A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America

This is fascinating and explains the many nationalities and their personality traits of my ancestors, relatives, and friends, who are Northerners and Southerners: Some are Yankees (Wisconsin, Minnesota, northeast Iowa), some are Midlands (south central Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana), some are Appalachians (Tennessee), some are Far Westerners (North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming), some are Left Coasters (Oregon, California) and some are Southern (transplants living in Georgia and North Carolina). It also explains why we feel so out of place in certain regions of the country--different nations from hundreds of years ago. I have two sisters, who are fromYankeedom and Midlands, as am I. Our brother has the Appalachian mindset, but he was born in Yankeedom.

A provocative thesis, and I think very useful. He breaks the US down into eleven separate ethnographic nations and argues that US history was shaped by their relative power. His definition of the different regions and their origins is a good one.

However, the author does occasionally oversimplify and miss things. For example, when discussing the impact of New Nederland (essentially the NYC area), he credits it with getting a Bill of Rights established in this country by offering amendment recommendations along with ratification. However, both Massachusetts and New Hampshire (parts of Yankeedom) had initiated similar pressure by offering recommended amendments along with ratification and they did so before New York.

He attributes the different treatment of slaves in the Deep South (as opposed to Tidewater) to its different ethnographic origins, with it having its origins with Barbadian slave owners. However, much of that may also have been a function of the greater demand for slaves as the cotton-gin made cotton grown in the western areas of Deep South more profitable and the clearing away of swampland in South Carolina also created a greater demand for slaves. Neither was the case in Virginia (Tidewater in the book) and there is no convincing reason given why economic/geographic factors were trumped by cultural ones.

His analysis of New York's ambivalent attitude towards prosecuting the Civil War leans on the mercantile character of New Netherland, which did make money over slavery but overlooks the impact of the white working-class who may have feared economic competition from free blacks. The killing of blacks during the Draft Riots of 1863 wasn't a function of New Netherland mercantile sensibility but working class insecurity and racism.

His assertion that Bell won a narrow majority in Texas is simply wrong, Breckinridge outpolled him 3-1. I'm also curious as to how the author would explain why Douglas performed well in the areas of Indiana and Illinois that were on the Ohio River while Bell was the stronger performer in those areas of Kentucky that were on the southern side. According to the book's map, both areas are Greater Appalachia.

His attempt to define the KKK as a Greater Appalachia phenomenon overlooks Klan activity in the Deep South during Reconstruction.

One can also look as his portrayal of Yankeedom as an anti-imperialist stronghold. Although that may be true regarding the areas taken from Spain, the push for the annexation of Hawaii came from Americans whose origins on those islands were as missionaries from Yankeedom.

I'm also curious as to why Theodore Roosevelt is considered a New Netherlander while FDR is considered a Yankee since the latter's Dutchess County origins would seem to also mark him as a New Nederlander. There don't seem to be consistent criteria for how you define an individual's ethnographic origins. It is where his parents came from or where he was raised?

The book has a fundamental soundness and his ethnographic paradigm is a useful mode of analysis. However, it is probably more useful to think of the "nations" as a factor in US history and avoid the apparent monocausal line taken by the author.

This may be the most important contributor to an understanding of not only American politics, but also culture, values, and ideas.

A read of this book will provide invaluable insight into why the Red states are red and the Blue states are blue. And importantly, where the swing states lie and maybe how to capture them. You can be assured that the NRA has studied it carefully.

Great book, I have passed it along to my family members to read also.

One of the most insightful and relevant history books I've ever read. The cultural, political, and economic conflicts today make so much more sense from the perspective of Woodard's 11 regions. He kind of skimps on the newer regions (Far West & Left Coast) and First Nation but the rest are absolutely worth the read. Great research and acknowledgment of the previous limited works on American regions. Kind of an abrupt ending. But really, I was obsessed with this book and read it super fast. I think this book should be mandatory in every introductory American history college class.

Brilliant. I absolutely love this book because it's very easy to read and informative. Very well organized, and understandable.
From the point of view of a non-US born reader, it explains many of the paradoxes of this brilliant country that happen on a daily basis.
Some basic concepts that make all the difference in the world, such as the difference between liberty and freedom, which seems simple but has very profound effects in how every person understands and consequently treats others, sees life, eats, and even dates.

I highly recommend this book for amateur enthusiasts of North American history, culture, and politics.

