Cavaliers vs Puritans

[BlueandGrayl]

During the Civil War, Dixie/the South practically established a very unique identity from the rest of the U.S. one that still has influence today just like the Confederacy it was known as "Cavaliers vs Puritans" thesis. The Cavaliers vs Puritans thesis asserted that Southerners were the descendants of Norman conquerors in 1066 during the Medieval Ages and Royalist Cavaliers in the English Civil War while Northerners (or Yankees) were descendants of conquered Saxon serfs in that period and Parliamentarian Puritans in the war this was pretty much the progenitor of a Southern/Confederate identity as we know it but is this theory credible?

To be fair, I would find that whole Norman-Saxon part of the thesis a bit off but I do find the Cavalier-Purtian part to be true consider this the settlers of the first English colony in the North: Massachusetts were the Puritans themselves who were from East Anglia and the Netherlands who helped give birth to the region of New England as we know it while the original Southern settlers who established Virginia were from Southern and Western England which were dominated by manorial settlements they were actually Cavaliers who founded the Royal Colony of Virginia (where the Virginia Cavaliers got their name) alongside their indentured servants and the system they established there was based off the European aristocracy of old especially in the Tidewater region like their jolly old England in the Old World in contrast to South Carolina plus some French Huguenots (Protestants of French descent) in places such as Charleston and the French colonists of Louisiana (especially New Orleans) were also aristocratic just like their English Cavalier counterparts, in the eyes of many Southerners they were not the same as Northerners one was Anglo-Norman the other Anglo-Saxon, the Yankee accent was also originally East Anglian and the Southern accent was Wessex/Southern and Western.

To be honest, regarding Northerners especially in the 17th-18th century they were pretty slaveholding themselves (see Complicity: How the North Profited, Prolonged, and Promoted Slavery) the Puritans in the aforementioned Massachusetts had no problems owning slaves and that state already was the first American colony to legalize slavery/indentured servitude even before Virginia or any other Southern state it especially was prevalent elsewhere Rhode Island was by far the state that imported black slaves the most even more than the South or the North they had plantations that rivaled that of the Tidewater same thing was in Connecticut and other Northern states at that time, the state of New York was home to one of the largest slave cities at the time which was New York City where about almost half of its population were slaveowners to quote one history professor on the opening of a slavery museum in the state there were more white New Yorkers who owned slaves than whites in the South there was also Northern Huguenots who owned slaves next is New Jersey which was an enthusiastic promoter of slavery so much they actually apologized in 2008, the cities of Boston, Medford, New Haven, Newport etc were slave trading ports, other soon-to-be Northern states had slavery themselves Michigan's largest city Detroit had a lot of it (see Dawn of Detroit) and Illinois had examples of this especially in the Southern part of it.

The most scholarly analysis of the "Puritans vs Cavaliers" thesis I could find was Albion's Seed which I highly recommend reading to know about the different cultures of America, in that book it notes the origins of the Northern and Southern colonies as well as their customs and traditions like I listed above and the book contains a lot of information about where these cultures came from other pieces of information regarding theory include the book Cavalier and Yankee as well as the New York Times Disunion article Purtians vs Cavaliers to know more about this this thesis.

 

[Henry Brown]

Albion's Seed

i am going to read it.
i was in a thread that was discussing this but it was anglo-saxon vs celtic. i was making the points above about anglo-saxon north vs anglo-norman cavalier south. the argument was , as i recall, that the north was celtic and the south anglo-saxon. i still think my view is mostly true of the times but gets clouded with highland scots, scots-irish, and irish. i hope the book will give me a better understanding. thanks for the tip.

 

[Pat Young]

During the Civil War, Dixie/the South practically established a very unique identity from the rest of the U.S. one that still has influence today just like the Confederacy it was known as "Cavaliers vs Puritans" thesis. The Cavaliers vs Puritans thesis asserted that Southerners were the descendants of Norman conquerors in 1066 during the Medieval Ages and Royalist Cavaliers in the English Civil War while Northerners (or Yankees) were descendants of conquered Saxon serfs in that period and Parliamentarian Puritans in the war this was pretty much the progenitor of a Southern/Confederate identity as we know it but is this theory credible?

