Albion's Seed

David Hackett Fischer's Albion’s Seed has been immensely influential in popular history and understanding of the origins of the United States and how we got to be what we are. Its thesis is that the 13 colonies were settled by three main migrations from England, the Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers and back countrymen. These migrations took place at different historical times, from different part of England, different religions, and different social classes, and different sub-culturres. They built new societies that mirrored the societies they left behind. Fischer describes these four cultures in their origins; building styles, concepts of family; attitudes toward, marriage, sex, children, old age and death, religions, magic, food, clothing, recreation, attitudes toward time and work, “pattern of migration and settlement,” attitudes toward law and order, local government, and concepts of freedom. It is all written in a very accessible style, for the general public, not professional historians.

The book has its shortcomings. It is not strictly chronological, seeking to describe the four colonial cultures, but sometimes bringing in figures from later, like Andrew Jackson. It gives too much credit to England (ignoring, say, the Scandinavian origin of the log cabin or the strong Spanish influence on cowboy culture). The later parts attempt a brief tour of post-colonial history, and often become absurd, attempting to reduce absolutely everything to the influences of these four cultures. But it explains a lot. Many aspects of American culture suddenly make a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of the four migrations. (In particular, many things I thought were odd and contradictory about Southern culture make a lot more sense if you see it as actually the amalgam of two quite different cultures, cavalier and back country).

The first migration, from about 1629 to 1640 (the height of Charles I's power) were the Puritans. They came mostly from the eastern part of England, migrated to Massachusetts and other part of New England, and included a wide range of the middle class, from lesser gentry to more prosperous tenants and craftsmen, with plenty of merchants, yeoman farmers, and members of the learned professions. They had a powerful leader in John Winthrop, set out to build a Christian commonwealth, and actively sought to exclude people who were not like themselves. In religion they were strict Calvinists, believing that human nature is inherently evil, that most people are bound for hell and deserve it, and that God predestines everyone for heaven or hell and there is nothing we can do about it. Another important Puritan belief was the importance of the covenant. That meant not just society as a sacred covenant (as discussed in the last post), but in human relations – marriage, family, most voluntary associations – as a series of covenants. If a single word might be used to describe the Puritans, it would be tight-knit.

Once the Puritans won the civil war and established their own dictatorship in England, about 1642 to 1675, the Cavaliers (Royalists) began migrating instead, to Virginia. Jamestown colony already existed in Virginia, of course, but it was little more than an outpost. Not until after the Puritan colonies were established did Virginia start establishing anything like a normal, functioning society. Their leader was William Berkley, and the Cavalier set out to create a society something like the one they had before the Puritans seized power. They came mostly from southern and western England, were high church Anglicans (Episcopalians, semi-Catholics). The leadership came from English gentry, but many members of the lower classes also arrived, as deported convicts, debtors, or indentured servants. Slavery became widespread only later. (Incidentally, Fischer's work has a definite shortcoming here in that it focuses almost entirely on the aristocracy and ignore ordinary Virginians). They came to a land that was beautiful, but disease-ridden, rife with malaria, typhoid, dysentery and the like. If a single word might be used to describe the Cavalier culture, it would be hierarchical.

The Quaker migration took place around 1675-1695, in a calmer time, after the monarchy was restored under Charles II. Quakers came mostly from the northern parts of England, from remote and poor areas. They were mostly lower middle class, craftsmen and laborers. Many came over as indentured servants, but, unlike Virginians servants, they often advanced once they completed their terms. They were led by William Penn, a rare Quaker aristocrat, and moved to Pennsylvania. Like the Puritans, they sought to create a Christian commonwealth. The Quaker religion is hard to define because it has no creed, but it emphasizes the “inner light,” the voice of God within all of us. Quakers have no clergy and consider everyone’s inner light as their highest authority. Yet for all the individualism of their religion, Quakers were intensely conformist, submitting almost everything to the judgment of the meeting and expecting members to submit on penalty of excommunication. In their conformity and asceticism, they were often more puritan than the Puritans, except that their outlook was an optimistic one. Quakers also differed from Puritans in that their meetings had moral authority only and were not backed by the force of the state. Quakers granted freedom of religion to all monotheists and welcomed German pietists (such as Amish and Mennonites) who shared their values. I haven’t come up with a single word to describe the Quakers and welcome input.

The backcountrymen were the last migration. They came from the border area between England and Scotland, a land of constant war, as borders so often are. The backcountry migration took place around 1715-1775, when England in general had emerged from its turmoil and become calm. In the calm, the authorities began subduing the turbulent border, often with much resistance. Some borders were banished to America, where they settled in the Appalachian area. Others were banished to North Ireland and then to American, where they were referred to as the Scotch-Irish. The backcountrymen were generally Calvinists, but of a very different kind from the Puritans. They mostly came from the lower classes, though not so poor as to be unable to afford passage. They had no outstanding leader and no plan for the society they built. They also were generally banished to the “back” areas of the colonies by authorities who found them disruptive, and were excluded from political power. In turb, they distrusted the colonial authorities as much as they had distrusted the authorities in England. If a single word might be used to describe backcountry culture, it would be violent.

Over time, these four cultures changed. Puritans became Yankees. Royalists became Whigs. Whigs were the party that distrusted kings and royal prerogatives. The fiercest defenders of Charles I fully backed the overthrow of James II. The aristocracy (English and Virginian) discarded the divine rights of kings in favor of the theories of John Locke, the view that society is a contract between the people and themselves to submit to laws and a government in order to protect their natural rights. A universal “natural law” is higher than any manmade law. Any government that violates natural law and tramples on people’s natural rights has broken the term of the contract and forfeits its people’s obedience. If all this sounds familiar, it should. It is basically a secularized, do-it-yourself version of the Puritan’s theory of the sacred covenant. It is also the ideology Jefferson expressed (borrowed from Locke) in the Declaration of Independence.

Quakers also changed over time, slowly disengaging from the world and turning inward (and losing most of their influence as a result). Back settlers became frontiersmen. The distinction is subtle, but is the different between “retreating back” into the “back parts” of the colonies as opposed the pushing forward into new lands of promise. It is the difference, as Fischer puts it, in which direction the country was facing. Unfortunately, he does not describe any of these transformations. But he does describe the cultures they founded. More to follow.