The first believable description of the nature of American political divisions that I have ever read. Starting with the European settlement of the New World, this book follows the development of the radically divergent cultures, their shifting alliances, and value conflicts that are the basis of North American political and military conflict. The historical context gives dimension to the current culture wars taking place in North American and provides a line of continuity connecting past and present. While I may disagree with a few points, there is plenty of food for thought and perspective with depth.

This book is a treasure. It explains a great deal and helps the reader understand why we are the way we are as a very diverse people inhabiting one nation. Being from the south, I found myself laughing out loud at finally understanding the "Southern Pride" I see in so many of my peers. The rest of America should do itself a favor and read this as well…perhaps then the whole "Confederate Flag Issue" might be better understood. Wherever you come from, this is a must read.

Some reviewers are correct about the author not having done any primary research, which he candidly admits in the front of the book. But this book is a (very well done) compendium of other people's work, and its originality lies in its historic focus — that is, tracing the effects of these various nations on the political activities and historic facts about the United States (which some attention paid to Mexico and Canada). For the first time in a long while, I found a book that was hard to put down (except near the end, when Woodard began making some really far-fetched predictions about future events).

Everyone who wants to know how our political and geographical political entity was created from the evolution of cultural issues of the early immigrants, plus other challenging factors, such as consideration of large entities as The First Nation, should read this and bear the lessons learned in mind, as one contemplates the future outlook of the direction this nation takes in the very near future of this millenium. There is a lot to consider. This history book will only whet the appetite of all true patriots!

I received and started reading this book a few days before the Charlottesville, VA protests for the "Unite the Right" rally. As the events of those protests unraveled this book seemed to explain in brilliant detail how it is that we could have such major divisions in America that would lead to those events. This is an instant classic and will prove to be relevant for generations to come. Highly recommended.

Mr. Woodward offers real insight into United States and Canadian history and politics. I am very glad to have had my perspective broadened. This is not an overly long or difficult read. I recommend it highly to all who wish to understand our politics and current challenges.

Credit must go to the author for making an impressive, if, in my view, only a "quaint" and "impressionistic" addition to the historiography of the sectional way in which the American nation-state was shaped, and has since evolved.

And while it is indisputable that the various impressionistic subgroup designations given here indeed can be made, all of which at one time or another did have some historical value, and considerable face validity, it is quite a stretch to suggest that these designations still hold sway, or that they, in any way, are a part of the dominant forces that shaped American culture writ large, or were primary in helping turn it into a nation-state.

In fact, I would argue that out of necessity designations given to the dominate entity, the "nation-state," must always take priority over more impressionistic ethnic designations given to the notional and always evolving nascent "sub national" and "sub state" categories."

I fully recognize that there is a movement to exaggerate and elevate these ethnic/cultural designations beyond their actual importance in nation-state building. The book "Albion's Seeds," did this to a fault. However, it must be said that this tendency to exaggerate ethnic importance, lies more in the realm of ethnic self-congratulation than in the realm of authentic history.

As but one counter-example, a competing counter-thesis is that in the beginning America was little more than just a collection of 13 little mean-spirited willfully-isolated fanatic religious city states. Since, at least up until the French-Indian war, they all hated each others guts. And the best proof of this is that they refused to share ship space on voyages to America. Plus, it is no secret that they frequently went to war against each other; built walls and fences to keep other groups out; erected tariffs, levied taxes, and collected road fees as tributes for those trespassing on their territories; they raided each others shipments, competed against each other in global trade, colluded with Indians and other nations against each other, etc.

We can still recognize the vestiges of these little religious fiefdoms as Catholic Maryland and North midwest areas like St. Louis; as well as French and Spanish New Orleans and Florida; the Lutheran midwest, Calvinist Virginia, the Baptist deep South, and Methodist and Presbyterian New England.

Yet, we know that these little mean-spirited fanatical religious city-states had to eventually give up their intolerant ethnic and religious ways, to avoid being picked-off one-by-one by the Indians in coalition with other powers roaming North America. Indeed it was the realities of the realpolitik of the day that caused them to give up their fanatical religious and ethnic ways in exchange for binding together to fight for their collective survival. Giving them up, in my view was much more valuable and important than holding on to survival-threatening customs. So why elevate the intolerance over dissolving them? Why elevate this ethnic close-mindedness of these mean-spirited fanatical sects into a virtue when in fact they proved in almost every case to be a liability?

