This work is quite a fascinating revisionist history that seeks to explain major historical events as well as contemporary political conflicts through the lens of a somewhat obscure thesis called the Doctrine of First Effective Settlement. The argument is that the US was settled by eleven distinct ethno-religious cultures, or nations, each of which dispersed over geographic regions that do not, as a general rule, fit neatly into well-defined political jurisdictions. What follows is a retelling of US history that presents numerous events as the product of the conflicting intersts of these nations as they vied for power and wealth.

There are two very interesting dimensions to this book. The first is the identification of eleven distinct cultural roots to modern US politics. Where Woodard draws the lines - how, for example, he decides that Upper Midwest culture is just an extension of Yankeedom and not some new nation unto itself, like the Left Coast - is certainly debatable. Nor is that idea particularly unique to this book; the Boston Globe in January 2004 divided the US into ten political regions, with such catchy names as “Sagebrush” and “Southern Comfort”, which line up reasonably well with the nations identified here. The retelling of our history as a series of conflicts between these nations is, however, rather new - if a bit overweighted in the revolutionary period, with comparatively little attention paid to the Civil War, Progressive era, and so forth. What shakes out of this revision are some wonderfully obscure historical tidbits - like the fact that cowboy culture was in fact created by Native Americans, or the near-secession of New England from the union in the early 19th century.

The second interesting dimension is an exploration of the Doctrine of First Effective Settlement, which stipulates that the first “effective” settlers of a region will have lasting influence on the institutions and politics of that region, even long after those settlers have disappeared or have been outnumbered. Towards that end, the argument is that, for example, the culture and politics of modern New England and the Upper Midwest is still in some essential way the product of 17th century Puritan belief; that New York City is basically a Dutch mercantile colony; and that likewise the modern mid-Atlantic is still shaped by the customs and traditions of the younger sons of the English aristocracy from the same time. It’s a bold argument with quite a bit of interesting anecdotes and obscure facts behind it, and at minimum a worthwhile frame for thinking about modern society. It certainly made me want to know more about this curious doctrine, what its theoretical underpinnings are, and how and whether it applies in other disciplines or areas of life.

The book presents a bold and fascinating argument, but I don’t find the evidence particularly rigorous or compelling, for a number of reasons. To begin with, Woodard does not really consider factors that might weaken the Doctrine of First Effective Settlement. He does spend some time discussing immigration and the way in which it weakens this doctrine, but ultimately dismisses this idea without any really good reason; he further weakens his case by defining some number of nations, like New Netherland and the Left Coast, as being nations of immigrants unto themselves. Nowhere does he contemplate the role of technological change or world events (like the Cold War, or globalization) in undermining the impacts of first settlers - even though that is precisely what appears to be happening in the Deep South as well as in Yankeedom in recent decades. Moreover, in numerous places he appears to assign nationalities to various key figures in history by inspecting their place of geographic origin (and does the same when examining the voting patterns of blocs in Congress) - even though a key part of his argument is that nations do not respect geographic boundaries. We really don’t get a very good explanation for obvious cases of tremendous cultural shift in a nation: for example, how did Yankeedom begin as a viciously conformist society, and wind up considerably more tolerant and liberal than the rest of the country? In the final analysis the argument is qualitative when it begs to be quantified. It would be interesting to see this argument extended a bit and made perhaps a bit more precise and rigorous: I’d be curious to see what metrics Woodard uses to assign nationalities to different sections of the counties, and whether those metrics in fact stay consistent over time.

Still and all, I think American Nations is quite a fascinating way to look at our history and politics, and well worth the read. For those who are really interested to grapple with the book in more depth, I’d certainly recommend the extensive review at “Exploring the Past” (https://pastexplore.wordpress.com.)