Read my post again: I referred to the Atlantic Slope (East Coast), not New England only. European habits lingered longer all up and down the seaboard, even moreso among the jampacked cities full of immigrants.
I lost my earlier reply to you, but in it I did note that German immigrants, with their tradition of authoritarianism (which made Union men of them reflexively, when the Civil War began: government is God, all praise the government), did not settle in areas haunted by Jacksonians, but instead clustered with their own in northern Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa. Those who went to Texas found out the hard way what public expressions of support for Unionism could get you there.
Of course there were long periods when New England was one of the more conservative parts of the country (say from the 1880s to the 1950s).
Of course they were "conservative" then: They'd won the Civil War (the gomers out West had no idea they'd lost, just like the South, except when they tried to transship their crops to market on Yankee-owned railroads), they were wallowing in the spoils of a continent, and they always had the Southern rednecks to eat .... and spit on. Life was good. Of course they were "conservative" -- they had it all, which was all the sweeter because those crackers down South had damn-all and were poorer than dirt. Yes, life was sweet.
Of course, Portland OR has more in common with Portland ME than with a lot of other places in between. But the main factor is (as you suggest) that cities tend to vote Democrat and rural areas vote Republican.
No, attitudes and values migrated west with the people who left the Eastern source-areas, an idea shown to be obvious by Kevin Phillips, who compiled a series of maps by issues and showed this phenomenon in color, in the process attracting the attention of Richard Nixon, who 15 years later gave Phillips a post in his first administration. Yes, there is an urban/rural component in many issues and value sets (the Communist Party and its NEA subsidiary have never taken much interest in organizing the rural demes), but the starting point is always the values imported by immigrants from the East.
If the country splits up, it splits up in a big way.
If it does, whose fault will that be but the 'Rats', with their constant subornation of the 47%? Certainly not the fault of conservatives. But if you think the country would blow apart if confronted by a constitutional convention, then you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I happen not to share it, but to think instead that most everyone in America not attending UC Berkeley knows who the troublemakers have been.
The 48ers? They were opposed to the German "tradition of authoritarianism." That's one big reason why most of them they were opposed to slavery. Of course many Germans came here for economic reasons. But my point was that those attitudes that you attacked as Catholic or big city -- not statism, but a village or communitarian view of the world -- were shared by many Protestants and rural Americans.
Those who went to Texas found out the hard way what public expressions of support for Unionism could get you there.
And you celebrate that? Even the acts of what we'd now have to call terrorism?
Of course they were "conservative" then: They'd won the Civil War (the gomers out West had no idea they'd lost, just like the South, except when they tried to transship their crops to market on Yankee-owned railroads), they were wallowing in the spoils of a continent, and they always had the Southern rednecks to eat .... and spit on. Life was good. Of course they were "conservative" -- they had it all, which was all the sweeter because those crackers down South had damn-all and were poorer than dirt. Yes, life was sweet.
Always with the emotionalism. I'm pretty sure that New England factory or farm hands (or even bankers and professors) didn't spend much time eating or spitting on poor Southerners. It wasn't like they had the Internet and all the leisure to malign people.
"Having it all" in 1880 or 1890 or 1910 mean having not much by today's standards. Life in turn of the last century New England could be pretty tough (read Robert Frost or Ethan Frome). Even back in those days, there was talk about the grimness of New England farm and factory life.
I suppose that every group that isn't conservative can be said to be better off than some other group by somebody who wants to undermine their thinking. Somebody could do that to you too, and maybe point out that Texas or the South today isn't what it was a century ago, and that all your victim talk really doesn't reflect how things are now.
No, attitudes and values migrated west with the people who left the Eastern source-areas ...
That's true of Oregon, but not so true of Washington State. Not really so true of California, either. Sure, New Englanders went to Oregon, but coastal dwellers generally have a different take on things than inlanders. You can see that in the way that Los Angeles, settled by Midwesterners and Southerners, has become more like San Francisco (settled from Europe and the Northeast) in its political attitudes. Even without being on the ocean, a major city like Atlanta comes to harbor very different points of view from the outlying countryside.
But if you think the country would blow apart if confronted by a constitutional convention, then you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I happen not to share it ...
"Middle America or the "Silent Majority" was the product of years of shared experience, struggle even -- the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War. Most of us now don't have common public experiences like that to tie us together. So if the country splits up it will be messy and complicated. That kind of massive FU that you direct against some parts of the country is a reflection of disaffection or alienation that won't be easy to contain. Don't be surprised if even people you might take for allies turn it back on you.