From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Celts vs English or ASW as seen by McWhiney & Jamieson
Keywords: Celt English theory McWhiney
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:01:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.024823.19034@cs.tulane.edu> newcomb@navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb) writes:
>I would like to know how our gentle and learned readers consider
>the theory of McWhiney & Jamieson regarding the causes and
>execution of the ACW. This theory can be best stated by this
>quote from their book _Attack & Die_:
> 
> "...-the majority of the white people  in the South on the 1860s
>were of Celtic origins and most of those who were not had become
>culturally Celticized; the majority in  the North were of English
>origins and many who were not had become culturally Anglicized."
>  "This cultural dichotomy  in America was not only the major
>cause Civil War but it explains why the war was fought the way
>it was. Because the American Civil War was basically a continuation
>of the centuries-old conflict between Celts and Englishmen, it
>is understandable that Southerners would fight as their Celtic
>ancestors had and that  Yankees would follow the ways of their
>English forebears, even to the extent od recruiting foreigners
>and blacks to do  some of their fighting for them."
> 
>Please also, let me know if you have read this book or other
>writings by the authors.
> 
>_Attack & Die, Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern
>Heritage_, McWhiney, G. & Jamieson, P., Univ. of Ala. Press,
>Tuscaloosa, 1982. (p. 178)
>
Hoo Boy, You're bound to stir up a hornet's nest with quotes like that!

It sounds like a hard to support scholarly theory that doesn't fit
reality. I believe that the proportion of Irish, Scots-Irish, Scots and
Welshmen fighting on both sides was roughly equal, though probably the
US had a few more than the CS, since New York, Boston and Philadephia
were such big ports for immigrants. Whoever wrote this book forgot about
the Irish Brigade and that regiment (I forget state and number) that
wore kilts as a dress uniform. Both US outfits. 
   I think that the reason the North used "foriegners" was because a lot
more immigrants ended up in the North. There were also a lot of Germans
in the NE who might have been citizens for several generations, but
didn't feel any particular need to speak English. There were a LOT of
German emmigrants to the U.S. in the late 18th- early 19th century. I
also think that the US "cause" of "fighting slavery" had a lot more
international appeal and attracted a lot more "liberator" types.
   The reason that blacks fought for the Union is self-evident. The US
would let them join up and they had damned-good reason to join up. 

   This explains the allegedly "English" method of hiring mercenaries to
fight.

   I also am extremely doubtful of the idea of the "anglicization" of
"celtic" peoples, or the "anglicanization" of English emmigrants (!). I
believe that the proper term for the losing of some cultural traits and
the adoption of other cultural traits is called AMERICANIZATION. Anyone
who doubts that the celtic immigrants had as much of an effect on the US
as the US had on them has only to look at religion (where Methodism
-from Wales, Presybeterianism - aka "the church of Scotland" and
Catholicism - with they stereotype of the Irish, not German priest - are
major denominations in the US, minor in most of the UK and Europe), food
(potatoes, oatmeal, whiskey), and cultural celebrations (St. Patrick's
day). Our language is also heavily influenced by Scots-Irish dialects.
The existing culture borrowed from the immigrants, the immigrants
borrowed from the existing culture.

   I am also skeptical of a "celtic" style of war, vs. an "english"
style of war. If the authors are thinking of a highland clan style
charge (with each man running headlong at the enemy trying to be the
first to the enemy line, with no concern for order), they haven't read
much about some very disciplined CS charges in the ACW (Pickett's charge
springs to mind).

   In short, I think their grand theory sounds like bunk, though I
believe that the book is very highly regarded and might be right in
other respects.

Have fun,
 
   Tom