Strong circumstantial evidence supporting piracy as a cause of the Civil War.

[Awhispersecho]

Saw the title and initially thought you were saying that people downloading music started the war. I had quite the comeback planned too.

[Solvedit]

I have heard it claimed that since Lithuania was the largest state in Medieval Europe, then shrank dramatically right around the time of the official discovery of the Americas, that our people must have come here to build empires.

What may have actually happened is they had a few military downturns and lost control of the "region of farms," or the Ukiu Rajonas, as well as "White Russia" or Baltarusija.

It could be that the people who were there in the middle ages remained where they were and their descendants still live there.

Some Lithuanian folk may remind one of rednecks, i.e. stubborn, practical, disdainful of tomfoolery, etc.  but those may be Yamnaya values for the Yamnaya are a part of all of Europe with the exception of Malta, according to the August 2019 National Geographic.  PBS Nova thinks they may have moved in during an outbreak of the plague 5,000 years ago because they are resistant.  There is actually a subculture in Scandinavia of people who dress like stereotypical rednecks, display the Confederate battle flag, drive rusty American pickups, etc., in other words, they identify.

[Solvedit]

Perhaps it is wrong to suggest the South wouldn't have known any better than to burn their friends.  

If they had royalists in their midst, the king would have kept them advised about what they must not do.

The first move of the war was to open up a Southern port by capturing the Federal fort in their way.

Perhaps the English plan, after not enough people had come out in the Revolution and the War of 1812, was to encourage Southern independence and then after the rebellion broke out, to see if they could stand.  

God forbid, but perhaps the English plan was to wait until they were thinned out.  What could the master Southern generals have been waiting for besides English help?  They say today that the war went on for so long that it can only be called a genocide. 

Why then, didn't the British let the Confederacy off the hook when the North took too much of the coastline and divided the Confederacy in two by taking the Mississippi?  They could have sent a diplomatic mission which said, "we will no longer be able to assist you."

[Byrd]

I have yet to see you come up with some sort of timeline for this.

You need to formulate this as a "this happened first, then this..." with places, names, dates, and supporting documents.

[Solvedit]

You need to formulate this as a "this happened first, then this..." with places, names, dates, and supporting documents.

Why do you think that's necessary for a speculative hypothesis?  

Did you think you needed exact figures of who came here according to the official account in order to disprove the hypothesis?  If you could, after all, account for every family, every death, every birth, and so forth, you could completely disprove my hypothesis, if you are right. 

That being said, it is obvious that Amherst's smallpox viruses may have disobeyed orders and left the Ohio valley.  If the pirates were still in the Caribbean, or if they had moved to Amazonia, perhaps 1763 is when there was a large movement in to the Eastern Mississippi watershed, and perhaps the French ones went to the West of the Mississippi.  The Creek War was probably another time when the natives were weakened by war and infighting (for it was partly a civil war among the natives). 

If the pirates had mostly a shipboard and a foraging culture, it is possible they may even have been posing as natives while it suited them.  They could have captured or bought native slaves from the slaves' opponents and learned all about language, culture, dress, and foraging the plants and animals they needed.  They may have intermarried with the locals.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

But the Simpsons had to go and cancel Apu. it was too offensive of a stereotype to say people from The Indian Subcontinent own all 711s, because Kurdish, Armenians, Persians, Sikhs, and Chaldeans own them too.

Those damn Yankees and their progressive ideals were destroying the proud American tradition of our destiny made manifest.

* Like how it's not called ethnic cleansing when we force relocated indigenous people to Oklahoma. Because then you have to start acknowledging our LONG expansionist history based on ideals of racial supremacy.

Im sure the rebels said all the founding fathers (except maybe Jefferson) were rolling over in their graves at the tyranny of abolishionist (progressive) values taking away their tradition and status quo. Slave owning aristocracy was the founding ideal for all white men created equal.

The last two times the National Guard was called was surrounding a change in status quo.

In 1963, to make George Wallace intregrate The University of Alabama (which he fought and called a dictatorship, and the most veiled contributing reason why he was assassinated), and two weeks ago to "Protect ICE buildings" from the angry protestors of California (which we also compared to a dictatorship).

I mean, everything is on different sides now, but it's still essentially the same type of responses all around.