What is missing from these ethnic self-congratulatory formulas of course is the dynamic nature of "nation-state" construction itself -- as opposed to say the constructions of the halfway stations of "nation-building," and "statebuilding, respectively." Arguably, the proper evolutionary process to attain "nation-state-hood," is: first "nation-building" that is then seamlessly melded into "state-building," which then enfolds seamlessly into "nation-state building," and voila! You have the new nation-state of the United States of America.

Because of the evolving dynamics of "nation-state building," is it not true that self-congratulatory ethnic designations, however clear in the beginning, are almost never the logical end points.

Which raises the most important question this impressionistic "sectional stitching together" of the ethnic subcomponents of the American nation, begs: Other than ethnic and cultural backgrounds, what other forces play a dominant role in shaping a "nation-state" -- as it moves seamlessly from the "nation" stage, to the state stage, to the end stage of creation of the "nation-state?"

I think the answer is rather obvious: industry and wars. These are the true scultpurers of nation-states, not ever-dissolving ethnic identities.

After all it is cotton, tobacco, seafaring piracy, exploration and slavery that shaped the "Tidewater," "Greater Appalachia" and the "Deep South," directly, and to some extent also shaped, "Yankeedom" and "El Norte," indirectly." (By the way, "Yankeedom" clearly should be renamed "New Netherlands," for all the reasons the author himself advanced, as well as because of what is revealed in the excellent book by Russell Shorto, called "Island at the center of the World," see my the store review of that book).

Likewise, it was the dynamics of the fur trade, liquor distilleries and the triangular rum-for-slave trade that shaped Yankeedom almost as it did the South or Dutch influence, which alone must still stand as the only ethnic culture that did indeed become a part of the dynamic forces helping to shape the institutions that led to the "American nation-state." However, one must remember that the Dutch came to North America only to make money, not to colonize it. For the Netherlands already was the envy of the world, as the country with the highest standard of living in the world during most of the 16th and 17th Centuries.

Also, don't forget that the French-Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War, all independently changed the character and dynamics of ethnic interactions and relationships. That is to say, these wars, combined with industry, helped dissolve the remaining ethnic distinctions down to the realm of being little more than just quaint afterthoughts.

Thus, although this book is much better than "Albion's Seed," like it, by also exaggerating the influence ethnic cultures play in the larger dynamics of nation-state building, it too, stretches these to near the breaking-point. It does this while failing to fully acknowledge that ethnic/cultural concerns throughout American history have always been trumped and overrun by capitalist strategies to make money, or by wars. Capitalism, coupled with war are the only tools a sculpture needs to turn a "subnation," or a "substate" into a "full-blown nation-state." Four stars

This book was about 10 times more interesting than I thought it would be. A fascinating look at our nation's history from a new perspective. I know, I know. Reviewers all say that. This book delivered page after page of well-told historical facts, assembled in a new way that helps explain our still-existing regional differences. I read it on kindle but wish I had read it in paper so I could really mark it up and refer to maps more often. I'll be re-reading in paper with a marker in my hand! Highly recommend.

Very interesting book about the early history of how people from other settled here in the "Colonies". Who came over from England and other countries had very determined ideas of how to have a new life.

Its a book you don't want to put down.

I rate this book five stars for the excellence of its research and the clarity and accessibility of its writing style. It offers a clear and accurate history of civilization on the North American continent.

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America explains how the first settlers in a region define a region's culture and how we continue to live with those rival cultures today. I identify as a Yankee and have been confounded by our right-wing in political debate. This book explains the origins of places like the Deep South, Appalachia and New Netherlands. The cruelty and abuse of plantation owners is still with us today. Appalachians never saw a war they did not like so our military industrial complex goes on embedded and undisputed. New Netherlands is now New York and their manipulation of vast sums of money began long ago. As a knee-jerk Yankee do-gooder understanding my own orientation is invaluable in order to protect my life savings from Wall Street brokers who think they ought to take over my pension. After reading this book the fight against national health care reform now makes sense. I appreciate Canada a whole lot more while I still do not understand the passive pockets of The Midlands where people say almost nothing political. I read this book slowly because I wanted to learn the subject and not forget it. I bought my mother a copy.

Woodard starts his book with a very interesting premise: that there are nations with the US that act in predictable ways based on patterns of settlement. The surprising aspect of this premise is his claim that nations act predictably not necessarily because of their current inhabitants, but because of their original inhabitants.

