What evidence is there that English Political divisions from the 1600s are replicated in American politics today?

score:3

Accepted answer

That blog post is presenting the argument of Albion's Seed. However, he's presenting it in a somewhat twisted way. It looks like he's trying to make political points as much as he is historical ones, and that's causing him to both simplify and outright misrepresent some of his history.

For that reason, I'd suggest reading the original book, if you are interested in its thesis.

There certainly is evidence of cultural differences between the Northeast, the Midlands, the South, and the border areas, that persisted as the USA spread west. This has been noted from several different quarters. Let's take one example: the "border area". Historians such as Jim Webb have pointed out the cultural contribution of the Scotts-Irish, who moved into the upper south and highland areas west of there. Linguists have noted a distinctive American accent that covers this exact area: South Midland (it actually goes by many names, perhaps due to it being the lowest prestige dialect in American English). Nate Silver, in analyzing voting patterns, independently placed pretty much this same region in a grouping he refers to as "Highlands"

When all these different disciplines are telling you there are real cultural differences in the same area, its a pretty good bet there are real cultural differences in that area.

This doesn't just go for the Scotts-Irish either. There are major American English dialects corresponding to all of the supposed "seed" populations: New England, Midland, Southern Midland, and Southern.

That these separate cultures can be traced back to fairly early in the Republic's history is well documented. The thesis that the root of this difference goes back to all the separate immigrant groups going to different areas in the USA, and further that it corresponds directly to the culture they brought with them from their original homes, seems quite plausible, but I'm not sure how well proven it is.

There are certainly holes in the theory. For example, if the entire source of each group's culture came from regional English differences, you'd expect the American regional dialects to be nearly as dissimilar as those dialects are in the mother country. Instead, American speech is quite h*m*geneous by English standards, more like they started from a common source with influences and local separate developments, rather than like they started from wildly different sources and merged toward a set of common denominators.

Upvote:0

The model has some validity up to the time of the Civil War. The main fight was between New Englanders and Southeasterners, basically England's Southeastern "Anglicans" and southwestern nobility. With the Midlanders siding with the "Anglicans" for non-ideological reasons, and the Scots-Irish showing their resentment of the nobles in West Viriginia, "East Tennessee," and equivalent, but Confederate-controlled parts of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama.

But as Pieter pointed out, the political landscape of the U.S. has changed a lot since the Civil War, with the introduction of large non "Anglo" populations. So any connection to 17th century England from today is tenuous at best.

Upvote:1

The author of your post makes a big deal of the Electoral College results from 2012 closely aligning with the lineup of states during the American Civil War:

enter image description here

However he conveniently omits that this pattern is far from consistent in American history, as evidenced by these Electoral College maps from 1900 (Say what - how did the colours reverse? - Because Red is the Republican Party of Lincoln and Roosevelt, not of Hoover and Reagan.):

enter image description here

and from 1976 (where there is a much stronger East-West divide than a North-South one, and the colours ae still reversed):

enter image description here

and from even 1840 where the proposed analysis might be held to be even stronger. but simply is not born out:

enter image description here

The moral:
Attempting to reduce complicated decision and policy decisions to simple aphorisms is always a mug's game.

More post

Search Posts

Related post