AHC: Change the Politics of East Tennessee/SE Kentucky

Minty_Fresh

Banned
In almost every presidential election from 1868 up until, really, today, we have seen the areas of East Tennessee and SE Kentucky, go solidly Republican, or at least far more Republican than the national average.

Even during the era of the Solid South, these mostly White areas went almost entirely for the GOP. What caused this?

Did it have something to do with the old Whig Party's base of support transferring to the Republican party? Was it something economic? These mostly rural and poor areas wouldn't really seem to be in the wheelhouse of the Republican Party for most of its early existence, being a protectionist, industry focused party, before turning gradually into a conservative free trade backing party. There is little real consistency there, but the vote has ALWAYS remained consistent.

Or is it more of a facet of local and state politics loyalties being maintained on the national stage?

And what could the Democrats have done to reverse this trend?
 
And what could the Democrats have done to reverse this trend?

Pretty much impossible. East Tennessee's separatism during the Civil War cemented the Republicans as the party of loyalty/American nationalism for that era, and the lack of coal miners to unionize along with the area's culture (Highly religious and traditional opposition to powerful/large governments) has failed to give them an opening to the present day. Even the usual Urban/rural divide seen in US politics hasn't been replicated there, with Hamilton County (Chattanooga), Knox County (Containing Knoxville) and Washington County (Containing Johnson City) going for Romney in 2012 by 56%, 63% and 68(!)%.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Pretty much impossible. East Tennessee's separatism during the Civil War cemented the Republicans as the party of loyalty/American nationalism for that era, and the lack of coal miners to unionize along with the area's culture (Highly religious and traditional opposition to powerful/large governments) has failed to give them an opening to the present day. Even the usual Urban/rural divide seen in US politics hasn't been replicated there, with Hamilton County (Chattanooga), Knox County (Containing Knoxville) and Washington County (Containing Johnson City) going for Romney in 2012 by 56%, 63% and 68(!)%.
Normally, however, the defining issue in Southern Politics post Civil War was race and populism, and free trade was actually the more "populist" belief at the time because it made farmer's lives much easier and made purchasing goods cheaper. There is not to my knowledge reason to think that racial attitudes in these regions were all that much more progressive than the rest of the South at the time as the Knoxville Riots and Lynchings proved, nor do I have much reason to think that the population in the area was much more rich and prosperous than the rest of the South. Nationalism and a lack of unionization are good Republican indicators, sure, but what exactly attracted East Tennesseans to the Gold standard, high protective tariffs, and support for civil rights for African Americans? Because from 1868-1932, that is what they would have been voting for.

Being a very fundamentalist area in terms of religion, as well as not having substantial amounts of industry, with many poor small farmers with perhaps crude racial beliefs, you would think this would be right in William Jennings Bryan's wheelhouse. Yet McKinley swept the area both times, and they were his strongest areas besides Vermont in 1896.
 
I'm not entirely sure, though nowadays it would be very hard to change the local politics there. Something regarding the Civil War and how the people there opposed seccession (associated with the Democrats) and the bitter fights in the region, and later on the fact state Democrat machines mostly ignored the place since they knew they couldn't win but also that for statewide elections it didn't really matter. In turn, Republicans at the national level liked East TN politicians since it gave them some Southern representation, plus I've read the Tennessee Republican Party prior to the 60s tended to be regarded as a "glorified patronage machine". Political loyalties ran extremely deep back then, so that's probably a factor too. So it seems like there wasn't any real reason to change what had been a good setup.

Maybe if East Tennessee got to be it's own state (almost certainly as a result of the Civil War, no doubt), the local Democrats could organise themselves better and you could have more competitive elections there, maybe something like West Virginia.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Patronage certainly may have been a part of it, no doubt. Tammany Hall after all had little in common with the national Democratic Party made up of populist southern racists and western small farmers, with its patronage machine mostly a tool for immigrant communities and power brokers to make money. So I could see how Republicans in the area might have used patronage levers to win votes. Prosperous Central Tennessee landholders after all had little reason to pay attention to the East or shower it with patronage. Patronage levers however are shaky and often turn with the times. Tammany Hall backed Republicans in a few elections and were generally open to the highest bidder in state elections, and the Chicago organization was definitely bipartisan. It definitely goes beyond patronage how loyal East Tennessee was to the GOP.

