According to one school of thought, the American ''Civil War'', known to Southrons as the War Between the States (or the War of Southern Independence, War of Northern Aggression, etc.), is just a continuation of a longstanding and unavoidable English conflict.
Michael at Southern Nationalist Network writes about the question here.
The argument seems to be that the (mostly East Anglian) colonists in New England differed greatly from the (mostly Southwestern English) Virginia colonists. I questioned in a previous post whether the differences were so clear-cut and profound; I've never seen any strong evidence that such was the case. I would be interested in seeing any evidence that indicates that these colonists represented some kind of natural enemies, rather than being simply Englishmen from different regions.
And as I pointed out earlier, not all the Puritans were East Anglian. Puritanism was not limited to one region. Some of my Virginia ancestors came from the same counties as my Puritan ancestors. Some New England colonists moved Southward to Virginia, among them my Epes family ancestors. The two regions were not in a state of isolation from each other.
It's ironic that Dr. Tom Sunic, who is Croatian and not a United States resident should be looked to as an authority on this question. While it can sometimes be true that someone with an outsider's perspective can see things more clearly than someone who is too close to the issue, it is certainly not always the case. One can learn a certain amount from books, but only those who have a native's acquaintance with the culture and traditions of the people in question can really understand the many nuances. For that reason, I would not think to comment on divisions in Dr. Sunic's native region.
Michael cites wartime statements from both Jefferson Davis and Gen. William T. Sherman, each excoriating the people of the other side. Davis speaks very harshly of Yankees, and Sherman, likewise of the South.
Davis's words:
''Our enemies are a traditionless and a homeless race; from the time of Cromwell to the present moment they have been disturbers of the peace of the world. Gathered together by Cromwell from the bogs and fens of the North of Ireland and of England, they commenced by disturbing the peace of their own country; they disturbed Holland, to which they fled, and they disturbed England on their return. They persecuted Catholics in England, and they hung Quakers and witches in America.''
Sherman says:
‘The young bloods of the South; sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard players and sportsmen, men who never did any work and never will. War suits them. They are splendid riders, first rate shots and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace.’
Howard Zinn and his ilk would have a field day with this kind of thing; it would ''prove'' the leftist belief that America was evil, as each side, South and North, slanders the character of the other.
But was this the attitude of the average person in America in those days, or was this just wartime propaganda, as it were, to harden soldiers to fight their kin? And like it or not, the two sides were kin -- even the many immigrant soldiers who fought for the Union were distant European cousins of both sides. But North and South were close kin. Still, if you must fight your kinsman, it's necessary to work up a good hate towards them. It's just how things are in wartime. Remember how the left always feigns shock at the wartime propaganda which they called 'dehumanizing' the enemy. Like it or not, that's part of warfare. It would be harder to initiate warfare without this caricaturing or verbally attacking the enemy in preparation for actual physical strife.
That, in part, is why our White western folk are not able to defend themselves against the onslaught we face now; we've had it drummed into our heads that we don't have any real enemies, just misunderstood friends, and that we can't ''stereotype'' or ''demonize'' those who clearly are our enemies. Instead, we must be passive lambs.
Obviously I think the North was wrong in the War Between the States, and Sherman's ruthless methods of warfare were inhumane and very much outside the tradition of chivalry which was more esteemed in the South.
My allegiances and sympathies are with the South. I had no direct ancestors among the Union soldiers; my Yankee great-grandfathers were out West by that time, and were not involved. I do have a number of Confederate soldiers among my paternal kin, and some who died in battle. My direct male ancestors who were adults at that time were all in the Confederate Army.
But really, whose cause is served by ginning up bad feeling among the regions? Americans should not be compelled to stay together in a Union that is coerced, but it hardly helps our chances for survival if we view each other as eternal enemies rather than as allies in need of mutual support. Our very existence is at stake now. Still, let the different regions have autonomy, and as much as possible let people join together along natural lines, according to blood and heritage.
I believe the people of the South are (or were) a distinct people from those of the North, at least until rather recently. Before the latest waves of immigration started, the White people of the South were a rather homogeneous group of people ethnically (being mostly of British Isles extraction), having received far less immigration during the late 19th-early 20th century. The North had been receiving immigrants on a large scale for a century and a half, at least, and consisted of many more people of varied European (and other) stock, while the South remained mostly Anglo-Celtic. Likewise the South had more religious homogeneity, being mostly Protestant. No offence meant to my Catholic readers, if you are out there, but Protestantism shaped the South. The South had a fairly homogeneous culture, despite its regional differences. So the South could easily constitute a 'nation' in all senses of the word, while the North cannot be said to, except in a few places which have remained fairly intact.
The North has long been 'diverse', if only in a European sense, and in matters of religion, as compared to the South.
But I maintain, again, that originally North and South were much of the same stock.
Also see this quote:
''Geographically the stock differs remarkably little. The north and south show much smaller regional differences than generally believed. The only section of the stock that does differ perceptibly and in some important points disadvantageously from the rest, is that of the isolated Appalachian highlanders. The reasons appear to be inbreeding and lack of cultural development, both of which can be remedied.''The recent regional animosity is being exacerbated by the whole climate of division which is rending our society: male vs. female, the young vs. the old, ethnicity against ethnicity, the poor vs. the rich, Catholic vs. Protestant, secularist vs. Christian. And then there are the ideological divisions.
Much of this, though the conflicts are natural, is being stirred up by the forces of 'political correctness', cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, or whatever label you like. We are being goaded into being at each others' throats. It does not benefit us as a people to be reviving old conflicts.
As for whether the Puritans/Yankees are guilty of 'starting' cultural Marxism or liberalism, does this absolve the European Marxists of their culpability? I suppose it's still politically correct to blame some of our own kin (the old ''we did it to ourselves'', changed to 'the Yankee Puritan WASPs did it') rather than to blame, say, a particular ethnic group who are not to be criticized. Judging by the timeline of how 'liberalism' developed in this country, the proximate cause would be the European influence, not a group of people who seem to have been all but bred out of existence in the last half-century or so.
