Dyed-In-The-Wool History
The Original Immigrants
The Puritans, the English Civil War, and the Yankee Character
​
Puritans and Separatists were dissatisfied with the degree of change in the Church of England and sought to either reshape the Church of England and English society into what they thought it should be or to start a new society. They generally embraced Calvinism or reformed theology, opposed ritualistic practices associated with the Catholic Church, favored a worship or service structure that emphasized preaching, followed a less hierarchical Presbyterian style church structure, and rigidly enforced laws to prohibit activity on the Sabbath (sabbatarianism later associated with “blue laws” in the 19th and early 20th centuries). The leaders sought to establish a “New Zion” in a new land but accounts of most of the flock who recorded their reasons for coming to America cited religious motives that principally related to their own families(1 pp. 13-24). Plymouth was initially a Separatist settlement made up of many people who had already left England but the area became overrun by Puritans.
​
Between 1620 and 1640, 80,000 puritans left England going to Ireland, New England, the Caribbean Islands, and the Netherlands. Roughly an equal number are thought to have gone to each destination. The Winthrop fleet sailed from England in 1630 delivering the first 700 passengers to Massachusetts. The seventeen vessels that sailed to Massachusetts in 1630 were the first of about 200 ships altogether, each carrying about a hundred passengers making roughly 21,000 immigrants to New England. This rapid movement of people continued through 1640 but then abruptly came to an end and, to a certain extent, reversed itself as ten to twenty percent of the new population, and as many as 1/3 of the clergy, returned to England to join in the English Civil War when the Puritans political fortunes improved. (1 pp. 13-24)
​
All wars are complicated and the English Civil War (or wars) is certainly no exception. It’s beyond the scope of this text to address it in any detail but some understanding of it is necessary to understand the development of the British colonies and regional cultures that followed. The English Civil War actually refers to a series of wars from 1642 thru 1651, also known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, consisting of the first (1642 – 1646) and second (1648-49) pitting supporters of King Charles I against those of the Long Parliament, and the third (1649-51) with supporters of Charles II (Charles I was executed) against the Rump Parliament. Supporters of the Parliament were referred to as “Roundheads” and religiously aligned with the Puritans or Calvinists while the Loyalists or “Cavaliers” were High Church Anglicans. The Roundheads came largely from the east of England and the Cavaliers from the South. One of the unusual aspects of the wars was that they dealt not just with who should rule but how, eventually leading to Parliamentary superiority. The Roundheads were victorious culminating with Cromwell’s military campaign through Scotland and Ireland resulting in the destruction and depopulation of Ireland. The estimated population losses from these wars in England were 4%, Scotland 6%, and Ireland 41%. For Scotland and Ireland, these figures involve a good deal of conjecture.(2 pp. 211-214)
​
The puritan emigrants who came to Massachusetts in the great migration became the origin for America’s Yankee population. Their population doubled every generation for two centuries, which represents a phenomenal birth rate of nine births per female that overcame a similarly high mortality rate. Their numbers increased to 100,000 by 1700, to at least one million by 1800, and six million by 1900. They occupied most of British New England, eastern New Jersey and northern New York. In the nineteenth century, their descendants went to Maine, the Upper Midwest and areas of the Pacific Coast following the outline of “Yankeedom” from 11 Nations.(1 pp. 13-24)
​
The demographics of the Puritan pilgrims were entirely different from what would normally be attracted to a frontier area. They traveled in families and had very few young unattached males. Amongst the first 700 who sailed from Great Yarmouth (Norfolk) and Sandwich (Kent), 94 percent were part of family groups. Among another group of 680 emigrants, at least 88 percent traveled with relatives, and 73 percent arrived as members of complete nuclear families. Further most of these nuclear families had ties to other emigrating families and, for generations, married within this larger family structure. The age distribution was exceptional for immigrant populations. Over 40 percent were mature men and women over twenty-five and nearly half were children under sixteen. While there were only a few on the upper range of the age distribution, but in every other way the distribution of ages was representative of England’s overall population. The gender ratio was approximately 150 males for every 100 females, which, although biased towards males, was far more normal that other immigrant or frontier populations. Congregational churches had more women than men, which has been and remains consistent with church participation data extending through to modern times, and family life was the rule and not the exception. Socially and economically they came from the “middling” layer of British society with very few aristocrats and some gentry who quickly drifted to the top of New England society. There were also very few from the lower realms of the British social classes. The Puritans recruited “godly men” who were “endowed with grace and furnished with means” and insisted that “they must not be of the poorer sort.” Nearly three-quarters of adult Massachusetts immigrants paid their own passage. The cost of outfitting and moving a family of six across the ocean was around £50 for the poorest accommodation ranging up to £80 for a few minimal comforts. By comparison, a typical English yeoman had an annual income of £40 to £60. Most ordinary families in England could not afford to come to Massachusetts. Another remarkable statistic is that 2/3 of the adult males were literate compared to about 1/3 for England as a whole.(1 pp. 25-31)
