The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 JayMan ArchiveBlogview
The Cavaliers

Sir-Anthony-van-Dyck-Lord-John-Stuart-and-His-Brother-Lord-Bernard-Stuart Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers.

The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an area centered on Bristol running north to Liverpool and south to Exeter.

During the English Civil War of 1642-1651, the Cavaliers fought on the side of the king (the Royalists) against the Parliamentarian forces. In many ways, this war was the forerunner to the establishment of English democracy, as well as being the predecessor to the American Civil War. The Puritans, the historic arch-rivals of the Cavaliers, fought against the latter group as members of the Eastern Association. Indeed, many New England Puritans left the colony and went back to England to fight in the war. When the Eastern Association defeated the Royalists in England, many Cavaliers fled to Virginia, founding the area that would serve as the nucleus of the American South – in addition to sowing the seeds of future conflict.

Tidewater Flag Quite unlike the Puritan settlement in New England or the Quaker colony in the Delaware valley, the Cavaliers had not come to America to create any sort of utopian society. Instead, the came for conquest and prestige. The aristocratic landowners thought that they’d replicate some of the Spanish imperial success in America, and immediately battled the Natives in an attempt to subjugate and/or exterminate them. The Cavalier lords brought slaves with them – indentured servants, some of which were people who traded their servitude for their passage to America; others were unfortunate wretches snatched from the street in England.

The Tidewater settlement, compared to the others in America, was highly disorganized. The majority of the “settlers” were men, and the majority of those perished in the hot, disease ridden swamps there – to be replaced by wave after wave of additional colonists. Eventually after extirpating the Natives, the Cavaliers established the tobacco plantation system there, and the colony grew as its enormous profits attracted more settlers.

For the lords whose plantations succeeded – and for the few servant men that managed to work themselves up out of the fields – the Tidewater colony was a prosperous and highly profitable enterprise. The plantation lords established themselves as kings of their estates, growing rich off the misery and toil in their fields.

15430_flags_confederate_flag On the Caribbean island of Barbados, a very similar process ensued. Fortune-seeking settlers established a sugar-growing plantation society much like the one in Virginia, one which was also based on exploitation and indentured servitude (often forced – indeed “Barbados” became a verb in England). After word of the horrors of Barbadian life got back to England, the flow of White slaves ceased, and eventually, African slaves were employed, copying practices learned from similar colonies in South America. Slaves were worked to death in fields, and shipload after shipload came in to replace them. Eventually, the Cavalier lords exhausted the island, forcing them to relocate. They moved to (among many other places) what would become South Carolina (naming it after King Charles, after the royal victory over the Puritans in England). Thus they formed the Deep South proper, establishing it as a slave-based exploitation society from the outset. African slavery soon spread north to the Tidewater, but it didn’t become as prominent there as it was in the Deep South. By the mid 1700s, Blacks came to outnumber Whites in the Deep South by a factor of 5 to 1 – as opposed to 1.7 to 1 in the Tidewater. Indeed, in the Tidewater, some Blacks even became slave-owning plantation lords themselves. This was never the case in the Deep South, as a strict racial caste system was established, one that eventually spread to the Tidewater.

Society in the Tidewater and the Deep South was strictly hierarchical. Every man, woman, and child had their place, and each was expected to show their due respect to their social superiors. The plantation lords ruled with impunity, having no trouble taking advantage of underlings, be they Black, White, or Native – male or female. Indeed, the plantation lords were sexually voracious, and helped themselves to the women under their dominion, Black and White. In Albion’s Seed, David Hackett Fischer (DHF) talks about the diary of one of these plantation lords, who Fischer describes as a “sexual predator”:

A famous example was the secret diary of William Byrd II, an exceptionally full and graphic record of one planter’s very active sex life. In its attitude toward sex, this work was very different from any diary that was kept in Puritan New England. William Byrd was a sexual predator. Promiscuous activity was a continuing part of his mature life, and in some periods an obsession. With very mixed success, he attempted to seduce relatives, neighbors, casual acquaintances, strangers, prostitutes, the wives of his best friends, and servants both black and white, on whom he often forced himself, much against their wishes.
In the period 1709 to 1712, for example, when Byrd was more or less happily married, he was frequently engaged in sexual adventures:

2 [November 1709] I played at [r-m] with Mrs. Chiswell and kissed her on the bed till she was angry and my wife also was uneasy about it, and cried as soon as the company was gone. I neglected to say my prayers, which I ought not to have done, because I ought to beg pardon for the lust I had for another man’s wife.

It is important to note that the remorse he felt on this occasion had to mainly to do with his sense of violating another gentleman’s property. More often, he felt no remorse at all.
Sometimes Byrd and his Virginia gentleman-friends went on collective woman hunts:

11 Mar. 1711. After church Mr. Goodwin invited us to dinner and I ate fish. Here we saw a fine widow Mrs. O-s-b-r-n who had been handsome in her time. From hence we went to Mr. B’s where we drank cider and saw Molly King, a pretty black girl.
20 [October 1711] Jenny, an Indian girl, had got drunk and made us good sport.
21 [October 1711] At night I asked a negro girl to kiss me

Sexual predators such as William Byrd have existed in every society. But some cultures more than others have tended to encourage their activities, and even to condone them. This was the case in tidewater Virginia, with its strong ideas of male supremacy and masculine assertiveness.

These men represented the best of their culture; the sexual activities of other planters made even William Byrd appear a model of restraint. An old tidewater folk saying in Prince George’s County, Maryland, defined a virgin as a girl who could run faster than her uncle.
The sexual predators of Virginia found many opportunities among indentured servant girls during the seventeenth century. The journal of John Harrower described free and easy fornication with female servants in Virginia. Exceptionally high rates of prenuptial pregnancy and illegitimacy among English female immigrants to Virginia was in part due to this cause. There is evidence in the records that some masters deliberately impregnated their servants as a way of extending their indentures.

(e-book pp. 230-231)

Even lower class men enjoyed great many societal and sexual privileges over women (men were rarely punished for adultery, for example; for the same, women were often whipped until bloody). Married life was a disharmonious enterprise. Women (the “breeders” as women were referred to at the time, since women were expected to serve that purpose) and children were expected to be servile, but they rarely went along quietly. The film The Prince of Tides excellently demonstrates the nature of Lowland Southern domestic life, and its continuance into recent history. This greatly contrasts with the effusively loving sentiments of marital life common in writings from residents from the Quaker and Puritan colonies.

Coastal Southern society was loosely kin-based – significantly less so than that of the Appalachians – but much more so than that of the Northern colonies. Many important aspects of Cavalier society revolved around extended family. As DHF put it (emphasis added):

Among Virginians and New Englanders, ideas of the family were similar in strength, but different in substance. Virginians gave more importance to the extended family and less to the nuclear family than did New Englanders. Clear differences of that sort appeared in quantitative evidence of naming practices and inheritance patterns. The language of familial relationships differed too. The word “family” tended to be a more comprehensive term in Virginia than in Massachusetts. Virginians addressed relatives of all sort as “coz” or “cousin,” in expressions that were heavy with affective meaning; but the term “brother” was used more loosely as a salutation for friends, neighbors, political allies, and even business acquaintances. It is interesting to observe that an extended kin-term tended to be more intimate than the language of a nuclear relationship. The reverse tended to be the case in Massachusetts.
Individuals in Virginia were stereotyped by traits that were thought to be hereditary in their extended families. Anglican clergyman Jonathan Boucher believed that “family character both of body and mind may be traced thro’ many generations; as for instance every Fitzhugh has bad eyes; every Thornton hears badly; Winslows and Lees talk well; Carters are proud and imperious; and Taliaferros mean and avaricious; and Fowkeses cruel.” Virginians often pronounced these judgments upon one another. The result was a set of family reputations which acquired the social status of self-fulfilling prophecies.6
For most Virginians the unit of residence tended to be a more or less nuclear household, but the unit of association was the extended family, which often flocked together in the same rural neighborhoods. Jonathan Boucher noted that “certain districts are there known and spoken of … by there being inhabited by the Fitzhughs, the Randolphs, Washingtons, Carys, Grimeses or Thorntons.” These kin-neighborhoods developed gradually during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century by continuing subdivision of estates

(e-book pp 210-211)

Because they were so obsessed pedigrees and proper breeding (a trait which modern HBD’ers will be familiar), marriages between elites were quite common. Likely, de facto cousin marriage was not all that rare.

