DOCSLIB.ORG

George D. Prentice and the Secession Crisis in Kentucky

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
George D. Prentice and the Secession Crisis in Kentucky Champion of the Union: George D. Prentice and the Secession Crisis in Kentucky by James M. Prichard rave concern over the brewing sectional conflict then threatening the G Union, cast an ominous shadow across the usual patriotic eulogies in the July 4, i860 issue of the Louisville Journal. Departing from a recount- ing of the struggles and triumphs of the founding fathers, George D. Pren- tice, the Journal's colorful and widely respected editor, reminded his fellow Kentuckians that but a few decades had elapsed since the nation was founded that July day in Philadelphia. "Surely," he reminded them, "heaven never meant so short a period for the long life and old age of our country." Although still in infancy, the United States had already "dazzled all the century growths of old races and dead histories in all that makes the greatness and glory of national life." Adding that "July 4th is the anniversary of the holy bond of the Union," he urged all to "keep this bond holy."1 During the critical times that followed, Prentice was to prove how sacred he regarded this "holy bond." Although heartily opposed to the election of Lincoln, Prentice felt the latter's victory in the presidential election of i860 far from warranted the breakup of the nation. Throughout the months that followed he and the Journal proved powerful allies to Kentucky's pro-Union element in their struggle with the state's secession party. Although he remained a bitter political foe of the newly elected president, Prentice was to figure prominently in the eventual triumph of Kentucky's pro-Union element which resulted in preserving that key border state for the Union and provided the Lincoln administration with a sub- stantial political victory during the dark days following Bull Run. A colorful individual possessing high literary skill, Prentice, on the eve of the Civil War, was at the zenith of a journalistic career that would span nearly forty years. A native of Connecticut, where he was born in 1802, Prentice, a promising young journalist, had come to Louisville in 1830 in order to pen a campaign biography of his idol, Henry Clay.2 Upon com- pletion of his work, Clay and his followers convinced the young writer to remain in Kentucky and accept the editorship of the soon to be established Louisville Journal—a. newspaper that they hoped would become the voice of the Whig party in the West. In the years that followed, Prentice's skill in attacking rival editors, usually displayed in a sharp, stinging, satirical George D. Prentice, a promising young journalist who had come from Connecticut to Louisville to write a biography of Henry Clay, decided to remain in Louisville and accepted the editorship of the Louisville Journal. manner, enhanced his reputation throughout the Ohio River Valley and the West. As more of his editorials were picked up and reprinted in the eastern press, Prentice soon became not only a well known figure through- out America but in Europe as well.3 The growing difficulties between the North and South over slavery be- came a matter of increasing concern to Prentice, who firmly believed that the Union was threatened not only by the ravings of Southern fire-eaters, but by the schemes of radical abolitionists as well. Throughout the furious political struggles of the fifties, he counseled moderation. The Journal supported the extension of slavery into the territories,4 and the editor maintained that it should only be abolished through the Constitutional process.5 Yet he did not believe the increasing opposition to the slave system warranted the break-up of the Union and he was quick to point out to militant-southerners that any sectional war in its defense would only end in the destruction of their precious institution.6 Prentice was keenly aware that a victory by the anti-slavery Republican Party in the presidential election of i860 would surely split the nation. Accordingly, he swung the full weight of his support behind the candidate of the Constitutional Union Party, John Bell of Tennessee. Formerly the Know-Nothing Party, which the editor had supported in previous contests, the Constitutional Unionists adopted a platform that completely avoided the slave issue, placing emphasis on the maintenance of the Union, the Constitution, and the enforcement of laws.7 Portraying the Constitutional Unionists as the only national party re- maining in the country,8 Prentice felt that Bell was the candidate who had the best chance of defeating the Republicans due to the hopelessly divided condition of the Democrats.9 Aided by the country's