The Redcoats never left. (Photo by: Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
The rhetoric of modern America is dominated by the paradigm of a biracial nation, but history is never black and white. Fissures between national and ethnic traditions have always been at the heart of its political conflict.
Their significance is highlighted in David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America and Kevin Phillips’s The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, And The Triumph Of Anglo-America. Fischer shows how the factions and coalitions in colonial America played out in the early Republic, sowing the seeds of the the Civil War, while continuing to haunt American politics to this day. Phillips, meanwhile, flags up the differences between the English settlers of North America and the English of the metropole.
Fischer’s early America is framed around four dominant folkways. There are the New England Yankees in the northeast; gentry planters in the lowland South along with their retainers; inhabitants of the upland South, originally from Ulster and the Scottish-English border; and the diverse business-oriented groups in the Mid-Atlantic, from Dutch burghers to Quakers. For both authors, the Yankees and the Southern planters have direct genealogical connections to the Roundhead Whigs and the Royalist Tories. The Borderers and the more mercantile folk of the Mid-Atlantic play a less prominent role in Phillip’s narrative, but eventually amalgamated into the broader Northern and Southern cultural and political alliances.
These groupings would eventually struggle against each other in the American Civil War. When House member Preston Brooks nearly beat Senator Charles Sumner to death on the floor of the Senate in 1856 — a foreshadowing of the conflict to come — it reflected the anxious, daggers-drawn national mood. But it was also the culmination of centuries of tumultuous history between those disparate strands in British culture which had put down deep roots into North America.
Brooks was a scion of the South Carolina upcountry and exemplar of a nascent fused Southern identity, a vociferous defender of slavery as a right and proper institution. In contrast, Sumner was a New England Yankee through and through. Brooks’s focus on family honour (he believed Sumner had insulted his cousin) reflects both the values of the English gentry and of the Scots-Irish Borderers. Sumner espoused the anti-slavery cause at a time when compromise between South and North was seen as prudent politics. This reflected a Yankee’s commitment to humanitarian justice, descended from the utopianism that gripped the Roundhead forebears of his New England ancestors.
Where the ultimate basis of this American factionalism (Puritan New England Yankee against Southern planter Cavalier) can be found in England (Roundhead East Anglia against the Royalist glens of Devonshire), The Cousin’s Wars observes that the migration to North America of dissenters simultaneously enabled the creation of Britain as a cohesive 19th-century power. After the false dawn of the English Republic in the 1650s, Puritan-minded Protestantism only flourished as the dominant force in New England. The existence of North America as a release valve for radical Protestantism stabilised the middle path that the Anglican Church occupied. Meanwhile, the Irish potato famine and the mass migration to the US of Roman Catholic peasants meant that the Protestant proportion of the United Kingdom was far higher in 1900 than in 1800. There are victors in The Cousin’s Wars — just different ones in different places.
The Englishmen, Scots or Welshmen who migrated to America were not “normal” Britons. Perhaps they sought more freedom of worship outside the established Church or more economic opportunities outside of the class system, or perhaps they were fleeing debt and the hand of the law. The “cowboy” is a cliché, but these cowboys came from somewhere, many even genealogically descended from herders on the Scottish border that engaged in as much theft as productive labor. The inverse of the American cowboy were the English who were left behind: the aristocrats, peasants and gentry who came together to create a British Empire with a much more united cultural identity in the 19th century than it had in the 17th century.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeLet all UnHerd members raise a glass of the ‘Red infuriator’ tonight to celebrate Major General Robert Ross and the brave lads of His Majesties’s 4th, 21st, 44th & 85th Regiments of Foot, who on this day two hundred and eight years ago routed the US Army at Bladensburg and subsequently captured Washington DC.
After a celebratory dinner and much happy looting, they proceeded to burn all the public buildings of the city, including the White House to the ground. “God save the King”.
How odd that this otherwise intriguing essay failed to mention the above?
Or that there was, after the revolt, an attempt to overpower the recalcitrant canadians who refused to be swept up in the revolutionary fervour by the new republic which was repelled.
Excellent article.
Charles Stanhope. A bit of history. An American invasion and attack on a Canadian town on the north side of Lake Erie destroyed the food that was used to feed British regulars and Canadian fencibles. The American rules of engagement did not include killing livestock or burning the population’s homes, which took place. This action threatened the inhabitants with death from exposure and starvation in the coming winter.