It just seems strange that you have an area's political alignment survive several realignment periods. That level of continuity is unusual. Demographically speaking, it likely should have gone to the Democrats after the demise of the Bourbon Democrat faction, as the old Civil War loyalty component became less important with the rise of W.J. Bryan. If not then, however, FDR likely should have made the difference, due to his massive approval rating in the poor areas of the South. LBJ was probably the most successful in turning areas of mid Appalachia to the Democrats, to be fair, but the turmoil that followed only united the region with the rest of the South, still under the banner of the Republican Party.
 
Normally, however, the defining issue in Southern Politics post Civil War was race and populism, and free trade was actually the more "populist" belief at the time because it made farmer's lives much easier and made purchasing goods cheaper. There is not to my knowledge reason to think that racial attitudes in these regions were all that much more progressive than the rest of the South at the time as the Knoxville Riots and Lynchings proved, nor do I have much reason to think that the population in the area was much more rich and prosperous than the rest of the South. Nationalism and a lack of unionization are good Republican indicators, sure, but what exactly attracted East Tennesseans to the Gold standard, high protective tariffs, and support for civil rights for African Americans? Because from 1868-1932, that is what they would have been voting for.

Being a very fundamentalist area in terms of religion, as well as not having substantial amounts of industry, with many poor small farmers with perhaps crude racial beliefs, you would think this would be right in William Jennings Bryan's wheelhouse. Yet McKinley swept the area both times, and they were his strongest areas besides Vermont in 1896.

East Tennessee had the first Abolitionist news paper in the nation, and in 1814 had an emancipation society that was pretty strong until the 1830s. The Knoxville Riots were a rather one off event to the best of my knowledge, with the contemporary Black leaders of the city stating the riots were not indicative of the larger community while the local National Guard (Predominantly White) units rather forcefully ended the disturbances. Was discrimination an issue? Yes, but it certainly appears a lot less than in the nation at large and certainly so for the South.

As far industry and tariffs go, the region was rather stalwart proponents of Henry Clay and his tariff systems, with several Whigs elected prior to the Civil War. Chattanooga and Knoxville, due to railroads being established through the area, have rather consistently grown in size and industry since the 1850s. Kingsport has had the Eastman Kodak plant since the 1920s, and a munitions plant (Owned by BAE) since around WWII.

Maybe if East Tennessee got to be it's own state (almost certainly as a result of the Civil War, no doubt), the local Democrats could organise themselves better and you could have more competitive elections there, maybe something like West Virginia.

West Virginia got its strong Democratic trend due to large numbers of coal miners able to be unionized, which East Tennessee lacks.

Patronage certainly may have been a part of it, no doubt.

They voted for Whigs and Republicans rather strongly prior to the rise of the patronage systems, so that doesn't appear to be a cause. Even with the rise of the system, the local Republicans had to come to what was basically a power-sharing arrangement with the State Democrats over it.

It just seems strange that you have an area's political alignment survive several realignment periods. That level of continuity is unusual. Demographically speaking, it likely should have gone to the Democrats after the demise of the Bourbon Democrat faction, as the old Civil War loyalty component became less important with the rise of W.J. Bryan. If not then, however, FDR likely should have made the difference, due to his massive approval rating in the poor areas of the South. LBJ was probably the most successful in turning areas of mid Appalachia to the Democrats, to be fair, but the turmoil that followed only united the region with the rest of the South, still under the banner of the Republican Party.

Strong opposition to big government (Civil War issues relating to such, Moonshine culture, etc...) and the first signs of the emerging divide of social issues came with FDR. Plus, although I don't have the data for it, I have a strong inkling GDP per capita has been high in the area for a rather long time.
 
Top