David Jackson: "The Ephraim-Manasseh Settlement of the USA"

The Ephraim-Manasseh Settlement of the USA
by
David Jackson

Brit-Am Readers,
Regarding the issue of whether the USA is most strongly influenced by Ephraim or Manasseh, there is a secular book that may offer some insight into this.

The book is Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer and is available form Amazon.
Fischer writes that there were four primary migrations from Britain (poetically known as Albion due to the prominence of the white cliffs of Dover as viewed from the sea) leading up to the creation of the United States and the American Revolution.

The four waves arrived in this order:

(1) The earliest English settlers came to Jamestown and points south. These people primarily came from southern England. They were often pro-royalist in their sympathies and named their states after royalty, like the Carolina's (after Charles), Virginia (after Elizabeth, the virgin queen) and Georgia (after George).

Geographically these people would primarily be Saxon and therefore Ephraimite, per the research of Yair Davidy, Steven Collins, and others. They came fleeing religious opposition from the 'low church' forces of Cromwell in England who were in the ascendancy at the time the majority of these settlers came.

(2)
The next wave was the Puritans, settling in Boston and points north. When the cultural tide in England changed following Cromwell's death and the restoration of the monarchy, the Anglican 'high church' began imposing difficult conditions on their former low church adversaries, prompting them to migrate to the US.

These people came primarily from East Anglia or eastern England and London. These people would therefore, per the received tradition, be mostly Angles rather than Saxons. Just as most British-Israel/Lost Ten Tribes writers associated the Saxons with Ephraim, the Angles are associated with Manasseh.

(3) The next big wave came from the British midlands and settled in Pennsylvania and Delaware. They were Quakers.

As much as the high and low church groups in England disliked each other, they both disliked the Quakers even more. Something approaching outright persecution drove them to the US. There is some dispute as to whether the British midlands are predominantly historically Saxon or Angle or something else, but many writes believe the Mercians who settled the old English midlands were essentially Angles, possibly mixed with other elements. If so this would make them out of Manasseh as well.

(4) The last of these early Protestant waves were the Scots-Irish. Uniquely, they came not to escape religious persecution, but economic hardship. They had originally come from the border area between northern England and southern Scotland.

English-Scottish Borderland Area.
Source of Picture:
http://www.cozytours.co.uk/
images/tours/2011/borderland/scotland1.jpg

They had been prodded by King James I to move to Ulster because he was tired of them always fighting each other along the English/Scottish border, and because he (shrewdly and correctly, it turned out) assumed that it these two Protestant groups were forced to live side-by-side in a bitterly antagonistic Catholic Ireland, that they would coalesce to defend themselves and thereby establish an English beachhead in Ireland. This effectively is what happened.

As economic conditions worsened, however, they too began to migrate to the US. They were disliked by all 3 of the groups already there because of their uncouth, warlike ways.   One southern minister even said they were not human and had no souls - this same sentiment would later be applied to African slaves.

Source:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/
_ZhTVlJz5kZc/TUm3JWWD6nI/AAAAAAAAC0c/
SbKQMQ00Cmc/s1600/USA-puzzle-map.jpg

The majority of these people settled in what was called the US 'backcountry' - Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and the western Carolinas. Having come from northern England, they were definitely Anglo/Scandinavian and not Saxon. Also, most people in the Scottish lowlands were themselves anciently English rather than Celtic. They had moved there from northern England to escape the Norman invasion. Scandinavian Vikings were a significant part of the population in England, especially outside of Wessex (West Saxony) in the south.

So the US was primarily settled by Angles, but with substantial Saxon representation, most notably in the South.

In the US, the northeast and northern tier of the country was settled by more Puritanical (group 2) people. They migrated across the north of the continent and were most responsible for settling the west coast. Note how even today these two areas tend to vote the same in Presidential elections.

They are more liberal and believe that society has a right and obligation to see to it that people live 'properly'. This is in keeping with Puritan concepts.

Only in this region would the idea of putting a scarlet letter 'A' on the shirts of an adulteress have taken hold as it did. Not simply to punish the person, as is often assumed, but to reform and improve her. It was in these areas that the movement to abolish slavery and more recently to stop tobacco smoking found the most passionate backing. President John Adams was typical of this group.

The southern US, from Virginia down to Alabama and Mississippi is the most Saxon/Ephraimite. They are characterized by feeling a sort of imperious, custodial duty to those less fortunate. To modern eyes it may seem incongruous, but in truth they frequently manifested such paternal care for their slaves. In general they are less judgmental and intrusive than northerners, but as equally strongly resent being intruded upon. President George Washington was typical of this group.

The Quakers that settled Pennsylvania and Delaware were more influential early on than they are today.   This was at least partially due to many Quakers' equating reproduction with moral latitude. They simply didn't procreate in as great numbers. They are the 'bleeding heart' liberals, as one might call them.   Perhaps due to the unified opposition of both high and low church groups ion their original homeland, they invariably sided with the oppressed and downtrodden in their new land. They were even reluctant to defend themselves against Indians and were often massacred. The anti-war movement is often strongest among these people.

The final group is epitomized by President Andrew Jackson. He mercilessly fought and defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans and then forced the American Indians to be removed to the west so that white people could claim their lands in the central backcountry. In time this group came to dominate politics from Kentucky to the interior west (but not the west coast). As might be expected, they are distrustful of government. Perhaps they are collectively, sub-consciously still influenced from their treatment by King James in being transported to Northern Ireland against their will.

Like the southern states, Scots-Irish states allowed slavery but were usually less intense about it. A slave escaping from a southern state like Georgia would often be hunted with bloodhound dogs and whipped to death when caught. A slave escaping in Kentucky, by contrast, was often not even pursued.

The US Civil War was largely a war between groups (2 Puritans) and (3 Quakers) against (1 Southerners), with group (4 Scots-Irish) somewhat split but mostly siding with (2) and (3). With such odds, the eventual outcome was assured.

Modern culture tends to group areas controlled by (1) with (4), and indeed recent Presidential voting patterns bear this out. However this is largely a result of trends that occurred after the Civil War, such as on matters of taxation and government control over day-to-day lives.

In conclusion, I believe that US culture has been mostly influenced by Angle/Manasseh elements, with Saxon/Ephaimite elements playing a significant but ultimately inferior role. These roles have persisted to this day, even with later immigration from all over the world. The initial settlement seemed to set the pattern for all who came later.

Great Britain is therefore Ephraim and dominated by pro-royalist interests whereas the US, more strongly reflecting a Manasseh and Scandinavian inheritance is less likely to regard royalty and titles.

By this reasoning, we would expect the US to often follow a somewhat different course than Great Britain, but remain aligned with Great Britain in existential matters, just as would be expected of brother nations.

David Jackson
Keller,
TX USA

Pleased with what you read?
The Brit-Am enterprise is a Biblical work.
God willing, they who assist Brit-Am will be blessed.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications.
Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.

'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God or the Bible.'
George Washington

Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.

Security Cameras, Florida, USA.

The Lifestyle Doctor

Home