As well, they had a strong sense of pride and a violent culture of honor similar to that of the Borderlanders – if to a lesser degree. As Colin Woodard notes in American Nations:

While the Yankee elite generally settled their disputes through the instrument of written laws, Tidewater gentry were more likely to resort to a duel. Commoners were equally prideful: arguments in the tavern commonly led to nasty fights in which it was acceptable to kick, bite, strangle, gouge out eyes, and dismember genitals of one’s opponent. (Woodard, p. 62)

The Tidewater residents and Deep Southerners were quite proud of their hierarchical caste society – one which had many conscious similarities to ancient Greece and Rome. The plantation class (the top 25% of the White population) were happy to exploit their underlings – White and Black – as they felt it was their Darwinian right to do so (since they viewed their underlings – particularly Blacks – as innately inferior). Their exploitativeness drew the loathing of their neighbors the Borderlanders, whom the Coastal Southerners often exploited as a buffer against hostile Native tribes and often used as tenant farming labor. The Deep South had a heavily Spartan model, even to the point that it had armed militias of White men to suppress the very real possibility of slave uprising. It is this reason that, upon independence from Britain, they sought to ensure the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution.

Indeed, the Coastal Southerners joined with their rivals in New England against British rule only because they feared the Brits would attempt to end slavery. They then joined in an uneasy federation with the other American nations, where the peace was kept by the vast Southern frontier in which they could expand into, reducing contacts and conflicts between the nations.

Edit: And highly expansionist they were. The Deep South was the most aggressively expansionist of all the American nations, and Deep South leaders spearheaded American conquests in both the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars.

Eventually, the issue of slavery – in addition to other national concerns – broke the polity between the nations. The Yankees and the Midlands became determined to end slavery, which the Deep South and the Tidewater could not stand. The election of Abraham Lincoln was the last straw. As such, starting with the original Deep Southern state – South Carolina – one by one they seceded from the Union, setting the stage for the Civil War, a rematch against their historic Puritan foes.

The Borderlanders, long wary of Deep Southern rule and exploitativeness, didn’t join the Deep South and the Tidewater in secession as the latter nations had planned, and even broke away from the Confederacy (or attempted to do so, in the case of East Tennessee) to stay with the Union.

After the war, and after the Yankees’ failed attempt to remake Southern society in the former’s image during Reconstruction (as the Yankees were, and still are, wont to do), the Deep South/Tidewater quickly reestablished their racial caste system, until that was again broken by Yankee/Midlander intervention in the 20th Century.

So what explains the traits of the Cavaliers, and the hence, the nations they founded? They shared many traits with their old foes the Purtians, particularly a strong nationalistic sentiment, but radically differed from the Puritans in many other ways. The Cavaliers didn’t develop a sense of egalitarian values in the slightest. They also didn’t have a fully corporate system as the other Britons had. They also retained the culture of honor common to clannish peoples. They weren’t as attached to their extended family to the extent the Borderlanders were, but hadn’t evolved into fully atomized family groups as the Puritans or the Quakers had (even though the Puritans seem to have simply replaced the extended family with the entire societal unit – a quick and dirty form of atomization perhaps, which is also seen with Scandinavians). Perhaps it has something to do with their ethnic origins? Whereas the Puritans hailed from the Danelaw, and hence had heavy Scandinavian affinity, the western areas of Britain had been settled by Saxons. As well, the Cavaliers liked to think of themselves as having been descended from Norman conquerors, but it’s unclear how much more so they in fact descended from the Normans.

Britain Terrain1Perhaps geography was involved. The purple area is the region of Cavalier origins. This region abuts highland Celtic areas to the west (Wales and Cornwall). Perhaps having a more aggressive Celtic population on their borders led the Western English to retain a more martial stance?

Some or all of these factors may be involved. But, I think one additional factor may be in play, one which leads us to consider the work of one Gregory Clark.

The Southwestern English seemed retain the manor system that had already disappeared in much of Western Europe. Gregory Clark noted that the most successful Englishmen had not been the underclass; nor had it been the upper nobility, who tended to die off in violent conflicts with each other. The successful Englishmen (and by extension Medieval European and East Asians) were the yeoman farmers. These diligent, hardworking, and clever farmers had a distinct fertility advantage, and came to numerically dominate the English population. This process explains the subdued, introverted, academic and industrial traits of the Puritans and the Quakers – who also seemed to be fairly outbred as well – likely having gone through the standard processes occurring throughout Northwestern Europe. But what of the Cavaliers? They retained traits similar to their feudal aristocratic ancestors. What if in southwestern Britain, the most evolutionarily successful weren’t the yeoman farmers, but the aristocrat manor lords who still ruled over them?

This would explain a great many things. If this is the case, the Cavaliers would simply be hold overs from the feudal warrior class, having not quite gone through as much of the genetic pacification the other English had (or at least retained a share of it). As well, inbreeding seems to have been a bit more common in the aristocracy, explaining the partial clannishness they seemed to posses.

Through an accident of history, this numerically fairly small group came to become a dominant force in the world through their colonization of America. Quite likely, thanks to their exploitative, highly unequal social and economic system (and owing to their sexual proclivities), the plantation lords in the U.S. may have enjoyed a Gregory Clarkian fertility advantage. This would mean modern American Lowland Southerners may be disproportionately descended from the plantation bosses, and as such, carry on the heritage of manorial lords from a distinctly feudal age. These traits remain important for American society, giving us that unique society known as the South.

EDIT: See also: random notes: 07/30/13 – from A Brief History of Great Britain | hbd* chick

(play from 0:23 – 4:50)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6l0qSvF2BQ#t=0m22s&w=960&h=720]

(Reprinted from JayMan's Blog by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
43 Comments to "The Cavaliers"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    You might mention black males in modern day America (right now) rape one hundred white females each and every day of the year, rain or shine. Black males are from eight to twenty times more likely to be infected with the AIDS virus than white males. Our prison population has tripled since the 1980′s. Our prison population is eighty percent black.

    • Replies: @Assistant Village Idiot
    Sources, please.
    , @bleach
    That brings to mind an interesting point. Black Americans share as most people with an HBD blog know a relatively large amount of European genes. One would think that would have had a pacifying effect on blacks, but if all or most of those genes came from unpacified white sex slave rapists than perhaps that explains in part why American blacks are more violent than one would expect.otherwise, you wouldmight have thought that slave life would select forpeacefulness...since the rebels didn't survive.
    , @Whiskey
    Black people in the US have a fraction of the rates of say, African rape and murder metrics. South Africa is a case in point, about 27% have admitted rape and half those said they raped more than one person. This matches the appalling numbers found anecdotally in West Africa. But still, Black men in America rape and murder at far higher rates than Asians (lowest) and Whites (next lowest). Black people just rape and murder, at far higher rates, than other peoples.

    What third-party observers have found regarding Black violence, is that Black people have very high rates of it; this may or may not be part of the generally low IQs (about 70 for Africans, about 85 average, Flynn Effect for Black Americans) given that Bushmen, Pygmies, and Aborigines also have sky-high rates of murder and rape; which matches that of New Guinea and Amazonian stone age tribes. For whatever reason the gap between feel and do among Black people is amazingly short; without much social condition, pondering, or anything really in between a feeling and a deed. This is as true in Haiti, site of the most successful slave revolt (and coincidentally, massacres of White people slavers and not, infants and elderly) as well as a conquering and oppression (for a while anyway) of the Mestizo Dominican Republic. Black people in Haiti staged a violently successful slave revolt, killed every last White they could on the Island; and then thirty years later conquered and oppressed the Mestizo Dominincans. Haiti remains among the most violent places in the world.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jman/the-cavaliers/#comment-1062065
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. How ironic that Tidewater Virginia produced Jefferson and Madison, embodiments of the Scottish Enlightenment (at least in theory). With Jefferson I think it was youthful idealism, which he eventually outgrew. Certainly his lifestyle was incompatible with democracy. His life ends in tragedy.

