Support for an Independent South Among Contemporary White Southerners

Authors

  • William P. McLean
  • Tom W. Rice

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2003.24.0.307-320

Abstract

In this brief paper we explore the extent to which contemporary white Southerners favor an independent South. Using recent data from the University of North Carolina’s Southern Focus Poll we show that ten percent of white Southerners think that the South would be better off as an independent nation. Given that there are 70 million whites in the South today, this means that the region is home to about seven million people who support, at least to some degree, Southern independence. Compared to other Southern whites, these separatists tend to be less educated, less well off financially, younger, and more rural. They also tend to be more conservative racially and morally, more sympathetic toward the Confederacy, and more likely to feel that Northerners have contempt for Southerners. We speculate on the potential influence of these Southern nationalists.

References

Applebome, Peter. 1996. Dixie Rising. New York: Times Books.

Black, Earl, and Merle Black. 1987. Politics and Society in the South. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cash, W.J. 1941. The Mind of the South. New York: Knopf (1991, New York: Vintage Books).

Coser, Lewis A. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press.

Cowden, Jonathan A. 2001. Southernization of the Nation and Nationalization of the South: Racial Conservatism, Social Welfare and White Partisans in the United States: 1956-92. British Journal of Political Science 31:277-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123401000114

Desch, Michael C. 1996. War and Strong States, Peace and Weak States? International Organization 50:237-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300028551

Dion, Stephen. 1993. The Quebec Challenge to Canadian Unity. PS: Political Science & Politics 26:38-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096500037288 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/419502

Dombrowski, Peter, and Tom W. Rice. 2000. Changing Identities and International Relations: A Cautionary Note. Nationalism & Ethnic Politics 6:83-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13537110008428613

Egerton, John. 1974. The Americanization of Dixie. New York: Harper's Magazine Press.

Ellison, C.G. 1991. An Eye for an Eye? A Note on the Southern Subculture of Violence Thesis. Social Forces 69:1223-1239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/69.4.1223 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2579310

Faust, Drew Gilpin. 1988. Confederate Nationalism: Ideology and Identity in the Civil War South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Ferguson, Yale H., and Richard W. Mansbach. 1996. Politics, Authorities, Identities, and Change. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Freehling, William W. 1990. The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gurr, Ted R. 2000. Peoples vs. States: Minorities at Risk in the New Century. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Heraclides, Alexis. 1990. Secessionist Minorities and External Involvement. International Organization 44:341-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300035323

Horowitz, Donald. 1987. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Horwitz, Tony. 1999. Confederates in the Attic. New York: Vintage Books.

Hurlbert, Jeanne S. 1988. The Southern Region: A Test of the Hypothesis of Cultural Distinctiveness. Sociological Quarterly 30:245-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1989.tb01521.x

Larrabee, F. Stephen. 1990. Long Memories and Short Fuses: Change and Instability in the Balkans. International Security 15:58-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2538907

McCardell, John. 1979. The Idea of a Southern Nation. New York: W.W. Norton.

Miller, N.E., and R. Bugelski. 1952. The Influence of Frustrations Imposed by the In-group on Attitudes Expressed Toward Out-Groups. Journal of Psychology 34:197-233.

Nadeau, Richard, and Harold Stanley. 1993. Class Polarization in Partisanship among Native White Southerners. American Journal of Political Science 37:900-919. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111578

Rabbie, J.M., and M. Horowitz. 1969. Arousal of Ingroup-Outgroup Bias by a Chance Win or Loss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13:269-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0028284

Reed, John Shelton. 1983. Southerners: The Social Psychology of Sectionalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Rice, John H. 1862. A System of Modern Geography . . . Expressly for the Use of Schools and Academies in the Confederate States of America. Atlanta.

Rice, Tom W., and Diane L. Coates. 1995. Gender Role Attitudes in the Southern United States. Gender & Society 9:744-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124395009006007

Rice, Tom W., William P. McLean, and Amy J. Larsen. 2002. Southern Distinctiveness Over Time: 1972-2000. American Review of Politics 23:193-200.

Rosenau, James N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Selvin, S. 1991. Statistical Analysis of Epidemiological Data. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sherif, M., and C. Sherif. 1953. Groups in Harmony and Tension. New York: Harper.

Spencer, Metta, ed. 1998. Separatism: Democracy and Disintegration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559143

Sydnor, Charles S. 1948. The Development of Southern Sectionalism: 1819-1848. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Tajfel, Henri. 1970. Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination. Scientific American(November):96-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96

Taylor, William R. 1961. Cavalier and Yankee. New York: George Braziller.

Vanhanen, Tatu. 1999. Domestic Ethnic Conflict and Ethnic Nepotism: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Peace Research 36:55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022343399036001004

Downloads

Published

2004-01-01

Issue

Vol. 24: Winter 2003

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.