The work is well-researched and thought-provoking and, for the most part, well argued. Until the end. By the end, Mr. Woodard appears to be reaching to find application for his theories. His explanations of how the various nations form alliances that vote together was an exercise in going out on limbs. In the final few chapters, the exceptions begin to pile up: this "nation" always votes with this "nation" except this time, and this time, and in this particular instance. I feel that what should have been the clincher of the book, the current-day application, was in fact the weak spot.

I was tempted to give it a 3 star, but the history aspect was very solid and enjoyable and Woodard states that what sets his book apart from others like it is its historical approach. This, he nails.

Colin Woodard believes there’s never been an America, but rather several Americas—each a distinct nation. He identifies eleven distinct cultures that have historically divided North America. He describes the dominant cultural traits in each of these “nations,” and discusses how that explains their contrasting attitudes toward politics. He asks why is violence—state-sponsored and otherwise—so much more prevalent in some American nations than in others? He argues it all goes back to who settled those regions and where they came from. Woodard's big idea is that the culture of these regions was determined by the original inhabitants, who were often British. Later immigrants were assimilated into the dominant regional culture.

Woodard has a limited grasp of British history and the background of the people who came here from Europe. There are regional differences in most countries. As a Brit, I'm not convinced America's can be traced back to the Britain of the 17th century. The main regional differences in England are between North and South, not between Cavaliers and Roundheads. Overall, the book is a good read and provides a different perspective on US history. Woodard believes that the regional differences are so great that the US may eventually break-apart.

Woodard’s nations include: Left Coast (Pacific Coast), the Far West, El Norte (original Spanish settlements), First Nation (Canadian Native Americans), New France (Quebec and New Orleans), the Midlands (founded by English Quakers), Greater Appalachia (founded by Scots and Irish), the Deep South (English slave lords from the Caribbean), Tidewater (English aristocrats), the New Netherlands (New York), and Yankeedom (English Puritans). I have lived in the Far West, Yankeedom and Greater Appalachia, and I'm not convinced that these are really distinct nations. England, France and Germany are distinct nations.

Woodard believes that the country was not founded in 1776 but decades earlier by the founding father's parents and grandparents. This set the tone for the next 350 years. Successive waves of immigrants from Europe and Asia assumed the values of the dominant regional culture they dropped into, and whatever cultural influences they brought with them, were lost over time.

Woodard claims that Greater Appalachia was founded in the early eighteenth century by settlers from the “war-ravaged borderlands” of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands. As a Scot, I'm not so sure about that. The Scots apparently believed in individual liberty and Andrew Jackson is a typical example. The Scots who remained in Europe would be more likely to vote for a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders than Ronald Reagan.

Woodard believes that New England gets its character from the Puritans. I'm not sure about that either. The Puritans in England won a civil war in the 1640s. Their power reached its peak under the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, in the 1650s. He executed the king, abolished parliament, banned Christmas, closed the theatres, committed war crimes, and basically banned any kind of fun. Cromwell believed that he received his instructions directly from God. When Cromwell died in 1658, English Puritanism died with him. Charles II returned from exile in 1660 and England embraced hedonism. The King had many mistresses and many illegitimate children. Lady Diana Spencer, (later the Princess of Wales), was a direct descendant of Charles II, through two of his illegitimate sons. Puritanism in New England declined after the Salem Witch Trials in the 1690s. I have lived in New England and it did not feel like puritan England. The people obviously developed their own culture over time.

New York City apparently gets its culture from the Dutch because they believed in diversity. New Amsterdam was a tiny town with about 1,500 inhabitants in the mid-17th century. In 1667 the Dutch gave up their claim to the town and the rest of their colony. It is hard to believe that so few people, living 350 years ago could have had that much impact on the culture of the city. I have spent a lot of time in the real Netherlands and culturally it is not like New York at all. In Amsterdam, they smoke pot in cafes and there seem to be lots of prostitutes in plain sight.

The Deep South was apparently established by English slavers who came from Barbados in the 1670s, the Deep South was meant to be a West Indies-style slave society. Alexander Hamilton was born and raised in the West Indies but became an abolitionist. Woodard claims that "the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God." Woodard is not a fan of the South.

Tidewater was supposedly built by the younger sons of the English gentry in the Chesapeake country and neighbouring sections of Delaware and North Carolina, Tidewater was meant to reproduce the semi-feudal society of the countryside they’d left behind. It embraced slavery and placed a high value on respect for authority and tradition. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe all came from Tidewater. The Tidewater Presidents seem to have been followers of the Enlightenment and were mostly Deists rather than orthodox Christians. I find these people enigmatic since they seem to have believed in democracy, slavery, and a caste system.

