Aristocracy in America

[Yinko]

I was having a thought about an AH monarchist US, and it occurred to me that it would be easiest if the 13 Colonies had had titled nobility rather than just the middle class running things. The UK had colonies up and running well in the Americas for at least 200 years before the revolution, yet as far as I know there were never lords here. There were people like Penn who were granted the right to settle lands, and there were offshoots from noble families, but never people guaranteed hereditary lands by the crown, like there was in Mexico (Cortez being the most famous example). Why not? Or am I mistaken?

 

[WolfBear]

We did have political aristocracy such as the Adamses, but that's different from actual aristocracy, of course.

 

[History Learner]

The Cavaliers of the South, with their plantations, were a pretty close approximation. New York had its own version too which provoked a lot of unrest in the 1840s.

 

[Yinko]

We did have political aristocracy such as the Adamses, but that's different from actual aristocracy, of course.

The Cavaliers of the South, with their plantations, were a pretty close approximation. New York had its own version too which provoked a lot of unrest in the 1840s.

I did note the effective aristocracy such as the landlords and wealthy middle-class like the Adamses. However, that's a different thing from a peerage that could have a legitimate claim to kingship in the event of revolution. George Washington being offered the crown (assuming that actually happened and isn't just another myth formed in order to bolster the legitimacy of a new nation) was arbitrary. Any of the other founding fathers could have just as easily been offered it if the political will had shifted in that direction, Washington was simply a popular general and figure head.

 

[WolfBear]

I did note the effective aristocracy such as the landlords and wealthy middle-class like the Adamses. However, that's a different thing from a peerage that could have a legitimate claim to kingship in the event of revolution. George Washington being offered the crown (assuming that actually happened and isn't just another myth formed in order to bolster the legitimacy of a new nation) was arbitrary. Any of the other founding fathers could have just as easily been offered it if the political will had shifted in that direction, Washington was simply a popular general and figure head.

Completely agreed. That said, though, theoretically speaking, had the US actually become a monarchy, this monarchy could have been elective similar to the PLC.

 

[History Learner]

I did note the effective aristocracy such as the landlords and wealthy middle-class like the Adamses. However, that's a different thing from a peerage that could have a legitimate claim to kingship in the event of revolution. George Washington being offered the crown (assuming that actually happened and isn't just another myth formed in order to bolster the legitimacy of a new nation) was arbitrary. Any of the other founding fathers could have just as easily been offered it if the political will had shifted in that direction, Washington was simply a popular general and figure head.

Well, converting the effective into the actual is probably the easiest and most likely; it also has precedent. Take the Normans, for probably the best example case of a rags to riches Aristocracy in the Medieval era.

 

[Yinko]

Completely agreed. That said, though, theoretically speaking, had the US actually become a monarchy, this monarchy could have been elective similar to the PLC.

That could have been interesting. The zeitgeist would have prevented it being inspired by the PLC, but it could have arrived at a similar result due to trying to strike a compromise position between the monarchists and the democratists.

Well, converting the effective into the actual is probably the easiest and most likely; it also has precedent. Take the Normans, for probably the best example case of a rags to riches Aristocracy in the Medieval era.

Jamestown was founded in 1629, the military aspect of the revolution began in 1775, so in 146 years this effective->legitimate transition never took place. Back to the key question, why not? Was it because the colonies were primarily corporate entities meant to be bring the motherland wealth and not thought of as true and permanent extensions of the kingdom? Was it because colonial citizens were not British citizens?

 

[History Learner]

Jamestown was founded in 1629, the military aspect of the revolution began in 1775, so in 146 years this effective->legitimate transition never took place. Back to the key question, why not? Was it because the colonies were primarily corporate entities meant to be bring the motherland wealth and not thought of as true and permanent extensions of the kingdom? Was it because colonial citizens were not British citizens?

Could be all of that, and my comment was more in terms of thinking what can be done after the Revolution. If, for example, the House of Hohenzollern is given the throne or something as was supposedly floated in the 1780s, perhaps then the process of formalizing an aristocracy could begin.

 

[WolfBear]

Well, converting the effective into the actual is probably the easiest and most likely; it also has precedent. Take the Normans, for probably the best example case of a rags to riches Aristocracy in the Medieval era.

The Normans were also fine warriors and conquerors, no? So, one could at least say that they earned their right to be aristocrats, no?

 

[History Learner]

The Normans were also fine warriors and conquerors, no? So, one could at least say that they earned their right to be aristocrats, no?

Certainly the South saw themselves in that context.

 

[WolfBear]

Certainly the South saw themselves in that context.

I suppose that blacks were the Southern elites' equivalent to the native English (descendants of the English people who lived there before 1066), right? I wonder how the Norman elites' oppression of the native English compared with segregation and Jim Crow. Medieval England was certainly classist, no doubt about that, but just how difficult was it for a peasant to become wealthy back then? Extremely difficult due to feudalism and peasants being bound to the land, right?

