Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was there armed conflict or serious confrontation in the Colonies between supporters of the king and the Puritans or was there little effect? Did the Royalists' defeat and the subsequent execution of Charles I affect the administration of the Colonies?
That will tell you what went on in America during the English Civil War.
And if you wish to carry it further, there are those who cling to a thesis which holds that the North was largely settled by the descendants of the Roundheads, and the South was largely settled by the descendants of the Cavaliers...and that the American Civil War was a continuation of sorts of this 200 year old animosity.
That will tell you what went on in America during the English Civil War.
And if you wish to carry it further, there are those who cling to a thesis which holds that the North was largely settled by the descendants of the Roundheads, and the South was largely settled by the descendants of the Cavaliers...and that the American Civil War was a continuation of sorts of this 200 year old animosity.
That's a bit of a stretch. The union was full of Germans, Irish, Catholics and others who had little or nothing to do with the two sides in the English Civil War or were not particularly sympathetic to the roundheads. Also, much of Virginia, though associated with the cavaliers, had pretty much discarded their love for the crown by the time of the revolution.
That's a bit of a stretch. The union was full of Germans, Irish, Catholics and others who had little or nothing to do with the two sides in the English Civil War or were not particularly sympathetic to the roundheads. Also, much of Virginia, though associated with the cavaliers, had pretty much discarded their love for the crown by the time of the revolution.
I do not subscribe to the thesis, merely mention that it is out there. I first encountered it in "Attack and Die" by Grady McWhiney and Perry D. Jamieson. They make a good argument that General Lee bled his army to death with his aggressive tactics '62-'63, Less impressive is their attempt to paint the North as the Roundheads and the South as the Cavaliers. Their idea was that Lee was a Cavalier at heart, thus driven to aggressive deeds of romantic war.
My Family became Puritans and fled to America, half died the first winter. They left behind a town named after them with no one bearing their name. It's a wonder no one haas renamed it
That's a bit of a stretch. The union was full of Germans, Irish, Catholics and others who had little or nothing to do with the two sides in the English Civil War or were not particularly sympathetic to the roundheads. Also, much of Virginia, though associated with the cavaliers, had pretty much discarded their love for the crown by the time of the revolution.
Not to diss the bravery of Union Irish Catholic regiments, but catholic irish were overrepresentated among the northerners supporting peace, opposing abolition, and of course participating in draft riots (as they had generally been politically aligned with the south via the dem party prewar). Which (since irish and other catholics tended to be on the cavalier side in the english civil war) actually fits with the thesis.
and of course its not a suggestion that the CSA was royalist - but that there was a continuity in the cultural conflict.
I do not subscribe to the thesis, merely mention that it is out there. I first encountered it in "Attack and Die" by Grady McWhiney and Perry D. Jamieson. They make a good argument that General Lee bled his army to death with his aggressive tactics '62-'63, Less impressive is their attempt to paint the North as the Roundheads and the South as the Cavaliers. Their idea was that Lee was a Cavalier at heart, thus driven to aggressive deeds of romantic war.
I thought their thesis is that the south was more celtic (scots and scots irish) and followed a "celtic way of war"
I thought their thesis is that the south was more celtic (scots and scots irish) and followed a "celtic way of war"
That is more accurate than what I expressed. The thesis root is Celtic, then traces the heritage..Celts..Catholics..Cavaliers...Confederat es. I limited myself to the Cavalier aspect because our topic here is the English Civil War.
In the McWhiney/Jamieson book, it is explained in the final chapter, called "The Rebels Are Barbarians" and it is the authors' attempt to get us to believe that the Southerners fought the way that they did because they were:
hospitable
generous
frank
wasteful
lazy
lawless
reckless..
..members of a society which valued the sensuous over the mechanical, who loved singing, dancing, riding, hunting, fighting, drinking and gambling.
They valued progress, profit, hard work and order.
They then assign all of the Confederate qualities to Celtic ancestors, and all the Yankee qualities to Rome. They trace it through the conflicts of English history and to the shores of America where it emerges as North vs South.
That is broader and more general than I am willing to embrace
As noted, this was but a subthesis of their work, constituting the final chapter. The book which you mentioned, "The Cousins War" is a much better source if you are truly interested in this line of thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