​
The puritan migrants came predominantly from East Anglia and, to the extent it drew from other regions; there was typically an East Anglia connection. The population of East Anglia was of Anglo-Saxon lineage, had a history of being both religiously and politically active, and the protestant reformation was enthusiastically welcomed there. The East Anglia connection was even stronger among the Puritan elite. Of 129 university-trained ministers and magistrates in the great migration, 56 percent had lived in the seven eastern counties of Suffolk, Essex, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Kent. Only 9 percent were Londoners. The New England town names, the economy, and even the building methods trace very directly to East Anglia.(1 pp. 31-38)
​
Church attendance was fairly widespread and not confined to a ruling oligarchy. Church membership or participation was lowest in seaport towns like Salem or Marblehead but even in Salem, more than 50% of the taxable men joined the church in the mid 1600’s. Over time the percentage would drop somewhat during the colonial period but this was deeply engrained in the culture and the concept of a common morale purpose was to a large degree a shared vision.(1 pp. 39-42)
​
While disease would take a consistent toll on the New England settlers, the harsh climate also proved to be a blessing. The period of the migration was during the mini-ice age so temperatures were colder and growing seasons shorter than in the 21st century. Insect-borne diseases, like malaria and yellow fever, were less prominent than in the Southern colonies or Caribbean. Water-borne diseases, such as typhoid fever and dysentery, were limited by the cold temperature. Diseases that principally targeted children, like enteritis, were comparatively mild in the Puritan colonies. African servitude didn’t become as wide spread in New England as in other areas for a variety of economic reasons but this was also influenced by the mortality rate for people from Africa in New England which was twice as high as those from East Anglia, in the colder climate. The opposite was true in the Southern colonies.(1 pp. 42-50)
​
From the puritan came the Yankee character although the traits associated with the Yankee were not all transferred directly from England and took some time fully develop. The term “Yankee” is commonly misunderstood to refer to either a Union soldier in the context of the war of 1861 or more broadly to anyone from the North or to Americans in general but it actually refers to a specific cultural stereotype derived specifically from puritan society although, simply being from this society does not necessarily make someone a “Yankee”. For example, author Nathaniel Hawthorne and union soldier and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, although coming very directly from New England geographically, genetically, and socially were, in the end, not Yankees. Likewise outsiders could become Yankees largely through the educational system with Ivy League colleges acting as a gateway to elite society.
​
The Yankee character has been well documented in literature, frequently somewhat sarcastically, in works like the Scarlet Letter, the Headless Horseman, and Solomon Kane and recognized by historians and commentators for a variety of social and political reasons but it’s significance is fading out of the modern collective consciousness. Without an understanding of the puritan or Yankee culture and character, however, it is impossible to develop a coherent understanding of the flow of American history.
​
The most enduring Puritan contribution to modern literature and politics is, of course, John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” reference that has over time came to be applied to the United States as a sort of messianic nation. Author and historian Richard Gamble devoted an entire book to analyzing Winthrop’s intent and how the use of the phrase expanded over time. While it is very unlikely that Winthrop envisioned a modern nation state stretching across a continent and his intent may have been closer to the traditional interpretation that the passage refers to the Christian Church or Christian clergy, this and other Puritan literature shows how fluently they move between the individual and the collective and the form taken by the collective can readily change almost in mid thought.
​
In “The War for Righteousness: Progressive Christianity, the Great War, and the Rise of the Messianic Nation”, Richard Gamble wrote of the Puritans in the context of the colonial time period:
​
“Among the earliest settlers of the American wilderness, the Puritans of New England were animated by a powerful consciousness of who they were, what they had fled from, and the new world they were laboring to redeem and build for themselves and all mankind in North America. They were a people powered by an unmistakable sense of mission and of being the objects of a divine covenant with all its attendant blessings and curses. The Puritans were set apart to be, as John Winthrop famously and enduringly labeled them, a “City upon a hill” with the eyes of the world fixed upon them. God entered into a literal new covenant with a new chosen people, called out of bondage in Egypt for a particular task at a special moment in redemptive history, escaping from a modern Pharaoh and his army across a great sea. Their election was confirmed by signs and wonders, by attesting miracles of deliverance and safety and provision. They were unshakably certain of God’s calling. They fled from a corrupt Europe and from an England bound in spiritual decline and apostasy. Or, to change the biblical metaphor, they were the woman of the book of Revelation (12: 14-17) who fled the dragon and escaped into the wilderness. “(3 p. p. 7)
​​
Collin Woodward in his book American Nations that traces the regional subcultures that make up America made strikingly similar observations approaching Puritan history from a different perspective. This book further establishes that, because people tend to be self-sorting, many of these regional characteristics carry on to modern day.
