Why the U.S. is British and…

If you’re not familiar with this man, he’s very interesting if you are patient with his ‘hyper’ delivery. I was not familiar with some of what he discusses here so it was something to think about.

9 thoughts on “Why the U.S. is British and…

  1. almost a text version of the above, see link below. Wallace is doing some good study on the origins of modernism, placing onerous on us– anglo-gentiles. I think he sees the problem through the rise avant-garde art communities, but even this traces itself back to the French Revolution. I tend to see Jacobinism as a ‘big bang’ for the modern or anti-traditional era– a grotesque distortion of 1688 and 1776. Anyway, interesting exploration: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/10/13/modernists-and-american-historiography/

    Like

  2. another piece by Wallace equates Victorianism within late 19th century America to (West) English traditionalism. As it played out in the 1920’s (which Wallace sees as the States’ turning point), modernism made strident headways, eventually (by mid-century) eclipsing what remained of older anglo/rural Victorianism. So, another way to conceptualize the problems posed in video clip; http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/10/02/victorian-america/

    Like

    1. Hello Charles, hello Bonnyblue

      The Nonconformist demographics should not be forgotten. It was this demographic that gave The Empire and The American states their moral credability.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_conscience

      “Historians group Methodists together with other Protestant groups as “Nonconformists” or “Dissenters” standing in opposition to the established Church of England. In the 19th century the Dissenters who went to chapel comprised half the people who actually attended services on Sunday. They were based in the fast-growing urban middle class. The “Nonconformist conscience” was their moral sensibility which they tried to implement in British politics.[2] The two categories of Dissenters, or Nonconformists, were in addition to the evangelicals or “Low Church” element in the Church of England. “Old Dissenters,” dating from the 16th and 17th centuries, included Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Unitarians, and Presbyterians outside Scotland. “New Dissenters” emerged in the 18th century and were mainly Methodists. The “Nonconformist conscience” of the Old group emphasized religious freedom and equality, pursuit of justice, and opposition to discrimination, compulsion, and coercion. The New Dissenters (and also the Anglican evangelicals) stressed personal morality issues, including sexuality, temperance, family values, and Sabbath-keeping. Both factions were politically active, but until mid-19th century the Old group supported mostly Whigs and Liberals in politics, while the New – like most Anglicans – generally supported Conservatives. In the late 19th the New Dissenters mostly switched to the Liberal Party. The result was a merging of the two groups, strengthening their great weight as a political pressure group. They joined together on new issues especially regarding schools and temperance, with the latter of special interest to Methodists.[3][4] By 1914 the linkage was weakening and by the 1920s it was virtually dead.[5]”

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Hi Puritan, I absolutely agree with the dominant influence of English dissent in early America, laying the basis for our moral Republic. Yet, for the same reason, I try to look for common denominators and connections between the groups. Indeed, much boils down to the history of revivalism. The two largest sects promoting revival were Baptists and Methodists, but you also had restorationists and New School Presbyterians who also came out of the confessional churches. A book which has occupied 15 years on my thinking is James Jordan’s Christianity & Civilization (v1) The Failure of the American Baptist Culture. Interestingly, Jordan and contributors forgot the other half of the American revival, the methodists. Methodists are curious because they don’t quite fit into either the CoE nor historical denominations or dissent, and I always thought it odd they overlooked this evangelical body which also has ties to restorationism and several old holiness movements. But, by methodism you can tie into the Church of England, since Mr. Wesley hardly wanted separation. Indeed, many of the older dissent, at least for a time, were semi-separatist. Even among the Baptists and Quakers there were staggered attempts to be a middle sort, which meant drawing closer to legal dissent as well as establishment. A book regarding the relation to Quaker and Baptist might be T.L. Underwood’s Primitivism, Radicalism, adn the Lamb’s War. Much of Anglo-American moralism comes by Victorian culture which, I suspect, was the fruition of evangelicalism in the trans-Atlantic. So, evangelical ethic among churches weigh larrge– as you even note with evangelical Anglicans like C. Simeon and W. Wilberforce. But, methodism is indeed a strange bird largely because, I suspect, Wesley tried to dampen more radical sentiment early-on, so it ends up having trouble relating to, say, scottish Presbyterianism yet keeps a distance from churchly Protestant Episcopalianism. I’ll leave you with a provocative quote from Wesley that makes one consider how methodism might fall into a longer history (from wesley’s farther appeal)–

