Wow, John! That is great news! I was sure that by now some developer would have gotten ahold of the place and filled it full of houses, apts. or a trailer park. Then it would have been too late. I'm also pleased to hear the news about Musgrove's Mill. The last time I was there even the historical marker was missing and I could only surmise the location of the battleground. I'm going to make a trip over that way later this summer to check them both out. I'll combine it with my trytomakeit annual trip to Kings Mtn. and Cowpens. My wife and I both had several ancestors in the middle of both of those battles and I love to walk over the ground and imagine the way it was back then. You're very lucky to have a state government so involved with pre- servation of these sites. Every one that's saved from development makes me breathe a sigh of relief . . . . Thanks again for the good news, Mack Smith SmokyMtn43@aol.com

> In addition to Pat's questions ..... was there any suggestion/requirement to wear > identification? I have always been struck by a Journal entry which described a lone > fallen soldier/captive who just couldn't make it all the way home after being > released a few months after the Battle of Brooklyn ... and died at the side of the > road. Jan -- Not to my knowledge. In fact many of the militiamen had to provide their own clothing. Even the Continental Army folks frequently wore remnants of uniforms because there were no resupplies. The "rag-tag" label also applied ocassionally to the British and German troops when their intended resupply was captured by the Americans or when it was diverted. For example all the new winter clothing and blankets intended for the Brunswickers [Braunschweigers] in Canada sent over in the summer of 1782 never made it to the intended destination. Bob Brooks

Pat -- <clip> > Does anyone have any information, on what a Patriot did to sign up to > serve in the Rev. War? Were there any papers that he filled out, that might > require the names of his parents? The general answer covering New England is that he signed (or made his mark) in the recruiting officers recruiting book certifying he had received his recruiting bounty. This document probably gave his residence or else the town against whose quota he was signing. Occasionally the enlistee's age is recorded. Unfortunately few such recruiting books have survived. In nearly forty years of looking at Colonial and Rev War records, I have rarely ever seen a record which indicates the names of the parents of a soldier. The principal exception was the preprinted form used by the Province of Massachusetts Bay during the F&I War. This preprinted form contained a column "Names of Fathers and Masters, of Sons under Age, and Servants." Alas, this column was frequently not completed. "Son under Age" were those lads under age 16 at the beginning of service. Master/Servant relationships may not have been formal apprenticeships. For example, in the roll for Fort Pownall covering 25 Aug 1760 to 5 July 1761 [MassArchives 98:420], Robin Hood is called "Serv't to Lancaster." Hood was the kid brother to Daniel Lancaster's wife. Also, Rich'd Stinson is called "Serv't to Eph'm Stinson." Richard Stimson was Ephraim Stimson's oldest son who was age 15 [bapt. 2 June 1745]. Bob Brooks