​
“The Pilgrims and, to a greater extent, the Puritans came to the New World not to re-create rural English life but rather to build a completely new society: and applied religious utopia, a Protestant theocracy based on the teachings of John Calvin. They would found a new Zion in the New England wilderness, a “City on a hill” to serve as a model for the rest of the world in troubled times. They believed they would succeed because they were God’s chosen people, bound to Him in an Old Testament-style covenant. If they did His will, they would be rewarded. If any member did not, they might all be punished. In early Massachusetts, there was no such thing as minding one’s own business; the salvation of the entire community depended on everyone doing their part.”(4 p. 57)
​
Southern author and professor, Forrest McDonald made these observations originally in 1985 that are more along a theological line but convey the same general traits.
​
“That is the first thing to understand about the Yankee: He is a doctrinal puritan, characterized by what William G. McLaughlin has called pietistic perfectionism. Unlike the Southerner, he is constitutionally incapable of letting things be, of adopting a live-and-let-live attitude. No departure from his version of Truth is tolerable, and thus when he finds himself amidst sinners, as he invariably does, he must either purge and purify the community or join with his fellow saints and go into the wilderness to establish a New Jerusalem. In other words, he must reform society or secede from it; and though he has long since been thoroughly secularized, the compulsion remains as strong in the twentieth century as it was in the seventeenth.”(5)
​
The authors cited are a diverse group perhaps with little in common, yet they studied the same subject and came up with largely common conclusions. The Yankee had a vision that extended to all of society. Compliance or conformity as opposed to tolerance was a high virtue. Because they had limited dependence on imported labor for at least 150 years after the founding on colonial New England, they developed a largely homogenous society. They tended to see that society as being intellectually and morally superior to others and sought to spread their culture but, unlike more historically common forms of empire, the vision wasn’t adaptive to multiple cultures held together with only lose common ties. Everyone was to conform or to become largely alike. While the Yankee theology would shift and change fairly rapidly, this characteristic has remained absolutely constant. The church based but publically supported educational system played a significant role in maintaining and spreading Yankee culture.(6 p. ch. 3)
​
One odd incident that merits mention was the Salem witch trial in 1692 when a group of early teenage girls began having hysterical fits. When questioned, they blamed various people in the village for spiritually afflicting them through witchcraft. The hysteria spread and eventually were arrested on charges of witchcraft with very little evidence in some cases as unverifiable as a neighbor claiming they saw someone as an apparition. Nineteen people were eventually tried and put to death including fourteen women. When the acquisitions spread to esteemed ministers and the royal governor, the trials were brought to an end(7 pp. 25-26). In a more general sense this can be representative on how puritan culture saw and dealt with those who didn’t conform to societal norms.
​
While colonial New England was not a highly diverse place, the following account from the book “Renegade History”, involving John Adams, gives a useful example of how the Yankee character and culture saw sinners in their midst. The book in general is a contrast between common people and elite society, which overwhelmingly writes history. While facing the British Army, disease, and dissertation, Adams saw a much greater enemy in the population itself. He wrote in a letter to a friend, “Indeed, there is one enemy, who is more formidable than famine, pestilence, and the sword…I mean the corruption which is prevalent in so many American hearts, a depravity that is more inconsistent with our republican governments than light is with darkness.”(8 p. 3) Adams saw in others fundamental flaws that needed to be corrected for the collective vision to be achieved and the Yankee collectively took up this challenge through manipulation and coercion. This frequently involved re-identification of common concepts, terms, and people to create accepted paradigms that at first would, perhaps rightfully, seem to make little sense as we shall see as the story progresses to the establishment of the new nation.
​​
Puritanism and Calvinism
​
Calvinism, of reformed theology, is an important topic in understanding the development of the Protestant churches that sprang from the Reformation but, in the context of American history, it was tied most deeply to the Puritans. While Puritan theology moved away from this way of thinking after a few generations, its effects were deeply engrained in the culture and how they perceived both themselves and those around them.
​
Calvinism was and remains a controversial topic that most churches try to work around without alienating those holding specific beliefs within their congregations. The doctrine is based largely off of the writings of Paul in the New Testament:
​
For those whom he [God] foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified (Romans 8:29–30).
​
There have historically been several ways to interpret this but the most extreme and literal interpretation is referred to as “double predestination” which holds that God has determined from eternity whom he will save and whom he will damned, regardless of their faith, love, or merit or lack thereof. This is specifically associated with John Calvin and the Synod of Dort in 1618-19. (9)
​
Calvinism is frequently described as having five pillars, sometimes abbreviated as TULIP, which are generally described and associated with Puritan society as follows:
​
Total Depravity of Man: The “natural man”, to the Calvinist, was lost in a state of total corruption as a consequence of Adam’s original sin. Evil had a tangible presence and the universe was a scene of cosmic struggle between darkness and light. Human atrocities of all types were considered expected and only God could call someone out of this condition of darkness. They had no expectation of goodness or justice in this life and, therefore, their faith was very difficult to erode through the trials of human experience. (2 pp. 22-24) They also believed that man through searching could not find God apart from God selecting them.
