At 08:51 PM 6/7/2002 -0400, you wrote: >More than any other event, > it brought the S-I "off the fence" as their *enemy*, >What does this mean? That the Scots-Irish joined the British? This means that the previously unaligned (indifferent and uninterested) Scots-Irish were no longer neutral but became ardent anti-British partisans. This was strongly supported from the Presbyterian pulpits, and became referred to by some Brits in the Carolinas as the "Presbyterian Rebellion". Someone has pointed out correctly that (an otherwise excellent British officer) Patrick Ferguson unwisely sent a challenge to the overmountain men (who lived well beyond the 1763 Proclamation Line and pretty much beyond the reach of the British military) and as a direct result, provoked a pre-emptive strike by some people he would have been much wiser to have encouraged to stay out of the fight. When the patriot/rebel militia left Sycamore Shoals, they left with the words of a highly educated Presbyterian minister challenging them to go forth with the "sword of the Lord and of Gideon". It has been correctly called a Presbyterian jihad (with the meaning the word "used to have"). Tarleton's performance at Waxhaws gave them all the evidence they needed to see it as a struggle between good and evil. In all denominations, during the Rev War, there was a lot of preaching from the Old Testament. Historians today wisely urge us not to try to study it as a struggle between the forces of good and evil, but that is precisely the spin put on it by patriot/rebel ministers. If we go back and read some of those Old Testament passages, we see some descriptions of war that would be condemned by modern international tribunals (which of course, did not exist, during the Rev War), but did not seem all that remote from the kind of war going on in the South. When the loyalists attempted to surrender at Kings Mountain, the patriot/rebel militia kept firing for a while, calling out "Give them Buford's play", meaning "we will let you surrender the same way Tarleton let Buford's men surrender". Kings Mountain was partially in retaliation for Tarleton's performance at Waxhaws (as perceived by the Scots-Irish), and partially in response to Ferguson's challenge to Isaac Shelby. Those conducting the attack had the full assurance of their ministers that they were "doing God's work". History has made it clear that these backcountry militia guerilla warriors were effective. Following the defeat of the Continentals in the South, there were 26 actions in SC alone, in which *militia* (no Continentals present) fought British regulars, loyalist provincials (essentially the equivalent of the Continentals but on the other side) and loyalist militia, and the patriot/rebel militia prevailed 2:1 in killed/wounded/captured. If we include GA and NC, the number of such encounters increases to the about 35. The fact that they were motivated by a combination of religious ardor and revenge (not likely true of their opponents) must have added to their effectiveness. At the recent Kings Mountain Forum, I heard a man speak who plans to write a history of Kings Mountain in which he plans to make the point that the patriot/rebel militia were effective because they were motivated by their concept of "honor" (what it takes to be a man?). It will be interesting to see that explained in some detail.