I just received this from Sam Thomas of the York Co. historical group: Following is the program for the 14th Ulster-American Heritage Symposium to be held in York Co. SC 19-22 June 2002. There is a registration fee, etc. If interested, send a request to jr@jrshelby.com and I'll send you a copy of the registration form. If you can't handle a MSWord doc, let me know and I'll send it in text format. John Robertson ================================================================== FOURTEENTH ULSTER-AMERICAN HERITAGE SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM AGENDA Wednesday, June 19 Museum of York County Time Event Place 12:00-6:00 UAHS Registration MYCO 6:00-8:00 Opening Conference Reception, and for MYCO Gatherin' Together Thursday, June 20 York Technical College Time Event Place 8:00-8:45 Registration Baxter Hood Lobby 8:45-9:00 Welcome and Housekeeping Hoechst-Celanese 9:00-9:30 Ulster in the Upstate Hoechst-Celanese Ms. Jeannie Wray, YCCHC & Mr. John Bambach, WNSC-TV 9:30-10:00 Presentation by Charles Woodmason, a.k.a. Hoechst-Celanese Rev. Donald Lowery 10:00-10:15 Coffee Break Baxter Hood Lobby 10:15-11:30 1st Paper Session - The Migration Cycle Morton/Willamette/Magnolia Dr. Katharine Brown, Chair Dr. Paddy Fitzgerald, "Bringing it all back home:" Aspects of Return Migration to Ireland and the Transmission of Ideas, 1700-1900 Dr. Brian Lambkin, Thomas Mellon (1813-1908): Archetypal "Returned Yank" Dr. Nini Rodgers, Thomas Greg, the Hearts of Steel and the Atlantic Migration Cycle 11:30-11:45 Coffee Break Baxter Hood Lobby 11:45-1:00 2nd Paper Session - Community Identity Morton/Willamette/Magnolia Dr. Michael Montgomery, Chair Dr. John Young, The Political Context of Convenanting Persecution in Restoration Scotland Dr. William Kelly, "Social and Political Undesirables?" Emigration from Ulster to the New World, 1680-1730 Dr. Warren Hofstra, "A Spurious Race of Mortals:" Ethnicity and Scots-Irish Identity in the Civic Community of Early American Towns 1:00-2:15 Buffet Lunch Hoechst-Celanese 2:15-3:30 3rd Paper Session - Expressed Freedom Morton/Willamette/Magnolia Dr. Anita Puckett, Chair Dr. Michael Montgomery, Nomenclature for Ulster Emigrants and Their Descendants Dr. Ted Olson, Robinson Jeffers in Northern Ireland: An American Poet's Return to the Roots of His Freedoms Dr. Anita Puckett, Individual Freedom as Constructed through Variation in (Non) Requests among Scots-Irish Descendants in Appalachia 2:15-3:30 1st Author's Session Bridges/Rockwell 3:30-3:45 Tea Break Baxter Hood Lobby 3:45-5:00 4th Paper Session - Revolution or Evolution Morton/Willamette/Magnolia Dr. Warren Hofstra, Chair Dr. Robert Heslip, From Gold to Paper: Regionalism and Cultural Assumptions Dr. Vivienne Pollock, Strategies for Survival: Patterns of Consumption and Financial Obligation in Eighteenth-century Ulster Dr. Audrey Horning, Bridging the Gap between America's Scotch-Irish and Ireland's Ulster Scots (an Archaeological Attempt) 3:45-5:00 2nd Author's Session Bridges/Rockwell 5:00-6:00 Book Sales and Signings Baxter Hood Lobby 6:30- Dine Around [Attendees choice - meal not Leave from each hotel included in conference registration] Friday, June 21 York Technical College and Historic Brattonsville Time Event Place 8:30-9:00 Registration Baxter Hood Lobby 9:00-10:15 5th Paper Session - Scotch-Irish & Natives Morton/Willamette Dr. Alexia Helsley, Chair Dr. Thomas Blumer, Some Notes on Catawba/Scots-Irish Relations Mr. Robert Brockington & Dr. William Brockington, Whose Land is it Anyway? Dr. Michael Morris, Profits and Philanthropy: George Galphin's Irish Resettlement Ventures 9:00-10:15 6th Paper Session - Preaching Revolution Bridges/Rockwell Chair Dr. Richard K. MacMaster Ms. Nancy Sorrells, John Glendy: Fanning the Flames of Revolution from the Presbyterian Pulpit Mr. Michael Scoggins, A Revolutionary Minister: The Life of Alexander Craighead Dr. Robert Calhoon, David Caldwell Reconsidered 10:15-10:30 Coffee Break Baxter Hood Lobby 10:30-11:45 7th Paper Session - Northern Ireland Heritage Morton/Willamette Chair TBA Dr. Mary Mattox Daughtrey, Strategies for US Engagement in Foreign Conflicts: The Case of Northern Ireland Dr. Stephen Mills, Ulster Loyalism and Revolutionary America: A Continuing Paradox Dr. Nina Ray, The Search for Personal Meaning in Legacy Travel to Ulster 10:30-11:45 8th Paper Session - Scotch-Irish Backcountry Bridges/Rockwell Dr. William S. Brockington, Chair Mr. Scott Withrow, Fractured Families: The Ulster-American as Patriot and Loyalist in the Carolina Backcountry Dr. Carole Watterson Troxler, Scotch-Irish among the Loyalists of the Southern Backcountry? What was that about? Ms. Susanne J. Simmons, Old Providence Church and the Immortal Samuel Carson 11:45-1:00 9th Paper Session - Irish in America Morton/Willamette Dr. Violet M. Johnson, Chair Ms. Susan King, "The Deadly Season" and its Effects on the Irish Population of Charleston Ms. Christine McIvor, The Atlantic Voyage in the 19th Century: A Social History of Irish Emigration Before, During and After The Famine Dr. Micheal D. Roe & Ms. Sybil Dunlap, Contemporary Scotch-Irish Social Identities and Attitudes toward "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland 11:45-1:00 10th Paper Session - Getting There Bridges/Rockwell Dr. Carole Watterson Troxler, Chair Dr. Trevor Parkhill, With a Little Help from Their Friends: Assisted Emigration Schemes, 1680-1845 Dr. Richard K. MacMaster, Flaxseed and Emigrants: Scotch-Irish Merchants in Eighteenth-Century America Ms. Joanne McKay, Arthur Dobbs, Henry McCullogh and the Development of the Colonies, 1725-1765: Theory and Practice 1:00-2:00 Buffet Lunch Hoechst-Celanese 2:00-3:15 11th Paper Session - Frontier Identity Morton/Willamette/Magnolia Chair TBA Dr. Tyler Blethen, The Scotch-Irish and Appalachia: Images and Realities Dr. Jack Weaver, Whitesides/Crawford Families: Connections with Covenanter Families and the Scotch-Irish Mr. Stephen Hammack, Scots-Irish Historiography 2:00-3:15 12th Paper Session - Scotch-Irish Nationalism Bridges/Rockwell Chair TBA Dr. John Buchanan, Andrew Jackson, the Scotch-Irish, and the Conquest of the Old Southwest Mr. Peter Gilmore, Seemingly Revolutionary Physician: Thomas Ledlie Birch and Cultural Conflict in the Pennsylvania Back Country Dr. David Wilson, The Ulster-Scots and Irish-American Nationalism 3:15-3:30 Tea Break Baxter Hood Lobby 3:30-4:45 13th Paper Session - Scotch-Irish Settlers Morton/Willamette/Magnolia Chair TBA Dr. Katharine Brown, United Irishmen and 1798 Rebellion Emigres in Virginia: A Consideration of the Ulster Participation Ms. Heather South, Migration to South Carolina: Rev. William Martin and his Ships of Settlers, 1772 Ms. Cherel Henderson & Dr. Michael Montgomery, A Study of 18th Century Ulster Emigrants 3:30-4:45 Genealogy Session Bridges/Rockwell Mr. Kyle Stinson, The Great Philadelphia Wagon Road 6:30-7:30 Dinner & Entertainment Historic Brattonsville 7:30-8:00 Speaker Historic Brattonsville Saturday, June 22 York Technical College and Historic Brattonsville Time Event Place 8:30-9:00 Registration Baxter Hood Lobby 9:00-10:15 14th Paper Session - Scotch-Irish Culture Morton/Willamette/Magnolia Chair TBA Mr. James Tunney, Moonshine Across the Sea: A Comparison of the Legal and Illegal Distillation of Alcohol in the Americas and Ulster Ms. Kathleen Curtis Wilson, Blending Immigrant Cultures Revolutionizes Gender Roles and Traditional Handwork 9:00-11:45 Genealogy Workshop Bridges/Rockwell 10:15-10:30 Coffee Break Baxter Hood Lobby 10:30-11:45 15th Paper Session - Music Morton/Willamette/Magnolia Chair TBA Ms. Jane Bolen, Effects of Psalmody-Hymnody Controversy in Presbyterian Meeting Houses in 18th Century Virginia Mr. John Moulden, Country Music is Ulster Music! 11:45-1:00 Panel Discussion - The Future of Scotch-Irish Hoechst-Celanese Research with Dr. Bobby G. Moss 1:00-1:45 Buffet Lunch Hoechst-Celanese 1:45-2:15 Reflections on the XIV Ulster-American Hoechst-Celanese Heritage Symposium - Dr. Bobby G. Moss 2:15-2:30 Prospects for the XV Ulster-American Hoechst-Celanese Heritage Symposium 3:00-4:30 Scotch-Irish Living History Day Historic Brattonsville 6:00- Catawba Fish Camp [meal not included in Leave from each hotel conference registration]

