albion's seed

[Sikander]

"Conquests and Cultures" by Thomas Sowell looks at this same issue in regards to the Scotch-Irish / borderers who populatated large portions of the south. It was interesting to have my own relatives savaged so convincingly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Have a look at the manifests for the early Puritan ships- these people weren't as practical as you might think.

You really ought to read this book, Molly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
In addition to the Virginian aspects mentioned above, there was a lot of trade movement to America from ports in South-West England. You can hear West Country influences in many American accents- it's the closest match to American accents in Britain.

IIUC there "non-rhotic" speech (dropping of r's at ends of words, etc) which is found in a number of US ports - New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, etc is often attributed to a broader seaport/trade english in the late 18thc. Unfortunately Fischer doesnt go that far, and his linguistic focus is limited (though linguists seem to like him)

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Sikander
"Conquests and Cultures" by Thomas Sowell looks at this same issue in regards to the Scotch-Irish / borderers who populatated large portions of the south. It was interesting to have my own relatives savaged so convincingly.

The borderer influence on the southern backcountry gets covered quite well in the last quarter of Albion's Seed.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


You really ought to read this book, Molly.

Oh I intend to.

I'm familiar with the hisitory of Puritan and Calvinist/Presbyterian settlement in North America- I've quoted before at length from the journals and histories they produced themselves.

In many cases their preparations for colonization were woefully inadequate- they weren't exactly building kibbutzes and greening the desert, and they starved in the midst of plenty.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Oh I intend to.

I'm familiar with the hisitory of Puritan and Calvinist/Presbyterian settlement in North America- I've quoted before at length from the journals and histories they produced themselves.

In many cases their preparations for colonization were woefully inadequate- they weren't exactly building kibbutzes and greening the desert, and they starved in the midst of plenty.

the starvation was much less for the Massachusetts Puritans than for the Plymouth settlers OR the Virginia settlers, IIUC. The 1630 Puritans were the practical ones, not the 1621 seperatists, despite a shared Calvinism.

[curtsibling]

Britain apologises for dumping our whacked fundamentalists onto the virgin American colonies...

...We had to put them somewhere, and Australia was full up.

,

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Oh I intend to.

I'm familiar with the hisitory of Puritan and Calvinist/Presbyterian settlement in North America- I've quoted before at length from the journals and histories they produced themselves.

Mainly to show that they were - shocked, Im totally shocked - intolerant, religious, Calvinist Christrians. What you havent emphasized is how they fit into their own time, and how they were distinctive in ways that ultimately proved to have progressive potential. It would seem that the origins of New England abolitionism, feminism, etc were pure coincidence.

Or look at those states in the US where gay commitment is legally recognized - it follows the pattern of New England settlement.

Simply identifying New England Puritans with contemporary fundies, mistakes the historic origins and differences in lifeway and approaches that may not show in the mass of the 17thc Puritan writing. To take one look at it - those 17thc century Calvinists had mass literacy, to read the bible, while southerners of border origins tended towards a more oral revival religion. Historically New England culture has been more bookish and literate - and this may be associated with some modern progressive movements - if you just focus on the CONTENT of what they were reading, and not the cultural fact of the emphasis on literacy, you would identify the Puritans with the revivalists, and not see the historic importance of the Puritans in leading to American literary culture.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Mainly to show that they were - shocked, Im totally shocked - intolerant, religious, Calvinist Christrians.

Uh, no that isn't the case.


I was responding to people who had bought into the myths surrounding the early English settlements. In any case, Puritans (as the name tells you) weren't Calvinists, being instead those who wished to purify the Anglican Church.

Separatists were mainly Calvinists, however given the state of the Anglican Church in Engkland at the time, there were those who although calling themselves Anglicans, were not as high church as Laud, and whose doctrines shared some similarities with those expounded by Calvin.


They were indeed intolerant- and this is an aspect that is frequently glossed over in Disneyfied histories that celebrate Thanksgiving and don't point out how the Pilgrims survived by stealing corn supplies from Indian villages, or how the colonists exulted at the effects of European diseases on the Indians. It's distinctly unpleasant reading, even set in context.


It's also quite wrong to look back from present day successes in certain areas of civil rights legislation and anachronistically credit Cotton Mather or Bradford with them.

I don't identify the settlers with Christian fundamentalists of today- the settlers were comparatively better educated, for the most part, and hadn't yet made the mistake of trying to substitute faith for science.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom



Uh, no that isn't the case.

I was responding to people who had bought into the myths surrounding the early English settlements. In any case, Puritans (as the name tells you) weren't Calvinists, being instead those who wished to purify the Anglican Church.

My understanding is that despite working inside the Church of England, they very much were Calvinists. Im no expert on John Calvin, but every serious historian Ive read on either American or English Puritanism indicates that they WERE Calvinists.

Separatists were mainly Calvinists, however given the state of the Anglican Church in Engkland at the time, there were those who although calling themselves Anglicans, were not as high church as Laud, and whose doctrines shared some similarities with those expounded by Calvin.

My understanding is that BOTH seperatists and puritans held with the essential doctrines of John Calvin.

They were indeed intolerant- and this is an aspect that is frequently glossed over in Disneyfied histories that celebrate Thanksgiving and don't point out how the Pilgrims survived by stealing corn supplies from Indian villages, or how the colonists exulted at the effects of European diseases on the Indians. It's distinctly unpleasant reading, even set in context.

almost all europeans were intolerant of the natives to a greater or lesser degree. The quakers stand out as an exception, though to some degree William Penn deliberately picked a locale where the natives were relatively easy to get along with (the distinctively non-belligerent Leni Lenape) to try his experiment. If the Puritans are complex, so are the Quakers.