 

[History Learner]

I suppose that blacks were the Southern elites' equivalent to the native English (descendants of the English people who lived there before 1066), right? I wonder how the Norman elites' oppression of the native English compared with segregation and Jim Crow. Medieval England was certainly classist, no doubt about that, but just how difficult was it for a peasant to become wealthy back then? Extremely difficult due to feudalism and peasants being bound to the land, right?

I don't think it was meant to be literal, and this is 19th Century racial theory; it doesn't have to make complete sense to modern readers given we lack the contemporary understanding and knowledge.

 

[WolfBear]

I don't think it was meant to be literal, and this is 19th Century racial theory; it doesn't have to make complete sense to modern readers given we lack the contemporary understanding and knowledge.

Yeah, well, I mean, I still found the analogy interesting. Southern whites, like the Normans, of course also had foreign roots, in their own case, being descended from British Isles stock.

TBH, I'd enjoy going to the Southern US right now and imagine Southerners acting like Normans (genteel chivalrous gentlemen, et cetera)! Still, I'm probably asking for too much here!

 

[History Learner]

Yeah, well, I mean, I still found the analogy interesting. Southern whites, like the Normans, of course also had foreign roots, in their own case, being descended from British Isles stock.

TBH, I'd enjoy going to the Southern US right now and imagine Southerners acting like Normans (genteel chivalrous gentlemen, et cetera)! Still, I'm probably asking for too much here!

Their concept for what the Confederacy was supposed to be was an Aristocratic Republic, with the elites filling that position. Long term I can see that sliding into no longer being constrained to the old Planter class but the White population at large, especially if they achieve the Golden Circle and concepts like the White Man's Burden still take root.

 

[WolfBear]

Their concept for what the Confederacy was supposed to be was an Aristocratic Republic, with the elites filling that position. Long term I can see that sliding into no longer being constrained to the old Planter class but the White population at large, especially if they achieve the Golden Circle and concepts like the White Man's Burden still take root.

This? :

Knights of the Golden Circle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, couldn't the anti-slavery Brits eventually go to war with the CSA in order to try forcing the CSA to end slavery?

And I suppose that the status of blacks in the CSA will be heavily inferior even post-emancipation, whenever that might be, right?

 

[History Learner]

This? :

Knights of the Golden Circle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, couldn't the anti-slavery Brits eventually go to war with the CSA in order to try forcing the CSA to end slavery?

And I suppose that the status of blacks in the CSA will be heavily inferior even post-emancipation, whenever that might be, right?

Yes, the KGC plans for expansion; the name alone really shows how serious the South was getting into the Neo-Medieval concept. As for the UK, I doubt it; they didn't on Brazil and they were too dependent on Southern cotton. As for Blacks, I'd imagine they'd get a status closer to English Peasants under the Normans, same for Hispanics and the like, although the latter would probably be gradually assimilated in directly.

 

[WolfBear]

Yes, the KGC plans for expansion; the name alone really shows how serious the South was getting into the Neo-Medieval concept. As for the UK, I doubt it; they didn't on Brazil and they were too dependent on Southern cotton. As for Blacks, I'd imagine they'd get a status closer to English Peasants under the Normans, same for Hispanics and the like, although the latter would probably be gradually assimilated in directly.

I think that it would be difficult to assimilate all but the whitest Hispanics due to the one-drop rule, no? This isn't like nowadays where a 3/4 white Hispanic can be considered white without much problems.

 

[History Learner]

I think that it would be difficult to assimilate all but the whitest Hispanics due to the one-drop rule, no? This isn't like nowadays where a 3/4 white Hispanic can be considered white without much problems.

The One Drop Rule only really applied to Blacks and even then there was room for maneuver; case in point was the outrage "High Yellow" slaves were starting to engender in the 1850s and edge groups like the Melungeons which could and did get assimilated into the White majority. Hispanics at large were an edge case and certainly there was a level of acceptance for them on a sliding scale.

 

[WolfBear]

The One Drop Rule only really applied to Blacks and even then there was room for maneuver; case in point was the outrage "High Yellow" slaves were starting to engender in the 1850s and edge groups like the Melungeons which could and did get assimilated into the White majority. Hispanics at large were an edge case and certainly there was a level of acceptance for them on a sliding scale.

Could Melungeons only marry blacks or whites? I've previously heard of them:

Melungeon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They look more black than white to me, though some of them could try passing for Amerindian:

 

[History Learner]

Could Melungeons only marry blacks or whites? I've previously heard of them:

Melungeon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They look more black than white to me, though some of them could try passing for Amerindian:

Either, preferred marrying into White families however and ultimately came to view themselves as White; they were also tri-racial, being both Black, White and Indian. Most nowadays look like your average White people, and even then too; depended on the area and local population.