I recently completed a 45-page paper for my first semester as a History PhD student. In this paper, I looked at how abolitionists addressed the issue of residential segregation and what the long term impact of their efforts were in this area after the abolitionists themselves were dead. As part of my analysis, I examined a 1966 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on whether to remove a fair housing policy from a proposed civil rights bill. I determined that there was a strong correlation between how much of an abolitionist tradition states had in the 1800s and how states’/regions’ Representatives voted on fair housing in the 1960s. For this blog post, I decided to summarize my findings on this and look at two similar correlations related to gay marriage: is there a correlation between how early a state legalized interracial marriage and whether its Senators and Representatives voted for the Respect For Marriage Act, and is there a correlation between how much of an abolitionist tradition a state/region had and how its Senators and Representatives voted on RFMA? I found that both a strong abolitionist tradition and early legalization of interracial marriage were significantly correlated with higher levels of support for RFMA.
In analyzing the correlation between a strong abolitionist tradition and support for fair housing, I divided all 50 states into 6 regions: New England (ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, NH), the Upper Mid Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA), the border slave states (MO, KY, MD, DE, WV), the Old Confederacy (GA, MS, AL, FL, LA, TN, NC, SC, VA, AR, TX), non-Southern states West of the Red River Valley (AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, OK, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY), and Midwestern states East of the Red River Valley (IL, IN, IA, MN, WI, MI, OH). Due to the stronger abolitionist tradition in Minnesota and Iowa compared to other Northern states West of the Mississippi and various other cultural and political differences, it makes sense to delineate the non-Eastern, non-Southern states between those West and East of the Red River Valley. The Valley is located along the North Dakota-Minnesota border and therefore is a logical dividing point between Minnesota, Iowa, and the Great Lakes states and states that lie further West.
Table 1
Non-Southern States West of Red River Valley
(AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, NE,
NV, NM, ND, OK, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY)
Percent Voting For Fair Housing: 49.40%
Percent Voting Against Fair Housing: 43.70%
Percent Not Voting: 6.90%
(ID, MT, SD, ND, UT, WY Only)
Percent Voting For Fair Housing: 53.8%
Percent Voting Against Fair Housing: 46.2%
Midwestern States East of Red River Valley
(IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, OH, WI)
Percent Voting For Fair Housing: 62.70%
Percent Voting Against Fair Housing: 35.30%
Percent Not Voting: 2%
(Non-Black Representatives in IL and MI)
Percent Voting For Fair Housing: 70.60%
Percent Voting Against Fair Housing: 29.40%
Old Confederacy
(AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA)
Percent Voting For Fair Housing: 7.70%
Percent Voting Against Fair Housing: 84.60%
Percent Not Voting: 7.70%
Border Slave States
(DE, KY, MD, MO, WV)
Percent Voting For Fair Housing: 38.70%
Percent Voting Against Fair Housing: 61.30%
Upper Mid Atlantic
(NJ, NY, PA)
Percent Voting For Fair Housing: 86.70%
Percent Voting Against Fair Housing: 8.40%
Percent Not Voting: 4.90%
New England
(CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT)Percent Voting For Fair Housing: 100%
The data on the 1966 vote demonstrates considerable correlation between states and regions having had a strong abolitionist tradition and Representatives favoring fair housing. Opposition to fair housing was highest among Representatives in the former Confederate states, where only a very small number of brave Congressmen dared back it. Apart from the Old Confederacy, opposition was highest in the border states that had allowed slavery until the 1860s. Delaware, which had had the smallest percentage of slaves before 1865, skewed the most liberal of the border states, with its lone Representative voting in favor of fair housing. In non-Southern states West of the Red River Valley, where Black slavery had been less entrenched than the South and the abolitionist tradition weaker than the other Northern states, Representatives were split almost half and half on fair housing. In Midwestern states West of the Red River Valley, where the abolitionist movement had established some foothold, a strong majority voted for fair housing. In the Northeast, where the abolitionist movement had been the most prevalent, Representatives voted overwhelmingly in support of fair housing. Within the Northeast, abolitionism had been strongest in New England, and this was reflected by how Representatives voted. In the Upper Mid Atlantic, where abolitionism had been stronger than most of the country but weaker than in New England, a few Representatives opposed fair housing or did not vote. In New England, every single Representative, Democrat or Republican, centrist or liberal, rural or urban, backed fair housing. The dichotomy of these votes cannot be explained by New England’s small Black population. As previously mentioned, apart from the South, opposition to fair housing was the highest in Western states, many of which had very small Black populations. In diverse states with big cities, such as Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, Representatives skewed much more supportive of fair housing than they did out West. Low levels of diversity cannot be both the reason why every New England Representative favored fair housing and why over forty percent of Western Representatives opposed it.
