The Transition from Democratic
to Republican Control in Texas
GOVT 2306
The basic objective of this set of
slides is to understand how Texas
went from a one party state fully
controlled by Democrats, to a one
party state dominated – if not
controlled – by Republicans.
Along the way we’ll touch on the
political history of the state, the
policy positions of the two parties,
the relationship between the state
and national parties, and various
other topics.
This is a trend that has impacted most of the
other southern states as well – so its not unique
to Texas.
This has been one of the more consequential
political shifts in recent decades and it helps
explain the current nature of the political
climate – especially where tension between the
states, and between the national and state
governments play out.
Frontline: How Texas became a
“Red” State.
I want to make one key point about
this shift before proceeding. It
should help put in context.
The shift – in many ways – was an
ideological shift. Neither major party was
fully liberal or conservative prior to this
shift in the 1960s. There were many reason
a person might identify with a political
party that had nothing to do with ideology.
Regional identity, or group identity helped
explain party identification just as much.
These matter less and less.
What divides parties more today is
the fact that the are more
ideologically distinct. People have
sorted themselves into parties that
fit their ideological points of view.
Conservatives have gravitated to
the Republican Party
Liberals have gravitated to the
Democratic Party.
And independents have tuned out.
Some commentators say that what
ideologues have sorted themselves
to parties based on the ideological
nature of each party.
Some argue that the dysfunction
we see in politics today is a
function of the shift we will be
investigating in this set of slides.
Let’s have an overview of the shift
before digging into details.
Here’s a look at shifts in party
identification in the state over the
past 60 years.
Trends in Party ID from Texas Politics
Note when the shifts in
identification occurs.
This graph shows trends in turnout for
each party’s primary. The blue line is for
the Democrats, the red line is for the
Republicans.
You might be wondering why Republicans do so well in
elections given the even split in party identification. We
hit this point elsewhere, but the answer is that the
groups that identify with the Republican Party tend to
vote at higher rates than those that identify with the
Democratic Party.
There are three periods of party
politics in Texas that matter here:
1845 – 1960: One Party Democratic Rule.
1960 – 1994: Two Party Competition
1994 – present: Republican Dominance.
In 1845 Texas became a state partly
because the Democratic Party ran on a
platform in the 1844 election pushing
for annexation.
In 1961 Texas elected its first
Republican Senator – John Tower – to
replace Lyndon Johnson when he was
elected vice president in 1960.
The Republican Party was largely a nonentity during this time.
Any competition came between the
conservative and liberal/moderate factions
within the Democratic Party. Democratic
primary elections were highly competitive,
but general elections were not since the
winner would inevitably be the Democrat.
Beginning in 1964 the Republican
Party grew in strength slowly.
Conservative Democrats began to
switch parties, but only once it
made sense for them to do so.
In 1994 Texas Republicans swept all
statewide offices, and have done
so ever since.
We can quibble with the dates
since the transition has been
gradual.
These dates matter as well:
1978: Texas elects Bill Clements, its
first Republican Governor since
Reconstruction.
(Why does that matter? Because ExConfederates could not participate politically
until Reconstruction was over. Texas was under
the control of United States troops who also
enforced voting rights for male ex-slaves. This
made the Republican Party temporarily
powerful, but that would change.)
1996: Republicans become the
majority party in the Texas Senate
2002: Republicans become the
majority party in the Texas House
2004: Republicans become the
majority of the Texas delegation in
the United States House of
Representatives.
Click here for a good overview of
when the shifts from Democrat to
Republican happened in Texas’
governing offices.
For detail on the change read:
Misunderstanding the Southern
Realignment
Question: Did the conservatives
leave the Democratic Party
voluntarily or where they driven
out?
Here’s a look at the gradual shift in
voting patterns for the presidency.
When and why did southern states
begin to change their votes from
Democrats to Republicans?
Here are a few terms to get
comfortable with first:
First: The Solid South.
Related: Politics of the Southern
United States.
Second: Realigning Elections.
Related: Fifth Party System.
Third: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Related: The Southern Strategy
Here’s a bit more on each.
The term Solid South specifically refers to the
fact that southern states – generally defined as
being the states of the old Confederacy, plus
border states that were slave owning but did not
attempt to secede – voted Democrat as a block
for over a century.
Now many of these states have switched over to
voting Republican – which means that the term
Solid South may best refer to the fact that the
political culture within these states binds them
together and leads them to vote alike.
This – by the way – is a reflection
of the unique political culture of
the south, as well as Texas.
Which was a subject of some of
the early slides.
To be more specific, five states –
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi,
Georgia and South Carolina – are
argued to be the deep south. Southern
values dominate more that in the
neighboring states.
The size of Texas means that it has
areas where it is western, plains and
Latino in nature.
These are considered to be the
Southern States:
And again, these states being
considered to be the Deep South.
A realigning election is an election where a
major shift has occurred in voting behavior
among key parts of the electorate. Generally its
when one party’s dominance of the political
process changes, and the other’s begins.
We spent some time in 2305 discussing the
concept. Researchers suggest that there have
been six such elections in American history.
1800
1828
1860
1896
1932
1968
We will note that the shift in 1968
– when Democratic dominance
ended and the two parties began
splitting control of governing
institutions – was driven largely
because of changes in the voting
behavior of Southern States.
This begins prominently in 1964.
The reason 1964 sticks out is because that
was the election immediately following the
signing – by a Texas Democrat in the White
House – of the Civil Rights Act.
The relationship between the South and
the Democratic Party was already frayed,
but this marked a repositioning of the
national party from supporting to opposing
racial segregation.
The Republican Party would adopt the
Southern Strategy where they made subtle
appeals to Southern voters. These began
with Richard Nixon in 1968 and continued
with Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Here’s an article that argues that this was
an attempt to turn the Republican Party
into the “White Man’s Party.”