    • Replies: @JayMan
    DHF was sure to point out the inconsistencies between the Tidewater Founding Father's words and ideas on the fledgling nation and their actions at home. Jefferson and Washington were both very much Tidewater plantation lords despite their great ideas.
    , @Jon Winsor
    There's diversity within regions too. Check out Fischer's section on ideas of freedom that developed in Virginia in his book *Bound Away*:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=GFa7KVPWmKwC&pg=PA131&dq=%22new+patterns+of+social+thought+began+to+develop%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4MMLUvK5CdHB4APWnoC4DQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22new%20patterns%20of%20social%20thought%20began%20to%20develop%22&f=false

    Sounds like all Tidewater Virginians believed in what Fischer calls "hegemonic freedom", but the western piedmont, where Madison and Jefferson were from, were much more pluralistic, and had Enlightenment notions that they got from John Witherspoon, etc.

    Note the nascent Appalachians wanted nothing to do with this. Patrick Henry opposed Madison in terms of non-establishment of state religion, was an autodidact, his populism was the opposite Madison's gentlemanly political style, was against the US constitution (was an anti-federalist), and even tried to gerrymander Madison out of his congressional district...

    , @Benjamin David Steele
    Virginia was a very different place than the Deep South. From New England to North Carolina, there was a heavy concentration of religious dissenters and political dissidents. The Middle Colonies and North Carolina were particularly infested with rebellious people and radical thinkers, such as with Quakers clashing with Anglians in North Carolina which relates to the War of Regulation.

    The War of Regulation is seen by some as the beginning of the American Revolution. During the revolutionary era, Tidewater elites gave more freedom to religious dissenters in seeking their support. Later on, they were unable to fully regain their elite authority which made religious disestablishment inevitable. Plus, Tidewater lites like Jefferson had become influenced by Northern thinking. Jefferson looked to Quaker Pennsylvania for an example of successful religious disestablishment.

  3. That was very well done. I couldn’t have presented the topic better than that. You included a lot of angles, some of which I wouldn’t have thought of.

    There is only one other interesting detail in relation to the aristocracy I’d toss into the mix, in response to this:

    “Indeed, the Coastal Southerners joined with their rivals in New England against British rule only because they feared the Brits would attempt to end slavery.”

    There are a number of things that differentiated the Tidewater elite and the Deep South elite. The latter didn’t spend as much time on their plantations, either staying in Charleston or back in England. The Deep South elite tended to also have homes in England and send their children to schools in England. Many of them were in political positions within the British government. They used their political power to keep the taxes lower in their colony.

    They weren’t just the Southern aristocracy in America. They were integrally a part of the British aristocracy. For them to choose to side with revolutionaries meant something entirely different than the leaders in other colonies. They were revolting against their own British aristocratic peers, neighbors and family members. Their fear of losing slavery must have been immense for them to take such a radical measure. Their fellow British aristocrats back in England must have felt betrayed by the one colony that was a direct extension of their way of life and politics..

    By the way, did you see my comments at hbd chick’s open thread:

    http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/open-thread/#comment-29286

    I was noting how different African ethnicities were clustered in different slaveholding areas of America. The slaves of the Deep South and the slaves of Tidewater tended to be of separate ethnicities that had divergent cultures and family structures. I’ve been wondering how much this may have also exaggerated the differences between these two areas.

    The slaves, of course, only indirectly relate to the aristocracy and their founding effect on the culture. However, some of the books I was reading brought up the possibility that there was also a founding effect among African-American culture that should be considered on its own terms. The exogamy of African-Americans today may go back to the exogamy (and breeding success) of the Igbo who are disproportionately represented in the maternal lines of the following generations.

    This seems fairly important considering that blacks were the majority in South Carolina during the 18th century. It is hard to imagine that this wouldn’t have had a major impact on the culture, politics and attitudes about family/social structure.

  4. Some interesting facts:
    Black slaves were in Rhode Island by 1652, and by the end of that century Rhode Island had become the only New England colony to use slaves for both labor and trade. After overtaking Boston by 1750, Newport and Bristol were the major slave markets in the American colonies. Slave-based economies existed in the Narragansett plantation family, the Middletown crop workers, and the indentured and slave craftsmen of Newport.

    Little Rhode Island generally had a smaller population of black slaves than its neighbors, Massachusetts and Connecticut, but with a very small white population as well, Rhode Island’s blacks made up a higher percentage of the total population than elsewhere in New England. In the mid-18th century, Rhode Island had the highest proportion of slave-to-white of any colony in the North. This tended to make slave laws more severe in Rhode Island.

    As early as 1708, slaves outnumbered white indentured servants in the colony almost 8 to 1. The biggest increase in black population fell in the years from 1715 to 1755, which coincided with the industrial development of the colony and its emergence into the slave trade. Commercial success bred a wealthy class that became a slaveowning aristocracy. Rhode Island’s black population tripled from 1715 to 1730, and almost tripled again by 1755. http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm

    On the very same day that THE BOSTON GAZETTE AND COUNTRY JOURNAL (July 22, 1776) published the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE they also published and advertisement for the sale of “a stout, healthy, negro man, about twenty-five years of age”

    New Englanders practiced Indian slavery, black slavery and white slavery and only gave it up when they found wage slavery more profitable for their factories.

    The Cavaliers were not as motivated by profit as the god fearing New Englanders were.

    • Replies: @Assistant Village Idiot
    Sources, please.
    , @JayMan
    Yup, slavery was found all across the colonies. And of course, New Netherland was the business capital of the slave trade. However, nowhere did slavery become the foundational institution like it did in the coastal South. Even in Rhode Island, the African slave population never went over 15% (compared to well over 50% in the Tidewater and over 80% in the Deep South).

    Of course, Puritans being as they are, after freeing their slaves, they expelled the Black population.

  5. @helvena
    Some interesting facts:
    Black slaves were in Rhode Island by 1652, and by the end of that century Rhode Island had become the only New England colony to use slaves for both labor and trade. After overtaking Boston by 1750, Newport and Bristol were the major slave markets in the American colonies. Slave-based economies existed in the Narragansett plantation family, the Middletown crop workers, and the indentured and slave craftsmen of Newport.

    Little Rhode Island generally had a smaller population of black slaves than its neighbors, Massachusetts and Connecticut, but with a very small white population as well, Rhode Island's blacks made up a higher percentage of the total population than elsewhere in New England. In the mid-18th century, Rhode Island had the highest proportion of slave-to-white of any colony in the North. This tended to make slave laws more severe in Rhode Island.

    As early as 1708, slaves outnumbered white indentured servants in the colony almost 8 to 1. The biggest increase in black population fell in the years from 1715 to 1755, which coincided with the industrial development of the colony and its emergence into the slave trade. Commercial success bred a wealthy class that became a slaveowning aristocracy. Rhode Island's black population tripled from 1715 to 1730, and almost tripled again by 1755. http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm

    On the very same day that THE BOSTON GAZETTE AND COUNTRY JOURNAL (July 22, 1776) published the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE they also published and advertisement for the sale of "a stout, healthy, negro man, about twenty-five years of age"

    New Englanders practiced Indian slavery, black slavery and white slavery and only gave it up when they found wage slavery more profitable for their factories.

    The Cavaliers were not as motivated by profit as the god fearing New Englanders were.

    Sources, please.

  6. @Anonymous
    You might mention black males in modern day America (right now) rape one hundred white females each and every day of the year, rain or shine. Black males are from eight to twenty times more likely to be infected with the AIDS virus than white males. Our prison population has tripled since the 1980's. Our prison population is eighty percent black.

    Sources, please.

