THIS IS FROM YOUR LINK, POSTED BY SPOKE, THREE YEARS AGO
*"You seem pretty committed to the idea that George Washington had a British accent. Am I reading you correctly? What is the basis for your view?
The South of the Revolutionary years would have been pretty isolated from England. (It does, after all, take a while for a ship to traverse the Atlantic.) Plantation life would have further isolated its citizens. There was no TV or radio, of course, so it’s not like the colonists were hearing the mother tongue every day. Do you really think hearing a preacher once a week (who you presume would have a British accent) is going to make a difference? (I probably hear an Australian accent once a week, but it doesn’t affect my speech.) In fact, it seems to me more likely that the locals would have a modifying effect on the preacher’s accent. (I’m sure he would have been using “y’all” in no time.)
The isolation of the South, the African influence, and the fact that Southerners had been in the New World for nearly 170 years, all seem to argue in favor of the development, by the time of the Revolution, of a distinct accent. Do you disagree? On what basis?
(Thanks, by the way, for clearing up my confusion on whether G.W. was educated in England.)"*
Okay, problem is, I’m guessing the majority of Americans in, say, 1750 were only 1st or 2nd generation immigrants, rather than Mayflower descendants. If so, then how “blended” would their dialects have been?
I also doubt the “Founding Fathers’” speech patterns were greatly influenced by the slave dialects Spoke talks about. Nor did they probably sound like poor southern plantars. And didn’t the great waves of Scots and Scots-Irish immigrants not arrive until the early-to-middle 1700s (or much later, in the case of the Irish). I’m not sure how German factors into all this either.
The other link–from three years ago–doesn’t really answer the question. Just lots of guesswork. People speaking authoritatively while producing zero cites. Kinda like me.