North over South: Northern Nationalism and American Identity in the Antebellum Era

by Susan-Mary Grant

Grant (U.S. history, U. of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK) looks at Northern attitudes towards the South in the period immediately following the American Civil War. She argues that the antebellum period was the crucial period for the construction of the American national identity. Suggesting that the Republican Party, in its first national election campaign, constructed Northern regionalism into an "American" identity that defined itself as antithetical to Southern identity, she supports her thesis by looking at such writers as Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Cullen Bryant, and Horace Mann. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)

Genres: History

250 pages, Hardcover

First published July 1, 2000

About the author

Susan-Mary Grant, Ph.D. (University of London), is Professor of American History in the School of History, Classics and Archaeology at University of Newcastle, England. She co-founded and is the current Chair of the association of British American Nineteenth Century Historians (BrANCH), is an officer of the Scottish Association for the Study of America, and serves on the editorial board of Nations and Nationalism.

Reviews

[Starbubbles · Rating 5 out of 5]

i honestly loved this book. my class didn't, and that was apparent when we discussed it. grant defines northern nationalism by what it is not, southern nationalism. this negative reference is a key point in her thesis, and frankly you can't miss it even if you want to. i found her perspective fascinating, despite it being freakishly repetitive.

there is minimal attention given to slavery and abolitionism. which is almost unheard of for an antebellum book. it's unclear if this was an "oversight" or if northern identity did not take slavery (or anti-slavery in this case) into account, esp since abolitionists are an extreme minority, even in the north. (well, in the south they would be run out of town - at best - or hanged - worst case.) in her effort be different, she purposefully did not talk about what is often discussed by historians, which left her little to talk about.

the north was defined by intellectuals, and apparently new york city and boston. grant maps the rise of sectionalism, as well as growing hostility from the north toward the south. many historians paint that the south as being utterly unreasonable, and controlled by "slave power" but at the same time claim that "slave power" is not a conspiracy even though the north widely believed it was. i loved how grant pitted the two regions as anxious about the future of the nation, identity, and which interpretation of the declaration should be carried into the west. the insurance policy of the mission statement? well, since the north won the civil war, their identity became the nation's identity. the mission of the declaration has carried on to today, maybe this is why historians don't discuss it too much. we live this identity, and so there is no way you can describe something you live, right? it feels inherent. of course the founding fathers meant for this! but did they? maybe that's why it took a brit to discuss this topic, because americans could not.