  7. Jayman, you got a sister? I found another non-religious black Caribbean HBD blogger here;

    http://ladybuginschiedam.wordpress.com/

    • Replies: @Hindu Observer
    And her spouse is white too! Its the female Jayman. Jaywoman.
    , @chrisdavies09
    The blogger appears to live in Schiedam, which is a city in the Rotterdam metro area (Holland). I know because my wife is from Schiedam. They are probably of Surinamese or Antillean descent. Jayman is Jamaican-American.
    , @Hindu Observer
    She's Jamaican. She writes about her dating experience in Jamaica here;
    http://seculartraditionalism.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/parallels-between-black-communities-and-societies-under-the-attack-of-feminism/
  8. @Hindu Observer
    Jayman, you got a sister? I found another non-religious black Caribbean HBD blogger here;

    http://ladybuginschiedam.wordpress.com/

    And her spouse is white too! Its the female Jayman. Jaywoman.

  9. @Hindu Observer
    Jayman, you got a sister? I found another non-religious black Caribbean HBD blogger here;

    http://ladybuginschiedam.wordpress.com/

    The blogger appears to live in Schiedam, which is a city in the Rotterdam metro area (Holland). I know because my wife is from Schiedam. They are probably of Surinamese or Antillean descent. Jayman is Jamaican-American.

  10. Excellent post. I think you may well be correct that the regions of western England which the Cavaliers derived from may historically have been more similar to Wales and Cornwall in terms of mating patterns and culture [as opposed to Southern/Eastern England and the Midlands]. eg. potentially less outbred/more inbred, more clannish, potentially more violent or prone to feuding, etc.

    In fact the regions which you highlighted in purple were occupied by Brythonic language-speaking tribes in earlier times [prior to the Saxons]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britain.circa.540.jpg

    And of course correlates closely with territory of royalists vs. parliamentarians in English Civil War: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/sites/www.open.edu.openlearn/files/imported/o_69212/map_brit3.gif

    • Replies: @JayMan
    Thank you!

    Excellent post. I think you may well be correct that the regions of western England which the Cavaliers derived from may historically have been more similar to Wales and Cornwall in terms of mating patterns and culture [as opposed to Southern/Eastern England and the Midlands]. eg. potentially less outbred/more inbred, more clannish, potentially more violent or prone to feuding, etc.
     
    Well, the current working idea is that either cousin marriage was fairly prevalent across the board in those regions, or that it was generally more prevalent in the landowning classes. In the second case, since – through Gregory Clark's internal population replacement – these folks would have been most successful, we may have ended up with a population that was a bit more clannish than the other English. The third possibility is introgression from the Welsh and/or Cornish. Or maybe more than one or all of these are at play.

    In fact the regions which you highlighted in purple were occupied by Brythonic language-speaking tribes in earlier times [prior to the Saxons]
     
    Thanks, good find. But the demographic landscape in Britain has been greatly historically altered by conquest and population replacement, so that may be of limited impact for the Cavaliers.

    And of course correlates closely with territory of royalists vs. parliamentarians in English Civil War
     
    Indeed. That's not a coincidence.
  11. The 2nd amendment was also supported by New englanders who had a citizen militia tradition irrelevant to slavery. You’re not helping your essay with naked partisan crap.

    • Replies: @JayMan
    Did I say that the Second Amendment was only a Southern invention? Nonetheless, the Deep South was heavily responsible for the Second Amendment as it was made, as described in the link on the topic.
  12. @Anonymous
    You might mention black males in modern day America (right now) rape one hundred white females each and every day of the year, rain or shine. Black males are from eight to twenty times more likely to be infected with the AIDS virus than white males. Our prison population has tripled since the 1980's. Our prison population is eighty percent black.

    That brings to mind an interesting point. Black Americans share as most people with an HBD blog know a relatively large amount of European genes. One would think that would have had a pacifying effect on blacks, but if all or most of those genes came from unpacified white sex slave rapists than perhaps that explains in part why American blacks are more violent than one would expect.otherwise, you wouldmight have thought that slave life would select forpeacefulness…since the rebels didn’t survive.

  13. @chrisdavies09
    Excellent post. I think you may well be correct that the regions of western England which the Cavaliers derived from may historically have been more similar to Wales and Cornwall in terms of mating patterns and culture [as opposed to Southern/Eastern England and the Midlands]. eg. potentially less outbred/more inbred, more clannish, potentially more violent or prone to feuding, etc.

    In fact the regions which you highlighted in purple were occupied by Brythonic language-speaking tribes in earlier times [prior to the Saxons]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britain.circa.540.jpg

    And of course correlates closely with territory of royalists vs. parliamentarians in English Civil War: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/sites/www.open.edu.openlearn/files/imported/o_69212/map_brit3.gif

    Thank you!

    Excellent post. I think you may well be correct that the regions of western England which the Cavaliers derived from may historically have been more similar to Wales and Cornwall in terms of mating patterns and culture [as opposed to Southern/Eastern England and the Midlands]. eg. potentially less outbred/more inbred, more clannish, potentially more violent or prone to feuding, etc.

    Well, the current working idea is that either cousin marriage was fairly prevalent across the board in those regions, or that it was generally more prevalent in the landowning classes. In the second case, since – through Gregory Clark’s internal population replacement – these folks would have been most successful, we may have ended up with a population that was a bit more clannish than the other English. The third possibility is introgression from the Welsh and/or Cornish. Or maybe more than one or all of these are at play.

    In fact the regions which you highlighted in purple were occupied by Brythonic language-speaking tribes in earlier times [prior to the Saxons]

    Thanks, good find. But the demographic landscape in Britain has been greatly historically altered by conquest and population replacement, so that may be of limited impact for the Cavaliers.

    And of course correlates closely with territory of royalists vs. parliamentarians in English Civil War

    Indeed. That’s not a coincidence.

  14. @bleach
    The 2nd amendment was also supported by New englanders who had a citizen militia tradition irrelevant to slavery. You're not helping your essay with naked partisan crap.

    Did I say that the Second Amendment was only a Southern invention? Nonetheless, the Deep South was heavily responsible for the Second Amendment as it was made, as described in the link on the topic.

  15. @helvena
    Some interesting facts:
    Black slaves were in Rhode Island by 1652, and by the end of that century Rhode Island had become the only New England colony to use slaves for both labor and trade. After overtaking Boston by 1750, Newport and Bristol were the major slave markets in the American colonies. Slave-based economies existed in the Narragansett plantation family, the Middletown crop workers, and the indentured and slave craftsmen of Newport.

    Little Rhode Island generally had a smaller population of black slaves than its neighbors, Massachusetts and Connecticut, but with a very small white population as well, Rhode Island's blacks made up a higher percentage of the total population than elsewhere in New England. In the mid-18th century, Rhode Island had the highest proportion of slave-to-white of any colony in the North. This tended to make slave laws more severe in Rhode Island.

    As early as 1708, slaves outnumbered white indentured servants in the colony almost 8 to 1. The biggest increase in black population fell in the years from 1715 to 1755, which coincided with the industrial development of the colony and its emergence into the slave trade. Commercial success bred a wealthy class that became a slaveowning aristocracy. Rhode Island's black population tripled from 1715 to 1730, and almost tripled again by 1755. http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm

    On the very same day that THE BOSTON GAZETTE AND COUNTRY JOURNAL (July 22, 1776) published the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE they also published and advertisement for the sale of "a stout, healthy, negro man, about twenty-five years of age"

    New Englanders practiced Indian slavery, black slavery and white slavery and only gave it up when they found wage slavery more profitable for their factories.

    The Cavaliers were not as motivated by profit as the god fearing New Englanders were.

    Yup, slavery was found all across the colonies. And of course, New Netherland was the business capital of the slave trade. However, nowhere did slavery become the foundational institution like it did in the coastal South. Even in Rhode Island, the African slave population never went over 15% (compared to well over 50% in the Tidewater and over 80% in the Deep South).

    Of course, Puritans being as they are, after freeing their slaves, they expelled the Black population.

  16. @Luke Lea
    How ironic that Tidewater Virginia produced Jefferson and Madison, embodiments of the Scottish Enlightenment (at least in theory). With Jefferson I think it was youthful idealism, which he eventually outgrew. Certainly his lifestyle was incompatible with democracy. His life ends in tragedy.