There is more to the story that civil
rights, but essentially a
repositioning on issues occurred
that more firmly cemented the
Democratic Party as the liberal
party and created incentives for
conservatives to gravitate towards
the Republican Party.
This has lead to what are now two parties
that are polarized ideologically.
We will not discuss this concept here that
much, but much of the “dysfunction” that
is argued to exist in Congress and between
the states is argued to be a consequence of
the forces unleashed in the transformation
we cover here.
Here’s a graphical evidence of the process
Let’s apply these concepts to an
overview of southern – and Texas’ votes for the presidency in key
elections in American history.
And here are examples of them
voting as a bloc for presidents over
history.
Source of maps: 270towin.com.
Note that the red states are the
Republicans and the blue states are
the Democrats.
1860
This was the election that led to the Civil War.
Republicans developed as the abolition party.
Democrats split into northern and southern factions.
Texas joined the Southern Democrats who were more
supportive of slavery as a right enshrined in the
Constitution – as decided in the Dred Scott decision and promoted its expansion into the Territories.
Animosity towards Republicans would bind the South
to the Democratic party for decades.
The Democrats were the party that sought to preserved
southern racial policies, as well as agrarian policies in
general. This helps explain the party’s appeal.
But there was more than just that.
Democrats continued to promote
the interests of the agrarian sector
while Republicans more fully
promoted industry – which would
have no real presence in the South
for almost a century.
1880
The 1880 election was the first presidential
election after the end of Reconstruction,
meaning that ex confederates could
participate in elections and hold office. The
dominant issue was the tariff, which pit the
industrial, Republican north against the
agrarian, Democratic south. Tariffs protected
American industry, but increased costs to
consumers and led to the imposition of tariffs
on items agricultural items grown in the
South and exported elsewhere.
1904
The tariff continued to be an issue, as did
the gold standard. Industry backed
Republican candidates supported the gold
standard, which Southern Democrats –
among others – opposed. They wanted
money backed by a combination of gold
and silver which they argued would
increase the prices for their crops. This
helped fuel the idea that the Republican
Party did not care about the South and
deliberately adopted policies that hurt it.
1928
– This was the last election of the fourth party
system. Republicans had dominated elections
since 1896. Herbert Hoover won a landslide.
Democrats held their convention that year in
Houston – the first time it was held in the South.
Republicans benefitted from a booming
economy that did not seem likely to end – but it
did of course. Which lead to the fifth party
system and the inclusion of the South in the
New Deal Coalition and a seat at the table in the
FDR administration.
This was the first time Texas voted
for a Republican for president.
It would continue to vote
Democrat for members of
Congress and for state office
though – more on that soon
enough.
Note that Democratic leadership in
southern states grew uncomfortable with
the FDR’s support for labor unions and
policies like social security, which they
considered socialist.
This was enough for some southern
conservatives to start agitating within the
party, but not enough to lead to an
affiliation with the Republican Party. At
least not yet.
Things would change when Harry
Truman became president upon
FDR’s death and began pushing
more liberal policies nationally.
This led to rebellion in some
southern states.
1948
The states in yellow voted for Strom
Thurmond – a South Carolinian who ran as
a Dixiecrat, also known as the State’s Rights
Democratic Party.
This demonstrated that the Democratic
Party organizations in southern states were
displeased with the decisions of national
Democratic officeholders.
One of the principle reasons FDR was able
to keep the New Deal Coalition together
was that he did not push civil rights
policies. He knew that would push the
South from the party. His successor – Harry
Truman – did not have the same
reservations. His push not only for civil
rights, but for Medicare and Medicaid led
to a rebellion in some southern states –
including Texas.
1952
Southern states (not including Texas
however) were back in the fold in the next
election and voted for Stevenson over
Eisenhower, who was very popular due to
his leadership role in WW2.
He was not especially liked by the
conservative wing of the Republican Party.
They wanted to abolish most New Deal
programs – which he declined to do.
Southern Democrats were actually more
conservative than Eisenhower.
Note that Texas Republicans supported
Eisenhower. They formed an alliance with
Eisenhower and Congressional
Republicans. This was called the
conservative coalition. Despite the fact
that Democrats continued to control
Congress, the conservative coalition was
able to dominate policy making.
1964
This was the first election following LBJ’s signing
of the Civil Rights Act. Doing so effectively
repositioned the Democratic Party on the issue.
After over a century of supporting slavery and
segregation – or at least not actively opposing
them – the party supported policies outlawing
the practice.
For the first time, the Deep South voted
Republican – Barry Goldwater – who would help
rally the increasingly strong conservative
element in the party.
Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights
Act. The southern states liked that.
Here’s a video on the subject.
1968
Texas goes back to voting Democrat (for LBJ’s VP
Hubert Humphrey) but the South votes for
American Independent candidate George
Wallace – who was then a strong supporter of
segregation. Too strong. His appeals turned
many people off. But Richard Nixon would begin
using the Southern Strategy, which was a way to
make appeals to people in the South that he
thought could be persuaded to vote for him.
Direct appeals based on race were not used,
instead coded language would be used to make
the same arguments.
Coded language is used to replace
deliberately racist language that
had been successful previously.
Instead of race, conservatives
talked in terms of states rights, law
and order, culture wars,
entitlements, and welfare.
This helps explain a lot of the
political language that is used right
now.
For a hint at how this strategy still
influences contemporary politics
read: Reagan’s Southern strategy
gave rise to the Tea Party.
And here’s a quick video:
Ask Steve: Southern Strategy.
1972
A landslide for Nixon. Only Massachusetts
and the Washington DC vote for his
opponent. Internal fighting within the
Democratic Party allowed the far left to
dominate the party and created an
opportunity for Republicans to further
appeal to conservative Democrats. As we
will see in a few slides, this shift did not
happen in Congress at this time. It would
take another 20 years for that to happen.
The Southern Strategy was bearing
fruit.
