Worst Book Review Ever Criticizes Slave History For Not Presenting 'Both Sides'

[AverageJoe90]

129. My Response.

I think you saw "Celtic" and overlooked the Norman part

I actually didn't overlook anything. And Colony names don't really prove much, TBH.

Although, yes, it may be true that Norman strains also existed in Southern culture, as well as Celtic. But again, the Anglo-Saxon culture had always been the dominant basic culture in the South, just as up North; the real major difference was in it's expressions(you were certainly correct on this, however: Southern colonists sought to expand the empire, Northerners sought refuge from it).

You are correct in that a lot of people overstate the importance of the Scots and Irish. Heck, my family was one of those Irish families, and he was brought over as an indentured servant. He wasn't exactly a power broker!

Interesting. In any case, it can be pointed out that there were a few Scots-Irish who actually did become worthy in the eyes of the old elite: namely, John C. Calhoun, and a few others. There were also a few descended from Huguenots as well, such as William Porcher Miles. Basically, it seems, as long as one seemed Anglo enough and was willing to assimilate into the elite culture, then it was possible to be accepted: even the Taliaferros got a seat, and they were Italian!

I read a quote from a southern newspaper written during the Civil War along the lines of, "we conquered the Anglo-Saxons before, we can do it again."

Looking at this quote, it honestly seems to be more of an allegory more than anything else; after all, William the Conqueror did beat Godwinson at Hastings.

This is directly from contemporary sources.

Okay, but it seems that this was more of a case of some Southerners wanting to expand slavery as much as possible, and not some swipe at Anglos(well, not Southern Anglos, anyway).