    DHF was sure to point out the inconsistencies between the Tidewater Founding Father’s words and ideas on the fledgling nation and their actions at home. Jefferson and Washington were both very much Tidewater plantation lords despite their great ideas.

  17. @Hindu Observer
    Jayman, you got a sister? I found another non-religious black Caribbean HBD blogger here;

    http://ladybuginschiedam.wordpress.com/

    She’s Jamaican. She writes about her dating experience in Jamaica here;

    http://seculartraditionalism.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/parallels-between-black-communities-and-societies-under-the-attack-of-feminism/

  18. I think you’re glossing over some important aspects of Tidewater culture. First, the mortality rate among the aristocrats was extremely high, David Hackett Fischer notes that this led to constant churning of marriages and step children and half-siblings, creating a fairly nasty inheritance battle, and a very fatalistic attitude because disease the constant killer tended to prune significant amounts of aristocratic families every Summer. Hence, no real fertility advantage.

    The best places to breed families and gain a numerical advantage were New England #1, and the Appalachians #2, because it had the lowest disease incidence and lowest mortality rate.

    Secondly, the Puritans DID fight fairly horrific wars against Indians, King Philip’s War was pretty awful in killing both Puritans and Indians. New England and New York suffered “the Great Warpath” down from Canada through the Revolutionary War, with awful results for unprotected Whites without guns and men and fortifications. Schenectady was wiped out to nearly the last man and woman and child in the 1720′s IIRC. Puritans had peace for about forty years because the initial settlement area had belonged to a tribe wiiped out by plague doubtless brought by French, Spanish, and Portugese fisherman wintering there.

    Thirdly, the Deep South was not and is not monolithic. Northern Alabama contains counties that Seceeded from Secession, remaining pro-Union as did Eastern Tennesee. Much of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Misssippi remained White tenant farming, unsuitable for plantation farming. If you’ve ever traveled there you can see this immediately — poor soil, piney woods, no rivers (for crop transport) etc. Mark Twain’s experience as a Confederate Soldier was typical of men in Northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, an initial fight with Union forces followed by quick desertion, as noted by both Sherman and Grant in their Memoirs (handily available on Project Gutenberg btw).

    Fourthly, the Indian Wars in the Deep South were fought mainly by the Borderer/Appalachian forces, not the Aristocrats. The Bacon Rebellion against Virginia’s Royal Governor Berkeley was all about Berkeley’s desire to allow Indian attacks without reprisals to make Western lands worthless and his own Tidwater lands thus more valuable. In general, Tidewater Aristocrats were hostile to Western expansion because it put more land on the market and devalued their main source of income: land and the tobacco and cotton it produced.

    • Replies: @JayMan
    @whiskeysplace:

    I think you’re glossing over some important aspects of Tidewater culture. First, the mortality rate among the aristocrats was extremely high, David Hackett Fischer notes that this led to constant churning of marriages and step children and half-siblings, creating a fairly nasty inheritance battle, and a very fatalistic attitude because disease the constant killer tended to prune significant amounts of aristocratic families every Summer.
     
    That's quite true. The regional climates likely had a big impact of the trajectories of the Tidewater and the Deep South vs. New England.

    Hence, no real fertility advantage.
     
    I'm not sure that follows. Do you think life was any easier for the White underclass?

    Secondly, the Puritans DID fight fairly horrific wars against Indians, King Philip’s War was pretty awful in killing both Puritans and Indians. New England and New York suffered “the Great Warpath” down from Canada through the Revolutionary War, with awful results for unprotected Whites without guns and men and fortifications.
     
    Yes indeed. As I noted on my earlier post about the clannishness of each group, the Puritans ranked very high on being "nationalistic". They were indifferent to hostile to outsiders and expansionist. Their zeal for conquest wasn't quite the same as the Deep South's or Greater Applachia's, however.

    Thirdly, the Deep South was not and is not monolithic. Northern Alabama contains counties that Seceeded from Secession, remaining pro-Union as did Eastern Tennesee. Much of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Misssippi remained White tenant farming, unsuitable for plantation farming. If you’ve ever traveled there you can see this immediately — poor soil, piney woods, no rivers (for crop transport) etc. Mark Twain’s experience as a Confederate Soldier was typical of men in Northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, an initial fight with Union forces followed by quick desertion, as noted by both Sherman and Grant in their Memoirs (handily available on Project Gutenberg btw).

     

    Well, those areas of the states you mentioned aren't actually part of the "Deep South", as Colin Woodard delineates...

    Fourthly, the Indian Wars in the Deep South were fought mainly by the Borderer/Appalachian forces, not the Aristocrats.
     
    The Deep Southerners were happy to use the Borderlanders to do their dirty work for them. Indeed, they played an instrumental role in clearing the Native populations ahead of expansion by the other nations.

    The Deep Southerners themselves were indeed aggressively expansionist, particularly along the coastal South were the soil was well suited to plantation farming.

  19. I would also like to add that Fischer notes the manifest difference in Puritans and Tidewater Cavaliers. Puritans hanged old lady Quaker preachers because it threatened social unity. As they did “witches.” No one was ever hanged for Witchcraft by Cavaliers, they themselves practiced divination and such. The one instance where a ship made port and was found to have hung witches, resulted in the hangers being hung themselves or imprisoned — the Cavaliers found themselves unhappy at their monopoly of punishment being challenged.

    The Cavaliers were total Anglicans, yet tolerated Quakers and all sorts of other freethinkers that the Puritans hung. The last Witch was killed in America in … New York City … in 1799. By a mob of Puritans, mostly.

    As long as you paid due deference to the exalted social station of Cavaliers, they did not care much what anyone did, or thought, or expressed. Whereas Puritans were the very model of witch burning and 1984 Social Conformity. Cavaliers by their nature could not even care what their social inferiors got up to, as long as they bowed and curtseyed when they were around.

    Those who came into conflict with Indians the most and in radically different ways were the Borderer people. Who were as likely as not to intermarry. James Garner and other people from this culture credibly claim Cherokee ancestry; Andrew Jackson deported the Cherokee and other Indians in the aftermath of the Red Stick War (basically because no one could distinguish a White allied tribe or Indian from a Red Stick warrior). Yet he adopted a Cherokee infant as his own son and lavished everything upon him. You did not see intermarriage among the Puritans or the Cavaliers, with Indians or anyone else.

    Attitudes towards Blacks by Borderers were different too. Puritans faced no labor competition, as Borderers did, nor violence directed at them by slave uprisings or freed slaves. In places with few potential freed blacks to wreak vengeance on the nearest available unprotected White person (Cavaliers had big houses with many armed men on the payroll), Borderer people were pro-Union. In places with quite a number of such Blacks looking to kill the first White person they could (common among Slave revolts, in Haiti, and other places much discussed then) even a man like Samuel Clemens was likely to join the Confederate militia. It was one thing to be anti-slavery in safe Boston, another in Hannibal Missouri where a freed slave was likely to hack your aunt to death in a fit of rage. [FWIW, Harry S. Truman's grandfather owned two slaves IIRC David McCullough's mammoth biography correctly.] This was also the case with Indians. The Red Stick Wars were the same sort of thing that Puritans experienced, and responded with basically deportation or annihilation in the case of King Philip’s War and other wars with Indians. It just happened about 150 years later, that’s all. Wasn’t Lincoln’s major military experience two weeks in a militia in the Black Hawk Wars in Illinois?

    At any rate both the Tidewater and Boston had centuries of safety from Indian attack whereas the Borderer areas had far greater experience with Indian … and White violence.

    The Regulators were not aimed at Black violence, but rather backwoods violent murderers corruptly tolerated by Royal Governors who got kickbacks. Twain notes extensively on his Life on the Mississippi the story of John Murel (whose treasure Injun Joe discovers in Tom Sawyer). Murel was reputed to have murdered thousands of Black and White men alike in the 1820′s and 1830′s. Murel seems to have had the aid of Meleungens and Redbones and was rumored to have plotted a Slave uprising in New Orleans to establish himself as king. Point being is that the South then and now had no real security and thus arms were needed against all comers — White, Black, and Indian.

