The Non-Celtic Confederacy

As far as any historical reference to the ACW, Anglo-Saxon was the preferred descriptive of American, by both sections. It was, of course, also, the preferred euphemism for a 'White' person, in ante-bellum America.
that is what i thought. not wanting to be thought of as celtic is a thing since roman times in britian. however i am finding that being thought of as anglo-saxon , at the time of the civil war, was not a southern thing. it seems they thought of themselves as norman cavaliers with more of a french tint to it. anglo-saxons or saxons were the common people and puritan northerners.
i do not know when but it seems that the anglo-saxon thing developed later in support of the lost cause and other confederate support groups. it is used as a synonym for " superior whites" as compared to other white and brown skinned people.
 
that is what i thought. not wanting to be thought of as celtic is a thing since roman times in britian. however i am finding that being thought of as anglo-saxon , at the time of the civil war, was not a southern thing. it seems they thought of themselves as norman cavaliers with more of a french tint to it. anglo-saxons or saxons were the common people and puritan northerners.
i do not know when but it seems that the anglo-saxon thing developed later in support of the lost cause and other confederate support groups. it is used as a synonym for " superior whites" as compared to other white and brown skinned people.




In a larger frame of reference, Anglo-Saxon, would become synonymous with 'Superior', in certain sections of American and even British society.
 
this is from the Southern Literary Messenger july 1861 :
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/acf2679.0033.001/23?node=acf2679.0033.001:5&view=image

Norther n pe ople have som e very clever ide as of personal justice, they have none on earth of political and r,tionaljustice, eitherin regard to us, or any other people. They have no natural comiprehension of the science of government, and therefore, know nothing of the amenities of p olitical diplomhacy. T hey neither know how to conduct good government among themselves, nor how to deport themselves as a people, towards another people. In these matters, they are ethnologically deficient. We have then, to treat them to some extent, as an inferior ,race, presenting an admixture of force and finesse. After this manner, the Norman has ever controled the Saxon, 1861.1 21
The contest, then, now going on, is not one of mere plhysical prowess, as in that event, there would be no surety in regard to the arrangement of great philosophical principles, as the wager of battle might resultas favorablytothe Round-headas to the cavalier-to the Saxon as to the Norman. For while the Southern gentleman dues not aspire to being a shepherd, on the hills, or a vine-grower in the valley, h e yetprofesses to no superior brawniness. But he does assert his claim to all those combined attributes, that make manhood excellent, and is willing to lose his life in maintaining his assertion.

00000023.tif100.png
It takes no great skill to cherry pick.
 
that is what i thought. not wanting to be thought of as celtic is a thing since roman times in britian. however i am finding that being thought of as anglo-saxon , at the time of the civil war, was not a southern thing. it seems they thought of themselves as norman cavaliers with more of a french tint to it. anglo-saxons or saxons were the common people and puritan northerners.
i do not know when but it seems that the anglo-saxon thing developed later in support of the lost cause and other confederate support groups. it is used as a synonym for " superior whites" as compared to other white and brown skinned people.
Let’s see. When did the Jed Clampett and Dukes of Hazzard types become how Yanks viewed their Southern brethren? Hmmm.
 
The Brits thought, and many still do, that they are superior to everybody else. No news here.
what does that have to do with the price of tea in china ? i didn't cherry pick either but went to great lengths to find the exact piece that McPherson referenced in a earlier post , however...
by your own words it is reasonable to say the brits thought and think of themselves as superior but totally off the wall to imply that southerners think or thought that way. double standard ?
Let’s see. When did the Jed Clampett and Dukes of Hazzard types become how Yanks viewed their Southern brethren? Hmmm.
what the heck are you talking about ? in my remark about being thought of as .... i was speaking in a southern reference and a southern self idenity.
your objections are noted and IMO lend credit to my supposition.
 
let me pick some more cherries.

Sorry, Romney: Neither America Nor the U.K. Are 'Anglo-Saxon' Countries
The term is a long-abused misnomer for England, and fewer than 9 percent of Americans identify English ancestry anyway.
The Alantic

Even their [anglo-saxon] cultural influence declined with the 1066 conquest by Normandy, today a region of France. The new Norman rulers transformed England and ejected the old Anglo-Saxon elite, many of whom fled the country entirely. And so the Anglo-Saxon era ended, four or five centuries of rule that ended a thousand years ago and did not appear to make a lasting or substantial impact on British genes.