To be fair, I would find that whole Norman-Saxon part of the thesis a bit off but I do find the Cavalier-Purtian part to be true consider this the settlers of the first English colony in the North: Massachusetts were the Puritans themselves who were from East Anglia and the Netherlands who helped give birth to the region of New England as we know it while the original Southern settlers who established Virginia were from Southern and Western England which were dominated by manorial settlements they were actually Cavaliers who founded the Royal Colony of Virginia (where the Virginia Cavaliers got their name) alongside their indentured servants and the system they established there was based off the European aristocracy of old especially in the Tidewater region like their jolly old England in the Old World in contrast to South Carolina plus some French Huguenots (Protestants of French descent) in places such as Charleston and the French colonists of Louisiana (especially New Orleans) were also aristocratic just like their English Cavalier counterparts, in the eyes of many Southerners they were not the same as Northerners one was Anglo-Norman the other Anglo-Saxon, the Yankee accent was also originally East Anglian and the Southern accent was Wessex/Southern and Western.

To be honest, regarding Northerners especially in the 17th-18th century they were pretty slaveholding themselves (see Complicity: How the North Profited, Prolonged, and Promoted Slavery) the Puritans in the aforementioned Massachusetts had no problems owning slaves and that state already was the first American colony to legalize slavery/indentured servitude even before Virginia or any other Southern state it especially was prevalent elsewhere Rhode Island was by far the state that imported black slaves the most even more than the South or the North they had plantations that rivaled that of the Tidewater same thing was in Connecticut and other Northern states at that time, the state of New York was home to one of the largest slave cities at the time which was New York City where about almost half of its population were slaveowners to quote one history professor on the opening of a slavery museum in the state there were more white New Yorkers who owned slaves than whites in the South there was also Northern Huguenots who owned slaves next is New Jersey which was an enthusiastic promoter of slavery so much they actually apologized in 2008, the cities of Boston, Medford, New Haven, Newport etc were slave trading ports, other soon-to-be Northern states had slavery themselves Michigan's largest city Detroit had a lot of it (see Dawn of Detroit) and Illinois had examples of this especially in the Southern part of it.

The most scholarly analysis of the "Puritans vs Cavaliers" thesis I could find was Albion's Seed which I highly recommend reading to know about the different cultures of America, in that book it notes the origins of the Northern and Southern colonies as well as their customs and traditions like I listed above and the book contains a lot of information about where these cultures came from other pieces of information regarding theory include the book Cavalier and Yankee as well as the New York Times Disunion article Purtians vs Cavaliers to know more about this this thesis.

What percentage of "Northerners" in 1860 were descended from Puritans?

 

[Pat Young]

In all of the conflation of "Northerner" with "Yankee" on this site, often overlooked is that of all the 19th Century (14 in all), only one was born in Massachusetts (John Quincy Adams). How many were from the other "Yankee States" of New England? None. Puritans were pretty roundly denounced throughout the North outside of New England. Sorry, but there is as much bull in the Cavs v. Roundheads as in the Celts v. Saxons.

 

[BlueandGrayl]

What percentage of "Northerners" in 1860 were descended from Puritans?

I am simply describing the "Cavaliers vs Puritans" thesis and my thoughts about it, the book Albion's Seed is a good place to start to know about the origins of the 4 seeds in America 2 of them being East Anglians/Dutch Puritan settlers in Massachusetts and Southern and Western English Cavalier and indentured servant settlers in Virginia where this book covers it in detail I highly recommend you check it out.

 

[NedBaldwin]

In all of the conflation of "Northerner" with "Yankee" on this site, often overlooked is that of all the 19th Century (14 in all), only one was born in Massachusetts (John Quincy Adams).
How many were from the other "Yankee States" of New England? None.

