First, I sincerely hope everyone had a pleasant Christmas and holiday season. I meant to post prior to Christmas, but time got away from me.
So, back at it, then…
This is a different sort of post, but… I’m in a discussion elsewhere, and this is the result.
I’ve heard, on more than one occasion, where some folks point to Puritan influence as an architect of the differences that existed, between the North and the South, in the final years leading to the American Civil War.
Let me point out, this is not something to which I subscribe. Puritanism, for one (as I understand it), had evolved over time. Any influence it may have had requires an understanding that it evolved, through the early colonial years, and in the end, was a multi-layered variant of its original form. Furthermore, this philosophy, pointing toward Puritans, reminds me of that statement made, a few years ago, by a SCV commander… regarding “sour-faced Pilgrims” (see my take on the context, here).
I do know that we also have Alexis de Tocqueville, who (right or wrong… as it seems this has been debated), in Democracy in America (1835 and 1840), traces the lineage of American democracy to the Puritans.
I’ll admit, I’m a bit more green in this area than I should be (and, I’ve only read portions of Democracy in America), but, let’s give this some additional thought.
You’ll please forgive me for using a Wikipedia entry as a point of discussion, but consider this portion of the entry for Democracy in America…
Tocqueville believed that the Puritans established the principle of sovereignty of the people in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The American Revolution then popularized this principle, followed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which developed institutions to manage popular will. While Tocqueville speaks highly of the America’s Constitution, he believes that the mores, or “habits of mind” of the American people play a more prominent role in the protection of freedom.
Township democracy
Mores, Laws, and Circumstances
Tyranny of the Majority
Religion and beliefs
The Family [how American were in that century and their interactions]
Individualism [later this influenced writers in the Renaissance Era]
Associations
Self-Interest Rightly Understood
Materialism
Funny thing about this is… I see some of these same points existing among Southerners in the Appalachian region… not to mention a reasonable distrust of the aristocratic lives (thank you again, Tocqueville) and influence of the slavocracy folks (in the case of many people in the Shenandoah Valley, for example, a less than “warm fuzzy” feeling for the the people in the Tidewater of Virginia).
So, since I am relatively green in this, please, enlighten me if I’m missing something. Surely someone has taken this on, in an expanded study.
Cenantua's Blog 
Janet
December 30, 2013
Searching “puritanism + abolitionism” gives some leads.
Robert Moore
December 31, 2013
Thanks, Janet, but the manner in which the argument is being made, this is not the issue. Rather, there is a belief that, from the Southern perspective, the Civil War was, in part and somewhat, a rehashing of an age-old rivalry between the English and Scots/Scots-Irish. Regretfully, that doesn’t acknowledge the diversity of the Southern perspective. The use of Puritans and Puritan influence in this is quite interesting. As I pointed out in a post at Thanksgiving, even some of Virginia’s most famous families have ties to them.
Richard Williams
December 31, 2013
“Regretfully, that doesn’t acknowledge the diversity of the Southern perspective.”
100% true, but that lack of acknowledgement does not necessarily diminish the argument that the old rivalry played some part in the Civil War. The argument, perhaps, is how much of a part it played. I think it was just one facet, though an important one. In discussing the Puritanism of New England, I think its also important to point out that much of the “old” Puritanism of the original New England settlers had, by the time of the war, morphed into Unitarianism. That flavor of theology was much more at odds with the Scots-Irish Presbyterianism/Calvinism than was the old New England Puritanism.
Robert Moore
December 31, 2013
“100% true, but that lack of acknowledgement does not necessarily diminish the argument that the old rivalry played some part in the Civil War.”
I’m not so sure it did. If at all, it might have been more coincidental than something akin to the old English vs. Scots-Irish grudge. There had been so much blending, culturally, that it truly was a matter of us fighting against ourselves… with the exception of that regional element. I’m going with the nurture (upbringing in a place) vs. nature (heritage, several generations removed) argument on this one. That said, I’m not saying “nature” wasn’t something passed along, subtly or not, to each generation. No argument… fragments of our heritage do exist in the way we decide to live. I have little doubt of the impact that “broken German”, in the cultural sense, can be seen in my opinions and actions.
“I think it was just one facet, though an important one. In discussing the Puritanism of New England, I think its also important to point out that much of the “old” Puritanism of the original New England settlers had, by the time of the war, morphed into Unitarianism.”
Puritanism had morphed and fractured in several ways, before the end of the 18th century… and to the point it there was nothing recognized as truly Puritan in the pure sense. I don’t have the stats on(though they would be interesting to see), but I don’t see Unitarianism as a dominant force and impact on the way things unfolded.
“That flavor of theology was much more at odds with the Scots-Irish Presbyterianism/Calvinism than was the old New England Puritanism.”
There’s an irony here… since there Puritans included, though were not limited to, English Calvinists.
Of course, there are so many variations of conflict found throughout the South, that, in some area, there may well be an old order English-Scots-Irish bloodletting… but I suspect it would be a bloodletting among the locals themselves, in their conflicting viewpoints.
Robert Moore
December 31, 2013
Richard,
By the way, have you read Tocqueville? I’ve only skimmed his Democracy in America, which is too bad. I should have given it more attention, years ago. I’m wondering if Tocqueville made an error in his assessment, because of the manner in which he spent his tour in America, in the early 1830s. I’ll explain more in a post in the coming week… I hope.
Richard Williams
December 31, 2013
Like you, I’ve only skimmed it. I agree, I’m embarrassed to admit I haven’t. Yes, I’d be interested in what you think.
Richard Williams
December 31, 2013
“I don’t see Unitarianism as a dominant force and impact on the way things unfolded.”
Wow, I see that as huge; particularly among abolitionists.
“There’s an irony here… since there Puritans included, though were not limited to, English Calvinists.”