    • Replies: @JayMan
    @whiskeysplace:

    I would also like to add that Fischer notes the manifest difference in Puritans and Tidewater Cavaliers. Puritans hanged old lady Quaker preachers because it threatened social unity. As they did “witches.” No one was ever hanged for Witchcraft by Cavaliers, they themselves practiced divination and such. The one instance where a ship made port and was found to have hung witches, resulted in the hangers being hung themselves or imprisoned — the Cavaliers found themselves unhappy at their monopoly of punishment being challenged.

    The Cavaliers were total Anglicans, yet tolerated Quakers and all sorts of other freethinkers that the Puritans hung. The last Witch was killed in America in … New York City … in 1799. By a mob of Puritans, mostly.

    As long as you paid due deference to the exalted social station of Cavaliers, they did not care much what anyone did, or thought, or expressed. Whereas Puritans were the very model of witch burning and 1984 Social Conformity. Cavaliers by their nature could not even care what their social inferiors got up to, as long as they bowed and curtseyed when they were around.
     

    Yankee society was and remains aggressively conformist. The Puritans were convinced that they were "God's chosen people", and were determined to spread their way of life to their neighbors. Modern-day Puritans – their Yankee descendants – retain this character, to the dismay of the other nations.

    Attitudes towards Blacks by Borderers were different too. Puritans faced no labor competition, as Borderers did, nor violence directed at them by slave uprisings or freed slaves. In places with few potential freed blacks to wreak vengeance on the nearest available unprotected White person (Cavaliers had big houses with many armed men on the payroll), Borderer people were pro-Union. In places with quite a number of such Blacks looking to kill the first White person they could (common among Slave revolts, in Haiti, and other places much discussed then) even a man like Samuel Clemens was likely to join the Confederate militia. It was one thing to be anti-slavery in safe Boston, another in Hannibal Missouri where a freed slave was likely to hack your aunt to death in a fit of rage. [FWIW, Harry S. Truman's grandfather owned two slaves IIRC David McCullough's mammoth biography correctly.] This was also the case with Indians. The Red Stick Wars were the same sort of thing that Puritans experienced, and responded with basically deportation or annihilation in the case of King Philip’s War and other wars with Indians. It just happened about 150 years later, that’s all. Wasn’t Lincoln’s major military experience two weeks in a militia in the Black Hawk Wars in Illinois?

    At any rate both the Tidewater and Boston had centuries of safety from Indian attack whereas the Borderer areas had far greater experience with Indian … and White violence.
     

    Indeed, the Borderlanders conquered the American frontier.

    As well, about Appalachian-Black relations, you're correct. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan was founded not by Deep Southerners, but by Appalachians.

  20. @Anonymous
    You might mention black males in modern day America (right now) rape one hundred white females each and every day of the year, rain or shine. Black males are from eight to twenty times more likely to be infected with the AIDS virus than white males. Our prison population has tripled since the 1980's. Our prison population is eighty percent black.

    Black people in the US have a fraction of the rates of say, African rape and murder metrics. South Africa is a case in point, about 27% have admitted rape and half those said they raped more than one person. This matches the appalling numbers found anecdotally in West Africa. But still, Black men in America rape and murder at far higher rates than Asians (lowest) and Whites (next lowest). Black people just rape and murder, at far higher rates, than other peoples.

    What third-party observers have found regarding Black violence, is that Black people have very high rates of it; this may or may not be part of the generally low IQs (about 70 for Africans, about 85 average, Flynn Effect for Black Americans) given that Bushmen, Pygmies, and Aborigines also have sky-high rates of murder and rape; which matches that of New Guinea and Amazonian stone age tribes. For whatever reason the gap between feel and do among Black people is amazingly short; without much social condition, pondering, or anything really in between a feeling and a deed. This is as true in Haiti, site of the most successful slave revolt (and coincidentally, massacres of White people slavers and not, infants and elderly) as well as a conquering and oppression (for a while anyway) of the Mestizo Dominican Republic. Black people in Haiti staged a violently successful slave revolt, killed every last White they could on the Island; and then thirty years later conquered and oppressed the Mestizo Dominincans. Haiti remains among the most violent places in the world.

  21. I’d also note that Maryland and Delaware were heavily slave, and indeed would have joined the Confederacy had it not been for federal troops, as was the case with Kentucky. Meanwhile, Virginia came agonizingly close to abolishing slavery in the state in the 1830′s, failing by IIRC, a mere 17 votes. This was not surprising because Virginia was the most industrial of the Southern States and had the most Freedmen of color, about 7.2 percent or so.

    Virginia was about the last state to vote to join the Confederacy, had Lincoln not dithered for “jobs for the boys” instead of heading off rebellion, he could have packed his cabinet with Virginians, made Lee General of the Army, early, not on the eve of Virginia’s Secession, and promised to do nothing quickly to end slavery without Virginia’s sign-off. This would have prevented Texas and Arkansas and Tennessee and North Carolina from joining, allowing him to pressure and persuade most of the other states excluding South Carolina to reconsider. Given that a Confederacy of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana alone was not sustainable and anyone could see that. South Carolina of course would have had to be reduced, they were not willing to do anything but fight and this had been the case since Jackson’s day.

    Virginia by 1860 was at least as Northern as Southern. It had the most rail of any Southern State, the most iron works, the most ties to western states, the most exports to the outside world excluding cotton and tobacco.

    Sadly Buchanon was a drifting lame duck who did nothing, and Lincoln was focused on pork not politics, allowing Viginia to drift into the Confederacy uncontested by persuasion and pork. It would have been a lot cheaper and better to promise jobs and high ranking ones at that to prominent Virginians to keep them in the Union than diddle around with interviewing Republican stalwarts for postmaster positions as Lincoln did mostly before he took office.

    Florida was filled with “crackers” aka mostly poor White small farmers, the land not being very suitable for plantations, and filled with angry Seminoles in the swamps who were formidable fighters and still a danger (Sherman mentions the dread they instilled in the Federal troops while he was stationed there in his memoirs — Sherman’s tactical and strategic genius in his Southern campains stems largely from the fact that he rode on horseback all over the South during his Quartermaster days and understood supply very well, as he did the terrain). That place was always going to Secede with a Lincoln as President promising to free the slaves and double the amount of people: renegade White outlaws, Seminole Indians aided by the British and Spanish, etc. wanting to kill them. But Virginia was different. Settled. Safe. And more Northern in outlook.

  22. @Whiskey
    I think you're glossing over some important aspects of Tidewater culture. First, the mortality rate among the aristocrats was extremely high, David Hackett Fischer notes that this led to constant churning of marriages and step children and half-siblings, creating a fairly nasty inheritance battle, and a very fatalistic attitude because disease the constant killer tended to prune significant amounts of aristocratic families every Summer. Hence, no real fertility advantage.

    The best places to breed families and gain a numerical advantage were New England #1, and the Appalachians #2, because it had the lowest disease incidence and lowest mortality rate.

    Secondly, the Puritans DID fight fairly horrific wars against Indians, King Philip's War was pretty awful in killing both Puritans and Indians. New England and New York suffered "the Great Warpath" down from Canada through the Revolutionary War, with awful results for unprotected Whites without guns and men and fortifications. Schenectady was wiped out to nearly the last man and woman and child in the 1720's IIRC. Puritans had peace for about forty years because the initial settlement area had belonged to a tribe wiiped out by plague doubtless brought by French, Spanish, and Portugese fisherman wintering there.

    Thirdly, the Deep South was not and is not monolithic. Northern Alabama contains counties that Seceeded from Secession, remaining pro-Union as did Eastern Tennesee. Much of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Misssippi remained White tenant farming, unsuitable for plantation farming. If you've ever traveled there you can see this immediately -- poor soil, piney woods, no rivers (for crop transport) etc. Mark Twain's experience as a Confederate Soldier was typical of men in Northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, an initial fight with Union forces followed by quick desertion, as noted by both Sherman and Grant in their Memoirs (handily available on Project Gutenberg btw).