Only 1 of 14 what?

Puritans were pretty roundly denounced throughout the North outside of New England.

Really?

 

[BlueandGrayl]

Only 1 of 14 what?



Really?

To be fair, Puritans outside the New England states weren't exactly well liked however based off Albion's Seed it showed that 2 of its seeds were both East Anglian/Dutch settlers of Massachusetts who were actually Puritans and the Southern/Western English settlers of Virginia who were actually Cavaliers and indentured servants themselves.

 

[Crimea Vet]

This is a subject which will be hard to prove or disprove in any debate but interesting none the less!

I live in East Anglia and am a student of the English Civil War, and although East Anglia was solidly behind Parliament during that conflict I think it would be misleading to consider most East Anglians as Puritan, Protestant Yes! But Puritan I would argue not so much. Puritanism is after all Protestantism on steroids!

The general view of the ACW here in the UK over many years was that of the dour, pragmatic, deeply principled North against the fun loving, carefree, liberal South. That being the case it is easy to see how the Puritan/Cavalier labels were attached!

Of course, the ACW just as the ECW was a lot more complicated than that, as indeed was the fractious religious make up of 17th Century England including East Anglia.

This will be an interesting thread to follow, thankyou for posting it.

 

[BlueandGrayl]

This is a subject which will be hard to prove or disprove in any debate but interesting none the less!

I live in East Anglia and am a student of the English Civil War, and although East Anglia was solidly behind Parliament during that conflict I think it would be misleading to consider most East Anglians as Puritan, Protestant Yes! But Puritan I would argue not so much. Puritanism is after all Protestantism on steroids!

The general view of the ACW here in the UK over many years was that of the dour, pragmatic, deeply principled North against the fun loving, carefree, liberal South. That being the case it is easy to see how the Puritan/Cavalier labels were attached!

Of course, the ACW just as the ECW was a lot more complicated than that, as indeed was the fractious religious make up of 17th Century England including East Anglia.

This will be an interesting thread to follow, thankyou for posting it.

That said I would agree. I think you should read Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America to learn about the East Anglian/Dutch settlers of Massachusetts and the Southern/Western English settlers of Virginia to know more about the Cavalier-Puritan labels. Interesting to learn the British perspective of the Civil War you know that it nearly got itself into the conflict twice: 1. The Trent Affair which nearly led to a war between Britain and America and 2. Meditation prior to Antietam the British and French were about to recognize the Confederacy and bring peace.

 

[Rio Bravo]

Oh good, well that confirms my allegiance to the South, as I can trace my Ancestors right back to the Normans, and I know that my 17th Century Ancestors were Royalists !

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Trying to collectively describe white Northerners or white Southerners as descendants of any one group of English is folly.

Scots-Irish, French Huguenots, Germans, and Dutch were all significant colonial immigrant groups. In the decade before the ACW there were significant German and Irish immigration, mostly in the North.

 

[Crimea Vet]

That said I would agree. I think you should read Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America to learn about the East Anglian/Dutch settlers of Massachusetts and the Southern/Western English settlers of Virginia to know more about the Cavalier-Puritan labels. Interesting to learn the British perspective of the Civil War you know that it nearly got itself into the conflict twice: 1. The Trent Affair which nearly led to a war between Britain and America and 2. Meditation prior to Antietam the British and French were about to recognize the Confederacy and bring peace.

I shall indeed try to obtain that book!

It may be worth remembering that a broad division of England during the ECW was as follows: The South and the East for Parliament, the West, Wales and the North for the King, and a pretty much divided Midlands for both! The Scots were on the side of Parliament until they switched sides for the 2nd Civil War and the native Irish (which excluded large parts of Ulster) were for the King.

