Is America comprised of 11 regionally separate nations?
Writing in the Tufts University Alumni magazine, journalist Colin Woodard offers up the notion that America is comprised of 11 geographically distinct "nations", and argues that working from this presupposition helps us understand why America is what it is, does what it does, and in particular, why it has such a vibrant, complicated and diverse relationship with violence.
As a longtime Canadian friend of DU, I offer it up for consideration, and possibly discussion.
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
(The basic thesis is that the U.S. can be best understood as a set of separate nations, each with its own ethnography, history and political and moral character and tendencies. In particular, each has a set of views towards violence as a political and social tool. The borders of these “nations” do not perfectly align with U.S. state borders, though the nations are regionally distinct. Nor do all the citizens of each “nation” share the full general opinion set of their “nation” (any more than is the case for better recognized nations). But the rates for pro- and anti-gun sentiment, support for capital punishment, willingness to cede individual power for the common good and a number of other politically important traits are distinctly different and essentially consistent with those of the different founding colonists, says Woodard. Of the 11 American nations, he feels, the views of two – “Yankeedom” and “Deep South” – are particularly influential and polar opposite on many issues. I note for those who care that this article is written by a journalist, not a professional historian, and there is no indication that the article has been peer reviewed, so you're all on your own. I found it to be thought provoking, and suspect that my understanding of my own country would probably be enhanced if viewed using a similar analytic lens.)
- b
Link here, text, maps etc follow
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
as long as we don't starting warring with each other ala "Revolution." 
Yes indeed! 
I think it's limited both in scope and in notion.
The Gulf coast region of the south, from Galveston all the way to Panama City, FL, is indeed a separate and unique entity. It's still distinctly southern, but is probably less like the "Deep South" than most of the "Far West" is.
While the region is indeed strongly influenced by old French tradition, there are two different kinds of French tradition in the region - the "common" French of the Acadian immigrants from Quebec, and the "Aristocratic" French of New Orleans, Bilouxi, and Mobile. These mingled with a lot of Appalachian immigrants - seriously, most white people in the gulf region trace their roots to the midlands, rather than to the bulk of the "deep south" and while still racist, the culture there was more accepting of blacks than the more northern parts of the south (probably owing to the cultural differences between agricultural and industrial societies.) The result is a narrow strip of territory that, while still "southern" is still culturally distinct - its food, its humor, its music, and even to some degree its language.
The bulk of Florida, however, is Deep South, though the Keys are more like the Gulf region than the rest of Florida. 
Classing Anchorage and Fairbanks as part of the Far West seems spot-on. The Prince William Sound are and panhandle are more like an autonomous region claimed by both the Far West and by the Left Coast, though.
People assume we're just like the rest of the South, but we have our own culture and I think it's much nicer.