conservative Demo- crats, the Constitutional Unionists, Prentice maintained, would prevent "the seeds of Lincoln Republicanism, Douglas' Squatter Sovereignty or Breckinridge dis-unionism" from taking root "in Kentucky soil."10 However, as November drew closer and Lincoln's chances of being elected increased, the editor, along with other moderates wrote to the Republican candidate in the hopes he might steal the secessionists thunder by modifying his stand on slavery.1! Lincoln, a former Whig himself, had always admired Prentice, the Journal having been a political primer in his youth.12 Yet in his reply, dated October 29, but not sent till after the November election, he refused to comply with the editor's request. Stating that any further comments he might make on the slavery issue would only be twisted by "bad men, both North and South," Lincoln added a personal sting to the refusal by reminding Prentice that the Journal, which often pictured him as "the worst man living," had done much to increase Southern apprehensions over the possibility of a Republican victory at the polls.13 Although undaunted in his support of Bell, Prentice, a week before the election, admitted that Lincoln was dangerously close to victory. 14 Fore- warning Kentuckians of just such a possibility, the editor wrote that should the conservatives of the nation be overwhelmed and "Lincoln be elected by a sectional vote, it is of the first importance that the Union men should close their ranks . and be ready to act as the best interests of the country may demand. We shall have to contend, in the border states, with the fanaticism of the North and the hot-headed, over zealous Secessionists of the South, and upon the calmness, discretion, and moderation of the con- servative masses will depend the destiny of the country."15 The efforts of Prentice and his party bore fruit on November 6 as far as Kentucky was concerned. Bell, who carried the state with 66,016 votes, was followed by favored son John C. Breckinridge of the Southern Democrats with 52,836 and Stephen A. Douglas of the Northern Democrats with 25,644. Lincoln received less than 2,000 votes throughout the state.16 For the most part the state divided along traditional Whig-Democrat lines of previous elections.17 The division in the Democratic Party had been a powerful factor in the election, as well as the fact that Breckinridge, a popular figure in the state, had increasingly become associated with the dis-unionist elements of the Deep South.18 Bell's victory had also been a victory for the large, conservative pro-Union element whose views were whole-heartedly championed by Prentice in the pages of the Journal.^ The support of Prentice was no doubt another major factor in Bell's favor. The editor's backing proved decisive in Louisville where Bell re- ceived 4,896 votes to a total of 3,441 for Breckinridge and 1,112 for Douglas.20 It is interesting to note that of seven major Kentucky news- papers involved in the campaign, four supported Breckinridge, two (one of which was the Journal) supported Bell, while one backed Douglas. The fact that Prentice was able to overcome his journalistic opponents' weight in numbers shows not only editorial skill, but perhaps his influence on public opinion as well.21 Yet despite Bell's success in Kentucky, it would be a Republican who entered the White House in March. In a post-election editorial, Prentice wrote that the news of Lincoln's victory was a deplorable event that filled him with sorrow and anxiety. "Yet," he went on, "we do not on account of it despair of our country and least of all do we intend by reason of it to abandon her in any crisis the unhappy event may bring with it."22 Both during and after the election Prentice sought to play down the Lincoln "threat" in an effort to weaken the secessionist argument. Ridiculing any notions that Lincoln would attempt to subjugate Kentucky or any other Southern state,23 the editor went on to ask "Why should a nation that has calmly tolerated Van Buren, and Tyler and Pierce and Buchanan in the Presidential chair, fly fiercely into fragments on account of the election of Lincoln?"24 116 Abraham Lincoln John Bell The efforts of Prentice on behalf of John Bell in the i860 election proved quite successful as Bell carried Kentucky followed by Breckinridge, Douglas, and Lincoln respectively. John C. Breckinridge Stephen A. Douglas In order to calm Southern fears, he emphasized that Lincoln was harm- less, being subject to the restraints of Congress and the Supreme Court. Only a Cabinet of temperate views could possibly be confirmed. No "unconstitu- tional laws adverse to slavery" could be enacted "since both branches [of the Congress] are Anti-Republican." Any attempt at aggression on Lincoln's part would surely result in his impeachment.25 In the Deep South, where emotions were at a fever pitch, pleas for reason by men such as Prentice fell on deaf ears.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Virginia Democratic Party, 1965-2015
