WI: Eisenhower wins South Carolina in 1952

[vultan]

In 1952, Republican nominee and military hero Dwight Eisenhower won the presidential election against Adlai Stevenson by a landslide margin. His personal popularity also allowed the GOP to do very well in the South for the time, winning several Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. Notably, he also polled unexpectedly well in the Deep Southern state of South Carolina, where he was endorsed by Democrat Governor James F. Byrnes. Eisenhower lost South Carolina to Stevenson by less than two percentage points on election day.

So my question is, what would be the effects, short-term and long-term, of Eisenhower winning South Carolina on 1952? Had it happened, it would have been the first time a Republican had won a state in the Deep South since Reconstruction. Would it affect future political campaign strategy by either the Republicans or Democrats?

[Magniac]

I can't see this result having too much effect unless replicated in other Deep South states that year and/or 1956.

But if it helps Strom Thurmond decide to become a Republican a little bit earlier than 1964, this should at least draw attention to the newly acquired power of the GOP Right earlier than the Goldwater v. Rockefeller primary season did.

Maybe Thurmond as a member of the GOP senate conference during the Kennedy administration helps that White House, they can draw attention to the fact that they're hitting a brick wall on civil rights legislation.

And Thurmond leaving the Democratic party while serving under majority leader Johnson, before the election fo 1960, I think that makes a lot of people reconsider their thoughts about the South's contribution to the electoral college that year.

[vultan]

Originally Posted by Magniac

I can't see this result having too much effect unless replicated in other Deep South states that year and/or 1956.

But if it helps Strom Thurmond decide to become a Republican a little bit earlier than 1964, this should at least draw attention to the newly acquired power of the GOP Right earlier than the Goldwater v. Rockefeller primary season did.

Maybe Thurmond as a member of the GOP senate conference during the Kennedy administration helps that White House, they can draw attention to the fact that they're hitting a brick wall on civil rights legislation.

And Thurmond leaving the Democratic party while serving under majority leader Johnson, before the election fo 1960, I think that makes a lot of people reconsider their thoughts about the South's contribution to the electoral college that year.

Interesting, though this scenario assumes a lack of either Nixon's Southern Strategy or Goldwater's 1964 campaign (or at least anything like them initially), so there's no real reason for Thurmond to switch parties like he did.

I wonder if GOP leaders would just decide that, along with Ike's personal popularity, economic and demographic changes in the South would account for the increased competitiveness of the Republicans there.

[Magniac]

Originally Posted by vultan

Interesting, though this scenario assumes a lack of either Nixon's Southern Strategy or Goldwater's 1964 campaign (or at least anything like them initially), so there's no real reason for Thurmond to switch parties like he did.

IIRC Goldwater started running in earnest as soon as Nixon lost in 1960.

Thurmond deciding to get on that train from the very beginning is something that merely needs a little push; JFK was planning to introduce more Civil Rights legislation, after all.

If Ike had won SC both times, and Nixon had as well (without the additional dozen-or-so EC votes making a difference to the overall result) then an early Thurmond switch designed to bolster Barry for '64 is very doable, I think.

[JoeinOhio]

Originally Posted by vultan

In 1952, Republican nominee and military hero Dwight Eisenhower won the presidential election against Adlai Stevenson by a landslide margin. His personal popularity also allowed the GOP to do very well in the South for the time, winning several Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. Notably, he also polled unexpectedly well in the Deep Southern state of South Carolina, where he was endorsed by Democrat Governor James F. Byrnes. Eisenhower lost South Carolina to Stevenson by less than two percentage points on election day.

So my question is, what would be the effects, short-term and long-term, of Eisenhower winning South Carolina on 1952? Had it happened, it would have been the first time a Republican had won a state in the Deep South since Reconstruction. Would it affect future political campaign strategy by either the Republicans or Democrats?

My guess is that a narrow Eisenhower victory in the South Carolina--the cradle of the Confederacy--would have been much commented upon in the media at that time. I doubt it would have any significant long-term effect, however.

Eisenhower's personal popularity as a WWII hero-general, the pro-military southern tradition, his go-slow voluntary approach to civil rights, and the Democrats embrace of civil rights in 1948 were the main reasons for Eisenhower's electoral success in the South in 1952 and 1956. Increasing numbers of more afffluent northerners moving to, or buying vacation homes in, the warmer climates of Florida and the Carolinas helped as well.

However, the Little Rock crisis later in Eisenhower's presidency, when he sent federal troops in 1957 to enforce court-ordered desegregation, would reinforce the traditional view of southern Democrats that Republicans were the "Party of Lincoln". Vice-President Nixon's own relatively liberal (for the 1950s) views on civil rights and JFK's selection of LBJ as his running mate in 1960 slowed the South's shift from solidly Democatic to solidly Republican until at least 1972 if not 1980 (with help from the candidacies of southerners George Wallace in 1968 and Jimmy Carter in 1976).

[el t]

Originally Posted by JoeinOhio

My guess is that a narrow Eisenhower victory in the South Carolina--the cradle of the Confederacy--would have been much commented upon in the media at that time. I doubt it would have any significant long-term effect, however.

Eisenhower's personal popularity as a WWII hero-general, the pro-military southern tradition, his go-slow voluntary approach to civil rights, and the Democrats embrace of civil rights in 1948 were the main reasons for Eisenhower's electoral success in the South in 1952 and 1956. Increasing numbers of more afffluent northerners moving to, or buying vacation homes in, the warmer climates of Florida and the Carolinas helped as well.