At 03:54 PM 6/6/2002 -0400, you wrote: >I just have trouble with the word "incite" as opposed to say, expect or >encourage. "Incite" has a different type of energy and intent from where >I sit Let me see if I can say it differently. There was not a civil war in the South during the Revolution, until by direction from their superiors in London, it became the policy of the British military to start one, which they did. The war was very unpopular in Britain and had become quite expensive, both in money and manpower. It was very attractive to the British to consider a plan in which they could win the war by having loyalist colonists fight rebel colonists. It was far more than just something to which the British merely gave mental assent. It was a deliberate strategy for waging war and their commanders in America complied with their orders. London continued to pursue this failed policy long after the field commanders saw that it was fruitless.

1. CAROLINA SCOTS by Kelly has some interesting things to say about loyaltieI am now looking for some of my own ancestors; think they are Scots-Irish but may be Irish or Scottish surnames: BLAKLEY CALFFEE / KALFIE JONES WILLSON 2. Do you have any suggestions for reading about Carolinians of this background? 3. I have a copy of CAROLINA SCOTS by Kelly but found none of my direct ancestors there. Diane in VA using screenname<HUGUENAUTE@aol.com> researching Mama's GIBBS (RI to MA to NY to SC) / HAMILTON (a Church of Ireland minister)/ HARALSON (SCANDINAVIAN SEA CAPTAIN) / SMITH (CORNISH INDENTURED SERVANT to VA then BERMUDA then in 1776 SC where he was a legislator/ SPENCER / McCLELLAND (BLADEN co NC to TN to MS then SC in time for the CW) / ROBINSON (1700s Bladen NC)/ MAYRANT (Fr Hug to SC to MS to SC) / POTTS (Northumberland to SC to MS) / WILLSON (SC to NC)/ WYNNE (VA) BLAKLEY (Kingstree Williamsburg Co SC) and Papa's NEW ENGLAND BERRY / BOLLINS / BOWEN / ESTEY / CARPENTER / DWINNELL / GOULD / HARRIS / HAYWARD/HOWARD / KENNISTON / LEONARD / NEAL / PRAY / STRATTON / MOREY / WHEELER / WILBER / WOOLEY / WILLIAMS / WITHERILL Most of these surnames are probably my direct ancestors but I write their names and information in my charts with pencil because the information is in family history books- I have not yet done the research for myself. Since my ancestors were from every one of the colonies except (so far) DE, I am doing a general overview so if I go to an archive or repository I will have a number of back-up plans. I just don't have the time or money to waste on trips where I can't find anything. SURNAMES COX and HENDERSON occur in my husband's family. I was born in NC; mother SC; father VT; husband and grandmother GA...