Woodard does make some excellent points. He claims that Yankeedom and the Deep South have been enemies for most of US history. They have attempted to recruit allies from the other nations in their fights with each other. He claims that the founding fathers disagreed on lots of issues, reflecting their regional differences. There was never a golden age when Americans agreed on everything. He argues that the founding fathers may have argued but they managed to reach compromises in order to hold the country together, he argues that the current political polarization is dangerous for the survival of the union. Woodard is not confident that the "nations" will want to remain together.

A thoughtful look at our "American" culture and exploration of why we seem to be so at odds with each other politically. The values of the various distinct cultures that settled our continent are shown to persist right into the current political climate. This book makes our political and cultural history both accessible and compelling to the average person seeking to understand the divisiveness of our current political process.

Fascinating read. Lots of pre-revolution history that was new to me but written in a compelling but packed style. There are probably claims for historians to take issue with--he hates Hamilton and clearly favors his people in Maine, for example--but this book gives insights into our current political and cultural environments that keeps one's energy to read to the end.

A truly enlightening description of how ALL of America was actually settled, by whom, and what actually determined core "American" values (that live to this day) in different and differing regions of North America. It's a though a lightbulb has gone on! There is no "United" States, never has been. The mythology of American history, and even the intent of the Founding Fathers, is staggering. Read this and the intense level of discord in the country today begins to make sense. And it's happened before, many times. Really! One of the best non-fiction books I've read.

Well written. Very helpful information in understanding the political disfunction in America today. We are not unlike the EU - we just don’t know it. This is the history that should be taught in schools not the myth of American Exceptionalism.

As a political science major and a person fascinated with cultural anthropology I found this book a revelation. I've lived in New England (Yankeedom), Maryland (Tidewater) and Colorado (the West, and to some extent Northern Mexico), so have experienced three of the cultures discussed in this book, and found the explanations of how the cultures originated and continue to behave help me understand the very different mores, attitudes and "unwritten rules" of these areas. I highly recommend it to any one who wants to understand the how and why of neighbors, groups and politics in North America.

The book describes which old-world cultural groups settled where and how today's regions evolved from them. The book covers the territory from Canada down through the US to Northern Mexico, and the times from 1600 to the present. It first names and defines these regions that were firmly in place by the Revolutionary Wary: First Nation, El Norte, New France (Quebec and southern Louisiana), Yankeedom, New Netherlands (New York City metropolitan area), Midlands, Tidewater, Deep South, and Greater Appalachia. The value conflicts between these regions were amazingly fierce, even while the Revolution was being fought, and still exist today.

With westward expansion came the Left Coast (a blend of Yankee and Midlands cultures that occupies the coastal parts of Northern California up through Canada's West Coast) and Far West.

Today's political map comes from sometimes shaky alliances of these regions.

The book just so clicked with my life's communication and miscommunication experiences with people from various parts of the country. This is definitely one of my all-time favorite books ever. I'll be re-reading this one forever. Truly a revelation.

After reading this, you may never look at American history and geography -- and current politics -- again.

Woodard paints with a broad brush; and sometimes strains it seems to fit all of history into his 11 nations framework. But even allowing for some overstatement, it's a compelling analysis.

As valuable as the overall thesis is, I found the myriad small details of history -- such as the story of how first colony in the Deep South (at Charleston) was settled by sons of slave lords from Barbados, at the time the most notorious slave society in the English-speaking world -- even more revealing.

I really wanted to like this book because I found the thesis fascinating. But man, did it drag on. And on. And on. It started to pick up again at the end and then suddenly and abruptly ends.

Also, there were some serious gaps around Rhode Island and it's history and role in the separation of church and state. It seems that if something didn't fit within the author's argument, it was completely disregarded.

All and all, I'm sure there's a quicker read on the same topic that gives lil' Rhody the love she deserves.

This is a fascinating look at how the United States got to be divided in so many ways as it is today. I know my American history as well as most people, but I learned a tremendous amount from this book, which is a compelling read -- more like a novel than a history book. As a lifelong resident of Yankeedom, I found nothing in the book that offended me. However I can see how someone from the Deep South might not feel the same way. Woodard does, however, back up all of his conclusions about the Deep South with historical facts.