​
Unconditional Election: God chooses to save some without looking for anything good in them, or, not based in any way on their own merits. The Puritans related this to the concept of covenants beginning in Genesis where God made an agreement with Abraham, offering salvation with no preconditions but many obligations. The concept of successive covenants had not been prominent in the thinking of Luther or Calvin, but it became a core guiding concept of the English Puritans. They saw their relationship with God and with each other as a web of contacts which became a metaphor central to their thought. Grace may be free but it came with many obligations to God and society. (2 pp. 22-24) The concept of covenant was a key point that carried over to a society’s or nation’s relationship to God. (3)
​
Limited Atonement: Christ died to the remission of sin only for the elect and not for all of humanity. Only the chosen are admitted to the covenant. This was deeply engrained in the Puritan soul; they were chosen and those around them were of the World.
​
Irresistible Grace and Preservation of the Saints: God’s grace to his elect is unchanging and someone cannot refuse or turn away from it. This “motion of the heart” was God’s gift to the elect, and the instrument of their salvation. They saw grace coming to each of them, and once given would never be taken away. Grace was more than an emotion and was defined as a feeling of “ecstatic intimacy with the divine.” This sense of spiritual freedom was referred to as “soul liberty” and was very different from what someone might naturally see liberty as being. This concept played heavily into how puritans framed and understood the concept of political liberty. (2 pp. 22-24)
​
The concept of love, which is not normally associated with the Puritan, was the binder to the theology for, without divine love, their belief system would make no sense. How else could salvation come from a perfect God to a lost and depraved sinner? This, in turn created an obligation to love others. The Puritan concept of love required people to “lovingly give, as well as lovingly take, admonitions.” This too was a central concept of Puritan thought. (2 pp. 22-24)
​
The counter position to Calvinism defined around the same time was Arminianism titled after Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius. This view held that Christ’s death was full atonement as opposed to limited and placed a much high degree of importance on man’s free will and ability to respond to God. (1) Protestant churches have tried to balance between these two extremes and attempt to strike a balance between the sovereignty of God and the Will of Man. Catholicism and Liturgical high church protestant traditions have consistently held a high regard for God’s sovereignty while retaining acknowledgement of man’s free will and moral accountability derived from that. While it may be very reasonable for someone to tend more strongly towards the Sovereignty of God, the extreme Calvinist position can be seen as negating the free will of man almost entirely and holding people, therefore, accountable, for what they cannot control.
​
The logical challenges and contradictions of the extreme Calvinist position became deeply embedded in the culture of New England. Throughout the theological evolution and secularization of the Puritans, who became the Yankees, and then New England Unitarians, this shadow stayed with them most conspicuously in how they would tended to see themselves as the chosen or enlightened and others as lesser beings perhaps not fully able to manage their own decisions and lives and requiring the guidance of the Yankee.
​
Forrest McDonald, in the previously cited essay, goes on to explain the historical role of Calvinism in the Puritan Culture drawing a comparison to Gnosticism:
​
To get a handle on the Yankee, it is helpful to begin with his original Calvinism, and especially with the doctrine of predestination: The belief that most men are doomed and a few are elected for salvation, not by faith or works or any other act of human volition, but only in accordance with a preordained and unknowable divine plan. It might seem that the premise precludes speculation by the puny human intellect, that is logical disputation and inspires unlimited arrogance.
​
A second and related characteristic of the Yankee is that, as others have pointed out, he is a gnostic. Adherents of this heresy in ancient times regarded themselves as privy to “knowledge of the divine mysteries reserved to an elite;” the original puritan counterpart was the Elect. The essence of Gnosticism as a mindset is the absolute, unquestioning certainty that one is possessed of the Truth (5).
