The early settlers of New England

From the book Makers of the American Republic, by David Gregg:

“For one hundred and fifty years after the Puritan exodus, from 1640 to 1790, New England received very few by means of immigration. Its increase came from its own families; it enjoyed a remarkable seclusion. There were only three exceptions to this. In 1652, after his victory at Dunbar and Worcester, Cromwell sent two hundred and seventy Scotch [sic] prisoners to Boston as a punishment. They grandly bore the punishment; they rather liked it, I imagine, for their descendants are there to this day. In 1685, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, one hundred and fifty families of the Huguenots came to Massachusetts; their names are perpetuated in Bowdoin College and Faneuil Hall. In 1719 several Presbyterian families from the north of Ireland settled in New Hampshire; their descendants are still in that state. Londonderry, N.H., marks their settlement. These were the three exceptions, and they were very small. When the hour of Revolution struck, there was no county in old England itself that had a purer English blood than New England. The homogeneity of population accounts for the oneness of belief and action in New England in the matter of the American Revolution. The people of New England were one people, and they struck like a trip-hammer when they struck. It was this unity and homogeneity which made them the power they were in the formation of the American Republic, and which helped New England to stamp itself upon the whole country for the country’s good.

It was only after the American Revolution that New Englanders began to move into the Western part of our land and there form new States; but this they did so effectively that there is a Portland to-day on the Pacific as well as a Portland on the Atlantic. They now number one fourth of the entire population of our sixty millions, and are a beneficial force in every state in the Union.

While the Puritans were diligent in building up New England, let no one suppose that they were indifferent to what was going forward in the motherland; they were one with the progressives there. it has been said that the English Revolution virtually began in Boston, where Sir Edmund Andros, King James’s representative, was arrested and put in prison. New England was the first to hail the enthronement of William, Prince of Orange. During the Cromwellian conflict Cromwell’s strongest friends were in New England. The pen of New England, fertilized by freedom, became marvelously prolific. Cromwell, Hampden, Sidney, Milton, Owen, were scholars of teachers mostly on this side of the Atlantic.”

David Gregg, Makers of the American Republic, ‘The Puritans’, 1896. pp. 90-91.

Gregg’s account of the ethnic makeup of the early New Englanders contradicts today’s popular assertions that the early colonies were already ‘very diverse’. Gregg asserts, too, that the early colony was in touch with events back in the home country, and that they especially had close ties with the Puritans in England. So often some of the simplistic textbooks emphasize the supposed rift between the New England colonists as a whole, as though they were not of the same blood and descent, as if the colonists felt as though they were a separate people long before the Revolution.

Advertisements

#colonial-era, #english-settlers, #history, #new-england

“An Anglo-American Patriot Agenda”

From the Puritans’ Network, an interesting list of proposals for solving the seemingly insurmountable problems facing us in the (once) United States of America.

Everywhere on the Internet where traditional Americans gather, there seems to be lot of resignation about our predicament, and cynicism about our past and a sort of fatalism about the possibility of salvaging anything from the wreckage of our society.

Whatever your opinion about the situation we’re in, at least the Puritan Network has some specific proposals. I find I can agree with most of them, at least in theory. But it seems hardly possible that any measures with a patriotic intent, especially when they are from an Anglo-American advocacy group, would have a chance.

The proposed agenda focuses on our own folk, but oddly acknowleding those of us who have been here since this continent was a wilderness, is now taboo. Everyone else has their own ethnicity, of which they can openly proclaim their ‘pride’ — all except the people who made this place habitable for the many millions who have since arrived and left their stamp on the country. But we’re the invisible ones, the ones who are often ignored, or pointedly excluded, our accomplishments rarely mentioned anymore,except for purposes of assigning guilt.

But it shouldn’t be this way, with Legacy Americans singled out as being ‘haters’ just for being patriotic towards our folk. The people make the place, as I always said; the people make the place. In a sense we could say the people are the place; the character of each region bears their image.

Maybe the younger Americans feel no kinship towards their fellow ‘Americans’; the words ‘patriot’ and ‘American’ are scorned. How is it possible to be an ethnopatriot (which I call myself) without loving, or just liking one’s kin? That has to come first before we can work together and try to provide moral support in this hostile, fractured society.

It may be that balkanization is inescapable, and it need not be chaotic if done right. There have been peaceful partitions in history. Some Americans oppose any breakup, but we may not have a choice. Some Americans who have recent (within a couple of generations) provenance in this country have an ancestral country they might return to, but Legacy Americans, “Old Americans” have only this country, as our ancestors came here, four or more centuries ago. This is it for us, and many of us would not willingly emigrate, our own forebears having sacrificed so much to make this country, but now that the apparent new ‘owners’ are already moving in, we face an uncertain future.

