"Third American Civil War?" Topic

Of possible interest to some that may have missed it, this November 2013 The Washington Post article on Colin Woodward's book "Which of the 11 American nations do you live in?" could form the basis of an equivalent Very British Civil War game/campaign or post-apocalypse waring society.

link

Woodard lays out his map in the new book "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America." Here's how he breaks down the continent:

Yankeedom: Founded by Puritans, residents in Northeastern states and the industrial Midwest tend to be more comfortable with government regulation. They value education and the common good more than other regions.

New Netherland: The Netherlands was the most sophisticated society in the Western world when New York was founded, Woodard writes, so it's no wonder that the region has been a hub of global commerce. It's also the region most accepting of historically persecuted populations.

The Midlands: Stretching from Quaker territory west through Iowa and into more populated areas of the Midwest, the Midlands are "pluralistic and organized around the middle class." Government intrusion is unwelcome, and ethnic and ideological purity isn't a priority.

Tidewater: The coastal regions in the English colonies of Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware tend to respect authority and value tradition. Once the most powerful American nation, it began to decline during Westward expansion.

Greater Appalachia: Extending from West Virginia through the Great Smoky Mountains and into Northwest Texas, the descendants of Irish, English and Scottish settlers value individual liberty. Residents are "intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers."

Deep South: Dixie still traces its roots to the caste system established by masters who tried to duplicate West Indies-style slave society, Woodard writes. The Old South values states' rights and local control and fights the expansion of federal powers.

El Norte: Southwest Texas and the border region is the oldest, and most linguistically different, nation in the Americas. Hard work and self-sufficiency are prized values.

The Left Coast: A hybrid, Woodard says, of Appalachian independence and Yankee utopianism loosely defined by the Pacific Ocean on one side and coastal mountain ranges like the Cascades and the Sierra Nevadas on the other. The independence and innovation required of early explorers continues to manifest in places like Silicon Valley and the tech companies around Seattle.

The Far West: The Great Plains and the Mountain West were built by industry, made necessary by harsh, sometimes inhospitable climates. Far Westerners are intensely libertarian and deeply distrustful of big institutions, whether they are railroads and monopolies or the federal government.

New France: Former French colonies in and around New Orleans and Quebec tend toward consensus and egalitarian, "among the most liberal on the continent, with unusually tolerant attitudes toward gays and people of all races and a ready acceptance of government involvement in the economy," Woodard writes.

First Nation: The few First Nation peoples left — Native Americans who never gave up their land to white settlers — are mainly in the harshly Arctic north of Canada and Alaska. They have sovereignty over their lands, but their population is only around 300,000.

The clashes between the 11 nations play out in every way, from politics to social values. Woodard notes that states with the highest rates of violent deaths are in the Deep South, Tidewater and Greater Appalachia, regions that value independence and self-sufficiency. States with lower rates of violent deaths are in Yankeedom, New Netherland and the Midlands, where government intervention is viewed with less skepticism.

I hope this will be a helpful start to interested gamers. Enjoy.

Might also look up the "Nine Nations of North America" – an oldie but goodie.

Updated in this 2014 NY Times Article

link

The map
link

First, a war to decide if there are 9 nations or 11.

LOL

He totally doesn't understand central Canada, i.e. Ontario, by lumping it in with the Midlands. More like Yankeedom, maybe a touch of New Netherlands. And he's missed some of "New France's" uglier side.

"Woodard notes that states with the highest rates of violent deaths are in the Deep South, Tidewater and Greater Appalachia, regions that value independence and self-sufficiency."

That statement is so far from fact that is makes the entire arguement laughable.

Third ACW?

I didn't know there was a second one.

ACWBill – It's only because the author was using some old data… from the original Civil War.

Texas is part of Appalachia? Really?

If there is another civil war, guess which regions have all the guns and aren't stoned on pot brownies? Those will be the ones to win.

The current American civil war started in 1980. It's not about regional factions. Nor is it even left vs right as others have implied here.

And if you don't know who's winning then you're not wealthy enough to be on the winning side (even if they've convinced you to support them against your own interests…they're smart that way).

And no, I'm not kidding. As Warren Buffet said it is a class war and his side is winning. ;-)

The American Revolution was a civil war between loyalists and patriot Americans.
The War of 1812 was a revolution with Americans doing much of the fighting on both sides. Once again Loyalists (or their sons)and recent American immigrants in Canada versus Americans. (Actually both sides made much use of recent Irish immigrants in their regiments).
The American Civil War was. well, the 3rd American Civil War.
So I guess we're in ACW 4.
PS The writer obviously doesn't acknowledge or understand Anglo-Canadians, built on a bedrock of loyalism, "peace, order and good government" have a different way of looking at the world from our American cousins.

Pathetic. None of the countries have any substanability as drawn up. Basing a country on socio-economic values only does not work. Small isolated colonies like new Amsterdam and new Sweden would be gobbled up by neighbors. The Puritam
N domain shattered in real life and would do so again. Other colonies were rivals and limit their size anyway.
He totally ignores the confederation foundations of the native nations east of the Mississippi River. They were more likely to block nations than Plains tribes who were more nomadic and isolated. The Iroquois, Muskogee and Choctaw would have blocked developments. I can continue to find faults but I am tired.

Yes, I must have missed it since I was in prep school at the time.

Texas and California are the by far the most coherent and plausible "nationalities" within the United States. Neither appears in this chart. Which makes me conclude it is a load of rubbish.

Also, how much do New Orleans and Quebec have in common, really?!?

