• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why Did The Republican And Democratic Parties Swap Sides Since The Civil War?

Gizmo j

Senior member
Nov 9, 2013
598
112
106
The Confederates were Democratic and the Union were Republican....

But nowadays the states that used to be Democratic are now Republicans and the states that were Republican are now Democrats..

Why did this happen?
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,597
5,794
136
The Confederates were Democratic and the Union were Republican....

But nowadays the states that used to be Democratic are now Republicans and the states that were Republican are now Democrats..

Why did this happen?
What Soulcougher73 said.

With all due respect... rather than make a post like this, have you considered looking for authoritative sources online? Some things are pretty well-documented.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
30,034
15,167
136
The Confederates were Democratic and the Union were Republican....

But nowadays the states that used to be Democratic are now Republicans and the states that were Republican are now Democrats..

Why did this happen?
It happened so conservatives can stick it to the libs by mentioning that Democrats started the KKK as if it has anything to do with the parties today.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
18,749
5,770
136
What Soulcougher73 said.

With all due respect... rather than make a post like this, have you considered looking for authoritative sources online? Some things are pretty well-documented.
First. Look up Dixiecrats. Look up the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Look up Southern Strategy/Lee Atwater.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,628
21,709
146
Most current "conservatives" will deny that this occurred, too.
I like how they go after ROBERT BIRD! ROBERT BIRD! because...he's actually the only southern democrat that didn't flee, join the dixiecrats, and hijack the republican party. ...which means he publicly renounced his racist past, embraced Civil Rights with the new democratic party, and spent the rest of his life trying to mend the evil that his policies inflicted on people.

Of course, today's republicans like to call that guy out without ever acknowledging his life's work, meaning they lionize the racist pieces of shit that had to flee the democrats so that they could keep being racist pieces of shit. He's a democrat, see!

It's perplexing that they refuse to engage in the irony of their simple thinking....well, it really isn't. Such conservatives are very stupid, and very vile humans. They are the worst that humanity has ever created. These are people that think a racist KKK Grandwizard cumgoblin like Strom fucking Thurmond, who was once a Democrat and died 90 merciless years too late as a republican, somehow has no significant meaning. Ditto Jesse Helms. These conservatives are too stupid and too dangerous for society.
 
Last edited:

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,382
420
126
Today's Party of Lincoln reveres the Confederate flag as heritage.
In our non-parliamentary version of democracy there can be only two meaningful political parties, and neither of these two parties is locked into any hard and fast principles. Instead, both morph what they stand for over time in an effort to gain/maintain dominance over the other. They circle each other like two fighters looking for weaknesses or openings they can take advantage of. It's all about winning and being in power.

There is no better demonstration of a party's malleability than the change in the Republican leadership from respected statesmen like Mitt Romney and John McCain to the cynical con men like Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell.

So the two parties have traveled a political half circle in 150 years. The Republicans party is now fighting hard to maintain the status quo (even though that status quo includes white/christian supremacy) while the Democrats try to attract those who will be better off if that status quo is disrupted

Maybe in another 150 years, the party roles will reverse again and the Republicans will be the disrupters and the Democrats the preservers. But based on what the parties stand for now, if Lincoln were alive today he wouldn't be a Republican. 🙄
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,940
4,351
126
The Confederates were Democratic and the Union were Republican....

But nowadays the states that used to be Democratic are now Republicans and the states that were Republican are now Democrats..

Why did this happen?
Personally I have no problem about you asking this and here. One of our greatest Presidents Lyndon Johnson caused it knowing what would happen because he had moral character and supported Civil Rights regardless of race
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
Jul 9, 2009
10,248
1,671
136
The Confederates were Democratic and the Union were Republican....

But nowadays the states that used to be Democratic are now Republicans and the states that were Republican are now Democrats..

Why did this happen?
They didn't, both sides still stand for the values they always have. Democrats still want to own slaves, Republicans still want to set people free. Just see the Democrats reaction when some people such as Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rice dare to leave the plantation.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
9,521
4,231
136
The OP regularly asks some really daft questions, but I have to admit there was a time when this topic confused me as well.

I know the specific details now - Southern Strategy and all that - but really the underlying issue seems to be that US parties are just franchises or brand names, and that the actual content of the political product can change arbitrarily.

Compared to the party system here it seems unusually free-floating and lacking substance.

I think there is some vague consistency of demographic/class interest behind it (Democrats represent the working class, that was historically white but is now much less so, together with the agricultural sector, and the Republicans represent the northern industrialist class, whose class-interests themselves change depending on the historical context). But it seems very loosely-tethered and prone to shift compared to many other countries.

(I note we get the usual vacuous ultra-partisan abusive nonsense from taj)
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,963
6,021
136
The Confederates were Democratic and the Union were Republican....

But nowadays the states that used to be Democratic are now Republicans and the states that were Republican are now Democrats..

Why did this happen?
I'm going to quote two of my posts that I've written here about the Civil Rights Act and the "party switch".

Before I quote myself though, if you want the real quick meta-understanding of the "party switch"...

