Settlers Heritage Of Kings Cheats

[Lourdes Horace]

Fischer describes four of these migrations: the Puritans to New England in the 1620s, the Cavaliers to Virginia in the 1640s, the Quakers to Pennsylvania in the 1670s, and the Borderers to Appalachia in the 1700s.

The Massachusetts Puritans fled England in the 1620s partly because the king and nobles were oppressing them. In the 1640s, English Puritans under Oliver Cromwell rebelled, took over the government, and killed the king. The nobles not unreasonably started looking to get the heck out.

Pennsylvania was very successful for a while; it had some of the richest farmland in the colonies, and the Quakers were exceptional merchants and traders; so much so that they were forgiven their military non-intervention during the Revolution because of their role keeping the American economy afloat in the face of British sanctions.

But Fischer argues that Quakerism continued to shape Pennsylvania long after it had stopped being officially in charge, in much the same way that Englishmen themselves have contributed disproportionately to American institutions even though they are now a numerical minority. The Pennsylvanian leadership on abolitionism, penal reform, the death penalty, and so on all happened after the colony was officially no longer Quaker-dominated.

In response to these pressures, the border people militarized and stayed feudal long past the point where the rest of the island had started modernizing. Life consisted of farming the lands of whichever brutal warlord had the top hand today, followed by being called to fight for him on short notice, followed by a grisly death. The border people dealt with it as best they could, and developed a culture marked by extreme levels of clannishness, xenophobia, drunkenness, stubbornness, and violence.

Many of the Borderers fled to Ulster in Ireland, which England was working on colonizing as a Protestant bulwark against the Irish Catholics, and where the Crown welcomed violent warlike people as a useful addition to their Irish-Catholic-fighting project. But Ulster had some of the same problems as the Border, and also the Ulsterites started worrying that the Borderer cure was worse than the Irish Catholic disease. So the Borderers started getting kicked out of Ulster too, one thing led to another, and eventually 250,000 of these people ended up in America.

At the time, the Appalachians were kind of the booby prize of American colonization: hard to farm, hard to travel through, and exposed to hostile Indians. The Borderers fell in love with them. They came from a pretty marginal and unproductive territory themselves, and the Appalachians were far away from everybody and full of fun Indians to fight. Soon the Appalachian strategy became the accepted response to Borderer immigration and was taken up from Pennsylvania in the north to the Carolinas in the South (a few New Englanders hit on a similar idea and sent their own Borderers to colonize the mountains of New Hampshire).

We see a strong focus on the Appalachian Mountains, especially West Virginia, Tennesee, and Kentucky, bleeding into the rest of the South. Aside from west Pennsylvania, this is very close to where we would expect to find the Borderers. Could these be the same groups?

I think something similar is probably going on with these forms of ancestry. The education system is probably dominated by descendents of New Englanders and Pennsylvanians; they had an opportunity to influence the culture of academia and the educated classes more generally, they took it, and now anybody of any background who makes it into that world is going to be socialized according to their rules. Likewise, people in poorer and more rural environments will be surrounded by people of Borderer ancestry and acculturated by Borderer cultural products and end up a little more like that group. As a result, ethnic markers have turned into and merged with class markers in complicated ways.

All of this is very speculative, with some obvious flaws. What do we make of other countries like Britain or Germany with superficially similar splits but very different histories? Why should Puritans lose their religion and sexual prudery, but keep their interest in moralistic reform? There are whole heaps of questions like these. But look. Before I had any idea about any of this, I wrote that American society seems divided into two strata, one of which is marked by emphasis on education, interest in moral reforms, racial tolerance, low teenage pregnancy, academic/financial jobs, and Democratic party affiliation, and furthermore that this group was centered in the North. Meanwhile, now I learn that the North was settled by two groups that when combined have emphasis on education, interest in moral reforms, racial tolerance, low teenage pregnancy, an academic and mercantile history, and were the heartland of the historical Whigs and Republicans who preceded the modern Democratic Party.

And I wrote about another stratum centered in the South marked by poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high teenage pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, country western music, and support for the Republican Party. And now I learn that the South was settled by a group noted even in the 1700s for its poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high premarital pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, accent exactly like the modern country western accent, and support for the Democratic-Republicans who preceded the modern Republican Party.

@Doctor Mist: That meaning arguably goes back to the emergence of the Federal form in contrast to the original Confederation. For all the efforts to limit it (enumerated powers, Bill of Rights, separation of powers, etc.), Federalism at origin was about increasing the power of the central government relative to the states.

It might not be possible to set up a stable system where neither side feels threatened by the existence of the other while remaining in the same country. Or at least it might end up looking more like the Ottoman Millet system than American federalism. Then again the Swiss seem to have done an alright job at it.

The way you do it is the swiss way. The american constitution did a number of things right in terms of establishing stable republican government, but it utterly failed to prevent the continual growth of federal power because it has no mechanisms that encouraged the reduction of federal power. The swiss did (or at least did it better), with their referenda that could repeal laws, but not pass them. You need to make it easier to reduce federal power than increase it, because if doing either is just as easy, as it is in the US, the temptations of centralization ensure a ratchet effect.

Interestingly, Switzerland had a civil war within a couple of decades of the ACW, which resulted in the federal government becoming much stronger and the cantons becoming much weaker. On the other hand, it lasted 26 days and caused a total of 86 deaths.

>This worked for generations, until social change was enough that the north elected one president. The south knew that this president was unfriendly to their economic and social interests, and rather than deal with it for four years and then try to win the next election, they opted to secede.

You mean like the way the north almost did during the war of 1812? And how, again, is secession evil? The South feared that a northern president would renegotiate the deal, so they decided to end it. They did not march on the north to impose their social system.

Actually, the South would have been fine with that. Except that the North insisted that the Southern states be taxed per capita including slaves. They were far more insistent at including slaves for taxing than the South was for including them for representation.

@keranih
What was the tax per capita like as opposed to some capital tax?
I find it odd to think that the north would have rather tax as slave as capita instead of capital in trade for giving the south disproportionate political power.

or, perhaps, in a world with robots. It still seems quite frighteningly likely that if we manage to successfully create strong AI without letting it destroy us, it may be because we recreate the corrupt social world of the Virginia planters, with humanity as the master race and the robots as slaves.

I think most people would object to engineered Draka slaves because altering a race as a whole is unethical even if all individual members of the race post-alteration grew up liking slavery and were not altered within their own lifespan. The unethicalness of modifying the race carries over to the unethicalness of using members of the modified race as slaves. AIs designed from the ground up to want to serve humans would not fall under this.

You also have some obligations towards your descendants which include not deliberately altering their development in a manner that would be considered undesirable by them had their development not been altered. (This obligation only applies to major alterations, but making someone enjoy slavery is a major alteration.)

The german states had agreed to pool their militaries under the leadership of the best one, Prussia. Bismark then went hunting for wars to fight as a means of bringing political unification out of military unification. It worked on the first try.

The northern areas of Mississippi and Alabama are part of the Appalachians and thus have a large amount of scots-irish blood. They also have a decent amount of mild or low class english, and some cavalier elite.

Cavaliers/Anglicans often led the south e even in areas where they were outnumbered, but after the Civil War Episcopalianism(American Anglicanism) really lost a lot of influence and has been continually losing it to evangelicalism and other more border culture.

c80f0f1006