    Fourthly, the Indian Wars in the Deep South were fought mainly by the Borderer/Appalachian forces, not the Aristocrats. The Bacon Rebellion against Virginia's Royal Governor Berkeley was all about Berkeley's desire to allow Indian attacks without reprisals to make Western lands worthless and his own Tidwater lands thus more valuable. In general, Tidewater Aristocrats were hostile to Western expansion because it put more land on the market and devalued their main source of income: land and the tobacco and cotton it produced.

    @whiskeysplace:

    I think you’re glossing over some important aspects of Tidewater culture. First, the mortality rate among the aristocrats was extremely high, David Hackett Fischer notes that this led to constant churning of marriages and step children and half-siblings, creating a fairly nasty inheritance battle, and a very fatalistic attitude because disease the constant killer tended to prune significant amounts of aristocratic families every Summer.

    That’s quite true. The regional climates likely had a big impact of the trajectories of the Tidewater and the Deep South vs. New England.

    Hence, no real fertility advantage.

    I’m not sure that follows. Do you think life was any easier for the White underclass?

    Secondly, the Puritans DID fight fairly horrific wars against Indians, King Philip’s War was pretty awful in killing both Puritans and Indians. New England and New York suffered “the Great Warpath” down from Canada through the Revolutionary War, with awful results for unprotected Whites without guns and men and fortifications.

    Yes indeed. As I noted on my earlier post about the clannishness of each group, the Puritans ranked very high on being “nationalistic”. They were indifferent to hostile to outsiders and expansionist. Their zeal for conquest wasn’t quite the same as the Deep South’s or Greater Applachia’s, however.

    Thirdly, the Deep South was not and is not monolithic. Northern Alabama contains counties that Seceeded from Secession, remaining pro-Union as did Eastern Tennesee. Much of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Misssippi remained White tenant farming, unsuitable for plantation farming. If you’ve ever traveled there you can see this immediately — poor soil, piney woods, no rivers (for crop transport) etc. Mark Twain’s experience as a Confederate Soldier was typical of men in Northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, an initial fight with Union forces followed by quick desertion, as noted by both Sherman and Grant in their Memoirs (handily available on Project Gutenberg btw).

    Well, those areas of the states you mentioned aren’t actually part of the “Deep South”, as Colin Woodard delineates…

    Fourthly, the Indian Wars in the Deep South were fought mainly by the Borderer/Appalachian forces, not the Aristocrats.

    The Deep Southerners were happy to use the Borderlanders to do their dirty work for them. Indeed, they played an instrumental role in clearing the Native populations ahead of expansion by the other nations.

    The Deep Southerners themselves were indeed aggressively expansionist, particularly along the coastal South were the soil was well suited to plantation farming.

  23. @Whiskey
    I would also like to add that Fischer notes the manifest difference in Puritans and Tidewater Cavaliers. Puritans hanged old lady Quaker preachers because it threatened social unity. As they did "witches." No one was ever hanged for Witchcraft by Cavaliers, they themselves practiced divination and such. The one instance where a ship made port and was found to have hung witches, resulted in the hangers being hung themselves or imprisoned -- the Cavaliers found themselves unhappy at their monopoly of punishment being challenged.

    The Cavaliers were total Anglicans, yet tolerated Quakers and all sorts of other freethinkers that the Puritans hung. The last Witch was killed in America in ... New York City ... in 1799. By a mob of Puritans, mostly.

    As long as you paid due deference to the exalted social station of Cavaliers, they did not care much what anyone did, or thought, or expressed. Whereas Puritans were the very model of witch burning and 1984 Social Conformity. Cavaliers by their nature could not even care what their social inferiors got up to, as long as they bowed and curtseyed when they were around.

    Those who came into conflict with Indians the most and in radically different ways were the Borderer people. Who were as likely as not to intermarry. James Garner and other people from this culture credibly claim Cherokee ancestry; Andrew Jackson deported the Cherokee and other Indians in the aftermath of the Red Stick War (basically because no one could distinguish a White allied tribe or Indian from a Red Stick warrior). Yet he adopted a Cherokee infant as his own son and lavished everything upon him. You did not see intermarriage among the Puritans or the Cavaliers, with Indians or anyone else.

    Attitudes towards Blacks by Borderers were different too. Puritans faced no labor competition, as Borderers did, nor violence directed at them by slave uprisings or freed slaves. In places with few potential freed blacks to wreak vengeance on the nearest available unprotected White person (Cavaliers had big houses with many armed men on the payroll), Borderer people were pro-Union. In places with quite a number of such Blacks looking to kill the first White person they could (common among Slave revolts, in Haiti, and other places much discussed then) even a man like Samuel Clemens was likely to join the Confederate militia. It was one thing to be anti-slavery in safe Boston, another in Hannibal Missouri where a freed slave was likely to hack your aunt to death in a fit of rage. [FWIW, Harry S. Truman's grandfather owned two slaves IIRC David McCullough's mammoth biography correctly.] This was also the case with Indians. The Red Stick Wars were the same sort of thing that Puritans experienced, and responded with basically deportation or annihilation in the case of King Philip's War and other wars with Indians. It just happened about 150 years later, that's all. Wasn't Lincoln's major military experience two weeks in a militia in the Black Hawk Wars in Illinois?

    At any rate both the Tidewater and Boston had centuries of safety from Indian attack whereas the Borderer areas had far greater experience with Indian ... and White violence.

    The Regulators were not aimed at Black violence, but rather backwoods violent murderers corruptly tolerated by Royal Governors who got kickbacks. Twain notes extensively on his Life on the Mississippi the story of John Murel (whose treasure Injun Joe discovers in Tom Sawyer). Murel was reputed to have murdered thousands of Black and White men alike in the 1820's and 1830's. Murel seems to have had the aid of Meleungens and Redbones and was rumored to have plotted a Slave uprising in New Orleans to establish himself as king. Point being is that the South then and now had no real security and thus arms were needed against all comers -- White, Black, and Indian.

    @whiskeysplace:

    I would also like to add that Fischer notes the manifest difference in Puritans and Tidewater Cavaliers. Puritans hanged old lady Quaker preachers because it threatened social unity. As they did “witches.” No one was ever hanged for Witchcraft by Cavaliers, they themselves practiced divination and such. The one instance where a ship made port and was found to have hung witches, resulted in the hangers being hung themselves or imprisoned — the Cavaliers found themselves unhappy at their monopoly of punishment being challenged.

    The Cavaliers were total Anglicans, yet tolerated Quakers and all sorts of other freethinkers that the Puritans hung. The last Witch was killed in America in … New York City … in 1799. By a mob of Puritans, mostly.

    As long as you paid due deference to the exalted social station of Cavaliers, they did not care much what anyone did, or thought, or expressed. Whereas Puritans were the very model of witch burning and 1984 Social Conformity. Cavaliers by their nature could not even care what their social inferiors got up to, as long as they bowed and curtseyed when they were around.

    Yankee society was and remains aggressively conformist. The Puritans were convinced that they were “God’s chosen people”, and were determined to spread their way of life to their neighbors. Modern-day Puritans – their Yankee descendants – retain this character, to the dismay of the other nations.

    Attitudes towards Blacks by Borderers were different too. Puritans faced no labor competition, as Borderers did, nor violence directed at them by slave uprisings or freed slaves. In places with few potential freed blacks to wreak vengeance on the nearest available unprotected White person (Cavaliers had big houses with many armed men on the payroll), Borderer people were pro-Union. In places with quite a number of such Blacks looking to kill the first White person they could (common among Slave revolts, in Haiti, and other places much discussed then) even a man like Samuel Clemens was likely to join the Confederate militia. It was one thing to be anti-slavery in safe Boston, another in Hannibal Missouri where a freed slave was likely to hack your aunt to death in a fit of rage. [FWIW, Harry S. Truman's grandfather owned two slaves IIRC David McCullough's mammoth biography correctly.] This was also the case with Indians. The Red Stick Wars were the same sort of thing that Puritans experienced, and responded with basically deportation or annihilation in the case of King Philip’s War and other wars with Indians. It just happened about 150 years later, that’s all. Wasn’t Lincoln’s major military experience two weeks in a militia in the Black Hawk Wars in Illinois?

