OD has spent the last several months exhaustively researching the shared racial history of the South and the Caribbean.
While that research project will continue until it culminates next year in my book Shattering The Golden Circle, I want to open up a new line of inquiry into the North’s racial history which is a subject of much confusion on the internet.
In Federalist Propaganda #2, John Jay famously argued:
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”
These two paragraphs in The Federalist Papers were more wishful thinking than a reality. The only thing that the 13 victorious colonies really shared in the American Revolution was hostility to Britain and a commitment to the triumphant republican cause.
The Southern colonies shared a common language with England and the British West Indies. They shared a common religion – until after the Revolution, the established Anglican Church – with England and the British West Indies, but not with Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Pennsylvania.
By 1787, the “Deep South” had emerged as a distinct cultural region from its beachhead in Charleston. It dominated South Carolina, Georgia, and southeastern North Carolina. These new states were race-based slave societies with economies based on export-oriented plantation agriculture (rice, indigo, long staple cotton) like the sugar islands in the British West Indies.
The Deep South was “very similar in manners and customs,” racial demographics, settlement patterns, and economic interests to the British West Indies, not Congregationalist New England or Quaker Pennsylvania, but the long simmering feud between Britain and France (one theater of which was French retaliation in the American Revolution), British geopolitical priorities, and British naval superiority had succeeded in dividing the islands from the Southern mainland colonies.
With regards to race, the North has always had very different manners, customs, and ideas about this subject and should be analyzed as if it were a foreign country, so it is appropriate to begin our inquiry into the North’s racial traditions with the single most poignant illustration of the Mason-Dixon line as an unrecognized international border: the sectional nature of the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the United States.
If you look at the map of the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, the first thing that jumps out at you is that the South is dominated by red and that the West is dominated by yellow. Every anti-miscegenation law in the Jim Crow South (with the exception of Maryland, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1967 in anticipation of the pending Supreme Court decision) was struck down by the Loving vs. Virginia decision in 1967.
In the Jim Crow West (the West had a milder form of segregation, which is why Arizona is covered under the Voting Rights Act), all the anti-miscegenation laws (with the notable exceptions of Kansas, New Mexico, and Washington) were repealed in the aftermath of the Second World War from 1948 to 1967.
The Midwest and Northeast stick out like sore thumbs in this picture. For starters, there is the yellow deviation of Indiana, which had an anti-miscegenation law that outlawed intermarriage with blacks, which was only repealed in 1965. For some reason, Indiana was more like Kentucky or West Virginia in the demise of its anti-miscegenation law, and it still votes like Kentucky and West Virginia to this day.
The next thing that strikes you about the Northeast and Midwest is the gray states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, in their entire history, these states never passed anti-miscegenation laws, so there were none to repeal.
The green states are the most interesting states on this map: Pennsylvania (1780), Massachusetts (1843), Washington (1868), New Mexico (1866), Kansas (1859), Illinois (1874), Iowa (1851), Michigan (1883), Maine (1883), Rhode Island (1881), and Ohio (1887), which are states that had anti-miscegenation laws, but which voluntarily repealed them between 1780 and 1887.
In OD’s Indictment, I asserted that the years 1750 to 1850 were crucial to understanding the racial and cultural demise of the West: there was a moral, religious, and ideological sea change in worldview during this period that in set in motion a series of catastrophes that would follow.
– During the French Revolution, slavery was abolished and all the blacks in the French Empire were made into French citizens with equal rights before reaction set in under Napoleon who restored the racial status quo of the ancien régime. This would change under the Second Republic in 1848 when slavery was abolished again and the blacks in the French Caribbean were again made into French citizens.
– In Great Britain, racialism was weakened during the early nineteenth century by the negative influence of evangelical Christianity to the point where during the debate over the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies not one MP expressed any doubt that the free negro lacked the capacity to maintain the economy and preserve civilization.
So how do we explain the gray states and the green states in the Northeast and Midwest? Why were the anti-miscegenation laws repealed so much earlier there? Why not in the South or the West? In the nineteenth century, not in the “1960s,” as many WNs commonly assume?