> Please explain the difference in these terms. I do not understand why Scotch-Irish > would be an insulting term: > > "The term "Scotch-Irish" (later made politically correct to "Scots-Irish")" I was told by the historian for Clan Gregor that many Gregors moved first to the Lowlands and then to Ulster after the Order of Fire and Sword placed on them by James VI/I. So there were some Highlanders in the bunch who moved to Northern Ireland and were eventually called Scotch-Irish in the United States and Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland. The lady also said that the difference in terms is some modern day folks being uppity. If you read the old records, especially in Pennsylvania, they called themselves Scotch-Irish. Arthur McGinley mcginley@chartertn.net amcginle@tusculum.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- I have always regarded the forward edge of the battlefield as the most exclusive club in the world -- Sir Brian Horrocks Marines I see as two breeds, Rottweilers or Dobermans, because Marines come in two varieties, big and mean, or skinny and mean. They're aggressive on the attack and tenacious on defense. They've got really short hair and they always go for the throat. --RADM "Jay" R. Stark, US Navy; 10 November 1995 To my mind, it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime and death. How feeble is the mind to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic. --Ted Nugent

I need help interpreting my ancestor's bounty land warrant information from the book, "Pension Records of the Revolutionary Soldiers from Connecticut". I'll transcribe the information and then ask my question: "BISHOP, Nathaniel, BLWt, 231-200, Lieut. issued Dec. 31, 1795; also recorded as above under BLWt. 269-2659. No papers." I understand the first number: 231 is the warrant number and 200 was the number of acres. I also know that the papers are missing because of the 1800 fire. The part that I don't understand is the 269-2659 number. The 2659 can't be the number of acres. Is there a place to look up warrants by number? I would appreciate any advice. Thanks, Julianne Fishell

In addition to Pat's questions ..... was there any suggestion/requirement to wear identification? I have always been struck by a Journal entry which described a lone fallen soldier/captive who just couldn't make it all the way home after being released a few months after the Battle of Brooklyn ... and died at the side of the road. Jan Pat2u2@aol.com wrote: > Hi, > Does anyone have any information, on what a Patriot did to sign up to > serve in the Rev. War? Were there any papers that he filled out, that might > require the names of his parents? > Thanks for the help, Pat.