​
Cavalier Culture and Immigration
​
The Virginia tidewater area was populated by people from Southern England who were on the losing end of the English Civil Wars which is where the “Cavalier” name associated with Virginia came from. Genetically, they were largely Britons as opposed to Anglo-Saxons although that has only become understood recently through modern genetics and related analysis of migration patterns. (10)
​
Virginia’s elite came from families in the upper ranks of English society. Quoting from Albion’s Seed, “Of 152 Virginians who held top offices in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, at least sixteen were connected to aristocratic families, and 101 were the sons of baronets, knights and the rural gentry of England. Seven more came from armigerous urban families, with coats of arms at the college of heralds. Only eighteen were the sons of yeomen, traders, mariners, artisans, or “plebs.” None came to Virginia as laborers or indentured servants except possibly the first Adam Thorough good who was also the brother of a baronet. Only two were not British, and nine could not be identified”. (1 p. 216)
​
The hegemony of Virginia’s leading families was very strong through the first century. Two-thirds (68%) originated within a triangle in the south and west of England, from the Weald of Kent to Devon and north to Warwickshire. If emigrants from London are included as part of this region, the total increases to 75%. Only a few came from the north of England (8%), and from East Anglia (7%). There were only a very few from other areas including Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and abroad. English aristocrats who came to America had a strong kinship with the Virginia elite. Quoting from Lord Adam Gordon in 1765, the first son of the second Duke of Gordon, the “topping families” originated from “younger brothers of good families of England.” “Upon the whole, was it the case to live in America, this province in point of company and climate would be my choice.” (1 pp. 212-225)
​
One economic factor that did develop differently than England was land ownership. Initially large estates were granted by the crown but the tenant farmer or serf system didn’t take root in part due to differences in patterns of the way land was passed generationally within families and subdivided and also simply due to the vastness of the land itself. Smaller free-hold estates over time became increasingly common. (6 p. ch. 1)
​
The Virginia immigrants were staunch Royalists with most of the upper class having served in the Civil War as military officers of company or field grade. Politically this pattern had been consistent through several centuries. Of those who attended college most chose Oxford and the colleges of Christ Church, Merton and Queens which were associated with the royal family. They were Anglican and their faith was as important to them as it had been to the Puritans and Puritan proselytizers were not welcome. (1 pp. 212-225)
​
The population of the middle colonies increased rapidly from 1645 to 1665, which roughly corresponds with a reverse migration in the New England colonies. During this time period, the population of Virginia increased three fold and Maryland eleven while New England only doubled. This was largely due to immigration as opposed to birth and death rates. (1 p. 227)
​
While New England was populated from the “middlers”, Virginians came from the upper and lower ranks. About 75% came as indentured servants and a good many were distressed cavaliers. Servants came from the lower classes but not the lowest described by one historian as “below their older and wealthier contemporaries, but above the poor laborers, vagrants and the destitute.” The servant class rarely paid their own passage and were rural and agrarian. Two thirds were unskilled labor, which roughly translates as farmers or agricultural labor, and only 30% were artisans which is opposite of England as a whole. Literacy levels were relatively low. Males outnumbered females by more than four to one and few women came of their own free will. 75% of immigrants were between 15 and 24 and only 1% were over 35. Although it is impossible to exactly quantify those who were spirited away, most of those who were brought to the colonies against their will wound up in the Tidewater area. Quoting again from Albion’s seed: “Parliament in 1645 heard evidence of gangs who “in a most barbarous and wicked manner steal away many little children” for service in the Chesapeake colonies. Others were “lagged” or transported after being arrested for petty crime or vagrancy. Another ballad tells the story of a London apprentice was who “lagg’d” by a “hard-hearted judge,” and “sold for a slave in Virginia”. This immigration pattern was largely the result of policy and social planning. (1 pp. 227-232)
​
For the younger male immigrants, religion was less common making for a divergence between religious participation in the upper and lower classes. In the first few decades of the Virginia colony immigrants held many varieties of Protestant belief. A few laymen and clergy had puritanical leanings but Virginia did not attract many of these and the Puritan congregations were largely purged. A religious survey in 1724 concluded that the Anglican Church was healthier in the colony than in the mother country. In the eighteenth century, this pattern changed with the increase of evangelical denominations but through the first six generations Anglican orthodoxy was strong especially amongst the upper class. (1 pp. 232-236)
​
Welch immigration
​
From 1675 to 1715 a large number of Quakers, or Friends, and others who were sympathetic to them, referred to as friendly, migrated to the American colonies settling mainly in Delaware and Pennsylvania. From 1675 to 1682 about 1400 Quakers arrived in West Jersey at a place they referred to as Salem. In 1682 the scale of migration increased with twenty-three ships and over 2,000 settlers arriving who were to establish the colony of Pennsylvania including William Penn. On the crossing 30 passengers died of small pox. Following that there were ninety shiploads of settlers between 1682 and 1685. The migration continued through the early 18th century bringing 23,000 to the Delaware Valley. The majority of them were believed to be Friends and people who didn’t join the sect but were “friendly” (1 pp. 420-21). By 1750, based on the number of church buildings, Quakers were the third largest group in the colonies with 260 meeting houses. The Congregationalists had 456 and the Anglicans 289. After that the Quakers rose slightly numerically but declined rapidly as a percentage of the total population and by the first US census religious survey were a minor group with around 1% of the US population. Friends services and gatherings seem to have attracted a sizeable number of people who were not part of their communities as did their schools making their cultural influence greater than their numbers. (1 pp. 422-24)
​