The book describes which old-world cultural groups settled where and how today's regions evolved from them. The book covers the territory from Canada down through the US to Northern Mexico, and the times from 1600 to the present. It first names and defines these regions that were firmly in place by the Revolutionary Wary: First Nation, El Norte, New France (Quebec and southern Louisiana), Yankeedom, New Netherlands (New York City metropolitan area), Midlands, Tidewater, Deep South, and Greater Appalachia. The value conflicts between these regions were amazingly fierce, even while the Revolution was being fought, and still exist today.

With westward expansion came the Left Coast (a blend of Yankee and Midlands cultures that occupies the coastal parts of Northern California up through Canada's West Coast) and Far West.

Today's political map comes from sometimes shaky alliances of these regions.

The book just so clicked with my life's communication and miscommunication experiences with people from various parts of the country. This is definitely one of my all-time favorite books ever. I'll be re-reading this one forever. Truly a revelation.

After reading this, you may never look at American history and geography -- and current politics -- again.

Woodard paints with a broad brush; and sometimes strains it seems to fit all of history into his 11 nations framework. But even allowing for some overstatement, it's a compelling analysis.

As valuable as the overall thesis is, I found the myriad small details of history -- such as the story of how first colony in the Deep South (at Charleston) was settled by sons of slave lords from Barbados, at the time the most notorious slave society in the English-speaking world -- even more revealing.

I really wanted to like this book because I found the thesis fascinating. But man, did it drag on. And on. And on. It started to pick up again at the end and then suddenly and abruptly ends.

Also, there were some serious gaps around Rhode Island and it's history and role in the separation of church and state. It seems that if something didn't fit within the author's argument, it was completely disregarded.

All and all, I'm sure there's a quicker read on the same topic that gives lil' Rhody the love she deserves.

Fairly interesting perspective on the development of different blocs in America. Unfortunately, Mr. Woodward abandons all objectivity in the last several chapters as the book devolves into a shrill diatribe against religious Southerners. I wasn’t surprised to learn he hails from Maine.

This is a fascinating look at how the United States got to be divided in so many ways as it is today. I know my American history as well as most people, but I learned a tremendous amount from this book, which is a compelling read -- more like a novel than a history book. As a lifelong resident of Yankeedom, I found nothing in the book that offended me. However I can see how someone from the Deep South might not feel the same way. Woodard does, however, back up all of his conclusions about the Deep South with historical facts.

After this past election, this book really sheds light on how the deep divisions within our country came to be, and why our government is so mired in dysfunction. I learned more about the settling of the U.S. than I ever did in school. Not to mention real insights into our Canadian and Mexican neighbors' histories. Hope they include this book in future curriculums.

I agree with other positive reviews, including criticism about apparent bias against Deep South, which also comes across in Woodard's excellent follow up book, American Character, which I read first. For American Nations, I alternated between print and audio; the later makes the book especially engaging.

He makes a good case for our regional divisions and origins, but in his desire to make his argument, he exaggerates some things and oversimplifies others. Omissions and oversimplifications: 1) the influence, powerful dominance of Appalachia in forming the Far West. 2) That Appalachia supplied the Deep South with its middle and lower classes, and that the Deep South is not so much about "slave lords" anymore. 3) El Norte is far more complex than he makes it out to be here. Still well worth the read. Makes one wonder if this Union will last.

The underlying concept is very helpful and startlingly insightful. However, I was surprised and disappointed once I started reading the historical application. The inaccuracies were glaring and it read more like a bad editorial, with a clear bent towards the Jeffersonian version of history. The author completely failed to acknowledge Hamilton's influence and contributions, disregarding him as an outsider and giving often inaccurate portrayals without footnotes. I was most disappointed by the dismissal of the the underlying concept of property rights (the individual's right to sell property and the buyer's right to rely upon the sale as transferring property without governmental intervention) as banker's greed. This concept is fundamental to US economic success. Was unable to finish the book as the inaccuracies mounted to the point where I was unable to trust any of the statements made as true and questioned the author's understanding of both American history and economic realities.

Very interesting book about history and sociology that has a unique perspective on our continent. The coverage of the English Civil war and it's impact on the colonies was eye opening and tied together two subjects that have been separated in to different categories by almost every history I've ever read. The establishment of the Deep South lays bare the evil nature of that system that is even today being preached by politicians.
If you like American history and want top see how our roots still impact our nation today, this book is an must read.

This book gives the best explanation I've ever read about how America developed its many times maddening regional cultural differences. The author traces the origins, beliefs, attitudes and motivations of each of the original settler groups and shows how they carry through to today. The authors analysis of current event is a little thin but the superb historical presentation and analysis more than makes up for it.

