Replies

Before Griffith’s switch, the Democrats had held the Huntsville seat since March 1869. Democrat Peter Myndert Dox of Huntsville was elected in November 1868 to what even then was the AL-05: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Myndert_Dox

Earlier in 1868, a special election was held in AL (the state had just been readmitted to the Union), and Republican John Benton Callis of Huntsville was elected. Callis served from July 21, 1868 to March 3, 1869. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Benton_Callis

Immediately prior to the Civil War, the district was represented by Huntsville Democrat Williamson Robert Winfield Cobb, who was a Unionist (as were many North Alabamians—some wanted counties in North AL, North GA, East TN and West NC to secede from the Confederacy and form a new state of the U.S.) but who reluctantly withdrew from Congress when AL seceded in 1861. Cobb served from 1847-1861 in what was back then known as the AL-06. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamson_Robert_Winfield_Cobb

Prior to Cobb, the Representative for the Huntsville district was Democrat Reuben Chapman, who served from 1835 to 1847. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Chapman Chapman had replaced Democrat Clement Comer Clay, who served from 1829-1835. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Comer_Clay Clay, in turn, replaced Jacksonian (and thus proto-Democrat) Gabriel Moore, who served from the district’s creation in 1823 (prior to that, AL had a single Representative, elected statewide) until 1829. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Moore

So, before today, in the 186-year-old history of the Huntsville-based congressional district in Alabama, it was represented by someone other than a Democrat (or proto-Democrat Jacksonian) for less than 7 and 1/2 months.

Now *taht* is an “ancestrally Democrat” district!

But the thing is in 1869 Democrats were the conservative party and Republicans were the liberals.

Democrats remained the conservative party in this state until a date that cannot be determined. Some say 1986 when they threw out the election. Some say 1988 when Jackson won the primary. Some say 1994 when the Revolution occurred. My take is that it began with the ‘86 election and gradually continued until by 2002 it was very clear that Republicans were the conservative party and Democrats the liberals.

It took getting a Republican president with a Southern accent (even I now think he was a deficit inducing disaster) to help cement the idea that the Democrats were no longer the Democrats of old waving the rebel flag and the defenders of our values.

However, we haven’t been able to get that message to stick in North Alabama. They still view the Republicans as the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction and they have all their good old country boy Dems to pass that message along. If nothing else, Barack Obama’s election shattered that rationale and shattered these people’s worlds and I expect us to reap the full benefits next year.

>> Before Griffith’s switch, the Democrats had held the Huntsville seat since March 1869. Democrat Peter Myndert Dox of Huntsville was elected in November 1868 to what even then was the AL-05: Now *that* is an “ancestrally Democrat” district! <<

Interesting. I wasn't aware Griffith's district had been in the RAT camp that long. Alot of these deep southern districts represented by "moderate" white Democrats had at least flirted with GOP congressmen once or twice since the 60s and 70s, especially in GOP landslide years like 1994. Griffith's switch kind of makes the district like Jefford's Vermont in reverse (The seat that Jeffords occupied had been held by a Republican from 1857, when Solomon Foot became a Republican, until 2001 when Jeffords became an Independent, making it the longest Republican-held seat in U.S. history.)

According to wikipedia, there were two non-RATs who held Parker Griffith's seat since the civil war, the aforementioned John Benton Callis, Republican, from 1868-1869, and Albert Taylor Goodwyn, elected on the Populist Party ticket (I assume that means he beat the RAT on the ballot?) from 1896-1897.

I'm sure the district has changed radically in shape since the 1860s, but apparently even back then it was still centered in Huntsville like it is today.

>> In 1869 Democrats were the conservative party and Republicans were the liberals. <<

I can't say I agree with that statement. The GOP in the 1860s was pretty much a single-issue "anti-slavery" party made up of various anti-slavery factions that defected from other political parties (Whigs, Democrats, Know-Nothing, etc.). Aside from all the members being committed to killing off slavery, they didn't have any unified beliefs on any other issues, which is why the GOP platforms from those eras were intentionally vague. They eventually formed their own little factions within the GOP, and by the 1880s the three main types were Stalwart Republicans (formerly "radical Republicans" during the slavery era), Half-Breed Republicans, and Liberal Republicans. These terms don't necessarily translate into today's politics either, as many of today's conservative Republicans would have been considered "moderate Republicans" by 1860s standards (because today's conservative Republicans tend to favor equal opportunity for all races, but do not favor using big government intervention to do so)

The RATs of the 1860s are even harder to explain. In that case there was a a huge regional difference between northern RATs and southern RATs. In some cases, the Dems have completely switched their views 180o degrees from their 19th century counterparts. But even the reconstruct era RATs were very different from the Jacksonian era RATs. One place where the two parties haven't changed at all is the GOP was always seen as the "corporate friendly" party that encouraged pro-buisness policies, whereas the Dems were seen as favoring more farmer and laborer friendly policies.

Overall it seems the RATs have changed their positions over the decades much more than the GOP has.

I'd say by the late 1890s, the two parties nationally had aligned into the political ideologies we associate with the GOP and Dems today.

BTW, where are the freepers who attacked Norm Coleman and Trey Greyson as "RINOs" on the basis that they "used to be Democrats" over a decade ago? (regardless of whether they switched because they were no longer comfortable with the RAT idealogy) They should be hoping mad that lifelong Democrat Parker Griffith is in the GOP now! :-)