Quakers and “Freindlys” made up a majority of the people in the Delaware Valley by the beginning of the eighteenth century. Estimates from the time period claim that half the people of Pennsylvania were Friends or sympathizers which would be around 13,000. The population increased rapidly with Benjamin Franklin estimating that between 60,000 and 70,000 Quakers lived in Pennsylvania alone. Many others dwelled in the neighboring colonies of West Jersey, northern Delaware and northern Maryland. Other people who started to settle in the Delaware Valley were “un-Friendly” and were not sympathetic to Quaker beliefs and customs. This included a large part of the population in Philadelphia, who were primarily unchurched people which was customary of seaport towns. These appeared in large numbers after 1716 and rapidly moved inland. (1 pp. 422-24)
​
For Quakers, this was a spiritual migration to escape persecution which had been recorded in their “Book of Sufferings” which was reviewed at monthly meetings. By 1675 the worst of the physical abuses had passed but economic persecution persisted. (1 p. 424)The majority of Quaker leaders shared a sense of collective vision similar to Puritan leadership, but among ordinary immigrants, religious motives tended to be more personal and individual. The Society of Friends was very different from the Congregationalists and Anglicans in some very fundamental respects. They did not profess and were hostile to formal creeds and never required subscription to a creed to be a member of their community. Quakers rejected the Five Points of Calvinism, and many Anglican core teachings as well. At the center of the Quaker belief system was a God of Love and light whose benevolent spirit harmonized the universe and the doctrine of inner light which passed from Jesus to every human soul. The Light Within brought salvation to every individual who would recognize it. In accordance with their beliefs on salvation, they rejected the Calvinistic idea of limited atonement. (1 pp. 424-26)The concept of God held by the Quakers was in many respects fundamentally different from the Puritans and the Anglicans which Author David Hackett Fischer describes as follows: “The Puritans worshiped a very different Deity—one who was equally capable of love and wrath—a dark, mysterious power who could be terrifying in his anger and inscrutability. Anglicans, on the other hand, knelt before a great and noble Pantocrator who ruled firmly but fairly over the hierarchy of his creature”. Their church structure was flat minimizing professional ministers and the church services forsook rituals and structure. (1 p. 426)
​
The Quakers did have a concept of civil libertarianism and believed in “reciprocal liberty” and were consistently opposed to slavery although there were significant Quaker slave owners. Their theology evolved rapidly through several distinct phases. The first phase was revolutionary and messianic, the third phase was more introspective, while the second phase, which aligned with the colonial period was transitional with elements of both. The liberal or progressive elements of the second phase had a strong influence on the development of Evangelicalism in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. (1 pp. 425-29)
​
While the Quakers were numerically significant during the colonial period the regions they settled were diverse from the outset including French, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Scotch, French and English and the friends had as members of their religious community people from all these groups. Immigrants from England and Wales made up as much as two thirds of the population in 1700 and this group was the core of Quaker religion and society. Many of the Welsh continued to speak Welsh and took pride in their ethnic origins, even as they were also strong adherents to the Society of Friends. By 1760 English Quakers and Quaker sympathizers were a minority in the colonies they had founded. The Quakers held to nothing like the Puritans’ concept of being a separate and chosen people and generally lacked a sense of cultural or ethnic superiority. (1 pp. 429-34)
​
The Friends, migration had fewer nuclear families than New England with available records indicating between 40% and 50%. Socially and economically they came more from the middle to lower levels of British society. Welsh Quakers had a somewhat higher standard. Some crossings were subsidized by the larger group or congregation. Quakers showed no hostility to (indentured) servants as was the case in New England. (1 pp. 429-34)
​
The English migrants came primarily from the North Midlands, with the heaviest concentration from these counties of Cheshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. In a listing of immigrants who arrived in Philadelphia between the years 1682 and 1687, more than 80 percent came from these counties. A few came from the South and West, and none were from East Anglia. In another sample from Buck County in Pennsylvania in 1687, two thirds came from these counties. Dutch and Germanic Quakers also came from a specific geographic area and named their settlement from towns along the German-Dutch border area that expelled them. The English counties were the highest ground in England and shared a common cultural heritage that probably shaped Quaker beliefs in some respects. This area was heavily colonized by Viking invaders and some of the customs transferred to the local population. The Norse held land in individual ownership and the Norman feudal system when imposed there in the 12th century was always resented. Open air meetings were also common which arguably could be seen as transferring to the American Evangelical tent meeting. Quaker theology was influenced by being an oppressed regional under class that resented what they saw as foreign elite. It also rejected the institutions of high culture that lorded over them and made virtues of simplicity and hard work. (1 pp. 438-41)
​
While not tending to recognize a society elite, in the colonies one developed. As William Penn stated, “Tho’ [God] has made of one blood all nations,…he has not ranged or dignified them upon the Level, but in a sort of subordination or dependency.” Within the first generation of settlement, a small elite took shape across the Quaker areas consisting of a group of Quaker families whom Deborah Norris of Philadelphia called “our mob.” Of all the men who were admitted members of Philadelphia’s Corporation (the oligarchy that ran the town) from 1727 to 1750, 85 percent were related to one another. (1 pp. 462-63)
​
The Borderlands (Scott – Irish)
​
The last and most numerous group of Immigrants from the British Isles came from Northern England, Ireland, and Scotland from a region generally referred to as the borderlands. These arrivals are now commonly referred to as Scott-Irish but they didn’t like that term and had a variety of more specific names to identify themselves as they were in many respects, not a homogenous collection of people. While the other three groups were relatively small in terms or initial migrants and their populations grew from birthrate, the borderland migrants came in unending waves and were a population of immigrants who then also had high birthrates upon arrival.