If you want to understand why the Northern states would repeal their anti-miscegenation laws in the nineteenth century, it helps to get a feel for racial and cultural attitudes in contemporary Great Britain, which was considered the ideal model by Yankees and was the fashionable trendsetter (in among other things, the nexus between abolitionism and evangelical Christianity) in the North.
In the early nineteenth century, the North was the Anglophile region of the United States, whereas the South was the Anglophobic region. In the South, Britain was looked upon as a menace that was trying to block America’s westward expansion into Texas and as the world headquarters of abolitionism which posed a mortal threat to the South’s social and economic system.
Interestingly enough, Southern Anglophobia and British anti-slavery did not prevent the two countries from engaging in the mutually profitable cotton trade. The British were committed to “free labor” and “free trade” and these two doctrines were also at odds with each other in the British West Indies where the success of the “free labor” project was sacrificed in 1846 for “free trade” with Spanish Cuba.
With this in mind, we can start to explain the green states in the North: in Pennsylvania (1780), the anti-miscegenation law was repealed early due to the Quaker influence, the most stalwart egalitarian sect/notorious group of heretics in the British Empire, which pioneered anti-slavery and anti-racism in Britain and America.
In Massachusetts (1843), the demise of the anti-miscegenation law was a direct consequence of the rise of abolitionism there, which was the American citadel of anti-slavery, evangelical Christianity, and the reform movement. If this strikes you as being eerily reminiscent of the Clapham Saints and the influence of Wilberforce, Clarkson, & Co. in Britain, it is hardly a coincidence.
In Kansas, we notice that an anti-miscegenation law was passed in 1855, but was repealed in 1859. This is strange until you realize that “Bleeding Kansas” was a battleground at the time between Southern expansionists and ideologically motivated New Englanders who moved to Kansas and rejected the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution.
In Iowa, an anti-miscegenation law that had been passed in 1839 was repealed in 1851. Like Kansas, the repeal of the anti-miscegenation law in Iowa is another example of New England Saints moving to sparsely populated Western territories and outvoting the Cracker Nation which was expanding out of the Upper South into the Lower Midwest states like Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana.
If you have ever wondered why Iowa has a split personality, it is because Eastern Iowa is culturally part of Yankeedom whereas Western and Central Iowa is part of the Midlands, which is the heterogeneous Germanic borderland between Yankee and Cracker territory in the Heartland. In much the same way, Southern Missouri is part of Dixie.
The repeal of the anti-miscegenation laws in the rest of the North after the War Between the States in Illinois (1874), Michigan (1883), Maine (1883), Ohio (1887), and Rhode Island (1881) was part of a larger trend toward integration in the post-“Civil War” era and was intimately tied to the Union Cause and the deification of Abraham Lincoln who glorified equality in the Gettysburg Address.
During Radical Reconstruction (1867-1876), the anti-miscegenation laws in the South were temporarily repealed by the negro-carpetbagger-scalawag triumvirate in states like Mississippi and Louisiana, but were reimposed by native Southerners as each state went through the Redemption process and the White Man’s Revolution.
After 1877, Northern enthusiasm for Reconstruction waned and the last gasp of “civil rights” was the Federal Elections Bill of 1890 which Henry Cabot Lodge attempted to impose on the South to save the Southern Republican Party. A long period of sectional détente between the North and South followed, roughly from 1896 to 1945, in which the children and grandchildren of the “Civil War” generation rebuilt the country and wisely tried to forget the likes of Thaddeus Stevens and move past the blunders that had ripped the country apart in the 1860s.
Unfortunately, the legislative follies of that era were never completely expunged from either the U.S. Constitution or the statutes of the Northern states. In the North, the negro remained a voter and a citizen with equal “civil rights,” and after 47 percent of the negro population moved to the Northern and Western states in the “Great Migration” in the twentieth century, the growth of negro political power in the North along with America’s new role as the “leader of the free world” after the Second World War revived the long dormant issue of “civil rights.”
It is a much more complicated story than simply “the Jews repealed our anti-miscegenation laws.”