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