[Diamond]

In that case ANY history could be said to be 'dreadfully incomplete' because no history is exhaustive in all elements or aspects. You cited Macaulay as giving a much different picture. I am saying that where Macaulay touches on the subject he tend to corroborate what Smith, Fiske and Bancroft, et al have written about the significance and critical importance Calvinism in the formation of England and America. If you have specific examples from Macaulay to the contrary please cite them.

Is there any other specific reason that you disagree with the statements of Smith, Fiske and Bancroft, et al regarding the significance and critical importance Calvinism in the development of England and America, other than they apparently are not nuanced enough for your taste? Why are they wrong? Where are they inaccurate? Do you have any specific evidence other than a single, broad demographic statistic to support your assertion that US society was not created by Calvinist/Presbyterian ideas?

Cordially,

[buwaya]

Certainly.
The point with respect to the Presbyterians is that they were but one element in the development of British institutions, and some of the positive effects were not things they created but due to reactions against them. Note that you are quoting from some of Macaulay’s essays, not his history. The Calvinist fanaticism was important in winning the English Civil war. What happened later was that the Calvinists warred with each other, switching the Scottish branch to side with the anti-parliament Stuarts for a generation, and the English branch turned into a military dictatorship and a totalitarian state against which there was an enduring revulsion, which created a potent counter-force.
The Calvinists were never so powerful again, being something of a dreadful warning of the dangers of excess.
Their influence was therefore ultimately that of a driver to create moderating institutions.

[buwaya]

And that is how one must deal with history. True history is not something from which one can legitimately grab scattered facts to pursue some conviction. One must rather collect all the facts, all the arguments, and weighting them all, in mature judgment, present a nuanced decision.
It is like being a judge hearing a case, but more so. You must listen to both the defense and the prosecution, and as well to the case of circumstance, as everything that happened historically is the result of chains of circumstance, none of which ultimately are decisive and the chain could have been broken anywhere.
The only way to approach a legitimate study is to obsessively gather facts, all the facts.