      “9. But to return. What are the stumbling blocks in the present case [the Methodists], compared to those in any of the preceding [Dissenters]?
      “We do not dispute concerning any of the externals or circumstantials of Religion. There is no room; for we agree with you therein. We approve of, and adhere to them all: all that we learned together when we were children, in our Catechism and Common Prayer Book. We were born and bred up in your own Church and desire to die therein. We always were, and are now, zealous for the Church; only not with a blind, angry zeal. We hold, and ever have done, the same opinions, which you and we received from our forefathers. But we do not lay the main stress of our Religion on any opinions, right or wrong: neither do we ever begin, or willingly join them in any dispute concerning them. The weight of all Religion, we apprehend, rests on holiness of heart and life. And consequently, wherever we come, we press this with all our might. How wide then is the difference between our case and the case of any of those that are above mentioned [the denominations: Quakers, Independents, Baptists, and Presbyterians]? They avowedely separated from the Church: we utterly disavow any such design. They severely, and almost continually, inveighed against the doctrines and discipline of the Church they left. We approve both the doctrines and discipline of our Church, and inveigh only against ungodliiness and unrighteousness. They spent great part of their time and strength in contending externals and circumstantials. We agree with you both; so that having no room to spend any time in such vain contention, we have our desire of spending and being spent, in promoting plain practical religion. How many stumbling blocks are removed out of your way! Why do not you acknowledge the work of God [Revival in the Church of England]? ” — p 371 Misc. Works V I. Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion’

      Liked by 1 person

    3. so, there’s different ways to approach the question. You can go back to earlier origins, like CoE (which tended to have a weaker confession than say Presbyterians and even Independents), or you can appeal to the common goals of pietism and primitivism among the broader category of evangelicals. Or, simply combine the two. Many of these groups didn’t begin as churches. They were revival or reform movements within the CoE. That means they carry the ‘genetics’ of the Established church with them by degree. The established church, being a national one, also attempted to comprehend moderate aspects of these groups and the mid-19th century unfurled a major effort to do so with even churchly Episcopalians, aka. Muhlenberg memorial, which gradually effected prayer book alterations as well as canon amendment toward an ‘American church’. But I think evangelicalism and the associations which sprung from it really laid the ground work for more ecumenical approaches. But keep in mind all these churches, their theologians, and missionaries were in dialogue with one another, imagining a common crusade and effort– e.g., evangelizing the western frontier while liberating Spanish America (which at one time surrounded British America) of Roman Catholicism, etc.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Hi Charles, thanks for commenting.
    I’ve been sort of following Wallace’s pieces on modernism, etc. I would be interested in his exploring some of the older sources rather than newer ones. I think we in our era have some big blind spots regarding the past. Maybe some are able to be objective; maybe H.W. is one who can.

    It is a complex subject and I don’t know how right Eric Kaufman is in his analysis; I think I read his book a few years ago. I agree with you about the French Revolution, the Jacobins etc. But yet it goes beyond that.

    Like

    1. Hello Bonnyblue

      You have not approved one of My comments on “The future of Anglo Americans”. Is this intentional, I hope you read it.

      I have not been commenting much. It is hard for me to type with my health limitations. I would really like to put my ideas in to action to do what I can to morally revive our people.
      Does anyone have any ideas?

      Thanks

      Like

    2. Puritan – from my dash it looks like your comments should be automatically approved. I wouldn’t purposely not approve any of your comments. Sorry. I will have to watch the comments closely to be sure there are no comments sitting here or wrongly put into a spam folder. That happens occasionally.

      Sorry to hear about your health limitations. I truly do empathize; I have health issues that make it hard to do certain things so I understand about that.

      I’ve had log-in problems lately, and have had to get that fixed more than once lately. I will try to make sure your comments get through.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.