Great Post! I totally agree with your statement: “In the Carolina backcountry, when there were no Continentals to be found, when there was a viable British army in the field, and when the outcome of the war was at stake, I believe that *most* backcountry S-I wanted absolutely nothing to do with *either* faction (those seeking independence & those fighting it). They simply wanted to be left alone to better their lives in the very hard way they had chosen to do it. “ I believe this term could be expanded to cover ALL of the backcountry, not just Carolina. I would think the Germans in PA would fall into this category, among others. Please explain the difference in these terms. I do not understand why Scotch-Irish would be an insulting term: "The term "Scotch-Irish" (later made politically correct to "Scots-Irish")" James Baker John Robertson wrote: > At 08:34 PM 6/6/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >Yes, please don't confuse the Scots with the Scots Irish. They are two > >really different creatures. > > Not quite. Both are genetically the same folk. The S-I were lowland Scots > (very typical Scots for their time since 90% of the population was lowland > at the time, and Scotland was the most primitive nation in Europe) who > moved to N. Ireland (and to and fro a time or two) > > >The English viewed them as employees and the Irish of course hated > >them, and thus a really uncomfortable situation was born. Could this be > >blamed on the English? Well, yes. The Scots? Well....which ones? These > >lowland Scots intermarried with some > >Irish and thus became Scots Irish. > > There was *very* little intermarriage between the Presbyterian Scots and > the Catholic native Irish for the very reason you gave, they hated each > other. There were other groups other than the Scots who went to the > "plantations", but largely they failed. The Scots succeeded because their > "support group" was just a few miles away across a stretch of water. > > When the S-I emigrated to the colonies (some 250,000 between 1717 and the > Rev War), had lived in N. Ireland several generations, still had Scottish > names, still had their Scottish genes, but called themselves "Irish" when > they came to the American colonies. The term "Scotch-Irish" (later made > politically correct to "Scots-Irish") was coined in American about a > century later to differentiate between the Protestant (Scots) Irish and the > Catholic Irish who immigrated in the next century. Brits largely spurn the > term Scots-Irish (once they "corrected" it) and prefer the term Ulster Scots. > > >I'm sure the new country looked > >better to them than the place they left where nobody wanted them. > > The migration of these Scots to N. Ireland and later to the American > colonies, and thence to the frontiers in these colonies, was always one of > bettering themselves economically. They went of their own accord. The > economic policies of Britain consistently favored England over other parts > of Great Britain (Scotlant, Wales, Ireland) and the Scots-Irish repeatedly > experienced the down-side of those policies. > > I remain convinced that one cannot understand the Rev War in the South > until you can "wrap your arms around" two groups: the militia and the > Scots-Irish (not the same and not mutually exclusive). I do not claim to > have succeeded in doing so. I am still working at it. There were S-I on > both sides, with more recent immigrants tending to be loyalists. You hear > a lot about the "thirds" in the various loyalties (a very misleading > analysis, IMHO). In the Carolina backcountry, when there were no > Continentals to be found, when there was a viable British army in the > field, and when the outcome of the war was at stake, I believe that *most* > backcountry S-I wanted absolutely nothing to do with *either* faction > (those seeking independence & those fighting it). They simply wanted to be > left alone to better their lives in the very hard way they had chosen to do > it. But when there seemed nothing in the way to stop Cornwallis from > working his will, the Brits succeeded in convincing these S-I > non-participants "who they liked least" of the two sides. Tarleton's > stunning tactical victory at Waxhaws was conducted in a fashion that turned > it into one of their greater strategic losses. More than any other event, > it brought the S-I "off the fence" as their enemy, and IMHO, it was their > undoing. Modern historians still quibble over this or that detail of the > affair, but it matters not how modern historians interpret the event, all > that really mattered was how 1780 S-I interpreted it. But like most such > attempts to analyze things, I am sure that I am over-simplifying it > all. I'm still working on understanding it! One thing is for sure, > Cornwallis was no foppish wimp. He was an at-your-throat wolverine type of > warrior. It took one heck of a lot to bring him to his knees, but that is > exactly what happened. After Guilford Courthouse, he could not supply his > army, feed his army, defend his army, nor wage war. How big a role did > the S-I and the militia have in all this? A huge one, I think. > > For those in the area, in York County SC, in June, will be held the > biannual Ulster American Symposium. There is a truly international group > of speakers. I am looking forward to attending it in hopes that I can get > a better understanding of the impact of the S-I in the Rev War in the South. > > John Robertson > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

At 08:34 PM 6/6/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Yes, please don't confuse the Scots with the Scots Irish. They are two >really different creatures. Not quite. Both are genetically the same folk. The S-I were lowland Scots (very typical Scots for their time since 90% of the population was lowland at the time, and Scotland was the most primitive nation in Europe) who moved to N. Ireland (and to and fro a time or two) >The English viewed them as employees and the Irish of course hated >them, and thus a really uncomfortable situation was born. Could this be >blamed on the English? Well, yes. The Scots? Well....which ones? These >lowland Scots intermarried with some >Irish and thus became Scots Irish. There was *very* little intermarriage between the Presbyterian Scots and the Catholic native Irish for the very reason you gave, they hated each other. There were other groups other than the Scots who went to the "plantations", but largely they failed. The Scots succeeded because their "support group" was just a few miles away across a stretch of water. When the S-I emigrated to the colonies (some 250,000 between 1717 and the Rev War), had lived in N. Ireland several generations, still had Scottish names, still had their Scottish genes, but called themselves "Irish" when they came to the American colonies. The term "Scotch-Irish" (later made politically correct to "Scots-Irish") was coined in American about a century later to differentiate between the Protestant (Scots) Irish and the Catholic Irish who immigrated in the next century. Brits largely spurn the term Scots-Irish (once they "corrected" it) and prefer the term Ulster Scots. >I'm sure the new country looked >better to them than the place they left where nobody wanted them. The migration of these Scots to N. Ireland and later to the American colonies, and thence to the frontiers in these colonies, was always one of bettering themselves economically. They went of their own accord. The economic policies of Britain consistently favored England over other parts of Great Britain (Scotlant, Wales, Ireland) and the Scots-Irish repeatedly experienced the down-side of those policies. I remain convinced that one cannot understand the Rev War in the South until you can "wrap your arms around" two groups: the militia and the Scots-Irish (not the same and not mutually exclusive). I do not claim to have succeeded in doing so. I am still working at it. There were S-I on both sides, with more recent immigrants tending to be loyalists. You hear a lot about the "thirds" in the various loyalties (a very misleading analysis, IMHO). In the Carolina backcountry, when there were no Continentals to be found, when there was a viable British army in the field, and when the outcome of the war was at stake, I believe that *most* backcountry S-I wanted absolutely nothing to do with *either* faction (those seeking independence & those fighting it). They simply wanted to be left alone to better their lives in the very hard way they had chosen to do it. But when there seemed nothing in the way to stop Cornwallis from working his will, the Brits succeeded in convincing these S-I non-participants "who they liked least" of the two sides. Tarleton's stunning tactical victory at Waxhaws was conducted in a fashion that turned it into one of their greater strategic losses. More than any other event, it brought the S-I "off the fence" as their enemy, and IMHO, it was their undoing. Modern historians still quibble over this or that detail of the affair, but it matters not how modern historians interpret the event, all that really mattered was how 1780 S-I interpreted it. But like most such attempts to analyze things, I am sure that I am over-simplifying it all. I'm still working on understanding it! One thing is for sure, Cornwallis was no foppish wimp. He was an at-your-throat wolverine type of warrior. It took one heck of a lot to bring him to his knees, but that is exactly what happened. After Guilford Courthouse, he could not supply his army, feed his army, defend his army, nor wage war. How big a role did the S-I and the militia have in all this? A huge one, I think. For those in the area, in York County SC, in June, will be held the biannual Ulster American Symposium. There is a truly international group of speakers. I am looking forward to attending it in hopes that I can get a better understanding of the impact of the S-I in the Rev War in the South. John Robertson

