Are southern Americans and northern Americans different cultural groups/nations? (lease, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The South has always been more politically and socially conservative than the North. There are exceptions of course -- some of the larger cities and some of the university-dominated areas. But this divide between Northern and Southern ways about thinking of life are big and impressive and have been going on for a while.
The South is far more traditionally religious than the North, with many more regular church goers. It is mostly reflexively pro-business, anti-union, and anti-government on most big national policy issues. It is also far more connected to and favorable about the military than other parts of the country. And it became an almost all-Republican area in the years following the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, when Democrats and Northern liberal Republicans fought to pass major laws to protect and enfranchise its black citizens. Hell, there are still noticable numbers of Southerners that romanticize the Old Confederacy, fly the confederate stars and bars flag, and can't quite get over the fact that they lost the Civil war.
And I am NOT giving Northerners a pass here either. You can certainly find church-going, pro-business, bigoted Northerners. Anyone who lives here knows that. But such veiws are just not as dominant or as socially accepted north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Much has been said or written about how the U.S. is becoming homgenized and on some levels that is true. White southerners will cue up for a Woody Allen movie and New Yorkers can enjoy stock car races and shop at Wal-Mart. But the deeper cultural divides that stem from the South's history of slavery, Jim Crow, and an agrarian past are not going to fade fast.
I've always felt that a lot of the dominant traditional culture of the South was historically based in slavery, while in the North, the domniant traditional culture stemmed from waves of European immigration. (And yes, I know that white Southerners are descended from immigrants.)
Immigrants, particulary in the late 1800's and early part of the 20th century bypassed the South. I agree with you on everything else. There are deep divisions, and they aren't going away anytime soon. There was recently a large billboard erected outside Montgomery, AL on the Interstate. The billboard had one giant word on it: "SECEDE". That tells you all you need to know about the differences. A billboard like that wouldn't even be a thought in the North, but yet some group took the effort to erect that billboard in Alabama.
Immigrants, particulary in the late 1800's and early part of the 20th century bypassed the South. I agree with you on everything else. There are deep divisions, and they aren't going away anytime soon. There was recently a large billboard erected outside Montgomery, AL on the Interstate. The billboard had one giant word on it: "SECEDE". That tells you all you need to know about the differences. A billboard like that wouldn't even be a thought in the North, but yet some group took the effort to erect that billboard in Alabama.
LOL the League of the South bought that billboard and it was erected on May 16th. By May 19th it had received so many complaints, from southerners for the most part, that it was taken down.
You may find this map of hate groups interesting. The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified 196 hate groups in the northeast ALONE. There are 939 identified hate groups across the US, and they are NOT limited to the southern US, not by a long shot - unfortunately.
The South has always been more politically and socially conservative than the North. There are exceptions of course -- some of the larger cities and some of the university-dominated areas. But this divide between Northern and Southern ways about thinking of life are big and impressive and have been going on for a while.
The South is far more traditionally religious than the North, with many more regular church goers. It is mostly reflexively pro-business, anti-union, and anti-government on most big national policy issues. It is also far more connected to and favorable about the military than other parts of the country. And it became an almost all-Republican area in the years following the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, when Democrats and Northern liberal Republicans fought to pass major laws to protect and enfranchise its black citizens. Hell, there are still noticable numbers of Southerners that romanticize the Old Confederacy, fly the confederate stars and bars flag, and can't quite get over the fact that they lost the Civil war.
This is absolutely, 100% false. Read up on colonial and early U.S. history if you don't believe me. back then, the North (which meant New England and New York) was fundamentalist Christian, socially conservative, and authoritarian. The South (which was Maryland, perhaps Delaware, and points south) was known for being irreligious (nominally Christian at best), socially tolerant, and quite rebellious towards established authority in places.
It's difficult to say when the inversion of the two regions happened exactly. The South became much more religious during the Second Great Awakening, but the North didn't drift towards securlarism and social tolerance until well into the 20th century (remember, it was the North, not the South, which pushed prohibition). On economic issues, there was no regional split until recently either - plenty of southerners were populist (at least when it came to their kinfolk), and the north was known more as the bulwark of economic conservatism.