In analyzing votes on RFMA, I first divided states into 4 categories, not based on region but based on the timing of their legalizing interracial marriage: states where interracial marriage was always legal (CT, NY, NJ, NH, VT, MN, WI, AK, HI), states where it was legalized before 1888 (PA, MA, IA, KS, NM, MI, OH, RI, ME, IL, WA), states where it was legalized from 1948 through 1966 (AZ, CA, CO, ID, IN, MT, NE, NV, ND, OR, SD, UT, WY), and states where it was legalized in 1967 (MD, OK, DE, MO, WV, VA, TN, TX, GA, SC, NC, FL, AR, MS, AL, LA, KY). I decided to break this down separately by the Senate and House votes. One reason I did so is that for every category except for states where interracial marriage was illegal until 1967, the House vs. Senate vote percentages were significantly different. This makes some sense, because Senators are elected by entire states, while Representatives are elected by individual districts that may be far more liberal or conservative than the state as a whole. Imagining Lauren Boebert being elected statewide in Colorado or Cori Bush being elected statewide in Missouri illustrates this well. I also opted to include the Senators who did note vote on the bill–Raphael Warnock, Ben Sasse, and Pat Toomey–in the tallies, because Warnock is known to have favored gay marriage for years, while Sasse and Toomey have both criticized the bill. In states where interracial marriage was always legal, Senators voted 94% in favor of RFMA. The sole Senator to vote “nay” was Ron Johnson (R-WI). Ironically, one of the main sponsors of RFMA was Wisconsin’s other Senator, the great and openly gay Tammy Baldwin. In the House, mainly due to certain less liberal districts in Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey, “only” 83.3% of Representatives from states where interracial marriage was always legal voted for RFMA. In states where interracial marriage bans were repealed prior to 1888, 81.8% of Senators voted for RFMA. The only 4 not to were Roger Marshall and Jerry Moran of Kansas, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. In the House, a smaller percentage, 69.7%, voted for it. Illinois, Michigan, and especially Ohio were key factors in this discrepancy. All 3 are heavily populated states, where some Representatives from more conservative districts opposed RFMA. In Ohio in particular, both Senators voted for it (though the incoming freshman Senator opposes it), while only half the Representatives did. In states where interracial marriage was legalized between 1948 and 1966, 53.9% of Senators voted “yea,” while in the House, a much larger 72.8% did so. Here, the reason for the discrepancy can be found largely by looking at California. In the Senate, California has the same amount of votes as any state. But in the House, it has the largest delegation due to its massive population. Of its 53-member House delegation, 47 voted for RFMA. In states where interracial marriage was legalized in 1967, only 38.2% of Senators and 40.9% of Representatives supported RFMA. Delaware was the only state in this category where both its Senators and all its Representatives (one) voted for RFMA. Interestingly, Maryland legalized interracial marriage legislatively in 1967 some months before the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bans in the remaining 16 states. This may be relevant to the fact that, aside from Delaware, Maryland’s Representatives voted by far the most liberal on RFMA, with 6 out of 7 being supportive. We can observe a strong correlation, because the order of which categories of states legalized interracial marriage earliest and the order of highest-to-lowest support for RFMA among their Senators is identical. In the House, the order is identical except for Representatives from states that repealed interracial marriage bans before 1888 skewing slightly less supportive of RFMA than Representatives from states that legalized interracial marriage between 1948 and 1966. The overall correlation is still much stronger than would be expected if there was no relationship between support for interracial marriage legalization and gay marriage legalization.
What about the correlation between abolitionist tradition and votes on RFMA? Here, the correlation is generally not quite as strong but is still significant and, in the case of New England and the Old Confederacy, even stronger than the interracial marriage legalization-level of RFMA support correlation. It should be noted that the correlation between abolitionist tradition and interracial marriage legalization is itself quite strong, unsurprising given that interracial marriage bans originated largely to maintain slavery and that many abolitionists favored interracial marriage. This helps explain why no Northeastern state and no Midwestern state East of the Red River Valley besides Indiana had an interracial marriage ban in 1888 and why every state where slavery was legal in 1861 maintained an interracial marriage ban until 1967. To recap, the regions in order of strongest to weakest abolitionist tradition are as follows:
1. New England
2. Upper Mid Atlantic
3. Midwestern States East of the Red River Valley
4. Non-Southern States West of the Red River Valley
5. Border South States
6. Old Confederacy.
In New England, 100% of Senators and 100% of Representatives voted for RFMA. In the Upper Mid Atlantic, 83.3% of Senators and 77.2% of Representatives voted for it. In Midwestern states east of the RRV, 78.6% of Senators but only 59.7% of Representatives did so. In non-Southern states west of the RRV, 61.1% of Senators voted for RFMA, but 73.9% of Representatives did, again largely due to California. In the border South, only 44% of Representatives voted for RFMA, but surprisingly, a whopping 80% of Senators voted for it. In the Old Confederacy, only 27% of Senators and 41.2% of Representatives voted for it. As we can see, the comparative House figures for Midwestern vs Western states on the RRV and the high number of border South Senators who voted for it are different than would be expected if there was 1-1 correlation between states’ abolitionist history and gay marriage support. But apart from the border South, which still falls short of New England and the Upper Mid Atlantic, the order of Senate levels of RFMA support lines up perfectly with each region’s abolitionist tradition. And in the House, these two factors correlate perfectly except for the vote totals in the Midwest vs. West. It is especially telling that New England, where the abolitionist tradition was strongest, is the region with both the highest congressional support for RFMA and the only region where support was unanimous and that in the former Confederate states, both House and Senate support for RFMA were lower than for any other region.
The links to Congressional votes on fair housing and RFMA can be found here, here, and here. I apologize for any mathematical errors I may have made counting levels of support and and am open to critiques.
charlesohalloranboyd 