1976
The Nixon Administration made the
decision to bug the headquarters of the
Democratic National Party during the 1972
campaign in what became known as the
Watergate Scandal. Nixon’s resignation set
the effort to convert the South back an
election cycle. Jimmy Carter – an ex
governor of Georgia – won the 1976 race
and southern states voted for him.,
including Texas.
But an internal battle was developing
within the Republican Party. Moderate to
Liberal Republicans were being challenged
by conservatives in the party. They first
rallied around Barry Goldwater. They now
rallied around Ronald Reagan. Reagan lost
the race for the 1976 Republican
nomination, but won it in 1980 along with
the general election.
1980
Texas has never voted for a
Democratic presidential candidate
since.
Though – once again – it would
take a while for the Republican
Party to become the majority party
in the Texas Congressional
delegation. 24 years.
While Texas made the shift in 1980, other
southern states took a little more time
because Democrats nominated an
appealing southern candidate – Bill Clinton
– in 1992 and 1996.
Clinton took conservative positions on
issues like federalism and law and order
which helped him with southern voters.
1992
1996
Barack Obama was the first non –
southern Democrat to win the
presidency since Kennedy in 1960.
His election – as well as that of George
W. Bush of Texas before him – helped
bind southern states together and
make them a more permanent part of
the Republican coalition.
2012
This is obviously a very different
map than what we saw from
th
election in the 19 Century.
The 2012 map is almost exactly
opposite form the one in 1896.
1896
2012
Keep in mind that the people in the
states did not necessarily change
their positions on issues – though
those can be modified when
people move into the state.
Parties changed their positions on
issues over time for political gain.
Some useful reading if you’d like
more on this.
Before and After: The 2008
Election and the Second “Solid
South
The End of the Solid South
For full detail on presidential
election results in Texas click here:
Historical Presidential Election
Results
A quick look at partisan shifts in
the U.S. Congress
The following graph charts the
change in partisan composition of
the Texas Delegation to the United
States House of Representatives.
Political party strength in Texas
United States congressional
delegations from Texas
Trend in partisan control of Texas’
congressional delegation.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
29th
39th
49th
59th
69th
79th
89th
99th
109th
Democrats
Republicans
Other
number of seats
The purple line reflects the fact
that the number of seats from 2 to
36 over the course of history.
Until the mid 1960s (let’s say the
59th Congress) the Democratic
Party dominated. Years would
sometimes go by with no
Republicans representing the state.
1962 was the first year more than one
Republican was a member of the
delegation.
In 1984, the year Ronald Reagan was reelected to office, 10 Republicans were
elected.
In 2004, the year George W. Bush was reelected, Republicans became the majority
party.
Note that Republican members of
Congress do well when a
Republican presidential candidate
does well.
This is called the coattail effect.
Click here for the Texas Delegation
th
in the 113 Congress. Click here for
the history of Texas delegations to
Congress.
It currently has 24 Republican and
12 Democrats.
Though Texas voters began voting
Republican for president in 1980,
Democrats continued to dominate the
Texas congressional delegation, and would
until 2004.
The Democratic Party remained strong in
the state not only in the U.S. Congress, but
in the Texas Legislature as well.
Why?
One: A congressional or legislative
candidate is able to make a greater
personal connection with their
constituency. While conservative
Texas voters might start voting for
Republican presidential candidates,
their personal connection to local
representatives kept them voting
Democrat for some time.
This also illustrates the fact that – as a
party – Texas Democrats could define
themselves in a way that was different
than how the national Democratic Party
defined itself.
This created the tension that would
eventually result in the shift towards the
Republican Party.
Two: The Democratic Party
continued to be the majority Party
in Congress until 1994 when
Republicans – lead by Newt
Gingrich and his Contract with
America – nationalized the election
and controlled both the House and
Senate.
Before that happened, there was little
incentive for conservative Democrats to
change parties.
By being part of the majority party, they
could have a far greater impact on
legislation and provide benefits for their
constituents. This cannot be dome as a
member of the minority party.
When Republicans became the
majority party after the 1994
election, conservative Democrats
were invited to make the shift.
Many Texans did so.
Examples of Texas Democrats who
switched parties.
Phil Gramm
Greg Laughlin
Ralph Hall
Allan Ritter
Three: Texas legislators are unabashed,
enthusiastic and skillful gerrymanderers.
They can draw districts for political effect
very well. As long as Democrats were the
majority party in the legislature, they could
prevent an increasingly competitive
Republican Party from taking over
Congress and the Texas Legislature.
Democrats could draw districts minimizing
Republican representation by packing as
many as they could in a few districts as
possible.
This worked until Republicans took over
both the Texas House and Senate following
the election of 2002, and then redrew
electoral maps to maximize Republican
representation.
It’s a brutal process, but that’s
Texas politics.
These two maps give you an idea of the
change that happened in Congress as a
result of the redistricting.
After the 2004 Republicans were the
majority party in the Texas delegation to
Congress.
In 2002 the Texas delegation to the House
of Representative has 17 Democrats and 15
Republicans.
In 2004 it has 11 Democrats and 21
Republicans.
As of 2014 – Texas Democrats are
still recovering.
More on this below: Can
Democrats stage a comeback.
Some argue that they can.
Texas became a much redder state, but it
did not necessarily become more
conservative. Conservatives simply
continued their shift from the Democratic
to Republican Parties.
This was able to happen in Congress
because the shift had already happened in
the Texas Legislature. Remember that the
legislature draws and redraws districts
Let’s look then at partisan shifts in
the Texas legislature.
Here’s a graph showing the shift in
partisan control since 1870.
Partisan Trends in the Texas Legislature
160
140
120
100
House Democrats
House Republicans
Senate Democrats
Senate Republicans
80
60
40
20
12th
18th
24th
30th
36th
42nd
48th
54th
60th
66th
72nd
78th
0
For sources of data:
Party Affiliation in the Texas Legislature
List of Governors of Texas
Historical Texas Elections
You can see from the slides that there was
some Republican representation early on
during and following Reconstruction.