Absolutely. As I noted, the older flavor of Puritanism had much in common with Southern Calvinists. BTW, check out my latest post. It’s rather coincidental that a friend sent me a cartoon from the Richmond Times during the Coolidge years. The cartoon refers to “stern” New England as contrasted with the “romance and hospitality” of Old Virginia. There is some relation to what we’ve been discussing. Hope you have a great New Year Robert!
Robert Moore
December 31, 2013
“Wow, I see that as huge; particularly among abolitionists.”
Unitarians were most certainly strong in that direction, but, so were Quakers and others. Are you seeing them, because of Puritan roots, being the nucleus for conflict? In part, I can agree, but I’m not sure if I can weigh them as the single tilting element.
I saw that cartoon! What I wonder is… if folks just continued to have… you’ll have to forgive me, here… historical memory on this sort of thing. Remembering the “prudish” Puritan of Massachusetts, and comparing him to the Cavalier English of Virginia. It’s just something that stuck in the American psyche, I believe.
You have a great New Year, as well, Richard!
Richard Williams
December 31, 2013
“Are you seeing them, because of Puritan roots, being the nucleus for conflict?”
Yes, but not necessarily the “single tilting element” either.
“Remembering the “prudish” Puritan of Massachusetts, and comparing him to the Cavalier English of Virginia. It’s just something that stuck in the American psyche, I believe.”
Definitely! However, as with most “memory”, there is a degree of truth, even if exaggerated. An interesting discussion, regardless.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
January 2, 2014
I am reading John Barry’s book “Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty” and from it I gather de Tocqueville had a simplistic understanding of Puritan America. I don’t blame de Tocqueville; he likely had little access to substantive research and instead had to rely a great deal on that which was assumed to be true at the time.
But it appears that most of Puritan America, at least in its earliest years, was hardly any more receptive to protection of freedoms than what had existed in England. It was an extremely constricting and did not tolerate open dissent, which is why Williams and others found themselves banished. Heck, they even argued about whether grace should be said before or after a meal.
What became Rhode Island was founded with a more open-minded philosophy, I think in part because many of those who ended up there just wanted to be left alone. What’s interesting is that today we treat 1860s Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts as all being part of a region without any differences when each had very distinct beginnings.
Robert Moore
January 2, 2014
Right, inevitably, Puritans, after coming to North America, turned into the very thing that they wished to break from, and many, such as Williams, broke from it because of this. So, I think we have to approach “the influence of Puritanism” as something that did not exist as some static position after the early Massachusetts Bay years. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think Puritan culture evolved so many times that it might be more accurate to approach it as looking at the “influence from the Mass Bay culture”. All the influence from that area, I think, wasn’t what might be considered “pure Puritanism”, but several evolutions of culture and beliefs that came about in the later years.
Also, in considering Tocqueville as a student looking to learn more about what made our democracy tick, I think he came prepared with an idea… a thesis… which he wished to prove. It appears to me that his travel itenary may point to a flaw in his assessment, as he most certainly did not spend nearly as much time in the South as in the North.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
January 2, 2014
I would definitely agree with your second point, and add that he’s likely no different that most individuals in that regard. However, he also offered some insight into America that was probably revalatory to Europe.
And, yes, there can be no doubt that the culture of New England, just as that of the South, evolved many times over the decades from its founding through 1860. Both continue to develop today. No area stays static, as new groups enter, others leave, and, especially today, outside influences such as media have greater impact.
Your points are right on the mark.
Robert Moore
January 2, 2014
Thanks. It appears your comment arrived while I was posting more about my thoughts on this. This has “evolved” into quite an enjoyable exchange. 🙂
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
January 2, 2014
I think I’ve come to the conclusion that the 90-10 rule applies to blogs, as with most everything else: only about 10 percent of the blogs I peruse are really worth reading on a regular basis, at least for me. They’re the ones I get something out, that make me think, or add perspectives I hadn’t considered before, or hadn’t considered in proper perspective. The rest are, well, just kind of filling space. They may work for other folks, but not me. Your blog is definitely in my 10 percent category.
Robert Moore
January 2, 2014
Thanks, CBC, and as always, thanks for the continued follow… and commenting.
Richard Williams
January 2, 2014
Cotton – Coincidentally, I am reading the same book. (Williams is my great x 9 grandfather.) And you are correct about the Puritans – Roger Williams barely escaped arrest at the behest of the Puritans as he fled to Rhode Island where he was befriended by Indians.
“I think in part because many of those who ended up there just wanted to be left alone.”
An interesting choice of words as we see that same sentiment expressed by many today, as well as Lee during the Civil War.
Richard G. Williams, Jr.
January 10, 2014
Robert – as I continue to work on the Waynesboro book, I came across the following quote from Joseph Waddell’s work on Augusta County. I thought you would find it interesting:
“We shall find,” says Bancroft, “the first voice publicly raised in America to dissolve all connection with Great Britain came, not from the Puritans of New England, or the Dutch of New York, or the planters of Virginia, but from Scotch-Irish Presbyterians”
Robert Moore
January 10, 2014
Thanks, Richard. Indeed, I’m not surprised, as the chapter is titled “The Scotch-Irish”. Waddell was trying to prove the significance of the Scots-Irish… his own people. The quote was also used as the closing statement made in the chapter… to offer even more credibility to what he believed.
Robert Moore
January 10, 2014
Yet, in response to what he offers, via Bancroft, where do we actually see the first effective voices… voices of proven action… being raised, to dissolve connection with Great Britain? Typically, it wasn’t the Scots-Irish on the frontier, but those of various connections (but primarily English) on the Atlantic seaboard.
Robert Moore
January 10, 2014
Also, in Virginia’s case… who was our own problem at home? John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore…a Scotsman.