Once again Loyalists (or their sons)and recent American immigrants in Canada versus Americans.

Actually, most Loyalists (including many who had fled in 1783) were back on the American side by 1812. And were so little trusted that many Upper Canada militia units were disarmed (or never issued arms) because they were suspected by the Government of having American sympathies.

link

This is Link to The Washington Post article. Additional information links are found within the article.

With what little I know about the USA and Canada, I think the 11Nations map is fanciful, to say the least.

I do like the thought that California and Texas are the two states that could easily become nations. Perhaps, the Carolinas and New England could be added. Again, for the purpose of gaming, and interesting start. Thanks.

What happened to Alaska? Is it no longer part of North America? And the author clearly has no knowledge of Quebec which has traditionally been a closed, Catholic, intolerant and xenophobic society. Since the Quiet Revolution the Catholicism has waned dramatically but the rest is still evident daily.
Cheers tous les autres!
Rod Robertson

It's funny to read so many opinions on a book that clearly only 1 or 2 of you have read. I have, and found it very compelling.

It does not claim that these are or should be independent nations, merely that the cultural and political attitudes are remarkably coherent and long-lasting in these regions, and that they can be traced to the "elites" in each area as it was settled. It is one of a number of studies that have found broadly similar divisions. Not hard and fast boundaries, but general regions where the social attitudes persist even in the face of subsequent population changes. Newcomers moving in are far more likely to adopt the longstanding attitudes than change them.

But don't let me keep you from your righteous indignation.

Personally I think the OP had the right idea, it makes an interesting bit of data for the background to a breakup-of-the-US scenario.

In a fictional scenario of how the US breaks up a lot will depend on why, and the process. Most scenarios presented rely on very unrealistic premises of someone being able to so completely dominate the fractious american system, that the opposition will have no choice but to go to war. This is not a scenario that leads to a break up.

More realistic scenarios should focus on the ability of frigne extremist groups using ratcheting violence to escalate the political elite divide in the US (and if you are active political, if you have the time to do it, you are a member of that elite poor or rich)to a broader societal divide. Local fringe minorities that find pleasure in the idea of the country becoming a vast cemetery again are not enough (there are like what, 5-10% of the population). You need the 40% that are active politically to start killing each other to have a good chance of a civil war. And in that case there is no fast and good rule of how the map will look. But pity the fool who starts this thinking they will win it easily or cheaply. And damn those wishing it.

If we're really being serious here then an actual shooting war in the U.S. would destroy civilization here due to food shortages.

Our supply chains are VERY lean. During a snow storm in ATL several years ago our grocery store shelves were barren within a couple of days. There was some hoarding ("get milk and bread!") but later it was clear that with roads closed and no trucks getting through the distribution system couldn't keep up with demand.

The same thing has happened with fuel supplies in a few instances.

As others have pointed out the vast majority of the country, even rural areas, lack the ability to feed themselves in the event of a breakdown in food distribution systems.

When people can't feed their kids and there's an actual breakdown in the distribution of survival stuff like food and water socio-economic and political affiliations go out the window. It's every person for his family.

Local affiliations might survive and provide opportunities to survive by banding together.

In our rules, "Warfare in the Age of Madness", we feature such a scenario on our cover as a unit from Fort Benning, now the personal warband of an army captain, battle students from Georgia Tech for the scraps of civilization in a small town.

link

1776- shouldn't that be loyal patriots and illegal combatants ?

Black hat vs White hat

That's why you set it in the 30s. Still a lot of people on farms, that were far more self sufficient than now. Farms weren't monoculture as they are today. People grew corn, wheat, sorghum, had chickens, cattle and hogs, and a big ass vegetable garden. Most plowing still done by horses.

There were thousands of small towns, villages, crossroad communities with some limited manufacturing capabilities (when you travel by horse and wagon, little crossroad communities crop up every few miles).

Lots of old-timers around, who still knew how things were done in the old days when things were even more primitive. Quilting wasn't a hobby or an artform, it was done to turn rags into warm blankets.

No sugar, raise sorghum. Take it to a mule powered sorghum press. Trade some of the finished product for getting it pressed. That's how my granddad got syrup for the pancakes (when my Dad was a little kid he'd go with him).

Even back in the 60s and early 70s I remember my older relatives raising chickens for eggs and meat (I know exactly what it means when they say running around like a chicken with its head cut off), butchering hogs (and I got to help with rendering the lard).

And I'm not talking about mountainfolk back in the hills either. My granddad had a successful large (for the time)farm in Southern Illinois.

Most people back then knew how to do real work, farm, make an actual physical object, clean houses without machines, darn socks (has anybody on this board ever darned a sock when it got a hole in it), mend clothes, fix cars (which was far easier than working on a modern computerized auto). Only a very small part of the population worked in an office all day or worked at jobs that were based around the modern consumer society (as an example, if there was more than 1 or two game stores in the whole country I'd be amazed).

Now, I prefer my modern life. I don't want to slaughter and raise my own meat, I don't want to heat my house with wood, and chop it up with non-powered hand tools. I love computers, TV, and the Internet. I am happy working at a job supervising people who work in a nice air-conditioned building and aren't doing a physically demanding job.

Crimson Skies was always good,even though it was air me and a buddy developed a land based war version,But the background of CS was great

I have darned socks. But I'm English and 60years old. Don't do it now though. Not sure about the 11 nation concept either.

This map is bullocks, there are as many Germans in the ohio valley basin and Pennsylvania as scot/Irish, who tend to be grouped in the hill country and mountains