The following post was an answer I presented in response to New York-born Arizona State University history professor, author and anti-Southern blogger (with whom I actually get along pretty well these days) Brooks Simpson‘s recent question about the most important year of the ‘Civil War’ [sic]. This answer is from the perspective of the Golden Circle, of course, which we talk about quite a bit on SNN (check out the link at the bottom for a more thorough explanation o f the historical significance of the American Revolution to the Caribbean-Southern civilisation). What follows is just a brief summary of the long-term effects of the division (the mainland South from the Caribbean islands) and union (Southerners with New Englanders) which occurred in 1776:
1776. That was the unfortunate year that split the Caribbean-Southern civilisation in half (separating the mainland colonies from the island colonies) and unwisely saw the union of Southerners with New Englanders. From there it was pretty much a given that conflict and violence would result, especially considering the crusading spirit of New Englanders. With the South split, the Caribbean deteriorated into slave revolts and genocide and formerly wealthy plantation societies became Third World back-waters while the South was placed in a political struggle against a much more populous society that shared few of the same interests or values. Southern participation in the Yankees’ revolution was unwise. Southern accession to the union was a tragic decision. Half a million people later lost their lives, many Southern cities were burned to the ground and the South has since been a minority party (with none of her former sovereignty) in a compulsory, giant, multi-national, Progressive union – and this can be traced back to the unfortunate decisions made in the late 1700s.
Hmmm….
I had ancestors that fought at places like Kings Mountain against an Empire that looked at many of the colonies people as backwater, low life. Since much of the New World’s folks were inhabited by Scotch Irish, inmates from the British prison system, identured servants, etc., English press pictured the colonists as no better than American Indian savages. I’ll grant that all that is said in this piece is very true, but their certainly was a “flip side to the coin” so to speak. The Brits could have cared less about taxing the colonies, regardless of their protests, and the old English rights of the “Magna Carta” were completely ignored.
There is a lot of parallel between King George III and our own government today.
TNSDG, I’ll grant that there is a flip side to the coin to the above post. And I don’t mean to take anything away from George Washington and the colonists who fought for independence. I think they certainly had a natural right to secede from the British Empire. The point of the post is to emphasise the Caribbean-Southern connections, the terrible decision to form a union with New Englanders and what this seemed to inevitably lead to.
Michael,
Understood.
My fifth great grandfather was captured in battle, and spent 13 months on a British prison ship in Charleston Harbor, starved, beaten, and whipped like a dog. The only reason he survived was because the war ended and he was released.
The cannundrum (sp?) for me is this:
While English Law helped to bring about “Civilization” to most of the world, what it put into practice, far too often, was a different thing, and as a result, is a problem for this reader.
TNSDG, I can appreciate that perspective and concern. What you ancestor underwent sounds horrendous. I will say though that this is basically in keeping with the course of human civilisation in general. The nature of mankind is what it is – and in the end we are natural creatures and therefore what do to each other is often times… well, less than pleasant. I don’t think the nature of man has really changed very much at all since Sumer. Civilising influences can bring about a more peaceful relationship between most people for a while but generally speaking, these influences don’t endure and neither do the specific civilisations that adopt them. Compared to likes of Ghengis Khan or Joe Stalin, the British were pretty benign. But, of course, comparative examples like this would not have comforted your ancestor.
Understand too that this post is not a defence of the British Empire or an attack on the right of secession (which I strongly defend). It’s really intended to emphasise two things that conventional US history leaves out: 1) 1776 split the Caribbean-Southern civilisation in half ultimately doomed both halves; 2) Uniting New Englanders and Southerners was a tragic mistake that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. This is a perspective you just don’t get in US schools, universities or mass media.
All true and good points.
Also, good conversation
I agree.
1776 was the year the fatal mistake was made. The idea that we are the same people as Yankees and that the Union with them was somehow “natural” or predated “American” independence is preposterous.
South Carolina was founded by settlers from Barbados. The British West Indies spawned our own culture. A Union with the slave societies in the British West Indies and French West Indies would have been more natural and advantageous to us in the long term.
In 1776, the Yankees demonstrated that they would rebel against Britain because they refused to share the costs of a global war against France that had benefited them more than anyone else. Later, they illustrated how quickly they would turn against France when it suited them to do so, and yet again when they waged an unjustifiable, criminal war against Spain which had also come to their aid.
As I said on the LoS page, it is hard to believe we formed a Union with these faithless people in the first place in light of their track record of betraying Britain so quickly after France had been expelled from Canada. It is even more galling that we did so on the basis of a mere paper guarantee.
The conflict with the Yankee was inevitable because the 3/5th compromise, the fugitive slave clause, and the 10th Amendment were never anything more than a temporary price that Yankees were willing to pay to get their Union which they always planned to dominate.
Yankees have always sought to dominate and aggrandize themselves at the expense of others and impose their views on other societies – Ft. Sumter, the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, their invasion and repulse from Canada in the Revolution, etc.
Unlike Hitler, Yankees really are bent on world domination and have military assets on every continent. They seek to impose Americanism on every country in the world. The conflict with them was inevitable once we threw in our lot with them.
Look at it this way: Yankees try to dictate to China over Taiwan. They try to dictate to Serbia over Kosovo. They try to dictate to Russia over Ukraine and the Baltic states.
Guess what? They would have never been any position to do that if their boot wasn’t also on our necks. The conflict with the Yankee was bound to happen because we were the biggest thorn in their side.
This why I puzzle over the fact that many people of English/British stock like to paint themselves with the same broad brush as having “civilized” the world as we know it.
All of us know, if we are honest, that is simply not the case.
Trying to dictate to the entire world “what is right for others” has been the problem all along.
Very good perspective, Michael. On my mother’s side I am descended from Governor James Moore, Colonial Gov of the Carolinas, who died in 1706. He came to the Carolinas from Barbados. Many historians firmly believe him to have been the son of the 1641 Irish rebellion rebel leader, Rory O’Moore (Ruadhraigh Ua Mordha).
The only problem I have with the Southern-Carribean connection is that Alexander Hamilton was from the Carribean (Leeward Islands).