​
The Borderland migration ran from 1718 to 1775 with peak periods in 1718, 1729, 1741, 1755, 1767 and 1774. Two-thirds of this traffic was concentrated between 1765 and 1775 and as much as one-third may have occurred in the four years preceding American Independence (1 p. 606). The average flow of immigrants from Ireland, Scotland and the north of England was over 5,000 a year. Conservative estimates over the entire period show 150,000 came from Northern Ireland, sailing mostly from the ports of Belfast Lough, Londonderry, Newry, Larne and Portrush, 75,000 from Clydebank to Solway Firth in the west of Scotland, and 50,000 from coastal towns of northern England from Maryport to Merseyside. A study of British records (1773-76) determined that 61 percent of emigrants from northern England and 73 percent of those from Scotland traveled in family groups. The age distribution was broad with 25% under 15 and 40% over 25. There were few elderly. The gender distribution was just under 1.5 to 1 biased towards men which was slightly more male than New England and roughly comparable to the Delaware Valley. (1 pp. 606-08)
​
The motives of these immigrants were largely economic and personal. They were not collectivists in any way and had no vision of a holy society or “city on a hill”. Some of the specific hardships they were escaping were high rents, low wages, heavy taxes and short leases. (1 p. 608) In Northern Ireland, conditions were so bad that famine and starvation were often mentioned as a leading cause of migration. They faced extreme prejudice from other groups upon arrival. Lieutenant James MacMichael wrote “I was looked upon as a barbarian.” A Philadelphia Quaker named Jonathan Dickinson observed that the streets of his city were teeming with “a swarm of people … strangers to our Laws and Customs, and even to our language”1 (1 p. 605). Their attire and appearance was distinctive. The men were taller and leaner than the other groups and frequently looked “weathered”. They wore felt hats, loose sackcloth shirts close-belted at the waist, baggy trousers, thick yarn stockings and wooden shoes. The lack of modesty displayed by the young women was shocking to many Quakers. Yet, few if any or the new arrivals wanted to return. (1 p. 605)
​
The Atlantic crossing became far more dangerous during this phase of immigration in large part due to the volume and the money to be made by transporters. Shipping agents actively marketed their product in North England and did everything possible to reduce their operating costs. Ships were loaded beyond their capacity. On board epidemics became relatively common and there was at least one recorded cases where the ship ran completely out of food mid-passage. Mortality on ships sailing from North Britain approached that of slave and convict ships. (1 p. 612)
​
There are differing opinions on the social and economic stature of the Borderland Immigrants. Data from three different Irish ports in 1774 indicated that the majority were “paying passengers of the middle class.” Others, however, had different impressions. One writer described the Scott-Irish emigrants as “the scum of two nations.” An Anglican clergyman referred to them as “the scum of the universe” (1 p. 613). The majority were farmers or farm laborers who did not own land and could be considered tenant farmers. A significant number were skilled or semi-skilled craftsmen including many who worked in textile related trades. Immigration of textile workers peaked between 1772 and 1774 when the linen industry in England suffered a severe contraction. Few were unskilled, and, as in any primarily voluntary immigration, the unskilled could not pay for the passage. Considering their difficult economic circumstances, relatively few came in bondage. From 1773 to 1776, indentured servants were one percent of Scottish border emigrants, and less than 20 percent of those who had left the six northern counties of England (1 pp. 613-15).The percentage of servants coming from Northern Ireland was higher but still not a majority. This was in part because Irish servants had little demand in America. They were thought to be violent, ungovernable and to pose a significant danger to their masters (1 p. 614). There was a small but important elite or gentry that accounted for one to two percent of the Borderland Immigrants but they remained prominent though out American history including the Calhoun Clan, which produced amongst others, John C Calhoun, and the ancestors of Andrew Jackson.
