So I was reading a book about the American Civil War and the party mechanics at work.
Back than the Republicans where on the progressive side and the Democrats where conserative. <-- Certainly a plain summary.
But how and when did this change? When did the roles reversed?
Your making the mistake of assuming "Progressive" and "Conservative" mean the same in today's context as they did at the time of the Civil War, as well as the idea that both the Republicans and the Democrats had any ideological cohesion throughout their existence.
Here's my take.
The Republican Party was founded by 1)abolitionist evangelicals and 2)business leaders. Though these groups were not always exclusive, these two groups came to form what could be called a classical liberal party: a party representing free markets, free labor, and free men. In essence, a bourgeois party representing the Yankee and Midwestern Protestant/Evangelical (yes, there is a difference) middle class. They ran on the issue of slavery, and lost in 1856. They then amended their platform to include westward settlement and a transcontinental railroad. Lincoln's nomination represented an attempt to move toward the centre, since he was not promising to abolition slavery entirely. Lincoln himself did not move toward complete abolition until well into the war. After the war, the party continued to be the party of freemen, but mainly as the party of big business. They supported tariffs as a means of protecting American industries, as opposed to free-trade Democrats who wanted lower prices.
Ah, you may ask, what about TR? Wasn't he rather Progressive and left wing? Yes...for the time. Teddy did embrace environmentalism and anti-trust legislation, but most pass over
why he did. TR would never embrace New Age ecology. Instead, he would advocate conservation of natural resources so that they could be used later...such as his hunting expeditions. His record on anti-trust suits is moderate at best, because he believed that trusts could be "good" or "bad." His break from Taft was, in part, due to the latter's insistence at going after
all trusts. In other words, Taft was too left for TR's tastes. While modern Progressives focus on TR's left-leaning policies, they ignore some of these inconsistencies as well as imperialist foreign policy. If Lincoln would balk at the modern GOP, TR would likewise be appalled at those who call themselves Progressives.
The major shift in the Republican Party began with Nixon, and was solidified with Reagan. Most say it was the "Southern Strategy." The real reason is much more complex.
The Republicans experienced considerable success in the South and elsewhere in the latter 20th Century because of the shift in emphasis. The GOP was perceived to be the party of business, beneficial when the economy was doing good, toxic when the country is going through a depression. Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal coalition effectively destroyed Republican power in certain sectors, including Blacks. Except for 1946, the Republican Party struggled to compete with the Democrats on the national level, and could only do so when they nominated Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon, not Reagan, euthanized the New Deal coalition in two ways. The first was articulating a populist message. He spoke to a white middle class which felt sidelined by the Civil Rights movement. By this point, African Americans were already moving toward the Democrats and away from the Republicans, so the GOP began targeting traditional New Deal voters: ethnic laborers and Southerners. The second reason was, yes, the Southern Strategy. Again, the real reason is more complex. Yes, Nixon pandered to them after the deep South voted for a Republican for the first time ever in 1964. However, the Republican Party drew Southern whites in as the Democrats pushed them out. 1964 proved that Democrats could appeal to inner-city minorities, and no longer had need for Southern whites. In essence, they told the inherently racist Southern whites to go to hell. Southerners remained loyal to the Democratic party on the state level well into the 21st Century, but now they were willing to pull the lever for a Republican on a presidential level. With the failure of third party regional candidates, Republicans had a chance.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have never been ideologically coherent as they were a coalition of non-Republicans. One unifiying theme of the Democratic Party was populism, thanks to Andrew Jackson in the 1820's and 30's. That's why the Democratic Party could be home to ethnic minorities and white supremacists. That's why Southern agrarians could support the same presidential candidate as union bosses. That's why George Wallace could have significant support in Yankee Irish communities as well as Southern Celts. Only in recent decades has the Democrats
as a whole has moved left, with conservative or blue dog Democrats being marginalized or joining the Republicans.
Both parties had their "Progressive" and their "Conservative" strains. Republicans supported civil rights. Democrats supported labor rights. Republicans believed in protectionism. Democrats believed in free trade. Republicans were prejudiced against Irish Catholics. Democrats were prejudiced against blacks. The problem occurs when you try to fit modern notions of "Progressive" and "Conservative" to past leaders and parties. That's why I have grown weary of historiographic sophistry when trying to justify political ideology. While truth does not change, circumstances do. It's foolish to assume that those in the past would conform to our sensibilities in this manner.
If I look at the Republican party today, would Lincoln not rotate in his grave?
If you go on that track, I think Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F Kennedy would find different aspects of the modern Democratic Party revolting. It's rather dangerous to play this games as to how certain figures would find today.
Edit:
Various progressive movements through history have tended to view human society in terms of competing class-based interests, to such a degree that differences between individual humans seem to be forgotten. Looking at blacks as a homogenous mass of violent savages who are inherently opposed to whites isn't fundamentally all that different from looking at capitalists as a homogenous mass of parasitic oppressors who are inherently opposed to the interests of the working class. Indeed, plenty of people widely considered progressive have been out-and-out racists -- the eugenics movement, for example, was chiefly associated with socialist intellectuals. So I don't really think that matters are as simple as just declaring the least-racist side to be the more "progressive" one.
Quite right, especially on eugenics. They existed in both right and left wing circles, but especially among early Progressives, notably Woodrow Wilson (a Progressive) and Margaret Sanger. Both the right and the left have skeletons in their closet. That's why it's dangerous to say one party or movement has always been clean.
like i said, i couldn't recall exactly at the time