Southern conservative shitbags used to be in the Democratic Party, until Truman desegregated things. Now southern conservative shitbags own and operate the Republican Party en masse.

Once you realize that:
Antebellum slaveowners- > civil war traitors -> early 20th century Democrats -> modern Republican Party

You realize the "party switch" can be simply summed up with the clear understanding that: SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVES owned slaves, enacted Jim Crow, and left the Democratic Party once the Democratic Party from Truman to LBJ told them to FUCK OFF. It's easy to dismiss the stupid shit conservatives say that tries to obfuscate the obvious reality.

Anyway, here are two posts that go into slightly more detail, but just remember, it all revolves around the shittiness of Southern Conservatives.

First off...that's not really right, and y'all are leaving out Truman and the desegregation of the US Army in 1948, along with Truman getting anti-lynching laws and anti-poll tax laws passed. You know, Truman "bribing" blacks by treating them like fucking human beings. How corrupt!

After Truman had the gall to do that, you had a split in the Democratic party in the South, with the formation of the "States Rights", Dixiecrat party, with good ol' Strom Thurmond running for President and carrying some states in the South.

It is from 1948 onwards that the Democratic party started shedding its bigoted fuckholes, with the Republican party starting to gobble them up to make them its base (that it has now lost control of, just like Frankenstein's monster).

Second, let's be really, really clear about the Civil Rights Act, and the voting that passed it, because people love to trot out the " but-but-but, Republicans are the ones who passed it!!!1" argument.

Well, context matters.

There was more Democratic party votes against the Civil Rights Act. Absolutely correct. That said, it was LBJ's baby and he knocked heads together to get it passed.

But, most importantly, and has been discussed here and elsewhere literally countless times:

The Civil Rights Act was passed by Northern politicians of both parties. In fact, if you break it down by region, a higher percentage of Democratic politicians voted for the Civil Rights Act than Republican politicians, from the north, in both the House and Senate...and even the South, where a good chunk of the bigoted fuckhole politicians lived (pssst: and still live).

In other words, Southern politicians of both parties were the opposition, but even there, the Southern Democratic party politicians voted for it at a higher percentage than Southern Republican party politicians. The fact that more Democrats were against it sprang directly from the fact that there were more Southern Democrats than Southern Republicans. Full stop.

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%) NO VOTES
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%) NO VOTES
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%) YES VOTES
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%) YES VOTES

Southern Republicans voted NO 100%, compared to Southern Democrats at 93%.
Northern Republicans votes YES 85%, compared to Northern Democrats at 94%.


The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Southern Republicans voted NO 100%, compared to Southern Democrats at 95%.
Northern Republicans votes YES 84%, compared to Northern Democrats at 98%.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region

Note very well:

The Civil Rights Act passed because Republican and Democratic politicians from the North bucked the tradition of racism and segregation as a policy. There were also substantially more Democratic politicians from the South who opposed it, because, well, there were more Southern politicians who were Democrats.

And LBJ called what happened next...that the Democratic party would lose the South for a generation. In fact, it took awhile, but you can literally do a roll-call of Southern Democrats who switched parties to the Republican party, some as early as 1948, but most between 1964-1990's, with notable holdouts like Zell Miller, remaining a Democrat but voting Republican, because the South getting their shit pushed in during the Civil War still left an uncomfortable feeling for many people regarding the Republican party.

By 1968, Nixon's (and Lee Atwater, if you want to give credit where it's due) Southern Strategy began the process of turning Southern voters who had been almost 100% Democratic since the Civil War. St. Reagan did the same thing, opening his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi for obvious reasons, and, well, take a look at just about every electoral college map since 1980, and you'll see that the switch of the South from Democratic to Republican is pretty much complete.
There were more Democratic politicians who voted against the Civil Rights Act than Republicans, which was a direct artifact of the South being almost totally Democratic...right up until the Civil Rights Act ensured that the bigots would switch allegiance to the Republican party.

This is constantly brought up by people trying to obfuscate what actually happened in 1964, and then after based on the passage of the CRA.

If you leave out real-world context, that, you know, the South had been functioning under Jim Crow for a century and didn't elect Republicans because of the Civil War, then you can argue that somehow the Civil Rights Act was a Republican creature.

Once you control for region and chamber of Congress, which I did, it is clear that the Democratic party voted to pass the Civil Rights Act more than the Republican party in both the North, and South.

But let's change things just a bit and count all Republicans and all Democrats from each region as a whole, rather than controlling for chamber of Congress.

Just controlling for region, there were 115 Southern Democrats (House and Senate), and a whopping 11 Southern Republicans (House and Senate).

8/115 = 0.695 = 6.95% of Southern Democrats voted for the CRA.

1/11 = 0.090 = 9% of Southern Republicans voted for the CRA...which while higher than the Southern Democrats, was still just 1 Southern Republican who voted against Jim Crow, out of 11 total.

Just controlling for region, there were 200 Northern Democrats (House and Senate), and 194 Northern Republicans (House and Senate).