By 1910, the party was effectively a nonentity. From 1934 to 1948 no Republican
served in the Texas House. From 1928 to
1964 no Republican served in the Texas
Senate.
This explains why there is little
party organization in the Texas
Legislature.
There was never a real need. This
might be changing, but more on
that in a separate section.
As with the U.S. Congress,
Republican representation
increases in the early 1960s,
specifically in the 58th Session
following the election of 1962.
Republican strength grew steadily
until they became the majority
party in the Texas Senate following
the 1996 election – in the 75th
legislative session, and in the Texas
House following the 2002 election
th
– in the 78 legislative session.
Republicans had an opportunity
following the 2002 election to
expand their lead over Democrats
by redrawing legislative districts in
the U.S. House, and Texas House
and Senate.
For a look at this read: 2003 Texas
Redistricting.
Here’s a look at the partisan
breakdown in the Texas House
following the 2010 election.
Notice that areas of Democratic
strength are in the large cities and
the Mexican border, while
Republican strength is in the
suburban and rural areas.
The fact that these areas are heavily Hispanic,
along with the fact that the Hispanic population
is the fastest growing segment of the Texas
population has led some to suggest that
Democrats have an opportunity to become
more competitive in the near future.
This assumes that Republicans will not be able
to make inroads into this group. It also depends
upon whether the political participation among
Hispanics increases.
The important take-away here is to note
that the shift from Democratic to
Republican identification and voting does
begin in the 1960s following not only the
Civil Rights but a large number of other
pieces of legislation designed to expand
voting rights and deal with poverty.
This supports the argument that partisan
repositioning in racial matters was a driving
force in this shift.
In the following slides lets look at a
few key events a dates that help us
walk through the change in party
Identification over time.
Click on these for historical detail
from the TSHA about the Texas
Democratic and Republican Parties.
Pre-Texas
Remember that political parties
had evolved for several decades
prior to when Anglos were invited
to populate the Mexican state of
Texas.
Prior to the 1828 US election,
politics in the US was restricted to
elites. Property rights
requirements made mass
participation difficult.
Remember that this was one of the
factors leading to the
establishment of Texas.
The Democratic Party was first competitive
in the election of 1828. It splinted off from
the Democrat-Republican Party and was
developed to support the candidacy of
Andrew Jackson.
It represented the interests of the agrarian
states of the South and in many ways
picked up the positions supported by the
Anti-Federalists years before that.
Texas was populated with people
that already identified with the
Democratic Party.
In addition to that, early Texas
political leaders like Sam Houston
had personal friendships with
Andrew Jackson, who was the first
Democrat in the White House.
Democrats opposed all of that.
The Whigs would eventually split
over slavery. The northern part
would become the Republican
Party.
The chief opponent of the Democratic
Party was the Whig Party until the
Republican Party developed in the 1850s.
It supported the interests of the
commercial sector – including protective
tariffs, infrastructure development, and a
central banking system.
Mexican Texas:
Immigrants were Jacksonian
Democrats.
Prior to becoming a state, parties –
unofficially – developed in the Republic of
Texas. To a lesser extent, this also occurred
when Texas was a Mexican state, but the
legality of these groups was questionable.
The right to assemble was not guaranteed
by the Mexican government.
Republic of Texas
Personality, not party, dominated
politics in the Republic of Texas.
Sam Houston was the dominant
personality, and political groups
were usually foes or supporters of
the hero of San Jacinto. - link
During the Texas Republic, groups
tended to cluster around support
for Sam Houston and his desire to
join the union, and Mirabeau
Lamar and his goal of maintaining
Texas independence, and
expanding the republic westward
to California.
Houston’s faction would win out.
As discussed previously, the
annexation of Texas was
controversial and was a subject in
the 1844 US election.
The Democrats favored the annexation
while the Whigs opposed it. The dispute
hinged largely on slavery and what Texas’
annexation would mean for the balance of
power between the slave and free states.
Since Democrats supported Texas’
annexation, there’s little wonder
the Democratic Party dominated
the state from the start.
It also helped that most of the emigrants
to Texas were from southern US states that
already identified with the Democratic
Party.
From the TSHA section on the Democratic Party:
“Before 1848, elections in Texas were conducted
without organized political parties. Personality was the
dominant political force in the state. Contests between
factions evolved into a more defined stage of
competition with the development of the Democratic
party in Texas as a formal organ of the electoral process
during the 1848 presidential campaign. Even so, it was
some time before Democrats adopted any sort of a
statewide network or arranged for scheduled
conventions.”
The planter classes in East Texas
held most of the power at that
time in the state.
1850s
Politics becomes affected by battle
over slavery.
Parties become more organized.
Democrats begin holding state
conventions – most counties begin
attending them.
Late 1850s: Radical Democrats are
dubbed the Fire-Eaters. They urge
a re-establishment of the slave
trade and start pushing for
secession.
1859: The Constitutional Union
Party attracts Democrats worried
about radicalism within the
Democratic Party.
Battle over secession divides
unionists – under the leadership of
Sam Houston - over states rights
Democrats. States rights
Democrats win.
1860: The Democratic Party splits
in two. Texas joins the Southern
Democrats.
Lincoln is not on the ballot. That’s
how disliked Republicans were.
Partisan activity came to a halt
during the Civil War.
There was little party activity
during reconstruction as well. ExConfederates could not participate
unless they took a loyalty oath to
the union. Republicans were able
to become competitive briefly as a
result.
For much of this time Texas was
ruled by the United States military.
It was placed in the Fifth Military
District, under the control of a
series of generals.
There was little room for party
politics.
1867: The Republican Party of Texas is
established. They held their first
convention that year in Houston July 4th.