What is true is the two regions have in most eras of U.S. history been polarized in terms of political support. So, for example, the North supported Federalists, then Whigs, then Republicans, then Democrats, while the South supported Democratic-Republicans, then Democrats, then Republicans. But if you look at the actual policies of the parties, there aren't many common threads through the different U.S. party systems.
At the state level, the League had mixed results, usually doing best in rural and southern states. It made little headway in larger cities, or among liturgical church members such as Catholics, Jews, Episcopalians and German Lutherans
What part of the country still has dry counties? South
It's also worth noting that during this time period most Northern politicians who were against prohibitions were Democrats, who had an urban, largely Catholic voting base - the old "political machine" system. While these machines had very different interests than Southern Democrats, that they worked in coalition with them meant the Democratic party of that time period (which was overall conservative) was more muddled on the issue than Republicans. Many southerners also were big fans of local prohibition, but not of national, as they were worried it would lead to a stronger federal government. As North Carolina Democrat Edward Pou said, he feared with the passage of prohibition, there might come a later amendment "to prescribe the qualification of voters in all the...states of the union".
It's also worth noting that during this time period most Northern politicians who were against prohibitions were Democrats, who had an urban, largely Catholic voting base - the old "political machine" system. While these machines had very different interests than Southern Democrats, that they worked in coalition with them meant the Democratic party of that time period (which was overall conservative) was more muddled on the issue than Republicans. Many southerners also were big fans of local prohibition, but not of national, as they were worried it would lead to a stronger federal government. As North Carolina Democrat Edward Pou said, he feared with the passage of prohibition, there might come a later amendment "to prescribe the qualification of voters in all the...states of the union".
Hence the real fear and hatred of the Fed Govt for people like him was that the Fed Govt would actually enforce the rights enshrined in the Constitution, and not let states disenfranchise citizens and mistreat them. I don't know how any American can think that a minimal Fed Govt is a good thing. It was, and always has been individual state govt's which have done the most egregious things. I trust the US Govt much more than some hick state run by local crooks and corrupt people. The Fed Govt has much brighter lights shined on it than some rural backwater state.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
Most White Southerners are primarily of British descent (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales) with some German, Dutch, and French, nearly all of whom arrived before the revolutionary war.
Most White Northerners are German, Italian, Irish, or other Southern / Eastern European countries, most of whom arrived in the late 1800s, even the early 1900s
Most White Southerners are primarily of British descent (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales) with some German, Dutch, and French, nearly all of whom arrived before the revolutionary war.
Most White Northerners are German, Italian, Irish, or other Southern / Eastern European countries, most of whom arrived in the late 1800s, even the early 1900s
So, following this logic, there was almost no one of European descent in the northern U.S. until the late 1800s...except that NYC, Philly, and even Chicago were by far the largest population centers in the country well before the late 1800s. If this were not the case, then how could the Union troops in the Civil War have so far outnumbered those of the Confederacy?
I am a native of NW Ohio. European settlement, even that far west, began in the late 1700s. My family on both sides have been in that area since the very early 1800s, along with most other families with European roots. Most of the cities and small towns in this general region were founded by the late 1700s or early 1800s, in fact, the small town in SE Michigan where I live now was founded in 1836 by a Scottish immigrant. Detroit was founded by the French in 1703.
Maybe you are thinking of the whole Ellis Island thing, but trust me, European immigration to the northern U.S. started well before the late 1800s. It was actually in the early 1600s. Think: Pilgrims!
Last edited by canudigit; 07-10-2014 at 04:36 PM..
At the state level, the League had mixed results, usually doing best in rural and southern states. It made little headway in larger cities, or among liturgical church members such as Catholics, Jews, Episcopalians and German Lutherans
What part of the country still has dry counties? South
As you can see the discussion from a while back, we have to go far back in history when seeking out cultural differences between the two regions... in today's era we all have a lot in common.
As a northerner from Minnesota i have plenty of southern friends and we have a lot in common... our different accents don't really mean anything culturally...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