So complex, that you are forgetting your own distinction, and mixing Pilgrims (seperatists) with Puritans. These were distinct waves of migration, and for almost a century Plymouth remained a seperate colony from Massachusetts.

It's also quite wrong to look back from present day successes in certain areas of civil rights legislation and anachronistically credit Cotton Mather or Bradford with them.

Well er, Im not sure. Thats the point that Fischer makes, and that IIRC Perry Miller made to some degree, etc - there are SUBSTANTIAL continuities in New England culture, and the "progressive" aspects DO have their roots in the Puritan aspects.


Two examples - 1. Puritan women, though not treated with the same rights as Quaker women, definitely were better treated than women in the southern colonies (where Anglican divines continued to debate if women had souls) and the roles of Puritan women were among the roots of New England feminism. 2. FDR proclaimed freedom from fear and freemdom from want as parts of freedom - this exact phrasing was used in 17th century New England, which had a distinctive and more positive view of freedom than elsewhere in the US, where freedom was more a right to be left alone.

I don't identify the settlers with Christian fundamentalists of today- the settlers were comparatively better educated, for the most part, and hadn't yet made the mistake of trying to substitute faith for science.

They were profoundly different, in a great many ways.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



IIUC there "non-rhotic" speech (dropping of r's at ends of words, etc) which is found in a number of US ports - New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, etc is often attributed to a broader seaport/trade english in the late 18thc.

That's one of the classic markers of a West Country accent- along with hard vowel sounds and a tendency to drawl.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Britain apologises for dumping our whacked fundamentalists onto the virgin American colonies...

...We had to put them somewhere, and Australia was full up.

,

"Let tyrants shake their iron rods,
And slav'ry clank her galling chains.
We fear not, we trust in God,
New England's God forever reigns.

Howe and Burgoyne and Clinton, too,
With Prescott and Cornwallis joined,
Together plot our overthrow,
In one infernal league combined.

When God inspired us for the fight,
Their ranks were broke,
their lines were forced,
Their ships were shattered in our sight,
Or swiftly driven from our coast.

The foe comes on with haughty stride,
Our troops advance with martial noise;
Their vet'rans flee before our youth,
And gen'rals yield to beardless boys.

What grateful off'ring shall we bring,
What shall we render to the Lord?
Loud hallelujahs let us sing,
And praise His name on ev'ry chord!"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


My understanding is that despite working inside the Church of England, they very much were Calvinists. Im no expert on John Calvin, but every serious historian Ive read on either American or English Puritanism indicates that they WERE Calvinists.

I doubt that very much- there were doctrinal differences between Puritans in the Anglican Church and say, for instance, Calvinist Presbyterians.


'Puritan' in itself covered a wide swathe of beliefs, and was initially a term of abuse.

I have already said that there were similarities between some Anglican Puritans' beliefs and some Calvinist beliefs, but Calvinist and Puritan are not synonymous.

Indeed, one reason why some of the Puritan and Separatist exiles left the Calvinist United Provinces was that they felt there was too little rigid observance of the Sabbath, and an excessive regard for the Sabbath was a distinctive feature of some Puritan and Separatist communities.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

I doubt that very much- there were doctrinal differences between Puritans in the Anglican Church and say, for instance, Calvinist Presbyterians.

IIUC primarily over church organization. Not over any fundamental Calvinist principles - total depravity of man, irrestible grace, limited atonement (salvation for a few), perserverence of saints, etc

'Puritan' in itself covered a wide swathe of beliefs, and was initially a term of abuse.

I have already said that there were similarities between some Anglican Puritans' beliefs and some Calvinist beliefs, but Calvinist and Puritan are not synonymous.

They were not synonomous, cause not all Calvinists were Puritans, but IIUC all Puritans WERE Calvinists. IE Puritans were a subset of Calvinists.

Indeed, one reason why some of the Puritan and Separatist exiles left the Calvinist United Provinces was that they felt there was too little rigid observance of the Sabbath, and an excessive regard for the Sabbath was a distinctive feature of some Puritan and Separatist communities.

Indeed - but the Puritan insistence on rigid Sabbath observence was not in contradiciton with the principles of John Calvin, IIUC, even if they were not required by said principles.

[molly bloom]

No, not all Puritans were Calvinists !



Thomas Crosby, the oldest English Baptist historian, in commenting about the London Confession and Particular (Calvinistic) and General (non-Calvinistic) redemption said:

"And I know that there are several churches, ministers, and many particular persons, among the English Baptists, who desire not to go under the name either of these heads; because they receive what they think to be truth, without regarding with what human schemes it agrees or disagrees."

Thomas Crosby--History of the English Baptists, Vol. I p. 174. 1740.



Let us turn to Thomas Armitage, respected Baptist historian from America to give us the details of the London Confession:

"By 1643, the Calvinist Baptist Churches in and about London had increased to seven, while the non-Calvinistic Churches numbered thirty-nine, forty-six in all. The English Calvinistic Churches, together with a French Church of the some faith, eight in all, issued a Confession of Faith in 1643."

History of the Baptists by Thomas Armitage, 1887, p.460.

http://www.learnthebible.org/baptist_calvinists.htm