In the deeper sense, those of us who are Christian aren’t troubled about the future that waits for us in a time to come, and that’s a comfort, but for the time being we are in this world to ‘occupy’ for now, and go on with our lives as best we can.

Some are going to say that the Agenda is impossible in the world we now live in, but I’m not going to be that negative. We can wish and hope, and pray, and it may be that our now-precarious situation could, in time, change for the better. We can at least try to work together with our kinsmen, putting aside the petty things that divide, otherwise we face the fate of the ‘house divided against itself.’ We have to start somewhere.

I would be interested in hearing some opinions about the Agenda that Puritans’ Network has put together.

And thanks to the Puritans’ Network for showing us their ideas and proposals.

#anglo-american, #english, #english-americans, #ethnopatriotism, #kinship

WASPs are ‘Wimps’?

“Of course I am critical of WASPs, but for a reason diametrically opposed to Massey’s; namely for being such wimps and for permitting themselves to be vilified without protest. Needless to say, American Jews or American blacks (taking two self-conscious ethnicities) would never allow themselves to be freely pummeled the way Massey goes after WASPs. They would be denouncing their slanderers through well-heeled organizations, with Main Stream Media support.”

The quote above is from an article by Paul Gottfried in VDare, from a few years ago.

Alana Massey, the ‘journalist’ to whom he alludes, wrote a piece for New Republic in 2015, entitled ‘The White Protestant Roots of American Racism.’

So now Protestants, specifically White Protestants are to blame?

Gottfried goes on:
”Certainly at the elite level, [W]hite Protestants behave differently from normal [sic] people. Like Elizabeth Warren, the descendant of New England settlers, WASP patricians may pretend their true ancestors were American Indians, or like Jeb Bush, rush to take over Hispanic trappings…”

[Emphasis mine, above]

Let me interrupt Gottfried’s statements here: first, Gottfried wrongly assumes that Elizabeth Warren is ”patrician’ and he states incorrectly that she is descended from New England colonists. If Gottfried wanted to be accurate he would try to find actual examples of ‘WASP patricians’. But Warren is from working-class roots, born in Oklahoma, to parents of Southern stock, not New England. Not even close.

And Jeb Bush is only partly of New England ancestry; he has other ancestry including, inter alia, Central European.

Paul Gottfried, like so many other people, doesn’t seem to know who is a ‘WASP’. Many Americans are unable to recognize an English surname when they see it, thus they end up wrongly naming people who are not of English ancestry at all. People tend to believe, for some odd reason, that ‘WASPs’ are all part of the ‘super-rich elites’ and are always in positions of power, and move in the most prestigious social circles. Actually high society, so-called, is no longer what it was; many nouveau riche, and all the elegant manners are fading, thanks to ”equality’.

But Gottfried says that he has no respect for Anglo-Saxon Americans because they are weaklings who let themselves be “pummeled” by the likes of Alana Massey and other such people, who, like Gottfried, view Anglo-Saxons and other Whites as easy prey; it seems no one wants to speak up when the Anglo-bashing begins, and then finding that they get no resistance, they attack more aggressively.

I asked, rhetorically, in a recent post, why English-Americans seem to stay silent when these lies and slanders and accusations start flying? On one blog post I read today, which was not explicity about WASPs, several people brought up the subject, and accused the blogger of attributing “superiority” to Anglo-Americans. The commenter insisted that we are all equal. Other commenters stated that WASPs were ‘servants to a (((certain ethnic group))).

Some obsessive anti-Anglo posters inevitably refer to an ”Anglo-Zionist’ collusion. There are all sorts of tropes like this on the internet.

But back to Gottfried’s statement that if Jews or American blacks were similarly slandered, they would instantly respond, backed by powerful “well-heeled organizations”, and supported by the media arm of the government (TV, newspapers, social justice advocates, etc.}

Well, of course they would; if Anglo-Americans or any other groups of European descent were likewise backed up by powerful ‘anti-defamation’ groups with lots of money and influence, plus the media — we, too, could participate in the victimhood game, and enact laws that silence anybody who dares criticise us.

It’s telling that we can’t speak freely about the obvious, increasingly open anti-Anglo, anti-European agenda. Unlike the groups to which Gottlieb compares Anglos unfavorably, we can’t respond in like terms in our own self-defense. That speaks volumes about our supposed ‘freedoms’.