However, the Little Rock crisis later in Eisenhower's presidency, when he sent federal troops in 1957 to enforce court-ordered desegregation, would reinforce the traditional view of southern Democrats that Republicans were the "Party of Lincoln". Vice-President Nixon's own relatively liberal (for the 1950s) views on civil rights and JFK's selection of LBJ as his running mate in 1960 slowed the South's shift from solidly Democatic to solidly Republican until at least 1972 if not 1980 (with help from the candidacies of southerners George Wallace in 1968 and Jimmy Carter in 1976).

I agree. But it certainly comes into play in 1960.

[Sicarius]

Ach, he's just a smidge too old, I think (78, compare to Barkley's 71), but if Nixon plausibly thought he could carry at least a couple Deep South states, and also (as OTL) wanted someone to burnish his foreign policy credentials - Nixon/Byrnes 1960? Hard to surmount the age barrier, though, but who knows.

[JoeinOhio]

The conditions for a a decisive shift of the Solid Democratic South to the Republicans only occurred after: (1) the national Democratic Party adopted a strong civil rights plank for African Americans as part of its platform and philosophy (1960 and afterwards); (2) a Democratic president got strong civil rights and voting rights legislation through Congress which defeated the "massive resistance" of the South to de-segregation (1964-68); and (3) the national Democratic Party consistently nominated liberal presidential candidates at odds with the prevailing center-right views of the South (1968 and afterwards). As long as conservative, segregationist southern politicans still had some power in the national Democratic Party and, especially, in Congress to thwart civil rights, the South would not completely abandon the Democrats for the Party of Lincoln.

Although Eisenhower and Nixon carried some southern states in 1952, 1956 and 1960, the breakthrough really came in 1964 when Goldwater carried the Deep South against LBJ. His landslide loss to LBJ nonetheless obscured that fact (plus, LBJ carried half the South anyway). Alabama Governor George Wallace's independent candidacy in 1968 frustrated and concealed the Republican trend which became obvious in 1972 with Nixon's sucessful Southern Strategy in 1972 against liberal Democrat George McGovern. Nixon carried all 11 states of the former Confederacy, whcih was a first for any Republican presidential candidate. Former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter again frustrated and concealed the Republcan trend by running as a moderate against a weak and scandal-damaged appointed President Ford in 1976, bringing almost the entire South back into the Democratic column.

It wasn't until the 1980s, with the three Reagan and Bush elections that the South clearly became solidly Republican. Even the all-southern Clinton-Gore ticket couldn't carry more than a few southern states after that.

[Rich Rostrom]

Originally Posted by vultan

So my question is, what would be the effects, short-term and long-term, of Eisenhower winning South Carolina on 1952? Had it happened, it would have been the first time a Republican had won a state in the Deep South since Reconstruction.

Not true. Hoover carried Florida and Texas in 1928. Both were Deep South states; part of the "first wave" of secession in 1861; both were solidly Democrat from Reconstruction to the 1960s.

[Magniac]

Originally Posted by JoeinOhio

the breakthrough really came in 1964 when Goldwater carried the Deep South against LBJ.

Some people saw this coming, as soon as Goldwater started collecting a base of support for his presidential run, as soon as conservatives started developing JFK-derangement-syndrome; 1961, IMO. That's when it's possible for our AH Strom to read the tealeaves, and decide that the GOP prez tickets' previous victories in SC make it okay for him to switch to becoming a Goldwater Republican, that he needn't worry about his 1962 reelection bid as US senator.

Originally Posted by Sicarius

someone to burnish his foreign policy credentials - Nixon/Byrnes 1960?

At that point Byrnes would have been viewed by Republicans as a veteran of the Democrats' Cowardly College of Containment.

[RogueBeaver]

Maybe if Shivers is more careful and doesn't get involved in the insurance scandals that forced involuntary retirement he can flip too. A governor is much more useful to the GOP, particularly one who's already a dominant figure alongside LBJ/Rayburn in TX politics.

Mag: I know the Goldwater movement started around that time but who foresaw the South going Republican for longterm reasons pre-CR?

[Orville_third]

To go long-term Republican we'd need to butterfly away FDR and increase the African-American majority.
One later butterfly- with one ex-General carrying SC as a Republican, William Westmoreland might have won the Republican nomination in 1974- and perhaps even become Governor...

[Magniac]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

Mag: I know the Goldwater movement started around that time but who foresaw the South going Republican for longterm reasons

I wasn't really referring to the vaunted generational-shift electoral realignment, merely to the fact that JFK consolidated Civil Rights as a pillar of establishment liberalism at permanent odds with the traditional cohesion of the Democratic Party coalition. A major reason for the rise of anti-Kennedy politics is because all the good ol' boys suddenly realised that no future Northern Democratic POTUS candidate would ever again be neutral to the Dixiecrats' objectives, not in the way Adlai Stevenson was. (Later, LBJ provided a rude shock when he demonstrated that no Democrat president whatsoever would again be neutral to those objectives, regardless of which region he was from.)

pre-CR?

There is no 'pre-Civil Rights' era by the time JFK is inaugurated.

There's merely a lull as reformism prepares to come up against institutional obstructionism/violence for several more rounds. The climactic round sees the passage of Civil- and Voting-Rights legislation, but that's a result of more than a decade's work of efforts when it rolls around.

As for an example of the importance of KDS political culture from during Jack's administration, I liked this recent catch by TPM, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...ertificate.php