The governor-general of Canada (Quebec and Ontario) wrote to the commanding officer in Bermuda (who was planning raids on the American cities to force military troops to withdraw from the Canadian border to defend these cities) to proceed with the plan to attack. After securing permission from his inline commanding officer, the commander decided on three locations: Washington and Baltimore are the two most famous.
The raid on Washington was a complete success. The White House was not burnt to the ground as you quoted, and the patent office wasn’t even attacked to maintain “civilized” respect of the institution.
The Baltimore raid was also a success. It drove the fear of God into the Americans. It also sowed the seeds for the American National Anthem… however, the song doesn’t mention the attacks as raids nor that the Americans started the war, threatening the freedom and liberties of Canadians (sound familiar) while the British were fighting the Napoleonic War (a dirty backstabbing trick) and that the raids were the result of American atrocities.
Do you really want the truth out on this?
Thank you for that robust account, with which I completely concur.
However saying that “The White House was not burnt to the ground as you quoted” is a bit pedantic don’t you think?
As you well know, it was reduced to a smouldering shell that was not fully repaired until the 1950’s.
Incidentally my forebears managed to loot a few minor items from the inferno, including a chamber pot, which is put to good use on the anniversary! (tonight as it so happens).
The White House is called that because all it needed was a white wash paint to hide the burn marks. There was damage to the interior that was repaired but not complete, and this, as you said, addressed when work was done in the 1950s. It was originally painted a different colour but I guess in their haste to hide the embarrassment they painted with the only colour they had, white. There was a storm that passed through the city within 24 hours that night that put out the flames for most of the buildings. Unfortunately, it also ripped out buildings. So it’s up to debate whether it saved the city or harmed it further. I found this link you may be interested in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
There was great celebration that night. There was a well presented dinner prepared in the White House that the officers enjoyed fully. The First Lady did manage to secure a painting of George Washington, I believe, before their evacuation. This is a good account of what happened. So you have relatives that plundered? Hmmm. Don’t mention that to US customs the next time you visit the States.
You may have heard about Canada’s attempt to assimilate First Nations into the Western culture. The schools run by organizations such as the Roman Catholic diocese in the area and Anglicans, among others? No oversite. What a mess. However, one of the last Indian wars in The United States, I believe, was Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890. A large number of women and children were also killed by the American Calvary. My father was born in 1894 and decided to emigrate to Canada in 1912. Amazing. Hollywood doesn’t make Canadian Indian war movies… because they didn’t exist. There was a Metis uprising but that was political.
I forgot to mention. Fencibles and militia, by law, were not permitted to invade another country under British law. So the raids used British regulars, fresh from the Napoleonic Wars, for that reason. However, the Americans had a similar law concerning their militia, but it didn’t stop them from using them. Many militia men were upset with that. Some refused to cross. Americans are quick to say that it wasn’t the Canadians that attacked Washington, it was the British. Well, all Canadians were British. Include French Quebec, First Nations in Canada, and anyone else who lived in worked in British North America. And I dare say, there’s a good chance that some Canadians did enlist into the regulars. So to be politically correct, the British attacked Washington.
The Canadian Schools Scandal is that they haven’t yet found any mass graves and no one has demanded that they dig up the place that started it all.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-mystery-of-canada-s-indigenous-mass-graves
Are you disputing my forebears right to plunder, surely not?
In fact we have five bedrooms named after cities that ‘we’ had the good fortune to plunder, to wit : Madrid 1707, Quebec 1759, Delhi 1803, Washington 1814 & Peking 1860.
Sadly the pickings were fairly meagre, but it must have been fun. Vae Victis! As ‘you know who’ used to say.
(I think we lost that “fear” in 1815 at the Battle of New Orleans.)
America was founded by people who crossed vast oceans to get here, and now today people are crossing vast deserts to get here. We prefer to be free, not safe. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”.
Britain is an entirely different country.
Well at least you stood and fought at New Orleans and didn’t run away as ‘we’ expected!
Yes. And you and I both know the British commander behaved stupidly.
Yes, yet another Anglo-Irish pillock, but at least he “did the decent thing”!
I imagine the reason it wasn’t mentioned is because it’s not relevant to the topic of the article.
Republicans always were the more fragile half of the English speaking people.
They’re not the ones obsessed with safe spaces, trigger warnings and every manner of imminent apocalypse.
There is a large peace cross at the location.
Francis Scott Key a slave owing lawyer defending a captured doctor from there wrote our national anthem.
Something to listen to while you raise your glass.
Thank you, you had me foxed at first until the link appeared!