It was a result of the transformation of the
political system in Texas brought about by the
Congressional Reconstruction Act of 1867. The
former Confederate states had to establish new
governments and extend the franchise to freed
adult male African Americans. This did not go
over well.
1867: The Union League used as a way to
organize and mobilize black voters. They
tended to vote for Republican candidates.
This helps explain the strong relationship
that existed for many years between the
party and the African-American
community, as well as the animosity
towards the party from the exConfederates.
1868: The 14th Amendment is
ratified. Southern states had to
ratify it in order to be re-admitted
to the union. The amendment
includes two clauses which
expanded national power over the
states.
The Due Process Clause which made the
liberties established in the First
Amendment of the United States
Constitution applicable to the states.
The Equal Protection Clause which
required each state to provide equal
protection of the laws to persons within
their jurisdiction.
The problem with each was
enforcement.
Southern states, like Texas, were
generally uninterested in enforcing
them, and created barriers for the
national government to enforce
them.
Republicans had a brief period of power – 1869
to 1873 where they controlled the legislature
and governor’s office. They were also installed in
state and county offices by reconstruction
officials, who were also able to prevent exconfederates from being able to hold office.
They pushed for equity in political power, state
provision of education and law enforcement and
civil rights for freed male slaves.
1869:
“The 1869 election returns showed the sources of the new [Republican] party's
electoral strength. The strongest backing came from counties with large black
populations. White support came mainly from the German counties of Central Texas,
frontier counties south and west of San Antonio, and some counties in Northeast
Texas. The sources of white Republican votes were primarily areas that had shown
Unionist strength before the war.
Between 1869 and 1874 the Radicals pushed ambitious economic and social
programs. They sponsored and secured railroad development financed by state
support of railroad bonds, established a system of free schools, instituted a bureau of
immigration, and formed the State Police to combat lawlessness. Despite the party's
achievements, higher taxes and Republican racial policies produced strong opposition
to the administration from Democrats (supported by Conservative Republicans who
had reorganized as Liberal Republicans). The Democrats also charged the Republicans
with dictatorial practices and corruption.” – TSHA.
The only period of strength the
Republican Party had (until recently)
was during Reconstruction when union
interests, immigrants from other states
and African-Americans formed its
core.
Ex-Confederates had yet to be allowed to
become politically involved again.
Previously we discussed how the
1869 Constitution was written by
these groups and that the
document reflected a desire to
make Texas comply with national
directives and to give the state
power over local areas.
1869: Republican Edmund Davis
elected governor of Texas.
1873: The Panic of 1873.
1876: Reconstruction effectively ends as the
result of a deal following the disputed
presidential election of 1876. The Democratic
candidate won the majority vote, but the
electoral college winner was unclear. Eventually
a compromise was struck where the Democratic
candidate would drop his challenge if the
Republican candidate would pull federal troops
from the south.
This not only ended Reconstruction, it ended
the brief period of Republican rule in the state.
Democrats returned to power.
Antagonism to the Republican
Party increased.
Identification with the Democratic
Party became so strong that the
term Yellow Dog Democrat became
popular.
This referred to a Democrat who would
"vote for a yellow dog before they would
vote for any Republican". There were many
in Texas.
For detail read: Death of the
‘Yellow Dog’ Democrat.
Since African-Americans were a key part of
the Republican coalition – along with poor
whites – laws restricting their participation
was central to the re-emergence of the
Democratic Party.
Electoral laws would gradually change in
order to solidify Democratic dominance of
Texas politics. Examples include the white
primary and the poll tax.
1876: The Greenback Party is
established and eclipses the
Republican Party in the election of
1878.
1878: The Citizen’s Party of
Harrison County.
1883: Norris Wright Cuney – an
African-American politician –
becomes chair of the Texas
Republican Party.
1884-1896 is the “Cuney Era” of
the Republican Party.
1888: The Lily-White Movement.
An attempts was made in the
Republican Party to expel AfricanAmerican delegates, called the
“black and tan” faction. This
reflects internal divisions within
the party between white and black
factions.
1890: The People’s Party is founded. This
was a populist party that reflected the
concerns of small farmers, laborers and
others further down the social food chain.
They promoted regulation of railroads and
corporations, looser monetary policy and
protection from large scale landowners –
notably the planter class that had
traditionally dominated Texas politics.
1905: The Terrell Election Law is passed which
for the first time attempted to regulate the
nominations process of each party.
Previously parties developed their own rules,
including rules associated with primaries. Now
that state took this over. Since Democrats
controlled the state, they were now in a position
to dominate how all state parties operated –
including the opposition.
Over this time, the Democratic Party
solidified itself as the only party that
mattered in the state.
General elections did not matter, only the
Democratic primary. If you wanted to hold
office in the state, you had to run as a
Democrat. To a large degree, this was true
in other southern states as well.
This allowed them to amass a great deal of
power in the US Congress due to strict
seniority rules. The committee members
who was also a member of the majority
party and had the longest service on the
committee automatically became the
committee chair.
Many Texans became committee chairs as
a result could direct federal dollars to the
state and their local districts.
Texas – businesses especially –
benefited heavily from the
situation.
It helps explain the reluctance of
the Texans to leave the Democratic
Party as long as it continued to be
the majority party in Congress.
This had an interesting benefit for
Texas, and the rest of the South.
It made the state more influential
in Congress.
Why?
Because congressional elections became
very uncompetitive and members of
Congress from Texas began to acquire
seniority. Primary elections were more
easy to control – so incumbents could be
re-nominated – and since there was no
Republican competition of note, they
would be re-elected easily.
The rule of thumb was to elect
people to Congress while young
and keep them in office.
Seniority had major advantages at that
time. The ability to automatically chair
committees for example, which they could
then control almost dictatorially.
This meant these officeholders could
ensure that benefits would flow to their
districts, and some laws – like civil rights
legislation – could be prevented from being
voted on, much less passed.
