[ultrarunner]

While there were a few midwestern socialists that joined on the newly formed (past tense, at this point) Republican Party, it was very much committed to limited governmental intervention. The idea that there are socialist ideas at the bedrock of the Republican Party is misleading. Those are a much later development.

Read Tolstoy. He was chiefly inspired by the Quakers' nonviolence. In reality, the Quakers themselves were a heavily Republican group (insofar as they identified with government force at all).

While there are left-wing inspired (and somewhat developmental) incidents throughout US history, I wouldn't characterize the situation as either "strong" or "erased." On the contrary, the U.S. has accepted many people fleeing from failed or failing socialist states, which may affect the local popular understanding of true left-wing ideology.

[DFHippie]

There are still American Quakers. Though there have been many schisms, they are not now a heavily Republican group by any stretch. They were when Lincoln was in office, of course, but party identification underwent a well-known realignment over the past 150 years, so if 19th century Quakers are who you have in mind, this is more a misleading than an enlightening observation.

Full disclosure: I grew up Quaker. The Quakers I knew were more like this fellow than Herbert Hoover or Nixon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Morrison

[mempko]

Maybe your understanding of socialist ideas is a little bit simple. Limited government (and even no government, like anarchism) is at the bedrock many strains of socialism. There is no "one socialism" just as there isn't "one capitalism". To attribute a big government to socialism is simply ignorant.

[ultrarunner]

Yes, that's a completely fair point, especially given the time period being discussed. What I was getting at, though was that the Republican Party was simply not formed by "socialists from Wisconsin."