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

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

> 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