Example:
Sam Rayburn served in Congress
from 1913 – 1961. He would serve
as Speaker three separate times for
a total of 17 years.
This created additional incentives
to continue to vote Democrat.
It also bolsters the argument made
above about why it took longer for
Republicans to dominate the Texas
delegation to Congress than to
dominate the vote for the
presidency.
In the early 20th Century the Texas
Republican Party positioned itself as the
party of business.
Which would take a long time to reap
benefits since Texas remained an agrarian
state for a while longer, but emerging
business leaders in the state began to
gravitate towards the party.
Two men chaired the Republican
Party from 1901-1950.
Cecil A. Lyon: 1901-1916
Rentfro B. Creager: 1920-1950
While the Republican Party was not
competitive in the state, these figures
– and a few others – became active in
national Republican politics.
The party’s positions on national
policies – especially its stand against
regulations - became increasingly
attractive to conservative Democrats.
“From 1901 to 1950 . . . the party sought to
enlarge its membership by appealing for support
from Texans who were sympathetic with the
national party's programs. The domestic agenda
changed at times, but generally platforms were
pro-business. This position was sustained by
policies limiting government regulations and
expenditures and reducing taxes, while
providing aid to businessmen and farmers
through extensions of credits and imposition of
tariffs.” - TSHA
Business interests in the state were
growing – and they were drawn to
the national Republican Party’s
opposition to regulations and labor
unions – but they were still a
minority. Texas was still mostly
agrarian, and the party could not
overcome continued revulsion to it
due to its history by Anglos.
1896 – 1932
The Fourth Party System
While the Democratic Party was
consolidating its strength in the
state of Texas, the Republican Party
dominated politics nationally.
It controlled the presidency except
for when it split its votes in 1912
and Woodrow Wilson was elected
President.
During this time the parties solidified
themselves as being agrarian (Democrats) or
commercial (Republicans). Regional divisions
evolved in voting behavior based on the
dominant industry in the state. Ongoing
resentment to the Republican Party in the South
also played into this.
This map shows the strength of the relationship
between the south and the Democratic Party
during this period. The blue states are the
Democrats.
During this time a split developed in the
Republican party between the progressives and
the business sector.
Republican presidents like Theodore Roosevelt
embraced progressive reforms and increased
regulations over industry, but others – like
William Howard Taft, and especially Coolidge
and Harding – opposed them.
In the presidential election of 1912 Theodore
Roosevelt ran as a candidate of the Progressive
Party, and drew enough votes away from the
Republican candidate to throw the election to
the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.
This loss would eventually weaken Republicans
because it created an incentive for the
Progressive wing of the party to slowly pull away
from it and realign to the Democratic Party.
But Wilson’s election was
advantageous to Texas and the
Houston area because of the
connections area politicians and
business leaders had to the
administration.
Two key figures: Edward M. House
and Jesse Jones.
1928: Jesse Jones is able to
convince the Democratic Party to
hold its national convention in
Houston.
It nominated Al Smith, whose
name was introduced by Franklin
Roosevelt.
Ironically Texas voted for Herbert
Hoover in that election, the first
time Texas voted for a Republican
president.
Texas opposed Smith because he
was opposed to the Ku Klux Klan,
wanted to repeal prohibition, and
was Catholic.
1932 – 1968
The Fifth Party System
The Great Depression ended the Republican
Party’s string of success. In 1932 Texas and most
of the rest of the nation voted for Franklin
Roosevelt, the Democratic nominee.
Roosevelt used the opportunity to assemble
what became known as the New Deal Coalition,
a large somewhat disorganized collection of
groups in the nation. This included the South,
which had been a part of the Democratic
coalition already for a century.
What is the New Deal?
It is the name given to a series of programs
enacted when FDR came into office in 1933 to
aggressively address the problems associated
with the Great Depression. Many of these
programs were promoted at one point by the
progressive movement. The economic crash
created an opportunity to enact these programs
due to the overwhelming victory Democrats had
in the 1932 election.
While the Hoover Administration
directly addressed certain aspects
of the crisis, they largely left it to
the economy to pick itself up.
Many states – including southern
states – felt deserted by Hoover,
which further alienated it from the
Republican Party.
The creation of the New Deal Coalition was
essential to passing these programs into
law.
Members of the coalition included: “ Banking
and oil industries, the Democratic state party
organizations, city machines, labor unions, blue
collar workers, minorities (racial, ethnic and
religious), farmers, white Southerners, people
on relief, and intellectuals [progressives].”
One of the ways that FDR ensured Texas’
support for his administration was to ask
Texas – and Speaker of the House – John
Nance Garner to run as his vice-president.
Aside from helping him win the South –
Garner helped ensure the passage of New
Deal legislation through Congress.
Other Texans – most notable Jesse Jones –
were also involved in the FDR
Administration.
This would pay dividends when the decision was
made to make Houston the center of petrochemical production prior to and during WW2.
This explains why Texas business interests
continued their affiliation with Democrats – they
received tangible benefits for doing so. Texas
also became more attractive to business
interests, which would eventually help the
Republican Party establish itself in the state.
But this coalition included elements
that did not always agree on all issues.
The economic crisis allowed for the
creation of temporary alliances among
groups that otherwise did not see eye
to eye. The coalition contained
elements that would eventually
splinter.
Oil interests and labor unions
would come into conflict over
whether forming a labor union was
a right the national government
could enforce.
Business interests would also come
into conflict over various regulations
that were intended to provide relief to
the unemployed and to retired
workers (social security).
Texas business likes the contracts they
received, but did not want to deal with
labor unions.
Most importantly, white
southerners existed uneasily in a
party that also included racial
minorities, as well as the
progressive voices that started to
agitate for meaningful civil rights
legislation.
FDR was clever however.