Interesting to read about South Carolina's state-wide devastation during the Revolution, especially from my perspective in Manassas VA, where we understand border to border devastation even down to the county level. Given the fact that recovery from such damage takes decades, I wonder whether South Carolina's Rev War experience had anything to do psychologically with the her being the first out of the gate to secede about 100 years later .... I just know from my own research into Prince William County, VA reconstruction following the Civil War that it took almost a century to regain the economic stature and status present prior to the arrival of war on the local front. South Carolina troops were among the first to arrive in Virginia - maybe the goal was to push the front line of this war as far north as possible to prevent further damage (or adversely affect recovery from the first war) in South Carolina. I just never saw that parallel before this discussion. Pamela Myer Sackett Chairman, Friends of Brentsville Courthouse Historic Centre, Inc. www.brentsville.org <http://www.brentsville.org> -----Original Message----- From: TreeMother [mailto:Tonin1@airmail.net] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:31 PM To: AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [A-REV] Promotion of accurate historical study of Rev War John: I agree with you totally regarding the War in SC. One could spend their life just studying the War in SC and its effects on the citizens over a very long period of time. My ancestors fought in SC and when reading about the battles and highjackings along roads it was a nightmare painted in big, broad strokes. No one was safe anywhere. Fortunate were the folks living near the swamps and having a place to hideout. The loss early of Georgia opened SC to devastation from the Atlantic up the Savannah and into every region from sparsely settled villages to the towns. Reading about the War in SC is a difficult study when one visualizes the events. No words on the pages; images instead. Horrible, fearful images which our ancestors survived. It would be so interesting to be able to sit and listen to them tell their stories and how the war changed their lives forever. Had SC been lost to the British would we celebrate July Fourth today? Tree Mother ----- Original Message ----- From: John Robertson <jr@jrshelby.com> To: <AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [A-REV] Promotion of accurate historical study of Rev War > At 06:53 PM 6/5/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >Out of curiousity what state do you live in? > > I live in NC, but very near SC. The comments are based primarily on SC, > but also partially on NC. > > SC is probably the one colony in which the Rev War was a border-to-border > event, since it was the only colony in which the Brits established inland > posts and sought (with considerable success) to provoke a civil war. SC > had more battle/skirmish sites than any other colony (I'll arm-wrestle on > this *privately*, if anyone is so inclined) and had more war debt than the > other 12 colonies combined (it was then "total war", it was civil war, it > was late in the war when the other colonies felt they had "done their > share" and the Carolinas were essentially on their own, and all that was at > stake was the outcome of the war). The war could have been won or lost > there. The Continental forces in the > South had been decimated. All that stood in the way of defeat was the > backcountry militia, and there was a very viable British army still in the > field. And the watchword was that "the militia won't fight". > > We know how it turned out. > > I study the Rev War all over, wherever it happened. But there are few > places it gets more exciting, or more unpredictable (or unbelievable) than > in SC. > > John Robertson > > > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Hi, Does anyone have any information, on what a Patriot did to sign up to serve in the Rev. War? Were there any papers that he filled out, that might require the names of his parents? Thanks for the help, Pat.

