Comments on: Ethnic America, 1830

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:28:10 +0000

He interestingly identifies the losers in the conflict to be not Southern whites but Indians, Irish, ex-slaves, and mid-western German settlers.

From 1860 to 1932 the Midwest was the outsider of American politics, and for that reason the source of almost all the innovations. The two parties were patronage (graft) machines which ran errands for various financial interests, especially Eastern finance. Both parties were conservative by present standards; what we call "liberalism" entered the party with W J Bryan, rather unsuccessfully, had some influence under Wilson, but really only became influential under FDR in a disaster situation. FDR always had conservative opposition within the Democratic Party, and it wasn't on race (where he basically cut a deal with the South).

Northern Midwesterners were Republicans because of the Civil War, but the Republicans did nothing for them. As a result Midwestern politics was dominated by dissident Democrats, dissident Republicans, third parties, and non-party political movements.

There's one Congressional district in Tennessee that's been Republican since the Civil War. They were Unionists who hated the planters but also the slaves. They were anti-planter Republicans for decades, and then when the Republicans moved South they became generic Republicans.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:07:12 +0000

I put part of Sowell's book online here.

By: ruth

ruth — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:45:45 +0000

…although, having just read some amazon reviews, i have to say that at least some of the one-star reviews do have a point.

By: ruth

ruth — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:22:25 +0000

Razib, from your post it seems you haven’t read Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks, White Liberals. Do. It’s good.

By: pconroy

pconroy — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:31:53 +0000

If you like tracing where different ethnic lastnames entered and settled in the US, then try out this Surname Locator, which has 1850, 1880, 1920, 1990 census data on lastnames.
It's fascinating to see some names become widespread, and some remain localized.

By: The Count

The Count — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:20:42 +0000

Now the trend is reversed, w/ the Southerners having more kids. Supposedly, liberals are stereotyped as messy and conservatives as neat, so I wonder if that’s flipped regionally, too?

By: James

James — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:29:35 +0000

Kevin Phillips traces the broad cultural differences between the opposing sides of the US Civil Warall the way back from the English Civil War through the American Revolutionary period in his book The Cousins? Wars: Religion, Politics and the Triumph of Anglo-America.

He interestingly identifies the losers in the conflict to be not Southern whites but Indians, Irish, ex-slaves, and mid-western German settlers.

By: Donna B.

Donna B. — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:20:33 +0000

There was a strong French Huguenot influence in the South as well, especially SC. It looks like there are several French ethnicities also.

I've already placed the book in my Amazon basket and look forward to reading it. I get a lot of flack for saying that there was more to the Civil War than slavery, so I should find it interesting.

In self-defense, due to such flack, this disclaimer: I am in no way saying slavery was moral.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:27:26 +0000

Somewhat peripheral: All through the Mississippi valley there was a strong French influence until 1850 and even afterwards; there were French-speaking enclaves in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota even in the 20th century. They came from both the north (Canada) and the South (Louisiana). There are still a scattering of French names all through the area, and are usually from very old families, often rustic and poor, and often with some Indian descent. (In MN politics ca. 1850-1860 the term "French vote" sometimes just meant half-breeds and perhaps enfranchised Indians).

The Yankee-planter-Appalachian-Midlands divide in America has been known for a long time, for example in dialectology, but to place too much weight on the area of British origin strikes me as forced, especially when it seems to involve neglect of local factors (Appalachian agricultural poverty, Southern planter economy, Midland urbanization and relative multicuturalism), 19th c. European migrations, and specific frontier/Western influences.

I suppose, much as I dislike the book, I should read it.

By: Charles Iliya Krempeaux

Charles Iliya Krempeaux — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:22:18 +0000

In my experience, I think most people, in common language, would label this as "culture" instead of ethnicity. (Even though it is correct to label it as ethnicity. And probably sloppy thinking not to recognize this as ethnicity.)

(Let me tell a little story to elaborate the point....)

Mainly growing up in a particular suburb of Vancouver and now living in the city of Vancouver, I know that the people in that suburb have a different culture than that of the people in the city of Vancouver. (For one, it's a much more martial culture in that suburb. But that's not the only thing that makes them different. There's a lot more to it.) It's also common for people in each of the groups to think of themselves as being different from the other groups. (I'm also aware of the slurs, jokes, and sentiments that each group has perpetuates regarding the other group.)

I think it would be accurate to identify 2 ethnicities here. One being the people in that particular suburb. And the other people the people in the city. (Probably it's more complex than that... in that there's probably more than 2 ethnicities here, but lets keep things simple.) However, I don't think it would be common for members of the populations to identify these as ethnicities. Even though that's what they really are. They'd just say they have different cultures (or even different sub-cultures).

For a little extra information.... From a morphological point of view, the groups are even seen different. (Although I haven't gone out and done any kind of survey or formal study) my personal observation is that mesomorphs are much more common in the suburbs, while ectomorphs are much more common in the city. Even though both are derived from mainly European stock.