After America

This post on Marginal Stasis got a ton of comments and so did the Sailer commentary on it at his site. What makes this interesting is not what is said in the comments or even what’s in the source article. The comments are mostly people reworking their favorite cheers with regards to immigration.

The libertarians chant about riding unicorns to their castles in the clouds. The patriots chant about the cultural collapse that would be an inevitable consequence of transporting the world’s peasants to your neighborhood. Then a fight breaks out and before long someone is calling the patriots racist.

That’s all fine, but why does everyone assume America would remain a country as currently constructed? More important, why is it assumed that immigration will play out the same everywhere? California has had a vastly different experience with immigration than Texas. Virginia has had a much different result than Maryland or Delaware.

A great book to read, if you like reading this blog, is called American Nations. It covers the history of the people who settled the Americas, breaking them into unique “nations” that have ties back to the old country. New England, for example, was founded by Roundheads mostly from a handful of towns in England. They imposed their culture and new arrivals were forced to assimilate. Later, Yankees migrated west settling in what is now the Midwest.

The neat thing about the book is he ties this together with the country’s history so we get to see how those old regional differences played out in the Civil War, for example. I like the book primarily because it jives with my view of history, but it is a great read and very good introduction to understanding the HBD view of history. For the record, I doubt the author would agree with it being HBD history, but that’s my take.

Anyway, wholesale immigration to America is not going to play out the same everywhere. It has not played out that way so far. New England has been far more welcoming to Irish immigrants than Hispanic immigrants. The town system allows them to pack people they don’t really want into ghettos away from everyone else. This puts a natural cap on immigration from places that are too ethnically different from the natives.

California, which has always been split between a mild and tolerant south and a Yankee influenced north has largely been overrun by Hispanics, but mostly in the South. Northern California is getting whiter while the state gets browner. Similarly, Virginia has absorbed a lot of Hispanics, while West Virginia has absorbed very few. Those Appalachian mountain people are not friendly to outsiders of any type.

I think if we ever go for open borders, we’ll see three things happen. One is the native populations will begin to move around with a sense of urgency. Yankee transplants living in North Carolina will find a way to move back. We’re already seeing Midlanders who migrated to California heading to states like Colorado fleeing the Hispanics. I think the American nations will consolidate back into their natural zones again.

Another thing is each region will adjust to make sure the native population maintains control of the local power structure. This is something you see in California. The state looks like Mexico, but the state’s political leaders look like Vermont. In New England, this means a compulsory assimilation which will serve to scare off immigrants. In the Old South a return of the highly stratified cast system will make its return. The South will look a lot like South America or the Caribbean.

Finally, I think we would probably see the country break up. New England, most of New York and New Jersey, big chunks of the upper Midwest will either leave for Canada or become a separate country. The South and the Tidewater would most likely welcome it, breaking off as their own country. The Northwest would probably join Canada, but I could argue they would follow New England and the upper Midwest. The middle part of the country and states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia are hard to figure, but they could band together with Texas and Oklahoma or join the South.

The reason for thinking the country would break up is it has come close over much less. In the 19th century New England was close to leaving the Union, but the end of the War of 1812 put a halt to that. The Civil War is the best example. If the South had not attacked Fort Sumter, the North would never had attacked. Instead the South would have been permitted to leave.

We are currently unified as a country only because Yankee culture dominates the political, cultural and financial high ground. One reading of American history is that it is the fight for control by Yankeedom. If the Yankee north can no longer dominate the rest due to massive immigration, they would look to leave and that would cause the rest to break apart too. The result would be four or five countries, maybe in some sort of federation to modulate trade, borders and defense.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kathleen
Guest
Kathleen

I’ve often thought that maybe after a major upheaval, such as a severe economic collapse coupled with the cultural disintegration we’re currently witnessing, the country would break apart. One day Uncle Sugar may run out of money. We have ceased to be a unified country, values-wise. But then again, thinking about state sovereignty, what we really need is a severely weakened federal government. We could remain 50 states, each sovereign but belonging to a loose and weak federal confederation. I like this idea much better than the country breaking apart, mainly because I don’t want to end up behind the… Read more »

Member

I got half-way through the comments. Maybe one in ten even tried to address the essay. The rest was just double-plus ungood duckspeak.

This is why I read very few blogs these days. Perhaps one in twenty can write something grammatically and syntactically correct. A further one in twenty of those can analyze and critique an argument. The rest just repeat what someone else told them, usually poorly.

Now I’m going to spend the next few days pondering the marching morons again.

ganderson9754
Guest
ganderson9754

In a lot of Civil War era newspapers it’s spelled ‘Sumpter’. Isn’t this book a re-working of Joel Garreau’s book “The Nine Nations of North America? Or Albion’s seed, by David Hackett Fischer?

UKer
Guest
UKer

I am inclined to agree with your line that nations are not going to stay the way they ‘always’ have been. A historical map of Europe, and indeed one of the British Isles, shows more than a few shifting boundaries and re-identifications. What is interesting is how, when the fracture comes, it will fall. The vastness of the States would have made it almost impossible to manage had better communications not come along at the ideal time. The telegraph and the railroad came along right on cue as it were. Orders could be issued from an off-centre capital (or even… Read more »

Guest
Guest
Guest

“We are currently unified as a country only because Yankee culture dominates the political, cultural and financial high ground.” Perhaps this is subsumed in your comment, but more accurately we are currently unified as a country only because the Federal government, in cooperation with the Federal Reserve, has the capacity to print money from thin air. Modern America is best viewed as a monetary union rather than a political union. The individual States, formerly sovereign, have progressively exchanged their sovereignty, bit-by-bit, in exchange for the comforts provided by printed dollars flowing from the Federal government. Blue states have done so… Read more »

trackback

[…] Is America one country? […]