Our laws are based on Biblical law and the idea of ‘Christian liberty’, along with Anglo-Saxon Common Law. Diversity has produced generations who, being of disparate orgins, did not and do not understand how our system should work.

So now, Anglo-Saxon Americans are regarded as conquered and defeated, and are treated accordingly. But is that our fault, as Gottfried and many other anglophobes insist? It looks, from here, as a premature triumphalism, and gloating over having defeated people who once had an Empire on which the sun never set.

Maybe that was the beginning of the end; too much contact with the multitudes outside our ancestral island made us too tolerant and too trusting of people who were not our friends, and who envied and resented the power and wealth of their conquerors.

One more thing: ‘Anglo-Saxons’ are now associated with what the media call ‘White supremacy’. The media deliberately twist the meanings of words and names, and it seems that they’ve succeeded in associating us with this alleged ‘supremacy.’ I don’t even know how they define that term, but they seem to think it’s criminal for us to even organize in any way or to express pride in the considerable accomplishments of our ancestors. Oddly this makes me all the more intent on doing what they are trying to prevent: to defend my ancestors and the culture of Britain: literature, music, all the arts, the English language itself, and the Christianity of my ancestors. Those who verbally assail us are just eaten up with envy and it has corroded their souls.

#ancestry, #anglophobia, #english-character, #ethnopatriotism

Brexit deal ruled out

The path to Brexit has become so convoluted in recent weeks that it’s hard to know what comes next. But some people who closely follow this process seem very confident that the Remainer faction will be defeated.

James Delingpole, for one, in an article with the title, “Hurrah for Chancellor Merkel — Saviour of Brexit”.

The sub-headline says that Merkel has — however unwittingly — given the UK a gift: a no-deal Brexit. She has said that a deal is ”overwhelmingly unlikely,” which gives the UK every incentive to leave without a deal, rather than to compromise, accepting the terms which are apparently to be forced on the UK, if Merkel and the EU globalists get their wishes.

I hope this is true; this situation has taken so many twists and turns over the last couple of years; it’s hard not to wonder what new twist will suddenly pop up as the UK is about to cross the finish line.

But as to the main reason why the UK and the EU are at an impasse over an agreement on Brexit, it’s apparently the question of some conditions being imposed regarding Northern Ireland: Merkel et al have said now that NI must stay permanently tied to the EU, remaining in the EU Customs Union. Merkel says that NI cannot leave. It seems that the Republic of Ireland (Southern Ireland, the 26 counties) agrees with the EU’s idea of separating Northern Ireland from the UK. And it’s apparently a case of ‘no Brexit without acquiescing to the deal’.

Arlene Foster, of the Democrat Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, said that no such deal was acceptable. I hope the UK and Northern Ireland stay steadfast. Any ‘union’ which tells members, after the fact, that no exit is possible — ever — should make one uneasy, to say the least. That sort of ultimatum is not the kind of thing that isn’t compatible with ‘freedom.’

#brexit, #northern-ireland, #republic-of-ireland, #united-kingdom

“And we then, what are we?”

Matthew Arnold asked that question in his Celtic Literature. “And we then, what are we? What is England?”

Leslie Stephen, in a lecture given in 1915, repeated Arnold’s question, and then went on to examining the English national character, as manifested in English poetry. His observations are very pertinent to this present time, as the majority of the people of Britain attempt to re-establish their sovereignty, to go their own way rather than remain a part of the European Union.

Stephen says:

“The governing characteristics of the Englishman are not greatly in dispute. His sturdy nationalism, for example, has all along and everywhere been acknowledged. The earliest proof of it lies in the ‘withdrawal,’ to use Bishop Creighton’s word, the ‘withdrawal’ of England from that marvellous fraternity of the Middle Ages, feudal and Catholic Europe. By the fourteenth century she had become a separate nation, committed to the voyage of her own destiny. At a price the Englishman purchased his freedom. Deliberately he stood aloof from the centre, from the main stream of ideas, from the light and warmth of European civility. He remained, as it were, the country cousin of the family, preferring, one might say, the rough, free out-of-doors life to the elegance and refinements with the accompanying restraints of the town.