[Solvedit]

[Video: https://youtu.be/_Q--iGgtRn8?si=UrgNjcQSGdBa9OkK]

But the Simpsons had to go and cancel Apu. it was too offensive of a stereotype to say people from The Indian Subcontinent own all 711s, because Kurdish, Armenians, Persians, Sikhs, and Chaldeans own them too.

Those damn Yankees and their progressive ideals were destroying the proud American tradition of our destiny made manifest.

* Like how it's not called ethnic cleansing when we force relocated indigenous people to Oklahoma. Because then you have to start acknowledging our LONG expansionist history based on ideals of racial supremacy.

I don't have any evidence, much less proof, of the following speculations but there is a strong sense there may be more going on than meets the eye regarding Indian removal.

The natives may have been conning us. Perhaps the area had filled with pirates who liked foraging and posing as natives. Suppose the natives went along in order to preserve the Indian Reserve that the King had established with the Proclamation Line of 1763? Even though Amherst's epidemics had cut them back more than they wanted anyone to know? Perhaps it had become increasingly clear the place was filling up with illegal settlers. If not, why did so many natives die on the trail of tears itself? Why couldn't they just forage a little more meat and dry and smoke it? The fact that they starved implies someone was overhunting the land for them.

Besides, can it be the natives wanted to preserve their ethnic distinctness and culture? Can it be they did not want to try to join American society, pay taxes, and let Federal troops on their land? Can it be that was the alternative to moving to Oklahoma because the treaties between them and the US left them responsible for their own internal security?

Can it be the pirates corrupted them a bit and they had a hard time keeping their hands off Americans?

Im sure the rebels said all the founding fathers (except maybe Jefferson) were rolling over in their graves at the tyranny of abolishionist (progressive) values taking away their tradition and status quo. Slave owning aristocracy was the founding ideal for all white men created equal.

Only if you fallaciously assume equal rights must lead to equal outcomes or there must be discrimination in there somewhere.

The last two times the National Guard was called was surrounding a change in status quo.

In 1963, to make George Wallace intregrate The University of Alabama (which he fought and called a dictatorship, and the most veiled contributing reason why he was assassinated), and two weeks ago to "Protect ICE buildings" from the angry protestors of California (which we also compared to a dictatorship).

I mean, everything is on different sides now, but it's still essentially the same type of responses all around.

No, integrating the University of Alabama made the playing field level and led to greater freedom and equality of opportunity.

It is not very much like insisting that debates over our national sovereignity and immigration law not lead to the destruction of Federal property. Can we still have free speech and free elections in this country? Don't you think many of the newcomers might lead to more ethnofascist enclaves, being as how they are fleeing poverty?

[Byrd]

Why do you think that's necessary for a speculative hypothesis?  

Because that's how this works in the study of history.  You have a point you think is worth considering, so you build up the evidence -- the timeline, the documents, the artifacts, including number of people and genetics.  If you can't do that, then what you have is a type of literature known as "alternative history."

These are filed under "fiction" and are not given serious consideration.  Kind of like "Abraham Lincoln vs the Zombies." (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2246549/)

You have said you felt you had "strong circumstantial evidence" but that would mean producing documents and newspaper articles and so forth that gave evidence (numbers, dates, etc) to support your idea.

 

Did you think you needed exact figures of who came here according to the official account in order to disprove the hypothesis?  If you could, after all, account for every family, every death, every birth, and so forth, you could completely disprove my hypothesis, if you are right. 

If you go to ancestry.com, you will be surprised at how much of this kind of detail we do have.  People recorded births and deaths and had wills that were filed and legislated.  Deeds of property were very important.  We have things like the deed to the land granted to Davy Crockett in Texas (before the Civil War)  On the site Familysearch.org, my ancestor who was born in 1776 has a record of his marriage in Delaware by a minister a few days before Christmas in 1749 in "British Colonial America."  There's a record of his birth and his christening in 1712.

The colonists were British citizens and had to report to local governments, so, yes... we can account for a lot of it.  In addition, there are many books written about these areas (and a real BOATLOAD of them, in truth) including family history books written by people documenting their own family histories that include deeds and even letters written by these people or newspaper articles about them.

At Newspapers.com, the archives (still in progress) show 4 newspaper items dated from 1690-1700 and a total of 6 newspapers available from Massachusetts.  There are articles about the Proclamation Line and about conflict in those areas.

Now, they might not have recorded 18 or 20 men straggling into the area, but the men would have left some record of their presence.


 

That being said, it is obvious that Amherst's smallpox viruses may have disobeyed orders and left the Ohio valley.  If the pirates were still in the Caribbean, or if they had moved to Amazonia, perhaps 1763 is when there was a large movement in to the Eastern Mississippi watershed, and perhaps the French ones went to the West of the Mississippi.  The Creek War was probably another time when the natives were weakened by war and infighting (for it was partly a civil war among the natives). 

Again, these are Spanish and French areas and like the British, they also had records and newspapers.  These are sources historians draw on.  They would certainly have remarked on 2,000 men or more of any extraction suddenly showing up in the area.  Or even a hundred (that's a pretty sizeable force) -- AND it would have been seen as an invasion if as many as a hundred suddenly appeared.

There could have been an international incident with countries accusing each other of sending forces in.

 

If the pirates had mostly a shipboard and a foraging culture, it is possible they may even have been posing as natives while it suited them.  They could have captured or bought native slaves from the slaves' opponents and learned all about language, culture, dress, and foraging the plants and animals they needed.  They may have intermarried with the locals.

Native Americans didn't sell off their foes as slaves.  They killed them or integrated them into the culture.  While a single person could have been adopted into the tribe (or a handful over the period of a hundred years), tribes would NOT have adopted a hundred people (no resources to feed them, and foraging areas don't support a very large population).  A thousand men showing up at one time would be an invading army and would have been noticed everywhere.

So... as I said, you need some sort of documentation to try and support your idea -- not a set of "this could happen."  Remember that people were hungry for news and although they didn't have the Internet, people traded news and there was a type of postal system in place and there were libraries, family Bibles (recording births and deaths and so forth), courts where people filed deeds (so their land wouldn't be stolen and would remain in the family) and newspapers and so forth.

The idea of the Lone Rifleman and Wife is, frankly, mostly myth.  In order to survive, they stayed in contact with civilization (if only for rifle parts and so forth) and that fringe of civilization stayed in contact with the larger towns and cities and wrote about what was going on.

[Solvedit]

Because that's how this works in the study of history.  You have a point you think is worth considering,

That's where we're at with this.

If you go to ancestry.com, you will be surprised at how much of this kind of detail we do have. 

You can't tell me we have all of it. Besides, there could have been identity theft. Some of them could have had double lives. Or, they could have called themselves the Arabic word for Ottoman because they had cooperated with pirates before and/or after they came here.  Besides, would Ancestry.com prove what a person's ancestors had been doing?  

Could you think no one ever got in here without disclosing all the things they had been doing?  

Again, these are Spanish and French areas and like the British, they also had records and newspapers. 

They probably didn't have all the records.

Native Americans didn't sell off their foes as slaves.  They killed them or integrated them into the culture. 

Do you think they were incapable of learning from human traffickers? Do you think pirates could not have taken a few slaves if their tribe was nearly wiped out by smallpox?  Your quasi-academic tone belies the fact that you seem to be referring to a very simple textbook which described the most typical of pre-contact behavior.  

While a single person could have been adopted into the tribe (or a handful over the period of a hundred years), tribes would NOT have adopted a hundred people (no resources to feed them, and foraging areas don't support a very large population).  A thousand men showing up at one time would be an invading army and would have been noticed everywhere.

Perhaps the King wanted them there. You tend to overreach and overplay your hand. Do you know if the natives had to complain to the authorities that there were people moving on to their land? I highly doubt you could disprove they ever had to complain about a few interlopers.  My guess is they did have occasional issues with people violating the Indian Reserve despite your academic-sounding denial. 

So... as I said, you need some sort of documentation to try and support your idea -- not a set of "this could happen." 

No, not when we're at "speculative hypothesis."

Remember that people were hungry for news and although they didn't have the Internet, people traded news and there was a type of postal system in place and there were libraries, family Bibles (recording births and deaths and so forth), courts where people filed deeds (so their land wouldn't be stolen and would remain in the family) and newspapers and so forth.

You suggest you researched those things. I tend to doubt it.

The idea of the Lone Rifleman and Wife is, frankly, mostly myth.  In order to survive, they stayed in contact with civilization (if only for rifle parts and so forth) and that fringe of civilization stayed in contact with the larger towns and cities and wrote about what was going on.

If there was black marketeering with the natives, would everyone have boasted about it?

We know there were pirates. There were blatant pirates in New Orleans and as you stated they blatantly settled in New York.

There were almost certainly people settling the Indian Reserve which was part of the reason the Creek had to cede so much land after the Creek War. Could not a single one of them have been a pirate?

You talk like there's no evidence but you yourself have stated they moved to New York. Just New York? Really?

[Byrd]

That's where we're at with this.
You can't tell me we have all of it. Besides, there could have been identity theft. Some of them could have had double lives.

Oh, I know we don't have all of it.  And I know that there were several time periods when many pirates became semi-legit as privateers, serving one country or another and having most of their crimes overlooked as long as they harassed whatever forces the Crown (English, Spanish, or French) wanted them to harry.
 

Or, they could have called themselves the Arabic word for Ottoman because they had cooperated with pirates before and/or after they came here.  Besides, would Ancestry.com prove what a person's ancestors had been doing?  

You've completely lost me here.  

The Arabic word for 'Ottoman' is aleuthmaniu -- and doesn't seem to relate to anything.  Could you expand on this idea, explaining who and what time period and where this might have happened?
 

Do you think they were incapable of learning from human traffickers? Do you think pirates could not have taken a few slaves if their tribe was nearly wiped out by smallpox? 

Pirates might have taken a few slaves, yes, or bartered for a woman or two.  Some might have willingly gone with a stranger, depending on the culture of the tribe or the nation.

Native Americans weren't much like they are depicted in school level textbooks.  There was a broad range of cultures and practices and lifestyles, and it often changed after first contact with the Europeans.  In addition, warfare between groups often meant that whoever was in the area in the late 1600's might not be there in the late 1700's or the 1800's.

Pirates regularly took "Indian slaves" in the Caribbean.  So did the Spanish.  But these people aren't North American tribes and didn't speak the same language and wouldn't know how to survive in, say, Virginia.
 

Your quasi-academic tone belies the fact that you seem to be referring to a very simple textbook which described the most typical of pre-contact behavior.  

I'm a scholar, so I do have an academic tone.  Decades of having instructors and critics stare me in the face and say "and what evidence do you have to back up THAT idea, eh?"  (and sometimes less kindly than that) flavor the way that I debate.  But I try to NOT treat others like we're facing one another over a table at a conference and arguing different sides.

And I've taught a few semesters of genealogy at a local college.  That's where you get into more than the books tell you.

Perhaps the King wanted them there. You tend to overreach and overplay your hand. Do you know if the natives had to complain to the authorities that there were people moving on to their land? I highly doubt you could disprove they ever had to complain about a few interlopers.  My guess is they did have occasional issues with people violating the Indian Reserve despite your academic-sounding denial. 

The whole French-Indian war against the British was the result of many complaints and broken agreements.  The wars in the Ohio valley that produced the Proclamation Line were another example of conflict over broken agreements...and that's just two of many documented complaints.  

Here's a list of treaties that were -- and then broken -- in the 1700's (more in the 1800's and 1900's) https://www.history.com/articles/native-...n-treaties

Indian reservations appeared after 1851. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/317.html

I'm not sure who you mean with the sentence "the king wanted them there."  Native Americans did not have kings (in spite of some people titling the chiefs as "kings"), and if the French king wanted to settle pirates or whomever on an area of land, he would have written out a nice charter saying "we own this land and these people are here under our blessing" so that if some other group (Spanish, for instance) suddenly decided to settle there, the owner-king would have an excuse to send in troops.


In any case, your idea has never included a timeline.  It's a 150 year period of time, there were several periods when the pirates were around, you touch on the Ottomans as well, but you never actually firmly state what your idea is, which is what I am asking for.  Not the "I have an idea" but the "and this is how it happened" showing number of men, possible entry points, when they did what, and some sort of evidence of it.

For example (deliberately bad example and easily disproven) "we know that the ancient Egyptians made their first sea voyage to the Americas in the time of Hatshepsut (about 1460 BC) because they list things from the Americas -- ivory (from mammoths), spotted cats (lynxes), monkeys (from Mexico), and lots of gold (all over America) that they brought back.  Therefore America is the land of Punt."

Your idea lacks that kind of statement.  That's what I've been asking for:  Which group of pirates, how many, where did they land, where did they travel, and what evidence shows they were there.