And that is the first problem of your argument. You are confusing the hivings away from Puritanism by groups that have partial and common origins with Puritanism's lineal evolution, which is Unitarian. There is no doubt that fundamentalism had significant New England contributions to it and that it differed substantially from Old Virginia Anglicanism. But those fundamentalists became what they are by deviating away from Puritanism-proper, not by continuing it. Even Jonathan Edwards, the famed fire and brimstone "puritan," exhibited the beginnings of this split.
So was Edwards a proto-liberal or a proto-Fundamentalist?
The post "Great Awakening" churches had too much of a revivalist ring to them for the old guard strict English Puritan glastonbury thorn burning fanatics.
To this day Southern Primitive Baptists condemn any form of revivalism or missionary activity because salvation and damnation depend solely on divine election and on nothing else. As I said, there's a Primitive Baptist web page that actually quotes with approval Cromwell's theologian.
When the fundamentalist and evangelical calvinists drifted away both theologically and geographically, those old guard strict puritans remained and from them we eventually got unitarianism.
The Southern Calvinists drifted away to Arminianism (except for the Primitive Baptists who retain their original Calvinism). And the liberal Unitarianism of New England was a rebellion against the Calvinism of their ancestors. There may be some continuity (just as there may be some continuity between religious and Marxist eschatology) but the Puritans who became unitarians did so because they rejected the orthodoxy of their ancestors.
You are also forgetting something else. The South is the home of a unitarianism of its own, the so-called "oneness Pentecostals" who reject the "tr*inity" and insist that Heaven was vacant for 33 years. These people are the "holy rollers" and "snake handlers" of the Appalachian highlands, which, need I remind you, adhered to the Union during the Civil War. Kentucky never seceded, West Virginia seceded from Confederate Virginia and rejoined the Union, East Tennessee might have done the same had it not been for the presence of a Confederate army, and western North Carolina and northern Georgia were also home to Union sentiment. What do you have to say to this?
As a Noachide, btw, I do not believe in the "tr*nity."
Not really. Today's Bible Belt ascribes to a substantially more populist theology than Puritanism ever was and manages to combine it with two additional elements that Puritanism employed only sparingly or never at all: ideological agrarianism and an underlying strain of political conservatism.
There is nothing conservative about populism. It is identical to democracy in that it assumes a too optimistic view of human nature and that the majority will always choose the correct course. How any conservative could call himself a "populist" or a "libertarian" is absolutely beyond me. The fact that a libertine central government injects itself into local situations and nullifies local laws does not imply either populism or libertarianism (much less the abolition of the state).
As for agrarianism, for most of its history the entire United States was an agrarian society. The Midwest, though in lifestyle closer to the South, certainly joined New England in the War. And the Pilgrims did not start "grubbing money" the moment they got off the Mayflower. Until relatively recently, New England always had its share of yeoman farmers. Have you ever read the poetry of Robert Frost?
And as for conservatism, I suppose it depends on how you define the term. A "conservatism" whose only job is to conserve whatever institutions exist is just another humanistic ideology. It is the conservation of G-d's sovereignty that matters. And for most of the "19th" and "20"th Centuries New England was very conservative. Do you not remember that in 1936 it was only Maine and Vermont, not the South, that voted against FDR? Huh? Do yuh? Or perhaps you think Calvin Coolidge was some sort of red radical. And of course the income tax (now the bane of "populists") began as a populist measure aimed against "money grubbing yankees" and was supported by the South and opposed by the Northeast. Any comments?
And of course there is the uncomfortable fact that "radical" New England and its "unitarian" clergymen were the ones who opposed revolutionary France and saw Jacobins behind every bush in the "1790's" while the "conservative" South and its aristocrats (such as Thomas Jefferson) supported the Jacobins. Isn't this an embarrassment? The South seems to have come by its "anti-Jacobinism" rather late. Even William Lloyd Garrison and William Cullen Bryant were opponents of the French Revolution and Jefferson's support of it.
Finally, whatever links may exist between John Brown and the contemporary Left (and remember, Brown allowed his children to whip him when they had misbehaved in order to teach them the doctrine of the "atonement" and later expressed horror at the liberal tendency of his sons), the worship of Thomas Jefferson and H. L. Mencken (may his bones rot!) by "conservative Southerners" is absolutely infuriating to me. Just which side would these "conservative Southerners" have been on in Dayton, TN in 1925, GOPCapitalist? I know which side Mencken was on and which side Jefferson would have been on.
The single most interesting factoid on the entire thread. I shall ponder its strange charm all day.
What a minor sect does or believes does not alter the original statement. Since you cannot say the same thing about immeasurably larger mainstream baptists in the south, you are demonstrating the rule by its exception.
but the Puritans who became unitarians did so because they rejected the orthodoxy of their ancestors.
They maintained the orthodoxy of methods and, most of all, the puritan culture. You are correct only in that they drifted away from biblical literalism, which was a natural and inevitable evolution of the flawed theological doctrines that puritanism was originally built upon.
You are also forgetting something else. The South is the home of a unitarianism of its own, the so-called "oneness Pentecostals" who reject the "tr*inity" and insist that Heaven was vacant for 33 years.
You are confusing small-U unitarian concepts of divine being with Unitarianism proper. The formal Unitarian (or now Unitarian-Universalist) church is the subject of my posts when I state that Unitarianism evolved directly and theologically from the Puritans.