He declined the advantages of the best Latin society. Unattracted by the mediaeval vision of a united Christendom, of races held together by common acceptance of the same laws, the same religious creeds and observances, the same chivalric ideals, he set over against the abstract perfections of this dazzling scheme his own liberty, his own habits, his own interests. He had no eye for the beauty of a universal, an ideal order. His talent has ever been for life rather than logic. Of general principles because they tend to imprison the individual he is suspicious. “My case is always a special case. Why should I be treated as one of a number, I, who am unlike all the rest? ” ‘

It would seem that Britain, specifically England, had long felt that he was separate from the continent of Europe, and not so very long ago this feeling still existed; Britain may in some senses be a part of Europe, though it was an island, disconnected by natural barriers from the Continent. Yet the people who stubbornly cling to the idea of being ‘part of Europe’, particularly those younger generations, seem very emotionally attached to the idea of being ‘part of Europe’. Some of the media interviews with the younger ‘Remainers’ found them tearful about the idea of leaving the EU. Yet traditionally Britain preferred to be separate and distinct, not a part of the European continent and its political systems.

Again, from Stephen’s lecture:

“He preferred, too, the old “laws of St Edward” to any legislative novelties, his own priests and bishops to foreigners, his own language to Norman French. He knew his mind and achieved his ends, not indeed so much by way of argument as by patient indifference to argument, and the gradual development of national consciousness only stiffened his original prejudices. His country satisfied him as the best, his race as manifestly the bravest and the handsomest in the world. To go his own way, think his own thoughts, conduct his own undertakings is all an Englishman asks, or used to ask, and if he interferes in the affairs of others, it is only that he may not be interfered with. By this early withdrawal from the comity of European nations, England led the van in liberty….”

Where did this independent spirit, this ‘national consciousness’ go? Is it only dormant, or will it die with the older generations, the last remnant of the England or Britain that used to be? We can ask similar questions in the U.S. now.

Reading Leslie Stephens’ words, it is evident that much of what we Americans traditionally thought of as quintessentially American (the desire to be ‘left alone’, the preference for less government, etc.) is also part of our ‘old inheritance’, the legacy of our English ancestors.

#history, #kinship

A Patent of Nobility

To be by blood and long descent
A member of a mighty State,
Whose greatness, main-girt, but unpent
By ocean, makes the World more great;

That, ranging limitless, hath won
A rule more wide than that of Rome,
And, journeying onward with the sun,
In every sea hath found a home;

That, keeping old traditions fast,
Still hails the things that are to be,
And firmly rooted in the past,
On law, hath grafted Liberty.

That is a birthright nobler far
Than titled claim or “Right Divine”
From far-off rapine, wanton war,
And I could feel this birthright mine.

And not the lowliest hand that drives
Or share or loom, if so it be
Of British strain, but thence derives
A Patent of Nobility.

  • Alfred Austin

Alfred Austin (b. 1835) was Poet Laureate of England after Alfred Lord Tennyson. It seems he wasn’t very highly regarded as a poet, and as this source indicates, he was criticized for his ”jingoism” as well as his poetic style. Nevertheless, I like the old style of poetry and sometimes the message of the poem overshadows any fault one finds with the stylistic aspects of the poetry — which after all is a matter of personal preference to an extent.

<

#ancestry, #kinship, #poetry

Puritans and principles

Edwin Hall, in his book Puritans and Their Principles (1846) wrote mainly to give the history of the Puritans, focusing on the religious differences in British history which led to the emerging of the Puritans in the context of the Catholic-Protestant conflict, and later the measures against the Puritans specifically. But in the first chapter, Hall emphasizes the importance of the Puritans’ beliefs and the principled stand they took, and he traces the development of a trend towards the freer societies which eventually developed in Britain and the English colonies.

However, even in 1846, the Puritans (who no longer existed as a recognizable group as in 17th century New England) were already in disrepute. ‘Freethinking’, irreligious people despised what they thought of as the narrowmindedness and intolerance of the Puritans, and the Puritans were already derided by nonbelievers as well as those of other religious denominations. Hall believes this was undeserved and he seeks in part to rectify some misconceptions or outright lies.

To descendants of the Puritan colonists, who were the ancestors of many old-stock Americans, this purposeful smearing of the memories of our forebears is important. After all, truth matters, and those who have spread, or are still spreading, these warped viewpoints and lies should be answered.

Hall is mostly concerned with religous issues, but he does address the popular misconceptions about, and slanders of, the Puritans. Obviously those lies still persist. Hall speaks of the religious leaders who persisted in ‘with boldness’ attacking the memory of the Puritans:

“...[D]enouncing us and our Puritan fathers as rebels and schismatics; our churches as no churches […] and all people who do not submit to some Prelatical Hierarchy as …out of the pale of Gospel grace.”