He did not push for civil rights legislation,
and made compromises in other areas
restricting benefits from African-Americans
and the poor in order to keep southern
politicians happy. See this description of
The Segregated Origins of Social Security.
As we will see, his successor –
Harry Truman - would not hold
back.
He desegregated the armed forces
and held civil rights conferences in
the White House.
Slowly elements within the South –
and elsewhere – started to break
with FDR over the New Deal.
Groups developed in the South to
organize this opposition.
Here’s a look at some of the
reactions to it:
1936: The Jeffersonian Democrats
were formed by business groups
that were increasingly disaffected
by the policies of Franklin
Roosevelt and the New Deal in
general.
“The Texas membership of this anti-Roosevelt
group was composed largely of lawyers,
followed by businessmen, farmers, and
ranchers. Their theme was that the New Deal
was un-American and a threat to the institutions
that Texans cherished and respected. . . . The
Jeffersonian Democrats attempted to identify
the Roosevelt administration with communism
and made extreme charges against the
president and his family. They also used religion,
white supremacy, and prohibitionism in their
appeals.” – TSHA.
The Texas Regulars
1937: The Conservative Manifesto
is written by conservatives in both
parties. It featured 10 points that
sounds very similar to the points
conservatives continue to make
today.
- lowering taxes on capital gains and undistributed profits
- reducing government spending and balancing budgets
- restoring peace to the relationship between labor and
industry
- resisting government competition with private enterprise
- recognizing the importance of profit in private enterprise
- protecting collateral as a prerequisite for credit
- reducing taxes
- maintaining states' rights
- aiding the unemployed in an economical and locally
responsible manner
- relying on American free enterprise.
Southern Conservative Democrats agree with
many of these positions and begin to pull away
from the national party. Conflict builds between
the national party and the state parties across
the south, especially Texas.
The state Democratic Party continues to adhere
to strong conservative line, though a moderate
faction begins to build slowly. State and local
Democratic Party leaders and incumbents
continue to receive support event though
support for national figures begins to slip.
rd
3
th
4
FDR’s decision to seek
and
terms of office further alienated
him from Texas Democrats.
1940: John Nance Garner chooses
to not run again as FDR’s VP.
Click here for a description of
Garner’s increasingly contentious
relationship with FDR.
An extended quote:
In late 1936, Roosevelt's approach to labor strikes led to a heated
exchange between the President and Garner, and from then on the
vice president became more a figure of opposition than cooperation.
Garner opposed Roosevelt's "court-packing" plan and was noticeably
absent during the congressional debates regarding the proposal.
Roosevelt also went against Garner's advice and aggressively tried to
unseat conservative Democrats in the 1938 midterm elections. The
President's intervention earned him substantial enmity from
conservative members of his own party, many of them close friends of
Garner, and helped stall his legislative agenda.
When Roosevelt began to hint at the possibility of a third term, Garner
was aghast and declared his own candidacy in December 1939.
Although he attracted some support, Garner knew that Roosevelt
would take the nomination if he sought it. The increasing instability in
Europe assured Roosevelt's nomination and eventual election. Garner
did not reconcile with Roosevelt, however, and did not even vote in
the 1940 election.
Garner only received 6% of the vote in
the 1940 Democratic National
Convention. He was replaced on the
ticket with Henry Wallace, who had
been FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture
and was far more liberal than Garner.
This pushed the center of gravity of
the Democratic Party further to the
left.
This would continue in 1944 when
FDR selected Harry Truman, who
would quickly become president
following FDR’s death in 1945.
1944: Smith v Allwright decided.
The white primary found
unconstitutional by the United
States Supreme Court.
The Texas Democratic Party was
still segregated at this time.
Until the Supreme Court case Smith v Allwright,
only whites could vote in the Democratic Party
Primary. The party argued unsuccessfully before
the court that they were a private organization
and the federal government had no authority
over it. The court argues that since they
provided a public function, they could be.
1945: FDR dies and is replaced by
his vice-president Harry Truman.
Truman desegregated the armed
forces and promoted the development
of a civil rights agenda.
This led to the development of the States’ Rights
Party (the Dixiecrats) with Strom Thurmond as
its candidate in 1948. It was an early indication
that southern state Democratic Parties were
dissatisfied with the national party.
Thurmond received a fair amount
of votes in that election:
Election, 1948
*Harry S Truman (Democrat)..........................750,700
Thomas E. Dewey (Republican).....................282,240
J. Strom Thurmond (States Rights)................106,909
Henry A. Wallace (Progressive)..........................3,764
Claude A. Watson (Prohibitionist).......................2,758
Norman M. Thomas (Socialist)..............................874
Total Vote............................1,147,245**
The Republican Party was
beginning to make inroads in the
state.
But would have initial success only
in national elections.
1950: A majority of Texans live in
urban areas, both cities and
suburbs.
Demographic shifts fuel the
transition.
1952: Texas Governor Allan Shivers
clashes with the Truman
Administration over many things. His
followers were called the Shivercrats.
Shivers supported Eisenhower over
Adlai Stevenson. He helped use the
Texas Democratic Party machinery for
the Republican presidential candidate.
He was able to alter the law to
allow Eisenhower to appear on the
primary ballots of both the
Democratic and Republican Parties.
This lead to a backlash within the
Democratic Party.
A liberal wing began to form.
Early 1950s: Moderates and
liberals in the Democratic Party
organize against Shivers. Internal
competition between the
conservative and liberal wings of
the party intensifies.
Competition started over control of
the state Democratic Party.
1957: Ralph Yarborough – a
member of the liberal wing of the
party – is elected to the U.S.
Senate. He would serve until 1971
when he was defeated in the
Democratic primary by a more
conservative Lloyd Bentsen.
1960: Lyndon Johnson is elected vice
president on a ticket with John F. Kennedy.
He becomes president in 1963 when
Kennedy is assassinated. His knowledge of
the workings of Congress, along with the
national mood, allows him to push into law
a number of bills focused on poverty and
civil rights. These would become the
events that would transform the parties.