    A History of the Virginia Democratic Party, 1965-2015 A Senior Honors Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation “with Honors Distinction in History” in the undergraduate colleges at The Ohio State University by Margaret Echols The Ohio State University May 2015 Project Advisor: Professor David L. Stebenne, Department of History 2 3 Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Mills Godwin, Linwood Holton, and the Rise of Two-Party Competition, 1965-1981 III. Democratic Resurgence in the Reagan Era, 1981-1993 IV. A Return to the Right, 1993-2001 V. Warner, Kaine, Bipartisanship, and Progressive Politics, 2001-2015 VI. Conclusions 4 I. Introduction Of all the American states, Virginia can lay claim to the most thorough control by an oligarchy. Political power has been closely held by a small group of leaders who, themselves and their predecessors, have subverted democratic institutions and deprived most Virginians of a voice in their government. The Commonwealth possesses the characteristics more akin to those of England at about the time of the Reform Bill of 1832 than to those of any other state of the present-day South. It is a political museum piece. Yet the little oligarchy that rules Virginia demonstrates a sense of honor, an aversion to open venality, a degree of sensitivity to public opinion, a concern for efficiency in administration, and, so long as it does not cost much, a feeling of social responsibility. - Southern Politics in State and Nation, V. O. Key, Jr., 19491 Thus did V. O. Key, Jr. so famously describe Virginia’s political landscape in 1949 in his revolutionary book Southern Politics in State and Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election
    University of Mississippi eGrove Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors Theses Honors College) Spring 5-9-2020 Y'all Like Ike: Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election Cameron N. Regnery University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis Part of the American Politics Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Regnery, Cameron N., "Y'all Like Ike: Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election" (2020). Honors Theses. 1338. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/1338 This Undergraduate Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College) at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Y’ALL LIKE IKE: TENNESSEE, THE SOLID SOUTH, AND THE 1952 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION by Cameron N. Regnery A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Mississippi in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College. Oxford April 2020 Approved by: __________________________________ Advisor: Dr. Darren Grem __________________________________ Reader: Dr. Rebecca Marchiel __________________________________ Reader: Dr. Conor Dowling © 2020 Cameron N. Regnery ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my parents for supporting me both in writing this thesis and throughout my time at Ole Miss. I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Darren Grem, for helping me with both the research and writing of this thesis. It would certainly not have been possible without him.
    [Show full text]
  • Rum, Romanism, and Virginia Democrats: the Party Leaders and the Campaign of 1928 James R
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons History Faculty Publications History 1982 Rum, Romanism, and Virginia Democrats: The Party Leaders and the Campaign of 1928 James R. Sweeney Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/history_fac_pubs Part of the American Politics Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Repository Citation Sweeney, James R., "Rum, Romanism, and Virginia Democrats: The aP rty Leaders and the Campaign of 1928" (1982). History Faculty Publications. 6. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/history_fac_pubs/6 Original Publication Citation Sweeney, J. R. (1982). Rum, Romanism, and Virginia democrats: The ap rty leaders and the campaign of 1928. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 90(4), 403-431. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Virginia Magazine OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY ft Vol. 90 October 1982 No. 4 w *fc^?i*L> U&J*L> U*lJfcL> OfoJtU U&JRj im4b <J*IJ?L> ?J?im^ U&J&> 4?ft,t~JD* RUM, ROMANISM, AND VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS The Party Leaders and the Campaign of 1928 hy James R. Sweeney* 'The most exciting and most bitterly fought State-wide campaign held in Virginia since the days of General William Mahone and the Readjusters." In these words the Richmond Times-Dispatch described the just-concluded campaign on election day morning, 6 November 1928. Democratic nomi- nees had carried Virginia in every presidential election since 1872; how- ever, in predominantly agricultural, dry, Protestant Virginia a political upheaval was a distinct possibility in 1928.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate
    Why did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington∗ September 17, 2016 Abstract A long-standing debate in political economy is whether voters are driven primar- ily by economic self-interest or by less pecuniary motives such as ethnocentrism. Using newly available data, we reexamine one of the largest partisan shifts in a modern democ- racy: Southern whites' exodus from the Democratic Party, concentrated in the 1960s. Combining high-frequency survey data and textual newspaper analysis, we show that defection among racially conservative whites explains all (three-fourths) of the large decline in white Southern Democratic identification between 1958 and 1980 (2000). Racial attitudes also predict whites' partisan shifts earlier in the century. Relative to recent work, we find a much larger role for racial views and essentially no role for income growth or (non-race-related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats \lost" the South. JEL codes: D72, H23, J15, N92 ∗We thank Frank Newport and Jeff Jones for answering our questions about the Gallup data. We are grateful to Alberto Alesina, Daron Acemoglu, Bill Collins, Marvin Danielson, Claudia Goldin, Matt Gentzkow, Alex Mas, Adrian Matray, Suresh Naidu, Jesse Shapiro, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, Gavin Wright and seminar participants at the University of Chicago, Middlebury, NBER Summer Institute's Political Economy Workshop, the National Tax Association, NYU, Pomona, Princeton, Stanford SITE, University of Toronto, UBC, UCLA and Yale's CSAP Summer conference, par- ticularly discussants Georgia Kernell, Nolan McCarthy and Maya Sen for valuable comments and feedback. Khurram Ali, Jimmy Charit´e,Jos´ephineGantois, Keith Gladstone, Meredith Levine, Chitra Marti, Jenny Shen, Timothy Toh and Tammy Tseng provided truly exceptional research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • President's Trip to Atlanta 1/20/78
    President’s Trip to Atlanta, 1/20/78 Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: President’s Trip to Atlanta, 1/20/78; Container 60 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf .................. I "'trt••• ....(JIG ... THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON '~ ' VISIT TO ATLANTA, PLAINS, AND SAINT SIMONS ISLAND, GEORGIA January ·20 - 23, · 1978 FRIDAY - JANUARY 20, 1978 DAY # 1 Departure: 2i05 P.M. From: · Tim .Kraft SEQUENCE 2:05 p .·m. You board helicopter on South Lawn and depart en route Andrews Air Force Base.' PRESIDENTIAL GUEST James Mcintyre,· Director, OMB 2:25 p.m. Helicopter arrives Andrews AFB. Board Air Force One. PRESIDENTIAL GUESTS Ambassador and Mrs. Robert Strauss. Senator Wendell H. Ford Senator Sam Nunn Senator James R. Sasser Senator Herman E. Talmadge Congressman James c. Corman '~' . Congressman Billy Lee Evans Congressman Edgar L. Jenkins ,· ,.· _secretqry James Schlesinger Mr • HUbert ··L _. 'ffarr is . ·~~· ·- ---,·~· .. , Jr. ... J1~~~~ry Beazley .~r-...: Ben Brown . __ -··-·. - ... ) ..- !>ir. Charles Manatt Ms. Nancy Moore L ·~ :... ... lhiriia.~-..- J .. ~ .......pa •• 2. <:. ·FRIDAY - JANUARY 20, 1978 -··C-Ontinued 2":.3p .P•,ll•, .. · -:-:-., 9 , .·• ,..,., il~¥" Eo~c_~: ,One departs Andrews Air Force --~ .. •·....... :..;_., • • •• , • ..J ..... ,·sase en.route Dobbins Air Force Base, "i. '?;'.' ~::-.t· -~ J ,G..-: ..:~~~~-~f~·~.;- ,. :_. ·c.·· .. r ·-. ···-(Flying Time: l hour, 35 minutes) V0l.F-C.~~·:.:. [''-i.: r1·""; • '4:05 p.m •.. l.. ·'J,·~c .:.; ' ~ ~..;..fcrl'9X:~ One arr1.ves Dobbins Air Force Base. _,. h ...... 1 :: -;· !..'f~ ...... _,· -~·h ... ::~ ., :;.~9\l,Wi~l be met by: ... ~..:.. ..,~:· -~ 'c.~·~~ '.: ~'1 ...... ..;' J •. ~~·.:~.. : : . .. ~.r- -~ r· --~; ·· __ ·.. ; ... 1~Y~~'?r·. ~9rge Busbee ., ~ ~ ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Dixiecrat Movement of 1948: a Study in Political Conflict