​
Religiously the migrants were mixed with those from Scotland being primarily Presbyterians with some Roman Catholics. English borderland migrants were mostly Anglican along with several other protestant sects including newly forming Baptist and Methodist denominations. There was a tendency to what was referred to at the time as New Light Christianity believing in “Free Grace” and holding outdoor “field meetings” which was passed to American Evangelicalism and the practice of tent meetings during the Awakening movements especially in rural areas. They tended to be hostile to “hireling clergy”. A South Carolina statute of 1716 forbade “. Sectarian conflicts were common, as were all other types of conflicts, but religion was not a primary factor in the migration or the organization of society. (1 pp. 615-18)
​
While the people of the border region were different in many ways, they had a somewhat common culture developed over several centuries shaped by constant warfare. Picking up the story in 1215, England’s King John initiated a mission of revenge. The Scottish burghers of Berwick were tortured and killed and the English king set fire to their houses with his own hand. During the late thirteenth century, Scotland was forced to accept English over lordship, which brought a period of oppressive peace. The lowland areas remained in English hands until about 1297, when Scotland’s national hero William Wallace invaded Cumberland. His soldiers did to English officers what they had done to the Scottish burghers. When Wallace was captured, his body was drawn and quartered, and his head impaled atop an English pike. (1 pp. 623-25)Private fighting between warlords continued unabated and North Britain descended into a state on anarchy. The endless violence shaped the social systems and culture of the region to be very different from the south of England and much of this transferred to the new world. Forms of tenancy were designed to maintain large groups of fighting men that could be readily put into action. Blood relationships were very important with families turning into clans that were the primary bond of allegiance. This view of government authority could hardly be more removed from rapidly developing Puritan nationalism. There was little trust in legal institutions and disputes were generally settled privately through violence and/or coerced payment. This is where the term “blackmail” originated from as payments for protection. (1 pp. 614-28)
​
In the decades prior to the migration, the society and economy changed sharply and for the worse. The old warrior families were replaced by a new class of entrepreneurs who saw the future of their region in commerce and coal. Arable lands along the border passed into the hands of agricultural capitalists. Most great landlords in Cumberland and Westmorland were absentees who never knew their tenants and rarely visited their estates. These people became refugees from a historical transformation. (1 p. 629) Some economic historians might refer to this as moving from one economic phase to another as the result of “financialization” but the human impact of these changes were, in many ways, similar to the loss of the manufacturing economy in America in the late 20th and early 21st century. Some wished to preserve their past while others might have been looking for a new future but none would have welcomed life under their new masters. Economic changes had accomplished what centuries of fighting could not.
​
Although generally poor, the border immigrants demanded to be treated with due respect (poor but proud). Their poor economic and social status did not lead to a spirit of subordination which was expected of “lower ranks.” They would not “take a knee” to the ruling oligarchy, be it puritan or caviler (1 p. 613). This characteristic would be extremely important in understanding American identity as history progresses. While the ruling or political class(es) expect those they see as being inferior to act the part and know their appropriate place, borderland culture would not comply and this legacy is still very much relevant in modern politics. The Borderland culture which was to eventually spread across the interior of what is now modern America. It is non-elitist and populist and will not accept the inferior status (“deplorables” in “fly over states”) that is assigned to them by the coastal elite.
​
Because the Borderlanders settled in the interior and pushed the territorial frontier boundaries eastward, the early Indian wars were fought principally between this immigrant group and eastern tribes. As the Borderland immigrants had a long history and culture of conflict so did the Indians who consisted of the Shawnee in the north, and the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw and Chickasaw in the South. The Indian people in these areas did not yield easily. Savage warfare began in the late seventeenth century, and continued to the early nineteenth century.
​
Indian wars shouldn’t be characterized as simply pitting white settlers against Indians and are more accurately seen as alliances of tribes fighting with each other with small European populations intermingled. The Yamasse War of 1715-17 resulted in the loss of about 10% of the colonist population in South Carolina. Interestingly, by the mid nineteenth century just prior to the War Between the States there existed in some areas a sort of blending of borderland and Indian cultures in certain respects in the South, especially in the Indian territories of the current day Oklahoma and Arkansas.
​
Bibliography
​
1. Fischer, David Hacket. Albion's Seed - Four British Folkways in America. New York : Oxford University Press, 1989.
2. Carlton, Charles. Going to War: The Experience of the British Civil Wars. London : Routlidge, 2002.
3. Gamble, Richard M. The War for Righteousness - Progressive Christianity, the Great War and the Rise of the Messianic Nation. Wilmington Delaware : ISI Books, 2003.
4. Woodward, Collin. American Nations - A history of the Eleven Regional Culture of North America. New York : Penguin Group, 2011.
5. McDonald, Forrest. Why Yankees Can't (and Won't) Leave the South Alone. American Republic. July 30, 2015, pp. 45:17-05.
6. Beard, Chales Beard & Mary. History of the United States - All Volumes. San Bernadino Ca : s.n., 1920.
7. Marsden, Geroge M. Religion and American Culture. Grand Rapids Michigan : Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 2018.
8. Russell, Thadeus. A Renegade History of the United States. New York New York : Free Press, 2010.
9. Britannica. Britanica.com. [Online] [Cited: July 15, 2020.] https://www.britannica.com/topic/predestination.
10. Oppenheimer, Stephen. Myths of British Ancestory. Prospect. October 21, 2006.