The book, When Britain Burned the White House, describes the sack of Washington brilliantly. It was condemned in the British press. A fascinating period of Anglo-American history.
This was a very good article, although I expect some of the points have been countered.
The Heritage Site | Adam McDermont | Substack
Adam McDermont: This is my reply to Charles Stanhope. A bit of history. An American invasion and attack on a Canadian town on the north side of Lake Erie destroyed the food that was used to feed British regulars and Canadian fencibles. The American rules of engagement did not include killing livestock or burning the population’s homes, which took place. This action threatened the inhabitants with death from exposure and starvation in the coming winter.
The governor-general of Canada (Quebec and Ontario) wrote to the commanding officer in Bermuda (who was planning raids on the American cities to force military troops to withdraw from the Canadian border to defend these cities) to proceed with the plan to attack. After securing permission from his inline commanding officer, the commander decided on three locations: Washington and Baltimore are the two most famous.
The raid on Washington was a complete success. The White House was not burnt to the ground as you quoted, and the patent office wasn’t even attacked to maintain “civilized” respect of the institution.
The Baltimore raid was also a success. It drove the fear of God into the Americans. It also sowed the seeds for the American National Anthem… however, the song doesn’t mention the attacks as raids nor that the Americans started the war, threatening the freedom and liberties of Canadians (sound familiar) while the British were fighting the Napoleonic War (a dirty backstabbing trick) and that the raids were the result of American atrocities.
The War of 1812 is a mere tickle in British history books. However, in Canada, it is a very important event. The Americans, however, tried to claim to have won the war but in truth, they lost it. Hence, you wont hear about it. Although it is the theme in their national anthem. You may be interested in this war memorial in Ottawa, Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812_Monument
Thanks for this, the Americans definitely took advantage of the Napoleonic Wars. The willingness of both sides to shed the blood of their kindred is lamentable. Imagine the world today had an Anglo-American Empire remained aligned.
I often discuss early Canadian history to my American relatives. Early Canadian history is early American history! And I end my discussions by asking them to imagine a country the size of Canada and The United States. Today, we have a chance with CANZUK. And the way things are going with the States, I fear we have no other choice.
Even more wokeness.
Correct, as we used to say, the USA was given “a dammed good thrashing “, as they so richly deserved.
Canada/British repulsed 11 invasion attempts by the Americans. Two serious invasions by Quebec. The American military was seriously embarrassed. Their merchant marine, one of the largest up to that time, annihilated. All their ports were blockaded. Their treasury nearly depleted. Their government in taters. It was a war to forget.
For Canadians, made up of First Nations, English, Loyalists, American immigrants, French Canada, British Regulars, Canadian fencibles and militia, Irish and Scotish, it was a unifying experience.
Hello, Adam… we meet again. I was able to find a copy of the book, When Britain Durned the White House, by Mr. Snow. On page 8, Snow attempts to explain why the British decided to conduct the raids. He mentions the attack on York (Toronto) and the destruction. But he didn’t mention Port Dover raid. The difference is that the civilians in the York raids weren’t targeted. The civilians in the Port Dover raid were and faced death through starvation and exposure in the coming winter. This was not conduct of a civilized country and this is the straw the broke the camel’s back. Snow did not faithfully explain the events that led to the decision to raid Washington. And a raid is not an invasion.
I tried your link but couldn’t find the related article to the book. In any event, Snow, a British subject who married a Canadian (CBC), errored so early in the book, there may be a basis for the condemnation in the British Press.
This article may be of interest to you.
https://www.dramandaforeman.com/the-british-view-the-war-of-1812-quite-differently-than-americans-do-smithsonian-magazine/
I can easily make the case that the American War of Independence was a fourth English civil war but extending that to the American Civil War is just impossible. This war was rather like a reprise of the Second English Civil War with a new set of Leveller-Roundheads against a new set of Grandee-monarchists.
The ACW, on the other hand, was all about the economic and cultural asymmetries associated with the circumstance that 11 states that had plantation economies based on slave labor and 23 states that had much more diversified economies based on free labor. The New England abolitionists almost universally understood the “Slave Power” to be an economic threat that was also a moral abomination.
About the only close miss in this article is that the Progressives do exhibit the kind of mindless, iconoclastic, disruptive and revolutionary zealotry that was characteristic of the Ranters and early Quakers (they might been one and the same) but New Englanders were quick to banish them whenever they appeared. The couple of Quakers who were hung had been warned off several times and insisted on dying for their inner light.