This is a fascinating, well-written book, introducing a conceptual framework that was completely new to me. It goes a long way toward explaining today's political polarization in America, as well as the behavior of groups of voters in the country who seem to persistently vote for people who are not going to work in their best interests.

This book describes the separate nations that have been present on the North American continent since European colonization began. Through a review of American history (and a little bit of Canadian and Mexican history), it shows how these nations have interacted to form the countries we have today and illustrates how they are still influencing American policy to this day.

This is an excellent piece of historical research and writing that has changed my view of the founding of the United States, especially of the "things we were taught". Mr. Woodard's work deserves the widest acclaim and recognition for artfully describing and balancing the historical forces within which the founding fathers acted and the nation grew. It happens also to be great read! His maps are of course interpretative and will draw forth much interesting conversation and adaption, and other interpretations of each "nation's" importance.

Very interesting discussion of some of the root causes of our political and cultural wars of today. Fascinating how the immigrants from England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, etc. brought their beliefs and historical fears and hatreds with them and how they are still festering in American society today. Makes me wonder if we will ever become one nation, or if we are headed to a split up in the future.

We quite enjoyed American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional cultures of North America. It takes a new view of the cultures of America and the way they evolved. The view point gives us a great depth of understanding of how these regional cultures developed, how they shaped American History and Politics. I find it essential to explain American History, Society and Politics to Australians and students from Arab and Asian backgrounds. For instance, American Nations gives us a clear explanation of why impoverished people in the South and the Central US will vote against their own interests for the party of the rich. We find the concluding chapters lead us to an understanding of where America is going and whether we will need a handcart to take it there.

Now I understand why New York is different from the rest of the United States and why we are so proud of it. As I read the book, I kept seeing my family history - Yankeedom, Midlands and the Deep South, no wonder my family is so confused. A crisp, well-written, very accessible popularization of scholarly research all Americans should understand. The polarization that so grips us now has very deep roots and may be unresolvable. And oir so-called british heritage is a distinct curse.

An easy read of history with a different perspective on cultures and cultural personality that made our country. There wasn't too excessive a criticism of the south. I liked the separation of Tidewater from Deep South and Appalachia. As a Tidewater Southerner it helped me understand my differences from other Southerners. It also helped explain Yankee perspective.

In “American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America”, Woodard presents a compelling alternative lens through which to view the historical origins and subsequent development of America. It is neither a particularist lens (i.e., individual-focused) nor a state-based lens (i.e., taking the viewpoint of say, New York, or a specific US state), but rather a parsimonious and explanatory account of how ethnonational and religious differences among western European settlers helped to shape North America. In so doing, the author describes each of the regional nations (e.g., Yankeedom, Midlands, Deep South) using an archetypal personality approach, which characterizes nations' notable beliefs, values, behaviors, and cultures. Of course, typologies are a form of simplification, and variation certainly exists within each nation; nevertheless, the contours of these categories provide useful and meaningful lines for interpreting historical events up until the mid-20th century.

In many ways, this archetypal approach is similar to an impressionist painting, requiring a healthy distance between the viewer and the artwork for the method to be fully appreciated. However, as the reader is led ever closer to the present day, and nearer to the metaphorical painting, the formerly bold and striking archetypal strokes begin to take on a blotchy and even cartoonish quality--a change that is all the more jarring given the book's genuinely innovative first three sections. The reason is that the latter chapters describing the 20th century to the present (i.e., Part IV: Chapters 25-28 and Epilogue, in particular) effectively undermine the preceding content by shoehorning the diverse and distinct nations into the trite and familiar model of Blue vs. Red states. It is not so much the claim that these blocks of states exist, they certain do, but rather it is the oversimplified and comic book-like quality by which they are described. Red (i.e., Deep South alliance) states are predictably portrayed as racist, ignorant, superstitious, warmongers who are the irredeemable deplorable offspring of slave lords. By comparison, Blue (i.e., Yankee and Left Coast alliance) states are valorized as enlightened, tolerant, scientific, anti-imperialists, who, while admittedly meddlesome, nevertheless simply know better than their evil neighbors to the south, and, in spite of them, are solely responsible for all of the civilizing social developments in the last 100 years. The case would have been far more persuasive had the author followed Einstein's dictum that, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Unfortunately, this advice was ignored.

