. The right-wing Republican economic agenda was unpopular, and the 1950 elections saw many defeats for the Republicans, among them Robert Taft of Ohio, with the Democrats winning both chambers.
[4] However, the successful conclusion of the Korean War gave President Dewey the boost he needed to win reelection. The Democrats still managed to gain a couple Senate seats without losing any, and retained a majority in the house. Despite winning reelection and passing another weak civil rights law, Dewey's popularity fell during his second term, with the Democrats winning big again in 1954. By the end of his term, the Republican Party was despised by white Southerners due to Dewey enforcing liberal Supreme Court legislation.
[5] Estes Kefauver won the Democratic primaries and the nomination, and won reelection against the hapless Harold Stassen. Kefauver passed comprehensive regulations and reforms, as well as welfare expansion and pro-labor bills, but at the cost of ignoring civil rights to hold the Democrats together behind his bills.
[6] With a good economy, Kefauver got reelected. However, his health was poor and he died in November of 1961.
[7] President Wagner continued Kefauver's legacy of Progressive legislation. He also fought for Civil Rights action, but he was unable to pass anything significant through Congress.
[8] Wagner won renomination, but his civil rights rhetoric lead to the Democrats in the South revolting and an independent run being lead by South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. George Romney, a successful Republican governor of Michigan, won the Presidency, winning moderate voters, many labor voters, and minorities. Romney fought for a comprehensive Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, both of which were passed in 1965. Romney used the Voting Rights Act to mobilize many black voters in the South behind the Republican Party, but his religion and racial progress were used against him by Southern Democrats. Republicans could only get elected in the South in black majority areas.
[9] Economic issues and foreign policy concerns lead to the Democrats thinking they had a great chance in 1968. In order to win back Southern voters, they nominated Texan Senator Lyndon Johnson. Johnson attracted traditional Democratic voters and poor people across the nation, but the most hardcore racists, still bitter over the Civil Rights Act, ran their own third party campaign. However, no attempt to make a new segregationist political party was made, as the average Southern Democrat still sided more with the National Party.
[10] Johnson passed sweeping progressive economic legislation, but his foreign policy was less successful, as he could not stop the USSR from crushing would-be revolutions in Eastern Europe. Unable to stave off the bad economy and unpopular among many Americans for perceived over-reach in his domestic agenda, Johnson had a tough fight ahead of him in the 1972 election. He managed to defeat a primary challenge from George Wallace, and convince Southern Democrats to stand behind him to stop former Vice President Mark Hatfield, who was associated with the pro-Civil Rights Romney administration. However, a heart attack in the fall kept Johnson off of the campaign trail for weeks, and the President was unwilling to use the heart attack to gain sympathy points. Hatfield won a narrow victory, although the Democrats continued to control Congress. Hatfield swept the black vote, whereas Southern white voted overwhelmingly for Johnson.
President Hatfield's term soon came embroiled in controversy, as in 1973 the Supreme Court passed ruling striking down the death penalty as unconstitutional and establishing that women had the right to an abortion. President Hatfield applauded the death penalty decision, but announced he was "Pro-life in all cases" and stood against the abortion ruling. His pro-life stance irritated the Northeastern liberals in the Republican Party, while his anti-death penalty position was disliked by many midwestern and western Republicans. His strongest allies on social issues were the Southern black Republican leaders, many of whom were religious figures, who opposed the racistly applied death penalty while being against abortion. Even though he stood against abortion, the fact that it was legalized under his presidency, combined with his stand against the death penalty, as well as a general move towards a more socially liberal society occurring in the 1980s made Hatfield emblematic of a culture working class whites were growing increasingly uncomfortable with. Combined with inflation and stagnant economic growth, and Hatfield saw his popularity collapse among blue collar workers. Numerous unions went on strike, protesting the President's actions. Hatfield went into the Republican primary with challenges from his right and his left, although the party ultimately rallied around the incumbent president. The party would have to see if its support among the wealthy, racial minorities, and the evangelical pro-life movement could overcome the blue collar, "hard hat" vote.
[11] The Democratic Party went into the 1976 primaries divided. The South, ever the dominant region of the Democrats, lifted up favorite sons Jimmy Carter, Terry Sanford, and the perennial George Wallace. However, after two nominations of Johnson, and after Presidents Kefauver and Byrnes, the rest of the party had begun to resent the South's dominance. South Dakota Senator George McGovern ran on a "new left" platform, to target minority voters and women and the youth rather relying on the working class. However, McGovern's platform was rejected, and the party instead rallied around Washington Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. Scoop's platform of strong national security and New Deal economics appealed to the working class Americans who felt left behind in the Hatfield presidency. Hatfield campaigned well, but ultimately Jackson won the Washington vs. Oregon election by a strong popular vote margin, although the electoral college was a bit closer.
Upon entering office, Jackson set to work promoting American-friendly regimes abroad and a strong economy at home. Quick action on Jackson's part saw the Shah of Iran replaced with a U.S.-aligned Republic, while the President also managed to bring Israel and Egypt to the negotiating table. Jackson also ordered military aid sent to anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan and the Balkans, hurting the U.S.S.R.'s military budget. Jackson saw the continued success of the Space Program, and expanded N.A.S.A's budget. He also expanded the healthcare programs started by President Johnson, finally establishing universal healthcare for Americans.
[12] Going into 1980, President Jackson felt secure in his reelection. He was facing former Governor George H.W. Bush of Connecticut, a pro-life moderate who could please both the liberal northeastern and conservative western branches of the GOP. However, in 1980 the U.S. government entered a recession, and Jackson's New Deal Keynesian economics failed to adequately address the problem. Jackson's lead slowly shrank throughout the campaign season, and Bush managed to pull off a narrow victory. After twelve years of Senators and Vice Presidents as President, a governor got elected, as the fifth president in a row lost reelection.
[13] While the first few years of his Presidency suffered from a weak economy, and the Democrats increased their 32-year majority in the House and their 28-year majority in the Senate in 1982, in late 1983 the economy began to improve again due to Bush's moderate conservative policies. Bush rejected the supply-side economic proposals, going for a more moderate route. In foreign policy, Bush kept President Jackson's popular policies, and on social issues he promoted a Christian-based rehabilitation philosophy on crime, continuing to appoint pro-life judges, and seeing the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. By election day, the President was more popular than ever, and he swept every region of the country other than the South in a massive landslide.
 