Mr. Aronsson…. The War of Independence was, in truth, the American War of Succession from the British empire. The declaration of Independence of 1774 made it a war of independence. Usually, these Independence are granted to previously independent countries that wish to be released. An area that wasn’t previously independent, may want to succeed/separate from the parent county. Hence a war of succession. In America’s case, it cannot be deemed a revolutionary war. A new British government and constitution would have been installed had the Americans won. That didn’t happen.
The first American constitution was a confederation. William Petty Fitzmaurice (PM) gave each colony, not a whole, their independence. There were about 21 colonies and charters in North America, and only 13 + Vermont succeeded. This confederation appealed to the states because it provided for their own degree of sovereignty, and they feared a strong federal system with a “tyrannical” head of state.
The confederation didn’t work, and a new constitution was written “…for a more perfect union.” More state sovereignty was released to the federal system making it stronger. However, there were concerns by the Southern states about the North, and some steps were taken to appease them.
The Northern industries were heavily textile and depended on the Southern cotton supply. In essence, the North supported slavery, and the British also fell into this and, during the ACW, supported the South.
A few Southern families held great wealth and power. Theirs was an agricultural base. The infrastructure was quite limited (rail lines and limited cities for commerce), so the locals depended heavily on these estates for commerce and their livelihoods. These people were typically not enslavers but relied heavily on those who were. Had they renounced slavery, they would lose their livelihoods, hence their loyalty to the slavery system.
You are right; the war was not about slavery but wealth. Slavery was secondary, and Lincoln offered to “lay off” slavery and not interfere with the South before the war. The South, however, had decided to pull out and form their confederation…. note that the original method used for the country was a confederation.
There was a definite tie between the War of Independence and the American Civil War. And it is showing itself in the same territorial/economic regions today.
American loyalties and political alignment die hard, as can be seen in the present Trump debacle and the continued struggle for American Blacks.
Good caption photograph, is it Bunker’s Hill they are about to re-enact?
There are many clubs in The United States and Canada who re-enact battle scenes. On Bunker Hill, this link may be entertaining to you. Remember that Great Britain would soon be at war with Spain, France and the Dutch. The French heavily supplied the American Patriots with war material, up to 90% on weapons and gun powder. Now I ask you, why would a staunch monarchy state help a group of rebels to form a republic? Wouldn’t Louis be a little bit apprehensive about that? The French were setting up a front to draw off valuable British forces from Europe. The British, instead, used the “German rent an army” Hessian approach and limited naval ships maintaining ships of the line in Europe. However, the Hessians refused to use British newly adopted battle strategies against the Patriots and did what they did best… lose. So, going back to your question, that scene could be anything, but the lessons of Bunker Hill and other engagements were lost on the Hessians.
Ah yes the Nation of New Britain.
2 relevant books which show an Amerikan extension of the roundhead cavalier conflict.
‘The Sotweed Factor’ by John Barth
‘Satanstoe’ by JF Cooper
“old ethnicities are in decline today” – Perhaps the entire point of melting pot. “fractures along cultural and regional lines” – More like cities vs country side, crowding makes people somewhat crazy and thoughtless. The shifting of political parties over time seems to reflect the pendulum as the two sides reverse themselves periodically. At least the American culture, divided and joined remains dynamic. Most of us really do dislike the confines of labels.
A Canadian take on this event to listen to while you hoist your glass: (if the link doesn’t survive, here it is — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aue-zWxYtEc )
A more professional version by a different group: (again, the url https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsfz3f18NxU )
Britain doesn’t ‘haunt’ Americans. However, in this woke period the slavery which Britain introduced to the US still haunts. After all, Britain supported the South during the US Civil War and before that treated Americans horribly. To this day many, if not most, Britons still have a disdain and a hate towards Americans.
The social dynamics of the US are changing, with more and more people who have no heritage or connection to Britain and aren’t swayed by its history and have little affinity for the country and its royal family.
Britain took and stole much from America in its imperial conquests. There is no such thing as a ‘special relationship’ the US has with Britain, only interests.
I think some British may well like to “think” Britain haunts America. My sir name may be English, but I’m from Anglo-Danish-French-German-Basque-Scott-&Irish, my wife is Italian-Iranian-African, our children may soon marry spouses of Honduran, Lebanese and Nigerian backgrounds. America is a melting pot. It’s so… ridiculous to think that we resemble the original British colony. Maybe because we speak English (at least sort of :-).
Like us you are ruled by Common Law, NOT Civil Law like most of the ‘rest’.
That’s the crucial difference.
That’s true we are for the moment I hope, and for the future I pray.