Hi Dave, it seems to me that the analogy with American Indians can be overdrawn. Any analogy can. The most likely comparision is that the "English" learned from their experiences with the Irish, not only the Ulster plantation but the prior attempts at colonizing Ireland that occured in the Elizabeth period and earlier. Most of these failed. Often they failed because there were just too many Irish and too few colonists. Faced with a huge continent lightly sprinkled with natives, some have opined that they killed as many as they could, knowing that if left alive to have families, perhaps some day they would again be out numbered. I don't know! What we do know is in Canada, where the English government treated its Indian subjects much more kindly than the folks to the south, the Indians never have increased in numbers to the point of threatening British rule. However I've never heard of the word 'scout' being used in northern Ireland in the same way it was used in the American west. What we do know is that the English and Irish did cooperate to some extent in the 'enshirement' of Ulster. Cyril Falls details the process in his book on the Ulster plantation ("T he Birth of Ulster "). A team of English met with small groups to determine how much land there was and its condition (bogland, etc). They of course collected names of places. Based on these maps the allocation of the escheated lands was done -- in '1000 acre' plots. However these were later found to be extremely inaccurate. What it does show is cooperation between the English surveyors and the local Irish population. THis is certainly not how the Americas were settled. The situation was very different in that there were more Irish than Indians and the land was better known than the American west. And to some extent both parties communicated. Some have opined (Bardon, Elliott, etc) that the early records show that many common Irish cooperated willingly with the English because they had very few rights under the Irish lords and fared better under the English. How they'd know this at first I do not know. Perhaps over time they realized they were better off. This could be a reason for the sizable assimilation of Irish into the settler culture. Donno! Even the historians argue about this stuff. What we know about the muster lists is generally they included British but clearly they also included Irish surnames. Presumedly those bearing Irish surnames were Irish and presumedly trusted. Probably some in the 1630 muster lists later 'came out' in the Rising. We are told by the historians that the reasons for the Rising were complicated and that the leaders, even, had multiple reasons. Which is why they were generally called 'Confederates'. You apparently had Stuart Loyalists, rising in support of King Charles in London. Some were Catholic and rising in support of the old religion. You also had Irish rising in support of throwing off the English yoke. Whether they envisioned a united Ireland or just clan autonomy, I don't know. "Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil Wars" has many interesting views on this topic. Those who rose included not only Irish but Anglo-Irish (Jacobites and Catholics). So who is to say why a man was on a muster list in 1630 and 'Out' in 1641? It was a civil war, one of many in Ireland, and so everyone involved thought they were rising to support the true government. It just so happened that Parliament and Cromwell won. T hey got to write history their way and so branded all as traitors. They were not too interested in sorting out reasons for the piles of bodies. As is usual in Ireland, what began, for some, as a noble cause, degenerated into a massacre -- one of many. A feature seen in Ireland, but not generally in England or Scotland. The more one reads the less black and white these things are. "Celtic Dimensions" has a series of articles written on the period, not always focused on IReland. For example Sharon Adam's article "The Making of the Radical South-West: Charles I and his Scottish Kingdom, 1625-1649." Another useful book is "The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James I" by Perceval-Maxwell. Very detailed. "The Birth of Ulster" by Cyril Falls is very readable. Though the Irish populist version of history depicts it as the English siezing Ulster illegally, in actuality, it was a legal process, according to English law. Meaning once the Lords surrendered and accepted the QUeen's terms, they were subjects of the Crown and subject to its law. Their land was then held by 'surrender and regrant'. They surrendered it to the Crown and it granted it back. This notion is key to feudal law: the king held all the land and granted it out to subjects. If the subjects didn't obey, the king took it back. We still do this in the USA: if you sell drugs and the police catch you, your car, etc, is surrendered to the authorities. In any case, when the Lords split Ireland, under English law, it returned to the Crown. The regranting had to be legally done (according to Cyril Falls) because otherwise, many decades of lawsuits would occur as various parties wrestled to get clear title. They knew this would occur due to past experience with the Desmond Wars, etc, in southern Ireland. The Earls, etc., were not naked American savages. They were cousins, friends, retainers, of the Crown and its subjects. Many of whom didn't want to see them naked and starving because they loved them! It was more of a very very disfunctional family feud, due to various attempts to pacify the Ulster Irish by raising them in the English court and marrying them off to English ladies. Didn't work, of course. Though the Indian scouts get all the attention, it's far more likely the Indian trader was much more influential in America. Perhaps the Scottish trader in Ireland too .... donno (though the English records complain about them a lot). In America these traders were the ones who married the Indian maidens and forged alliances with Indian tribes. Sir William Johnson, for one, was immensely successful and rose to become a key player in the French and Indian Wars -- from a humble beginning as a poor Irish Catholic lad with a wealthy uncle. Various others also secured large plots of land for themselves and their families -- almost always intermarrying with the Indians. So I am sure it became difficult to tell who was an Indian and who was not. Because many were both. The analogy with Indians and Irish too may be most appropriate when thinking of the individual Scotch Irishman, living on the frontier, rather than a government policy. I know my immigrant ancestor shot Indians on sight in what is now Butler Co, PA. This was after the Indians had sold the area to Pennsylvania, so the Indian would have been trespassing, according to our law. Whether the Indian understood the concept of owning land -- now that's another thought. Linda Merle ----- Original Message ----- From: "D H" <hallmark1@utvinternet.com> To: scotch-irish@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 29 January, 2012 6:25:35 AM Subject: Re: [S-I] Native Irish McLains versus Native American Sioux Couldn't one say the same thing about America and the use of e.g. native American Indians within a settlement as scouts etc? Generally a man on a muster list in 1730 would not be a native American Indian. They didn't much like