Did a search and found some threads about the Republicans not pursuing a Southern Strategy after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act but I can't find any threads about what would happen if legislature similar to the CRA and the VRA were passed under a Republican president.

Let's say that for whatever reason an anti-segregation Republican is president in the mid-60's and is able to pass civil rights legislation by getting the bulk of the Republican party on board as well as enough northern Democratic liberals to defeat the Dixiecrats and put a stake through Jim Crow.

ITYM: What if the Republican Party returned as the party of civil rights?

(Rather than the national Democrats taking up the issue, as in OTL.)

Until 1948, Republicans were the Party of Lincoln, and Democrats were the party of Jim Crow. Most white Southerners were lockstep in support of local Democrats to maintain white supremacy and keep blacks disfranchised. The national Democratic Party assisted the Southerners in suppressing any civil rights effort at the Federal level. Republicans, despite their heritage, left the issue alone. They did not challenge the many forms of segregation practiced throughout the country, nor the Jim Crow regime in the South.

Southern propaganda in the Reconstruction Era and afterwards persuaded most whites outside the South that blacks were incapable of being full citizens. Circa 1900, Teddy Roosevelt wrote in a private letter that straight democracy was unworkable in the South because because of all the blacks there. Black minorities voting elsewhere was OK, but black majorities voting would be disastrous. Thus even in the 1920s, when Republicans were hyper-dominant, they did nothing.

Then during the Depression, northern blacks were won over to the Democrats by the New Deal, and patronage from big-city machines. Lincoln was dead, and the Republicans weren't doing anything for blacks.

OK. PoD Roosevelt tabs Jimmy Byrnes for VP in 1944, and Byrnes succeeds as President 1945. In 1948, Byrnes runs for a full term, and loses to Dewey. (There is no Dixiecrat split, but a much larger "Progressive" split.)

However, Republicans have trouble winning control of Congress, especially the Senate, and civil rights legislation goes nowhere for many years. Also, Earl Warren becomes VP instead of Chief Justice.

In 1956, Harriman-Sparkman defeats Warren-P. Bush. In 1960, Nixon defeats Harriman. Somewhere along the line, the Supreme Court strikes down grandfather clauses and real estate covenants.

Blacks start agitating against Jim Crow nationally. A weaker CRA passes with support of some northern Democrats. Nixon is reelected in 1964; a Dixiecrat ticket carries five states, but means nothing. In 1966, the VRA passes, covering much the same ground as the OTL 24th Amendment. (The "guarantee of republican government" clause is cited as authority for Federal regulation of elections.)

I don't see how it plays out after that.
 
Top