Incidentally, in some places on the Internet, all Protestants in general are liable to being told similar things. According to some who think Protestants are ‘rebels and schismatics’, our ancestors are likely in Hell and we ourselves are headed there. Inter-faith differences motivate at least some of the anti-Puritan rhetoric.

However most of it is due to people simply repeating what ‘everybody else knows’, that Puritans were severe, grim ‘killjoys’ who opposed any kind of recreation or ‘harmless fun’, and they were asexual, opposed to natural human urges for companionship or procreation, especially outside marriage. In our libertine age in which seemingly anything goes, as the left dismantles — no, demolishes, with a vengeance, all rules of morality, even the common-sense ones — the Puritans are, more than ever, an object of contempt.

Hall notes the other common stereotypes of the Puritans: they had no sense of humor, allegedly. They were said to be ignorant and rigid-minded, bigoted, fanatical. However there is no evidence of this; many Puritans were highly intelligent, well-educated in the best schools, and they read widely, having had what we (unfortunately) call a ‘liberal education’. Nowadays a ”liberal education”, sadly, makes us think of those indoctrination centers, which we laughingly call ‘institutions of higher learning’, which do in fact produce ‘narrowminded, rigid, and ignorant’ people who are now self-named ‘progressives.’ Maybe this, in part, explains why some on the right try to identify the Puritans of old with the pig-ignorant, faux-pious ‘progressives’, with their fanaticism. And this is not new; it calls to mind figures like the homicidal John Brown, so moved by ‘compassion’ that he killed some of his own folk. The Puritans were not known for such fanaticism or bloodshed.

At this point someone inevitably brings up ‘Salem.’ That’s a complicated story, being made more complicated by the fact that most Western people, being unbelievers in the ‘supernatural’, think anyone who would accuse others of witchcraft, is by definition crazy. So the Salem folk, per popular belief, were not only ‘crazy’ but fanatical. This is not an easy issue, so I’ll leave it, except to say that, contrary to popular belief, in Salem not one person was ‘burned’ as a witch, or for any other crime. Hanging was the only capital punishment in Salem then, as far as I’m aware. Incidentally some of my maternal ancestors lived in Salem then, and I have read the official papers on the Salem witch trials.

The past truly is another country, and it is almost impossible for us to put ourselves in our ancestors’ shoes, though we are expected to live amongst people with beliefs far different to our own, more different than the ways of our ancestors of 3 or 4 centuries ago.

But it is vital, I think, for anyone truly educated, to read old books rather than having our knowledge come at a remove via modern (post-modern?) ‘historians’ with biased viewpoints and axes to grind. For such people everything is politicized, and subject to the fashion of the ‘culture of critique’, being torn apart and judged by today’s twisted standards. So the old books are superior for geting a fuller picture of the past, minus the craziness of the current year.

One of the principal critics of the Puritans was Scots philospher David Hume. An article in the American Conservative, from 2011, says this:

The Puritans, and the even more radical sects in orbit around them, did not seek reform but total transformation. And “every successive revolution became a precedent for that which followed it.” [Emphasis mine].

I gather that the writer of that piece, Donald W. Livingston, is paraphrasing Hume’s point of view, rather than offering his own opinion. Hume obviously thought the Puritans wanted, or intended, to ‘transform society’. Hume thought the Puritans to be the English analogue, in the context of the English civil war, of the Jacobins. The Puritans were not revolutionaries in that sense, much less destroyers of society as the neo-Jacobins of our time are. Most people don’t get that the Puritans did not want to force their Christianity on others or to conquer anyone or rule over anyone; they simply wanted the freedom to live and worship as their faith required. They were, plain and simple, separatists. Had they not been so desirous of following their faith, they would not have left their beloved England and endured the hardships of crossing the Atlantic, fighting hostile Indians, and for a time, starving and living in primitive conditions.

They never tried to dictate to those who were not of the same convictions.

However, dissent inevitably inserted itself in the original colonies, eventually, but that’s the way of the world, and it’s another story for another time.

There is so much more to be said about the Puritan issue, and I may revisit it. For those interested, I would advise reading some of the many old sources, old books which are available on the Internet, especially on Archive.org or other e-book sites. I would recommend reading diaries or letters from some of the earlier colonists, including those of Winthrop or Bradford. They are not hard to find online.

It’s always important to counter lies on subjects like this; it’s too rarely done, and that’s the way the lies always seem to win out.

#history, #massachusetts-colony, #new-england, #puritans, #salem-massachusetts