These people are the "holy rollers" and "snake handlers" of the Appalachian highlands, which, need I remind you, adhered to the Union during the Civil War.
Though there were definately pockets of it including one very large one in eastern tennessee, appalachian unionism is frequently overstated and in many areas is nothing more than myth.
Kentucky never seceded
Kentucky had sizable secessionists elements. It's failure to secede had immeasurably more to do with the fact that it was a border state than with any appalachian element. Geographically Kentucky found itself in the same situation as Missouri and Maryland. Politically, it found itself under the heavy arm of the union government early on in the war explicitly to prevent it from seceding.
West Virginia seceded from Confederate Virginia and rejoined the Union
Partially incorrect. West Virginia was the product of a strong though geographically isolated pocket of unionists in the extreme northwestern counties of old Virginia near the Ohio River and centered around Wheeling. Those counties had always been geographically isolated from the rest of Virginia and had the curious distinction of being the only part of the Old South proper to extend north of the Mason Dixon line. They were culturally and politically closer to Pennsylvania and Ohio than to Virginia, which is why they opposed Virginia's secession from the get go. Appalachia had very little to do with it. The trick of the West Virginia secession is found in the fact that when those northwestern Wheeling-area counties split away from Virginia they also claimed about 30 counties to their south as their own with virtually no consent from those counties or their residents. In fact, at least half of the southern West Virginia counties voted in favor of secession in the 1861 referendum (the actual number is probably even more than that because the countywide referendum records from 5-10 additional rural counties in that region have been lost). Many had absolutely no representative in the Wheeling Conventions that voted to split. Others had "representatives" who were nothing more than SELF APPOINTED ne'er-do-wells who showed up, claimed to represent one or more of these southern counties, and were seated by the overzealous unionists in Wheeling. Even the vote to split was suspect: Wheeling held a "referendum" on the matter that was in reality one of those Saddam Hussein style "elections" where 99% of the vote was "yes" and where soldiers at the "polls" in the south kept anybody who would've voted no away.
East Tennessee might have done the same had it not been for the presence of a Confederate army, and western North Carolina and northern Georgia were also home to Union sentiment.
Of those regions, the only sizable one was eastern Tennessee and that can be measured by the number of troops east Tenn. provided to the yankees (about 30,000). Appalachian North Carolina, by contrast, provided only 3,000 yankee troops. Georgia's records are incomplete but it is estimated that the entire state provided less than 500 troops to the yankees based upon the known casualty figures, which state only 15 Georgians died or were wounded on the yankee side.
There is nothing conservative about populism.
Sure there is. You are again confusing capital-P Populism of the late 19th century - a left wing political movement - with the lowercase-p concept of populism, meaning little more than that which draws support to its message by appeal to the people or the masses. One can accordingly be religiously populist and politically conservative without any contradiction.
As for agrarianism, for most of its history the entire United States was an agrarian society. The Midwest, though in lifestyle closer to the South, certainly joined New England in the War.
That they did, though more so for economic rather than ideological reasons. The midwest was becoming a railroad mecca at the time and railroads were intimately connected to the north's economic agenda. You will also note that the midwest was the hotbed of the copperhead movement during the war, which sought to make peace with the south.
Until relatively recently, New England always had its share of yeoman farmers.
Which have tended to till small, isolated, and climate-restrained farm plots. The Northeast has always trended towards the cities, which for most of its history have grown to overshadow the farms. It was the first region of the nation to build big urban centers, especially so after the New England culture extended southwest to encompass New York City.
And for most of the "19th" and "20"th Centuries New England was very conservative.
Not in the political sense. The Puritan culture has always tilted toward revolutionary actions (that is to say they constantly agitate to supplant existing social orders with a new one of their own making and control). It's history is in fact dominated by this tendency and appears both in Britain and New England, sometimes for the better but more often for the worse. The English Civil War, the American Revolution, the 1803 Canadian schemes, the War of 1812 Hartford Convention, the New England abolitionist movement, and the American Civil War are all prime examples where New Englanders have agitated in a revolutionary direction.
Do you not remember that in 1936 it was only Maine and Vermont, not the South, that voted against FDR? Huh? Do yuh?
Yeah, and I also remember that the 1936 election was not an ideological turning point by any means or measure. The choice was socialist FDR against the "me too" Republicans who at best advocated a Hooveresque Reconstruction Finance Corporation toned down alternative to Roosevelt's interventionist marxism. Maine and Vermont went Republican in that year out of historical party loyalties rather than any overriding ideological consideration. Contrast that with a true ideological election such as 1964 - every single state in the nation voted for LBJ in a landslide save five states, every single one of them a former state or territory of the CSA.
And of course the income tax (now the bane of "populists") began as a populist measure aimed against "money grubbing yankees" and was supported by the South and opposed by the Northeast.
Actually the income tax began in the civil war, at which point the entire congress was from the north save two west coast states and a couple rural ones.
And of course there is the uncomfortable fact that "radical" New England and its "unitarian" clergymen were the ones who opposed revolutionary France and saw Jacobins behind every bush in the "1790's" while the "conservative" South and its aristocrats (such as Thomas Jefferson) supported the Jacobins.
If you have to turn to sectional preference on foreign affairs taking place an ocean away at a time when the Americans could not have practically or logistically intervened to any substantial degree in either direction to make your case, you truly are grasping at straws.