I have tried to trace my own name in terms of the ACW, and it seems that by the time of that conflict the popular routs of immigration were through New York and Boston rather than Southern ports as had once been the case. Therefore, it does not surprise me that more immigrant English found themselves in the North rather than the South. That said however, I would have thought that British immigration from the time of the Revolution to the war of 1812 would have been pretty much divided between North and South regardless of where those Brits originally came from, but perhaps the book you speak of will tell me different!

 

[major bill]

Prejudging any American by who their ancestors were almost seems un-American. I do understand that this was done and still is done. Still were Southerners really superior people because some of their ancestors might have been higher on the social scale 100 years before they were born?

The belief that Southerner should get to rule the United States and the Northerners were only fit to be landless serfs sounds like elitist bigotry.

 

[BlueandGrayl]

Prejudging any American by who their ancestors were almost seems un-American. I do understand that this was done and still is done. Still were Southerners really superior people because some of their ancestors might have been higher on the social scale 100 years before they were born?

The belief that Southerner should get to rule the United States and the Northerners were only fit to be landless serfs sounds like elitist bigotry.

This thesis was created to distinguish Northerners and Southerners from each other. If you want to find out more then I recommend reading Albion's Seed which focuses on 4 different cultures that created the United States as we know it.

 

[Henry Brown]

In all of the conflation of "Northerner" with "Yankee" on this site, often overlooked is that of all the 19th Century (14 in all), only one was born in Massachusetts (John Quincy Adams). How many were from the other "Yankee States" of New England? None. Puritans were pretty roundly denounced throughout the North outside of New England. Sorry, but there is as much bull in the Cavs v. Roundheads as in the Celts v. Saxons.

i assume that you mean 19th century presidents up to lincoln ? i count two from mass. and one from NH.
but also take a look at the fourteen before washington. more than a couple.
it should be noted that the northern colonies were formed because of religious reasons whereas virginia and the southern colonies were more entrepreneurial enterprises . in the early days the south was strongly pro-church of england. by contrast the north was constantly at odds with themselves over religion and they diverged with new colonies practicing religion the way they saw fit.
at one point new york and new jersey were parts of the Dominion of New England.
Quakers were banished from Massachusetts and others founded their own colonies, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine. Quakers moved to Pennsylvania and others moved into Dutch New york and Jersey.
it must also be noted that all of these religions were protestant as was the church of england. but the church of england was really just the anglicized version of the catholic church. so rather than refer to them all as puritan we should see them as english (and catholic) church separatists . they influenced the entire northeast seaboard during colonial times , not just new england as we refer to it today.
religion in the south is not the same in 1830 as it was during the colonial period when it was strongly in support of the anglician church . the southern cultural and religious identity developed along with regional and political identity to become what it was in 1860 .
i think the point of the piece is that differences in reasons for emigration led people to different colonies and set the stage for later development into sectional, political, religious, economical, and cultural differences .
Yankee was first applied to new englanders and eventually to all americans by people overseas. it was used in the south as a derogatory term for northerners or any union supporter.
i think i like the use of "roundheads vs cavaliers " better than any of the others as it signifies support of an idea rather than ethnicity .

 

[Pat Young]

at one point new york and new jersey were parts of the Dominion of New England.

I don't think either state in the mid-19th Century showed much of a Puritan or New England influence.

 

[matthew mckeon]

There's an ad about a ancestor tracing service that uncovers your ethnic background. In the ad a man is in a kilt and being quite Scottish. Then he finds out his background is actually German, and he immediately changes into ledenhosen.

The point is the amount of influence your ethnic background is self determined.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I believe its another attempt to deflect the reason for secession.

 

[BlueandGrayl]

I believe its another attempt to deflect the reason for secession.

No I'm just talking about an aspect of the Civil War and I have recommended reading Albion's Seed to know about this thesis.

 

[matthew mckeon]

No I'm just talking about an aspect of the Civil War and I have recommended reading Albion's Seed to know about this thesis.

I have read Albion's Seed and echo your recommendation. However I don't think that "Cav and Round" thing is that useful in understanding secession.