At 09:00 PM 6/6/2002 -0400, you wrote: >The Blackstock Plantation area was >an unpopulated area overgrown with trees with nothing but a small >monument, minus the bronze plaque which had been stolen, which >looked as if it was only being used for weekend partying and parking >when I was there. I saw it as a golden opportunity for either the state >of SC or the Federal Government to buy the land before it gets taken >up by developers and covered over with subdivisions. Even though I'm >a Tennessean, I wrote a couple of letters in that regard at the time but >go no replies. I've often hoped since then that someone would take >the initiative and preserve that important landmark before it's too late! >I have no idea what the status is now but I would love to hear that >some preservation efforts are taking place. Maybe this will be the >opportunity that can be used to full advantage. I love visiting the >Rev. War battle sites of the area. To me, it's an inspirational ex- >perience, and one I hope will be available to our descendants. >Mack Smith >SmokyMtn43@aol.com Mack: You will be pleased to learn that the private group Palmetto Conservation (associated with Palmetto Trails) obtained rights to the Blackstocks Plantation and is in the process of cleaning it up, adding parking, clearing trails, etc. http://www.palmettoconservation.org/blackstock_release.html Once the group is confident that the state will assume responsibility for maintaining it, it will likely be turned over to the state of SC. There is no intent for it to be a manned park, but it will likely be under the oversight of the new Musgrove Mill park a few miles away. The Musgrove Mill park also came into being largely through the efforts of the above group. This park will open sometime this year. http://www.discoversouthcarolina.com/sp/spproduct.asp?PID=3888&CT= When I made my listing of what of significance is happening in my area to promote the learning and teaching of history of the Rev War, this activity was included (high!) in my list. John Robertson

Please consider the thread regarding the merits (or lack thereof) of the DAR(SAR?) at an end. If any choose to persist, they will find their messages coming to the list via me for a while. While I try to intervene as seldom as possible in the workings of the list, from time to time, I will post a message identified as "List Manager Comments". Please do not make the mistake of thinking that compliance with such messages is optional. Failing to comply with such messages can result in your messages being monitored before being posted to the list, or in cases of persistent noncompliance, can result in removal from the list. WHAT IS "ON TOPIC" FOR THIS LIST The suitable topics for discussion on this list are limited to the history and genealogy relating to the French & Indian (Seven Years) War, the War for American Independence, and the War of 1812. It is not surprising that many members of this list are here for matters relating to their possible/actual eligibility for membership in the DAR, SAR, SotR, and similar heritage groups. The genealogy and history involved in this interest in *on topic*. Many members on this list have little or no interest in such heritage organizations and are only interested in the history of the times. Their interests are also very much *on topic* on the list. It is not unexpected that this dichotomy of interests will result in some posts that are not of great interest to one party or the other. If you aren't seeing posts on your (on-topic) topic of interest, start a discussion on what is of interest to you. Discussion of the policies, practices, and contributions (or lack thereof), of modern organizations (except as it relates directly to the list topic stated above) has no place on this discussion list. If you have a beef, take it elsewhere. Some other matters that have no place on this list is any discussion of modern current events (unless there is a *direct* connection to the history and genealogy of the F&IW, American Revolution, or War of 1812). Any discussion of the "War on Terror" is more than 190 years off-topic except as how any aspect of it sheds light on what happened in our "on-topic" wars. Any discussion of modern politics is absolutely not welcome here (in my experience, nothing is more destructive to list peace). John Robertson List manager American-Revolution-L

Thought you might be interested in a new government project. Last month I went to Valley Forge, as one of the representatives of the DAR, to participate in the announcement of a new museum that is being built on the Valley Forge Battlefield. There were federal and local representatives there and a George Washington in costume. A multimillion dollar check was presented by a national company to get it started. I can't find my information on which company at this time. The purpose of the new museum will be to focus on the whole Revolutionary War . The point was made that there are many sites for different battles of the war, but no one place to go to get a complete overview. It will be opened in different stages. The present museum was almost empty, getting ready for the first stage, then other buildings will be built. I have seen very little news on this, but watch for more as time goes on. I'm sure that this will give more on the battles in the south which really had a good deal to do with Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown. Betty Silfies