As the book concludes, archetype has collapsed in caricature, and serious history has degraded into conventional CNN talking-points. Despite ultimately undermining its own model for the sake of the author's and/or publisher's political preferences (such is the pull of the black hole of Progressive Leftism), the chief contribution of the book is in dispelling the bipartisan mythology of a singular American nation. Much to the contrary, since before its founding, America has been comprised of a heterogeneous admixture of competing ethnic and religious enclaves. If origins indeed determine destiny, these historically intractable differences promise to persist and become ever more salient, especially in the present polarized political climate. Readers would be wise to be mindful of these differences, so as to be able to self-select into their nation of preference when the inevitable dissolution occurs.

"American Nations" provides both history and prediction of the regional differences that continue to shape our lives. Most of us grow up with an understanding that "they" are different that "we" are here in the USA. Now, Woodard sketches the historical antecedents that first brought groups of settlers to their American places and how that continues to play out in our personal and political values, beliefs and decisions. I'm a history nut but this book ties a lot of things together and brings more historical groups onto today's stage.

The first two-thirds of this book (covering colonization through reconstruction and the railroad era) constitute some of the most interesting and unique historical analysis I've ever read. The last chunk isn't nearly as good-- it tends to shoehorn 20th and 21st century events into the author's 11 nation theory.

That said, the strong part of the book is so good that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the book to almost anyone,

This is my most recommended book of the past year. I have given it to at least 5 friends as a gift and the conversations it leads to are always fascinating. Great data, great theory, fascinating implications.

Woodard says he got tired of waiting for David Hackett Fischer to complete Volume II of his Albion's Seed, so he wrote his own update to current times. The latter is the much superior book, with carefully a researched, richly detailed examination of the British roots that formed what was to be the United States. But Woodard's efforts are worthy too, adding new cultural roots (e.g., Spanish American influences and French Canadian culture), and he brings matters up to date.

Social Conservative might want to skip the final couple of chapters, which will just p**s them off.

North Americans in the 20th and 21st centuries may be the most voluntarily mobile citizens in recorded history. While we are occasionally uprooted by forest fires, drought and other natural calamities (as this is written, Texas residents are still dealing with the compounding effects of record rainfall and treacherous floodwaters), we are more likely to move, voluntarily, for economic or educational opportunities.

Colin Woodward wrote American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. Published in 2011, it is eminently readable, well sourced and very popular. In the manner of Joel Garreau’s The Nine Nations of North America (1981), Woodward theorizes that we can best understand Canada and the United States, not in terms of state and provincial jurisdictions, but as a collection of tribal nations with competing interests and (occasional) irrevocable differences.

The tribal nation paradigm works well – for the first 275 years or so of our established (European) presence on the continent. Until U.S. public education became standardized – or at least ubiquitous. Until the federal highway system gave us 48-state access by auto or bus. Until inter-state transfers within Fortune 500 companies became commonplace. Until millions of working class southern whites and Negroes migrated to the upper Midwest. Until millions of middle American farmers, defeated by a protracted drought in the 1930’s, moved west. Until the cumulative effect of all these Americans on the move rendered unworkable Garreau’s and Woodward’s tidy theses.

American Nations is still a worthwhile read. White southerners may feel that Woodward treated them a bit unfairly – but, hey, don’t shoot the messenger.

His identification of the different cultures inside the United States is very good. His efforts to explain where they came from and why they have persisted is mostly speculative and that makes it difficult to use to analyze present political or situation issues.

Have you ever wondered why the "North" is so different than the "South", why the "Mid West" is so different than the "Far West", why the "Tidewater" is so different than the "Appalachia", why the "Far West" is so different than any other section, why New York is, well, New York? After all, we are all Americans, we pretty much speak the same language, we all honor the constitution, pay allegiance to the same flag. Yet we are so divided in politics, social attitudes, moral beliefs that we are ready to go to war with one another. As this book points out, we are not one nation but at times have been eleven different nations or regions. These regions have changed little since our forefathers emigrated here 400 years ago. Our forefathers would have little trouble recognizing us. We really haven't changed that much. This book goes a long way in helping to sort out the regional differences in our country, why they are so different, and why they are likely to remain so for generations to come. After you read this book you will never think of American History in the same way again.

Excellent book, new broad-focus history of American development, and astonishing how the original seeds are visible today. Very well written and compelling. Must read for anyone interested in American history. Not revisionist history! But more inclusive history, as it examines the founding myths that each of the 11 settlings engendered at the exclusion of others. Enlightening to see how unique this nation is with all its contradictions considered at once.