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1972 The Dixiecrat Movement of 1948: A Study in Political Conflict Michael Terrence Lavin College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Political Science Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Lavin, Michael Terrence, "The Dixiecrat Movement of 1948: A Study in Political Conflict" (1972). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539624778. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-e3mx-tj71 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DIXIECRAT MOVEMENT OF 1948 A STUDY IN POLITICAL CONFLICT A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Government The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Michael Terrence Lavin 1972 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Author Approved, May, 1972 Warner Moss 0 - Roger Sjnith V S t Jac^Edwards ii TABLE OP CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................... iv / LIST OF T A B L E S ..................................... v LIST OP FIGURES ............. Vii ABSTRACT .......... ' . viii INTRODUCTION . ..... 2 CHAPTER I. THE CHARACTERISTICS OP THE BLACK BELT REGIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOUTH ..... 9 CHAPTER II. THE CHARACTERISTICS OP THE DIXIECRAT MOVEMENT OP 19^8 ..........
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of the Dixiecrats, Spring 1963
    THE POWER OF--THE--Dl:X.IECRATS_,.--by-T-om·Hayden The last major stand of the Dixiecrats may be occurring in the 1963 hearings on the Kennedy civil rights bill • . Behind the wild accusations of communism in the civil rights movement and the trumpeted defense of prop~rty rights is a thinning legion of the Old Guard, How long will the Dixiecrat be such· a shrill and decisive force on the American political scene? The answer requir_es a review of Southern history, ideology, the policy of the New Frontier, and the international and national pres­ sures to do something about America's sore racial problem. The conclusion seems to be that the formal walls of segregation are being smashed, but the ~ite Man's Bur­ den can be carried in more subtle ways--as the people of the North we 11 knm-v, Dixiecrats in history For more th<m a generation the Demoo:pa,tie-~~-- -has - .been split ·deeply bet1r1een its Southern and Northern wings,. .the-former a safe bastion of racist conserV'atism and the latter a changing bloc of liberal reformers, The conflict is not new, and can- , _not be unde!'~~ood p~erly unless it is traced from the period of the :New Deal, In the 1936 election-the Democratic tide vJas rolling. Roosevelt brought to power 334 Democrats in the House against 89 Republicans. In the Senate 75 Democrats took seats against only 17 Republicans. The President's inaugural address promised the greatest liberal advances of this century: III see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nouri9hed •••• It is not in despair that I paint you that picture.
    [Show full text]
  • Factionalism in the Democratic Party 1936-1964
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Undergraduate Honors Theses Student Works 1-2019 Factionalism in the Democratic Party 1936-1964 Seth Manning Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/honors Part of the American Politics Commons, Labor History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Manning, Seth, "Factionalism in the Democratic Party 1936-1964" (2019). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 477. https://dc.etsu.edu/honors/477 This Honors Thesis - Withheld is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Factionalism in the Democratic Party 1936-1964 By Seth F. Manning An Undergraduate Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the University Honors Scholars Program Honors College Mentor: Dr. Andrew Battista East Tennessee State University 1 Abstract The period of 1936-1964 in the Democratic Party was one of intense factional conflict between the rising Northern liberals, buoyed by FDR’s presidency, and the Southern conservatives who had dominated the party for a half-century. Intertwined prominently with the struggle for civil rights, this period illustrates the complex battles that held the fate of other issues such as labor, foreign policy, and economic ideology in the balance. This thesis aims to explain how and why the Northern liberal faction came to defeat the Southern conservatives in the Democratic Party through a multi-faceted approach examining organizations, strategy, arenas of competition, and political opportunities of each faction.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate
    Why did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington∗ September 17, 2016 Abstract A long-standing debate in political economy is whether voters are driven primar- ily by economic self-interest or by less pecuniary motives such as ethnocentrism. Using newly available data, we reexamine one of the largest partisan shifts in a modern democ- racy: Southern whites' exodus from the Democratic Party, concentrated in the 1960s. Combining high-frequency survey data and textual newspaper analysis, we show that defection among racially conservative whites explains all (three-fourths) of the large decline in white Southern Democratic identification between 1958 and 1980 (2000). Racial attitudes also predict whites' partisan shifts earlier in the century. Relative to recent work, we find a much larger role for racial views and essentially no role for income growth or (non-race-related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats \lost" the South. JEL codes: D72, H23, J15, N92 ∗We thank Frank Newport and Jeff Jones for answering our questions about the Gallup data. We are grateful to Alberto Alesina, Daron Acemoglu, Bill Collins, Marvin Danielson, Claudia Goldin, Matt Gentzkow, Alex Mas, Adrian Matray, Suresh Naidu, Jesse Shapiro, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, Gavin Wright and seminar participants at the University of Chicago, Middlebury, NBER Summer Institute's Political Economy Workshop, the National Tax Association, NYU, Pomona, Princeton, Stanford SITE, University of Toronto, UBC, UCLA and Yale's CSAP Summer conference, par- ticularly discussants Georgia Kernell, Nolan McCarthy and Maya Sen for valuable comments and feedback. Khurram Ali, Jimmy Charit´e,Jos´ephineGantois, Keith Gladstone, Meredith Levine, Chitra Marti, Jenny Shen, Timothy Toh and Tammy Tseng provided truly exceptional research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • The African American Political Party Flip
    Bowling Green State University ScholarWorks@BGSU 21st Annual Africana Studies Student Research Africana Studies Student Research Conference Conference and Luncheon Feb 8th, 1:30 PM - 3:00 PM The African American Political Party Flip Shanna Riley Bowling Green State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/africana_studies_conf Part of the African Languages and Societies Commons Riley, Shanna, "The African American Political Party Flip" (2019). Africana Studies Student Research Conference. 4. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/africana_studies_conf/2019/006/4 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Events at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Africana Studies Student Research Conference by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@BGSU. Shanna Mariah Riley AFRS 4000 Professor Rebecca Skinner-Green 4 December 2018 The African American Political Party Flip Abstract: My paper discusses the African American political party flip during the 1930s-1960s. Throughout my research, I found that there were many factors in the African American political party flip which began in the 1930s and continued into the 1960s. After analyzing the origin of the Democratic and Republican parties, I found that the latter supported freeing slaves during the 1800s. I will discuss how presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson each handled Civil Rights during their times in office, and how this impacted the African American vote. Each president saw the power of African American voters, and knew that if they catered to African Americans, they could get more votes. Also, the Democratic Party built rapport with African Americans by further supporting Civil Rights with each presidency.
    [Show full text]
  • The Electoral Victory of John Bell and the Constitutional Union in Kentucky, 1860
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository College of Arts & Sciences Senior Honors Theses College of Arts & Sciences 5-2015 The electoral victory of John Bell and the constitutional Union in Kentucky, 1860. Samuel Thomas Whittaker University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/honors Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Whittaker, Samuel Thomas, "The electoral victory of John Bell and the constitutional Union in Kentucky, 1860." (2015). College of Arts & Sciences Senior Honors Theses. Paper 29. http://doi.org/10.18297/honors/29 This Senior Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Arts & Sciences Senior Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Electoral Victory of John Bell and the Constitutional Union in Kentucky, 1860 By Samuel Thomas Whittaker Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation Summa Cum Laude and for Graduation with Honors from the Department of History University of Louisville March 2015 1 Table of Contents Introduction and Historiography: Pages 2-9 Chapter 1: The Backdrop of the Campaign: Pages 9-39 Chapter 2: The Conduct of the Campaign in Kentucky: Pages 39-58 Chapter 3: Analysis of the Results and Border State Comparison: Pages 59-66 2 Introduction The presidential election of 1860 is one of the most studied in United States history.
    [Show full text]