    At any rate both the Tidewater and Boston had centuries of safety from Indian attack whereas the Borderer areas had far greater experience with Indian … and White violence.

    Indeed, the Borderlanders conquered the American frontier.

    As well, about Appalachian-Black relations, you’re correct. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan was founded not by Deep Southerners, but by Appalachians.

  24. @Whiskey
    I'd also note that Maryland and Delaware were heavily slave, and indeed would have joined the Confederacy had it not been for federal troops, as was the case with Kentucky. Meanwhile, Virginia came agonizingly close to abolishing slavery in the state in the 1830's, failing by IIRC, a mere 17 votes. This was not surprising because Virginia was the most industrial of the Southern States and had the most Freedmen of color, about 7.2 percent or so.

    Virginia was about the last state to vote to join the Confederacy, had Lincoln not dithered for "jobs for the boys" instead of heading off rebellion, he could have packed his cabinet with Virginians, made Lee General of the Army, early, not on the eve of Virginia's Secession, and promised to do nothing quickly to end slavery without Virginia's sign-off. This would have prevented Texas and Arkansas and Tennessee and North Carolina from joining, allowing him to pressure and persuade most of the other states excluding South Carolina to reconsider. Given that a Confederacy of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana alone was not sustainable and anyone could see that. South Carolina of course would have had to be reduced, they were not willing to do anything but fight and this had been the case since Jackson's day.

    Virginia by 1860 was at least as Northern as Southern. It had the most rail of any Southern State, the most iron works, the most ties to western states, the most exports to the outside world excluding cotton and tobacco.

    Sadly Buchanon was a drifting lame duck who did nothing, and Lincoln was focused on pork not politics, allowing Viginia to drift into the Confederacy uncontested by persuasion and pork. It would have been a lot cheaper and better to promise jobs and high ranking ones at that to prominent Virginians to keep them in the Union than diddle around with interviewing Republican stalwarts for postmaster positions as Lincoln did mostly before he took office.

    Florida was filled with "crackers" aka mostly poor White small farmers, the land not being very suitable for plantations, and filled with angry Seminoles in the swamps who were formidable fighters and still a danger (Sherman mentions the dread they instilled in the Federal troops while he was stationed there in his memoirs -- Sherman's tactical and strategic genius in his Southern campains stems largely from the fact that he rode on horseback all over the South during his Quartermaster days and understood supply very well, as he did the terrain). That place was always going to Secede with a Lincoln as President promising to free the slaves and double the amount of people: renegade White outlaws, Seminole Indians aided by the British and Spanish, etc. wanting to kill them. But Virginia was different. Settled. Safe. And more Northern in outlook.

    Interesting set of posts–thanks for writing them!

  25. “These men represented the best of their culture; the sexual activities of other planters made even William Byrd appear a model of restraint. An old tidewater folk saying in Prince George’s County, Maryland, defined a virgin as a girl who could run faster than her uncle.”

    Are these the “good ol’ days” and “American values” I keep hearing lamented today?

  26. […] Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” and The Cavaliers – from […]

  27. […] the myddle people | hbd* chick) originate from the industrial North Midlands. The Cavaliers (see The Cavaliers) hail from southwestern England. And the Scotch-Irish Borderlanders (see “culture” of honor | […]

  28. @Luke Lea
    How ironic that Tidewater Virginia produced Jefferson and Madison, embodiments of the Scottish Enlightenment (at least in theory). With Jefferson I think it was youthful idealism, which he eventually outgrew. Certainly his lifestyle was incompatible with democracy. His life ends in tragedy.

    There’s diversity within regions too. Check out Fischer’s section on ideas of freedom that developed in Virginia in his book *Bound Away*:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=GFa7KVPWmKwC&pg=PA131&dq=%22new+patterns+of+social+thought+began+to+develop%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4MMLUvK5CdHB4APWnoC4DQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22new%20patterns%20of%20social%20thought%20began%20to%20develop%22&f=false

    Sounds like all Tidewater Virginians believed in what Fischer calls “hegemonic freedom”, but the western piedmont, where Madison and Jefferson were from, were much more pluralistic, and had Enlightenment notions that they got from John Witherspoon, etc.

    Note the nascent Appalachians wanted nothing to do with this. Patrick Henry opposed Madison in terms of non-establishment of state religion, was an autodidact, his populism was the opposite Madison’s gentlemanly political style, was against the US constitution (was an anti-federalist), and even tried to gerrymander Madison out of his congressional district…

  29. @Luke Lea
    How ironic that Tidewater Virginia produced Jefferson and Madison, embodiments of the Scottish Enlightenment (at least in theory). With Jefferson I think it was youthful idealism, which he eventually outgrew. Certainly his lifestyle was incompatible with democracy. His life ends in tragedy.

    Virginia was a very different place than the Deep South. From New England to North Carolina, there was a heavy concentration of religious dissenters and political dissidents. The Middle Colonies and North Carolina were particularly infested with rebellious people and radical thinkers, such as with Quakers clashing with Anglians in North Carolina which relates to the War of Regulation.

    The War of Regulation is seen by some as the beginning of the American Revolution. During the revolutionary era, Tidewater elites gave more freedom to religious dissenters in seeking their support. Later on, they were unable to fully regain their elite authority which made religious disestablishment inevitable. Plus, Tidewater lites like Jefferson had become influenced by Northern thinking. Jefferson looked to Quaker Pennsylvania for an example of successful religious disestablishment.

  30. […] of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” Sound Familiar? Flags of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the […]

  31. […] course, I don’t have to tell you that the Cavalier and Borderlander sentiment is still alive and well (the latter of which gave us the KKK – albeit […]

  32. […] were founded by two much more aggressive groups of fore-bearers than the northern nations were, the Cavaliers and the denizens of the English-Scottish border areas (also see Flags of the American Nations). […]

  33. […] clannish elements of British American society, the descendants of the Cavaliers and the Ulster Scots, are indifferent to contributing a common pot, and they are certainly […]

  34. […] clannish elements of British American society, the descendants of the Cavaliers and the Ulster Scots, are indifferent to contributing a common pot, and they are certainly […]

  35. […] Church. This group is perhaps the most divorced from its origins of the representative church of the Cavaliers of the lowland South (the Tidewater and the Deep South). It remains quite alive in the Tidewater […]

  36. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “,,,and immediately battled the Natives in an attempt to subjugate and/or exterminate them.”

    This is grossly inaccurate. The cavaliers were under strict orders from London to maintain peaceful trade relations with the indians and for the most part did so except when responding to indian aggression. After Samuel Argall’s diplomacy with Princess Pocahontas and her marriage to an English planter, peace was the norm until more indian surprise attacks and widespread slaughter of the English.

    Governor Sir William Berkeley tried his best to suppress Bacon’s rebellion where some planters without authorization sought revenge for indian violence. Berkeley put down the anti-indian rebel planters and severely punished them.

    Please revisit your history of Anglo-indian relations in tidewater Virginia.

    Otherwise, good post.

  37. […] of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the American Nations Rural White Liberals – a Key to Understanding the Political […]

  38. […] we see, the Tidewater, the historic seat of the Cavalier Lowland South, leans towards team blue mostly because of the large Black population there (however, […]

  39. […] areas of the British Isles. In the case of the settlers of the Tidewater and the Deep South, the Cavaliers, their ancestors hailed from southwest England. The founders of Greater Appalachia were the […]

  40. […] of the country (see A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” and the The Cavaliers). To these peoples, there are is a natural division of and natural hierarchies and (and in this […]

  41. […] the Tidewater and Deep South, the home of the English Cavaliers (see The Cavaliers) in Southwest England is evidence. The Scottish link (presumably Scots-Irish that settled in the […]

  42. […] From what I have read, the founding stock of both the Deep South and the British West Indies was drawn heavily from the West and Metropolitan London in England. Scots-Irish settled all over the backcountry while Cavaliers tended to settle the river valleys: […]

Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All JayMan Comments via RSS