190/200 = 0.95 = 95% of Northern Democrats voted for the CRA.

165/194 = 0.8505 = 85% of Northern Republicans voted for the CRA.

So, Democrats provided literally more votes total in passing the CRA, voted for the CRA at a higher percentage based on region and chamber, and only voted for the CRA at a slightly less percentage if they were from the South, although there were only 11 Southern Republicans compared to 115 Southern Democrats.

Voting for or against the CRA is much better analyzed as a regional phenomena than it is simply by party or chamber of Congress alone. And by watching how Democratic politicians from the South essentially changed party from 1964 onwards, you realize that it was a regional thing.

To some extent, the North won Civil War I in 1865 through battles. The South won Civil War II in 1876 through politics, in ending Reconstruction and enacting Jim Crow. And the North effectively won Civil War III in 1964 by passing the CRA... because Northerners of both parties told the South to sit and spin.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
13,536
10,457
136
They didn't, both sides still stand for the values they always have. Democrats still want to own slaves, Republicans still want to set people free. Just see the Democrats reaction when some people such as Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rice dare to leave the plantation.
It's a sad state of affairs that someone as fucked in the head like you with your soulless and evil beliefs wastes oxygen and food and other resources that could go to someone with an actual soul. Such a waste when these things go to pure evil such as yourself and tens of millions of Trumpie party filth.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,628
21,709
146
They didn't, both sides still stand for the values they always have. Democrats still want to own slaves, Republicans still want to set people free. Just see the Democrats reaction when some people such as Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rice dare to leave the plantation.
well, we always knew you were an illiterate cumgoblin. This just reinforces it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
13,536
10,457
136
TBI from being too close to your own grenades?
To sane evolved people brain damage is a safe way to explain how those people can be so horrific, as it is hard for us to understand how fucked in their minds they can be - but alas no, that is just their normally functioning brain. They are naturally terrible evil people.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,597
5,794
136
They didn't, both sides still stand for the values they always have. Democrats still want to own slaves, Republicans still want to set people free. Just see the Democrats reaction when some people such as Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rice dare to leave the plantation.
So when overt racists routinely endorse (David Duke, Richard Spencer, etc.) or join (Joe Arpaio, Steve King, etc.) the Republican party for its policies, and the party does nothing, that's just a freak coincidence? When Trump suggests neo-Nazis are "very nice people," when he makes racist remarks about "shithole countries" and a group of non-white Democrats, when he knows Stephen Miller is a white supremacist and doesn't fire him, when numerous trustworthy reports indicate Trump is more racist behind the scenes than we already know him to be... and the party still backs him, that's just a freak coincidence?

Our beefs with Thomas and Rice aren't because they "left the plantation." It's because Thomas is a sexual harasser, while Rice both spread lies that led to the 2003 Iraq War and condoned torture in interrogations. Now, we know you're fine with sexual harassment and torture because you support Trump, but those of us with moral scruples know that diversity doesn't mean giving people a free pass for any and all behavior.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,946
1,131
126
It's hard to say where it really started. Progressive economic policies in the Democratic party in the early 1900's were likely the spark. Progressive economic policies which were designed to help the working man had the effect of benefiting minorities decently. In the 40's FDR banned some racially discriminatory practices, albeit not for idealistic reasons. Then Truman integrated the military by executive order in 1948. JFK proposed the Civil Rights Act. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Around then you had Barry Goldwater start the Southern Strategy. I'm sure most people know, but if not the Southern Strategy was a political concept to use southern white racial animosity to get the dixiecrats to switch to voting for Republicans. When you had several prominent actions recently by the Democratic party that benefited black Americans you pointed to that to stir anger. Most people attribute that to Nixon, but only because Barry failed to win using it. Once Nixon successfully used it to win it largely became the Republican official practice. You can even see the Southern Strategy still being used today by the Republican party via their movement against Critical Race Theory.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,963
6,021
136
It's hard to say where it really started. Progressive economic policies in the Democratic party in the early 1900's were likely the spark. Progressive economic policies which were designed to help the working man had the effect of benefiting minorities decently. In the 40's FDR banned some racially discriminatory practices, albeit not for idealistic reasons. Then Truman integrated the military by executive order in 1948. JFK proposed the Civil Rights Act. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Around then you had Barry Goldwater start the Southern Strategy. I'm sure most people know, but if not the Southern Strategy was a political concept to use southern white racial animosity to get the dixiecrats to switch to voting for Republicans. When you had several prominent actions recently by the Democratic party that benefited black Americans you pointed to that to stir anger. Most people attribute that to Nixon, but only because Barry failed to win using it. Once Nixon successfully used it to win it largely became the Republican official practice. You can even see the Southern Strategy still being used today by the Republican party via their movement against Critical Race Theory.
No, it's not. I stated it here years ago, and just a few posts up.

Follow the southern conservatives. If they vote Democratic, then the south is Democratic-voting. If southern conservatives vote Republican, then the south is Republican-voting.

Lots of things happened regarding southern conservatives from 1865 - 1965.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY