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

[Byrd]

A large area of the early colonies was settled by Cavaliers. 

In Virginia only, and they were supporters of King Charles during the English Civil war (around 1650) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_C...istorical)
 

(lots of snippage)
There may have been secret human trafficking for the benefit of the Cavaliers and their people from secret Barbary Pirate contacts, in the old country or maybe the Colonies.  Perhaps the common folk picked up "othmani" values from the pirates.  In the Ottoman Empire, they used to buy an infant with an intelligent pedigree and raise them as an administrative slave.  

Can it be the "cavalier" butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers saw it as a path to realize their ambition to be Lords and Ladies?  Perhaps despite the fact that their former aristocracy in Europe had shown them that they lack management skills

 
There weren't a lot of Cavaliers, and when they came, they brought their household servants (who were the butchers, bakers, hog-tenders, farmers, sheep herders, and candlestick makers on their estates back in England.)  Other people who came at about the same time were the very religious Puritans (thrown out of several countries for being pests) and indentured servants from Europe.  There were also a number of people who were not going to inherit much of anything from their parents (younger sons) and came to the Americas to "seek their fortune."

The Lords and Ladies didn't need slaves.  They had servants and indentured laborers (who were practically slaves.)  The "no kings" idea comes from the way that the colonists were treated by King George and th European Enlightenment ( .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment#)
 

Exactly. There's no way to prove no pirate crews ever slipped in and tried to blend in, especially after the epidemics or the Creek civil war.

Again... from where (Caribbean?  French?  Spanish?  English?  Dutch?  American?  Barbary?) and how many and what time period?
 

From English-Arabic translator:
English         Arabic (casual tone)
Ottoman       العثماني
                   othmani

"Utman."

Don't you think your "aleuthmaniu" is actually "al uthmani," or "the Ottoman?"
 

Undoubtedly... but they didn't call themselves Ottomans and I'm not sure how this is supposed to fit into your idea.
 

So what's the reason you claim the pirates radically changed their behavior if they were displaced from the Caribbean by navies and plantations, and needed to learn how to live in the wilds of the South? Especially after tribes had been cut back by disease or (the Creek) civil war? Couldn't they offer any skills in exchange if they became affiliated with a tribe? Did they have a lot of culture to preserve, such that they would have been too proud to "go native" while it suited them?

Actually, I didn't claim that.  You seemed to think that they'd land on the coast and start foraging and living among the natives while (apparently) making their way north for reasons that you haven't made clear.

My point is that by 1700, the whole southern area was settled, though not by the English (as you can see on this map: https://www.historicpictoric.com/product...ntic-coast)  Those areas had towns and farms and cities and there was boat traffic up and down the Mississippi.  By 1760, the area was even more densely settled (just in time for the proclamation you mention), and by 1850 there were no Native American tribes in those areas. (Jackson and the "Trail of Tears.")

You haven't said when they were supposed to have come through this area and how many there were.  You've pointed to several dates, none of which really seem to relate to the Civil War.
 

Come to think of it, even the oldest woodcuts don't seem to show natives which looked like they were descended from Siberians, like the tribes west of the Rockies. 

The woodcuts were done by people in Europe for the most part.  None had ever seen anyone but other Europeans.  If you look at their woodcuts of Asian and African and Mediterranean people, they all look as if they just stepped out of a British pub.

Genetics shows no European mixing until after the Spanish began conquering the Americas.
 

Pirates could have been in contact with the New World before Columbus.  The lower Mississippi valley was called "the empty quarter" by the earliest explorers.  Perhaps the pirates had brought epidemics with them, perhaps on purpose.  Perhaps they had insinuated themselves into native society at that time.  Some of their descendants could have "gone back to European" when it suited them.  

Why would they be in the Americas before Columbus?  The voyage was chancy and early explorers often lost half (or all) of the ships they sent.  There were no European pirates there, and the Barbary pirates had better pickings hunting ships in Europe and the Mediterranean.  

And the only reason the Mississippi area was called "the empty quarter" is because there were no European towns and farms there.  There were many Caddoan towns, however (and we still have some of the mounds.) 

As to your last point, if they somehow showed up and somehow married into the tribes along the Gulf Coast...then why would they have left a comfortable life to go to Ohio and get involved in the Proclamation Line?  And how many are we talking about?

You don't seem to appreciate I am not proving a point but offering a speculative hypothesis.

Other than a vague "pirates caused the Civil War" there's no real hypothesis.  No set of dates, no explanation of who and how and why or where (which is why I keep bringing this up.)

Your title was "strong circumstantial evidence supporting piracy as the cause of the Civil War."  You haven't presented any circumstantial links between pirates and the Civil War timeline.