Terribly wrong there. A century ago the New England Yankees were penny pinching conservatives. Southerners and Westerners were poorer and were the big spending liberals.
Urban political machines became favorable towards federal spending when it was offered, but virtually all the urban machine politicians were Democrats, and in those days, Republicans could still get elected in Boston, New York, Chicago, and other cities.
Of the "hoi polloi" this is true, but of the "elite" "robber baron" class, this is not true. The elite wanted government money and government laws to help them make money.
The Hamiltonian view of government is that it should be used as a tool to increase the prosperity of businesses. That government should not be neutral, but activist in favor of business and industry.
Yes, the common folk of New England were known for frugality and hard work, but the captains of industry may have been stingy with their own money, but were very welcoming of any government spending that helped them make money.
Urban political machines became favorable towards federal spending when it was offered, but virtually all the urban machine politicians were Democrats, and in those days, Republicans could still get elected in Boston, New York, Chicago, and other cities.
There is a good argument that urbanization is inherently socialist and desirous of large taxation and heavy spending. Yes, the New York City government was run by Democrats in this era, but the corruption they engendered tended to be of the local variety, not the national variety.
It's like the difference between a street gang and the Mafia.