LBJ’s election vacated his Senate
seat which was won by a
Republican.
1961: The first Republican elected to high
office was John Tower in 1961 who
replaced Lyndon Johnson in the Senate
after he became elected Vice-President. He
was the first Republican Senator from the
South since reconstruction.
FYI: There were rumors Johnson supported
Nixon over Humphrey in the 1968 election.
Click here for Slideshow: John
Tower's Historic 1961 Senate
Campaign.
1962: The Republican Party holds
its first primary.
1964: The major shift occurred
with Civil Rights Act of 1964. When
LBJ signed the bill it repositioned
the national Democratic Party.
Predictions were made that this would
lead to a realignment of the South from
the Democratic to Republican Parties.
While it took time, it did come true.
Here is a more subtle development
in 1964.
George H.W. Bush – son of Senator Prescott
Bush of Connecticut – had already moved to
Texas. In 1964 he becomes Chairman of the
Harris County Republican Party. The county
organization becomes a force in developing not
only the state Republican Party, but the national
party as well.
Bush helps continue building the
infrastructure that would make it
possible for conservative
Democrats to see a reason to shift
to the Republican Party.
Without a solid organization that
guaranteed success, there was
little reason to change parties.
1966: Bush is elected to the U.S.
House of Representatives from the
th
7 Congressional District – mostly
in Houston.
1970: Is defeated by Democrat
Lloyd Bentsen for U.S. Senator.
Bentsen campaigns on the idea the
Bush is too liberal for Texas.
1971: The Sharpstown stock-fraud
scandal breaks. Top Texas office
holders – all Democrats – are
implicated in it, which decimates
the party. This creates
opportunities for challengers –
notable Republican challengers.
1978: Bill Clemens is elected as the
first Republican Texas governor
since Reconstruction. He had
served in the Nixon Administration.
He would be defeated by Democrat
Mark White in 1982, but reelected
in 1986.
Clemens would hire Karl Rove as an
advisor. Rove would be
instrumental in developing tactics
that would drive the switch from
Democratic to Republican
dominance.
One of Karl Rove’s early successes
in flipping seats from Democrats to
Republicans happened in the local
area when he recruited Buster
Brown to run (successfully) against
long time Democratic State
Senator Babe Schwartz in 1980.
1983 – U.S. House Representative
Phil Gramm switches from the
Democratic to Republican parties.
He would serve in the U.S. Senate
from 1984 to 2002.
1984: Rick Perry elected to the
Texas House of Representatives as
a Democrat.
1989: Perry switches to the
Republican Party, wins race for
Agriculture Commissioner in 1990.
1994: Republicans win control of the US
House of Representatives for the first time
in 40 years. Many Conservative Texas
Democrats take the opportunity to switch
parties.
It made sense now because they could
continue to chair committees and use their
seniority to benefit their constituents.
Some of the leaders of the
Republican majority were from
Texas and the local area. Examples:
Tom Delay
Dick Armey
1995: The Formation of the Blue
Dog Coalition in Congress.
These were Yellow Dog Democrats
who had been "choked blue" by
extreme Democrats from the Left.
Many Blue Dog Democrats would
eventually switch over to the
Republican Party.
1997: The Republican Party
becomes the majority party in the
Texas Senate for the first time since
Reconstruction.
2002: The Republican Party
becomes the majority party in the
Texas House for the first time since
Reconstruction.
2003: Now that Republicans controlled the
Texas Legislature, they held several special
sessions to redraw congressional districts.
This was very controversial since districts
are normally just redrawn once following
each apportionment after the census is
taken every ten years.
2004: In the first election following
redistricting, Republicans defeat 7
Democrats in the U.S. House and
become the majority party in the
Texas Delegation.
The Republican Party has been
dominant in the state ever since.
It does not completely control the state –
as Democrats had done previously.
Republicans tend to win stateside offices
by 15 – 20 percentage points. Republican
also tend to hold around 2/3rds of the
seats in legislative assemblies.
2009: The Tea Party movement heats up
across the nation, and becomes especially
influential in Texas. The principle focus of
the group was to rally conservative forces
within the Republican Party and push for
policies that were further to the right than
those already in place.
Tea Party candidates focused their energies
on challenging Republican officeholders
they deemed insufficiently conservative.
RINOs
Republicans In Name Only
What might the future hold?
Will Republicans continue to
control the state or can Democrats
stage a comeback?
There are two factors to look at
here.
The first is demographic changes
within the state that might be
advantageous to Democrats.
Specifically the fact that the
Hispanic population in the state is
the fastest growing segment of the
population, and they tend to vote
Democrat.
Here are few items on whether
Democrats can become
competitive again in the state:
- Am I Blue?
- Analysis: For Democrats, a Long Game
and a Short One.
- How Democrats Are Aiming to Make
Texas a Swing State.
- Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State
Likely to Stay Red.
The second has to do with the
internal dynamics within the
Republican Party that followed the
rise of the Tea Party.
Their efforts to force their agenda
may force moderate Republicans
out of the party, which can make it
less competitive in the long run.
Tension has increased within the
Republican Party between the Tea
Party and what is called the
“establishment” over how
ideologically extreme the state’s
agenda should be.
How much money should be spent on
infrastructure development and education
for example.
The establishment Republicans tend to be
business oriented and see a reason to
spend money in those areas and do not
mind compromising with Democrats to
attain their objectives.
This appalls the Tea Party.
The only questions are which of
these factions will control the
party, and whether the Tea Party’s
agenda is extreme enough to drive
moderate Republicans to the
Democratic Party.
Some readings:
- Texas Takes A Hard Right Turn.
- Fed up with tea party extremism,
Texas GOP judge bolts for
Democrats.
But these are simply guesses at
this time.
How these play out in the future is
up in the air.