So, Anglo-Saxon is a bit of a misnomer, but even if we look past that and just accept the term as a colloquialism for the English people who were long ago ruled by Angle and Saxon lords, the idea that the U.S. and U.K. share an Anglo-Saxon identity still isn't really accurate. The 2001 U.K. census found that 85 percent of the country is ethnically "white British," which includes the Irish and Scottish whose forefathers were never under Anglo-Saxon rule.

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...-nor-the-uk-are-anglo-saxon-countries/260309/
 
Last edited:
the other side of the coin...
The South is Anglo-Saxon. All 13 colonies (except for Pennsylvania) were overwhelmingly of English ancestry, and the South was never subject to the mass-immigration from Continental Europe that the North experienced. Native Southerners are largely of the same stock that inhabited their states in 1790. Furthermore, more western Southern states were settled mainly by eastern Southern states. Many Kentuckians have bloodlines going back to Virginia, for instance. This was not unknown to our ancestors. George Wallace referred to Dixie as the, “Anglo-Saxon Southland” just a generation ago. Before that, many prominent Southerners were aware of their English origins. When Lieutenant Richard Armstrong, of the CSS Alabama, met with pleas of mercy from a Yankee ship captain, this was his response:

“We are nothing to each other as countrymen. The North and South are now distinct races, with no feelings or interests in common. The people of the South are the only true representatives of the American race. You of the North have intermarried so much with the lower classes of Europeans that you have, in a great measure, if not altogether, lost your nationality, and are not worthy to be considered of the same people as ourselves.”

https://identitydixie.com/2017/11/13/the-southland-anglo-saxon-not-celtic/

i would note that by his own statistical chart (i do not know it's source) the north was MORE english than the south and the south MORE celtic and french than the north in 1790.
 
i do not believe that the chart presented by identitydixie.com is from the 1790 census as i have read it and it only asks 6 questions and they are not about race but rather free or not and sex. it does not appear to address indentures.
The six inquiries in 1790 called for ( 1 )the name of the head of the family and the number of persons in each household of the following descriptions:
  • Free White males of 16 years and upward (to assess the country's industrial and military potential)
  • Free White males under 16 years
  • Free White females
  • All other free persons
  • Slaves
on another note Wallace is celtic.
 
yes they were lowland presbyterians AFTER the reformation but highland and lowland scots are celtic in origin regardless of religion. are not highland scots also primarily presbyterian ? the ulster-scots had no trouble communicating with the irish and must have been bilingual when they got there . there were anglo-saxon elements in scotland but they were not scottish. the term scotch is the Americanized version that the scots do not use. these lowland scots intermingled with all other ethnic groups especially anglo-saxons and were eventually referred to as foreigners by highland scots . so by the time of the migration to ulster they were a distinct group , socially and genetically. some still had their scottish family names but others had anglicized names.
there was movement back and forth by these scots as circumstances required. they suffered persecution in england and ireland but also droughts and economic setbacks but they were recruited for the Plantation of Uslter. they were planters. they immigrated to america in the 17th and 18th centuries. they were in the south from the beginning. and they were at least partly celtic.
it occurs to me that what happened in scotland is similar to our civil war (both american but yankee and rebel, the same but also distinct) and if the celtic disposition were not so prevalent in the south we might not have had the war.

Presbyterianism is about the only thing the Highlanders had in common with the Scot-Irish –they didn't speak the same language in the early days. Here in southeastern North Carolina, the loyalist Highlanders and the rebel Scot-Irish fought each other during the first war for independence.
 
i was just listening to this song and it got me thinking...
take steve earle's (earle is anglo-saxon and is a name that indicates nobility) copperhead road. pettimore is hard to find the exact origins but it seems to be lowland scots. however "petti" is norman french and "mor" is Gaelic . i think it means small city. johnson (county) also has it's origins in scottish , it is considered anglo-scottish. these are just anglicized versions of celtic names. listen to the intro of the song. i think the name earle is more evidence that the anglo-saxons were a minority elite and the fact that so many celtic names remain even after the normans threw the saxons out indicates that the saxons did not displace the native celts but assimilated them much as the romans had before them. it should be noted though that this was a bi-directional exchange. this may be out of bounds but it is more evidence that the south was NOT solid anglo-saxon and far from it. perhaps the insistence that southerners of antebellum times and later were purely anglo-saxon as opposed to celtic is a dodge from the fact that more than a few southerners have or had african ancestry.


Mor means big, large, beag means small, little.
 