I don't know what your point is, your splitting hairs using the social group or service group, I don't consider a church, either. All the stories I've seen about the Marian Anderson incident suggest it was more than just a scheduling problem. There would be no need to have the concert at the Lincoln Memorial if it were just a scheduling problem. As I remember it many prominent women, like Eleanor Roosevelt, left the DAR as a result of that incident. All this suggests that it was much more than just a scheduling problem and this is just the DARs spin on the incident. I wasn't comparing today with THEN, I was comparing my grandmothers attitude THEN to the DAR incident THEN. I wasn't judging the DAR by modern standards in the Marian Anderson incident. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angie Rayfield" <carolinaroots@inmyattic.com> To: <AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:56 AM Subject: Re: [A-REV] Fw: Fw: DAR:Sar > At 11:11 PM 6/5/2002 -0400, James L. Stokes wrote: > > Ok, its a service organization, I don't see a big difference between the > >two. > > OK, admittedly it's a murky area. But think of your church -- do you > consider it a social group or a service group? I would imagine that if you > were plugging it into one of the two areas, you'd consider it a service > organization. The primary goal is not to provide a social experience or > setting, although that's part of any group. > > > My grandmother, neither of them, would have qualified for the DAR, both > >were the daughters of Irish immigrants. I'm pretty confident that both > >wouldn't have been involved in the DAR, they both supported FDR and I > >suspect that when the DAR refused to allow Marion Anderson (a Black singer) > >to sing in the DAR Hall in Washington both would have been unhappy about it. > >Its not that my grandmothers were advocates of intergration its just that > >they were more advanced that the DAR and were supporters of the President > >and his wife. > > Actually, I've seen this story two different ways. One is that the DAR > refused to allow Marion Anderson to sing in the DAR hall. I've also seen > stories, though, that indicate that the DAR Hall was in use for another > event that day, and so not available. I couldn't tell you which is > accurate -- it was a little before my time <g>. > > As a side note, though. I'm certainly not an advocate of segregation, so > don't put words in my mouth (or credit me with thoughts that I don't have), > but I also don't think it's terribly fair to judge actions taken 60 years > ago against the standards that exist now. Segregated organizations were > par for the course at the time (and this was not just a "southern problem;" > segregation and racism were a northern problem, too). In some places, it > wasn't just the social custom, it was the law, and many people simply > accepted it as a fact of life. That doesn't necessarily make them bad > people, or bad groups. It makes them a product of their times. > > > Does the DAR today do research into Black involvement in the American > >Revolution or is that left for any Black women who might want to join. > > If I'm not mistaken, the DAR doesn't do research, as such. Its function > is not as a research organization. They do serve as a repository for a > great deal of data, they have educational programs, etc. I'm sure there > are members of the DAR that are interested in the contribution of blacks to > the Revolution, the same as there are people interested in the native > American contribution, the German contribution, and so on, but the > organization itself is not a research group. > > Angie > > > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

In a message dated 6/6/2002 10:18:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, aflame@fuse.net writes: << Aren't the war on terror, and the Rev War similar,>> On second thought, all wars are similar. They kill people. Anne

It's great to hear that someone is taking the initiative to try to have NC and SC recognized for the important role they played in winning the Revolution. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the outcome would have been very different had the Southern Campaign not gone the way it did. Several pivotal battles that oc- cured on Carolina soil made the victory at Yorktown possible and, in the process, exacted a heavy toll on the people of that area. Civil war is always the worst kind of war, and it literally raged in the upcountry. One site that I visited several years ago has weighed heavily on my mind. The Blackstock Plantation area was an unpopulated area overgrown with trees with nothing but a small monument, minus the bronze plaque which had been stolen, which looked as if it was only being used for weekend partying and parking when I was there. I saw it as a golden opportunity for either the state of SC or the Federal Government to buy the land before it gets taken up by developers and covered over with subdivisions. Even though I'm a Tennessean, I wrote a couple of letters in that regard at the time but go no replies. I've often hoped since then that someone would take the initiative and preserve that important landmark before it's too late! I have no idea what the status is now but I would love to hear that some preservation efforts are taking place. Maybe this will be the opportunity that can be used to full advantage. I love visiting the Rev. War battle sites of the area. To me, it's an inspirational ex- perience, and one I hope will be available to our descendants. Regards, Mack Smith SmokyMtn43@aol.com

Angie and All: Angie, I think you're terrific, and this isn't targeted to you at all, however... Yes, please don't confuse the Scots with the Scots Irish. They are two really different creatures. John Robertson could write you a total history of the SI, and darn good he is at it. Although about 1/8 that lineage myself, I don't feel totally inclined to be one of them. My Mom had a Rutherford Grandad whom she spoke of as "the meanest man she ever knew", so I'm predisposed to focus on my Manchester/Wales heritage. That's not a blanket judgement, just a personal one. The Scots Irish in America were very important to this country's development. They were mostly low-land Scots whom the English had hired to take over the Irish plantations which the English had overcome in I believe the 15th century (tho I could be wrong there. Please correct me.) The English viewed them as employees and the Irish of course hated them, and thus a really uncomfortable situation was born. Could this be blamed on the English? Well, yes. The Scots? Well....which ones? These lowland Scots (I bet they didn't wear kilts) intermarried with some Irish and thus became Scots Irish. I'm sure the new country looked better to them than the place they left where nobody wanted them. In fact, I live in Hiawassee, Georgia, in the Appalachians.(It's gorgeous!) I live near Franklin, NC, where a "Tartan Museum" takes advantage of poor rascals who really think they have a family tartan. In this museum is a display in honor of the Scots Irish, whom they say made great pioneers because they "were used to being alone". OK-before you pelt me with banana peels, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Perhaps true to history and a good thing for the American westward movement. Just looking for truth nuggets, I remain, Holley