Presbyterianism is about the only thing the Highlanders had in common with the Scot-Irish –they didn't speak the same language in the early days. Here in southeastern North Carolina, the loyalist Highlanders and the rebel Scot-Irish fought each other during the first war for independence.
there is debate on the influence, genetically speaking , of anglo-saxons on the native population. that the native culture was over run in the lowlands is not open to debate. my point is that all scots are descended from celts and if they are not they are not scots (notscotch ?). they seem to have an identity paradox. if they are scots they hate the english but if they are saxon they must hate their northern brothers. i posted a figure , i can't remember the exact figures, that the anglo-saxon genetic influence was around 15 to 20 %. i just read another more recent dna study that pushes that figure uo to around 40 %. that simply means that whatever influence it was that the angles and saxons and jutes oh my, had, altered the original gene pool which was celtic.
i'll grant you that they had little in common except their origins which were celtic.
 
Mor means big, large, beag means small, little.
i'm not going to look it up again but the way i had it figured was petti (french)= small mor(gaelic)=city . i know that it looks like "small big" but i think i saw something as to big as in city as opposed to village which would be small.
 
The Romans arrived in the Scottish Lowlands in a.d. 80 but left few traces of their stay. During the period known as the Dark Ages, four groups emerged in Scotland: the Picts in the north; the Scots (of Irish origin) in the west; the Britons, who were related to the Welsh, in the southwest; and the Angles in the southeast. Linguistically, these groups were distinct from one another: the linguistic tradition of the Angles derived from Low German and Saxon English, the Scots and Britons spoke Gaelic, and the Picts possessed a language of their own.
To this day Scotsmen are very proud of their nationality, their national culture and traditions. Never call a Scotsman an Englishman. The half-serious relic of the age old bitterness against the English, nowadays finds a much less bloody field of battle for its satisfaction - the football field. For most Scots the greatest sporting event of the year is the International against the ‘Auld Enemy’, the Sassenachs (Gaelic for Saxons).
Even today it is only the Gaelic speaking community, not the Lowland 'Scots' speakers, who make serious attempts to provide education through their own language. It makes sense that the revival of Gaelic education occurs alongside better education in Scottish history, political devolution and calls for independence. You will never see education through 'Scots' because it is too tied to English culture.
A true Scot (or Irishman) should cotton on to this, change his linguistic allegiances and learn Gaelic. Modern English should ultimately have the same position in Scotland and Ireland that it has in Norway or Sweden - fluently spoken as the 'lingua franca' but not replacing domestic Scottish and Irish culture which is ultimately Gaelic in origin.
 
Here in southeastern North Carolina, the loyalist Highlanders and the rebel Scot-Irish fought each other during the first war for independence.
Indeed, at the time [1745] there were in truth two distinct Scotlands. One, the ancient Gael, descended from Celtic origins with dashes of Norse, Flemish and even some Norman blood. Whereas the Lowlander had been a more Germanic-English (genetically speaking) or Saxon, Angle, Norman, Celtic, Dane, Flemish and other European blooded racial mix since before the days of William Wallace. The kings of Scotland since MacBeth were more in line with English beliefs than the older Celtic ones -- and the kings of Scotland now ruled from the Lowlands. Therefore, what evolved in Scotland were two different peoples, using the same name and Nationality, but being fundamentally different both racially and linguistically. The Highlander had retained his native Irish tongue (Gaelic), manner of clothing and was by every aspect, very Gael and very Celtic. The Lowlander had adopted many Anglo customs since the days and arrival of Malcolm Canmore (Cean more), Malcolm III, and early Lothian English had become the primary tongue of Edinburgh and other great cities of the Lowlands in the 11-12th centuries.

The Highlander saw the Lowland Scot as a 'foreigner' and more (in their early view) like the English than any Scot. This in itself was offensive to the Lowland Scot who was anything but English!

However, the Lowlander, of this time, saw the Highlanders even worse; as tribal barbarians -- not the 'noble savage' painted in words by Sir Walter Scott in the 19th century. Highlanders were odd, barbaric and 'clannish' to the city dwelling Lowlander, who naturally saw them as more like 'wild Irish' (as they called them), more than Scottish.
 
i'm not going to look it up again but the way i had it figured was petti (french)= small mor(gaelic)=city . i know that it looks like "small big" but i think i saw something as to big as in city as opposed to village which would be small.

Baille Mor = city ( Large town). Adjectives normally follow nouns, adjectives can go to the front if the adjective is emphasized. Example -wow that's a really big town.
 
i posted evidence from a prestigious southern publication, and there are others, that southerners contemporary with the civil war thought of themselves as cavaliers . this is evidenced by the fact that post war southern organizations tended to represent themselves as "Knights of So-and-So Order". the south is known for it's chivalrous manners.
the roundheads or "saxons" were the commoners and puritans of new england. so i am at a loss as to why some southerners insist on a anglo-saxon reference instead of a norman one.
 
Back
Top