arming Indians because they tended to use the weapon against theBritish. Just 11 years after 1730 the Indians would rise up, weapons or not, and slaughter almost all the settlers. So they were right to fear. This is not to say that the man hadn't manage to assimilate in British. So, if one's ancestor was native American and living in a British fort with the planters/settlers wouldn't one be asking if he/she was British or Native American? Probably to the British they were Indians and to the Indians they were British! Similarly, if one's ancestor was native Irish and living in a British fort in Ulster with the planters/settlers one is asking if he/she was British or Native Irish? Probably to the British they were Irish and to the Irish they were British! On 29/01/2012 08:00, scotch-irish-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Generally a man on a muster list in 1630 would not be Irish. They didn't > >> much like arming Irish because they tended to use the weapon against the > >> British. Just 11 years after 1630 the Irish would rise up, weapons or not, > >> and slaughter almost all the settlers. So they were right to fear. This is > >> not to say that the man hadn't manage to assimilate in British. The upper > >> classes probably did so the fastest because they were granted estates and > >> so had a lot to lose in an uprising. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SCOTCH-IRISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you everyone for all the knowledge on this thread. I did some extensive research last night and I believe I've found my answer. I got into Dumfries parish registers to see if there was any more info on "Gilbert M'Cleene" who had sons Andrew and Thomas in 1606 & 1610 respectively. I found his daughters married a Thomas Gilchrist and a James Weir. There were several McKlein, Weir, Gilchryst baptismals up to 1625 (including a John Weir b. 1623) and all three families simultaneously disappear. Going on a hunch from something I read in "Born Fighting" by Jim Webb about many of the scots being tight-knit families that emigrated and settled together, and stuck together for generations I looked for Weirs and Gilchrists near my McLains in Tyrone & Londonderry. In Tyrone's hearth rolls on the next farm over from my ancestor John McLain... 54. John Weire, Roan, Clonfeakle 55. John McKline, Coolkill, Clonfeakle In St. Columb's a John Weir marries in 1661, the same time my ancestors appear first as protestant parishioners. It's very exciting to finally have an answer on their origin and I just found that many records survive from Dumfries in this timeframe and I can't wait to dive in. So most likely the Gilbert McCleene of Clogher mentioned in 1626 summonisters rolls and the John McClane in the Londonderry muster list of 1630 were brothers that emigrated from Dumfries circa 1625. Chris Beal On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM, <lmerle@comcast.net> wrote: > Hi Dave, it seems to me that the analogy with American Indians can be > overdrawn. Any analogy can. The most likely comparision is that the > "English" learned from their experiences with the Irish, not only the > Ulster plantation but the prior attempts at colonizing Ireland that occured > in the Elizabeth period and earlier. Most of these failed. Often they > failed because there were just too many Irish and too few colonists. Faced > with a huge continent lightly sprinkled with natives, some have opined that > they killed as many as they could, knowing that if left alive to have > families, perhaps some day they would again be out numbered. I don't know! > What we do know is in Canada, where the English government treated its > Indian subjects much more kindly than the folks to the south, the Indians > never have increased in numbers to the point of threatening British rule. > > However I've never heard of the word 'scout' being used in northern > Ireland in the same way it was used in the American west. What we do know > is that the English and Irish did cooperate to some extent in the > 'enshirement' of Ulster. Cyril Falls details the process in his book on the > Ulster plantation ("T he Birth of Ulster "). A team of English met with > small groups to determine how much land there was and its condition > (bogland, etc). They of course collected names of places. Based on these > maps the allocation of the escheated lands was done -- in '1000 acre' > plots. However these were later found to be extremely inaccurate. What it > does show is cooperation between the English surveyors and the local Irish > population. THis is certainly not how the Americas were settled. > > The situation was very different in that there were more Irish than > Indians and the land was better known than the American west. And to some > extent both parties communicated. Some have opined (Bardon, Elliott, etc) > that the early records show that many common Irish cooperated willingly > with the English because they had very few rights under the Irish lords and > fared better under the English. How they'd know this at first I do not > know. Perhaps over time they realized they were better off. This could be a > reason for the sizable assimilation of Irish into the settler culture. > Donno! Even the historians argue about this stuff. > > What we know about the muster lists is generally they included British but > clearly they also included Irish surnames. Presumedly those bearing Irish > surnames were Irish and presumedly trusted. Probably some in the 1630 > muster lists later 'came out' in the Rising. We are told by the historians > that the reasons for the Rising were complicated and that the leaders, > even, had multiple reasons. Which is why they were generally called > 'Confederates'. You apparently had Stuart Loyalists, rising in support of > King Charles in London. Some were Catholic and rising in support of the old > religion. You also had Irish rising in support of throwing off the English > yoke. Whether they envisioned a united Ireland or just clan autonomy, I > don't know. "Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil Wars" has many > interesting views on this topic. > > Those who rose included not only Irish but Anglo-Irish (Jacobites and > Catholics). So who is to say why a man was on a muster list in 1630 and > 'Out' in 1641? It was a civil war, one of many in Ireland, and so everyone > involved thought they were rising to support the true government. It just > so happened that Parliament and Cromwell won. T hey got to write history > their way and so branded all as traitors. They were not too interested in > sorting out reasons for the piles of bodies. As is usual in Ireland, what > began, for some, as a noble cause, degenerated into a massacre -- one of > many. A feature seen in Ireland, but not generally in England or Scotland. > > The more one reads the less black and white these things are. > > "Celtic Dimensions" has a series of articles written on the period, not > always focused on IReland. For example Sharon Adam's article "The Making of > the Radical South-West: Charles I and his Scottish Kingdom, 1625-1649." > > Another useful book is "The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of > James I" by Perceval-Maxwell. Very detailed. "The Birth of Ulster" by Cyril > Falls is very readable. Though the Irish populist version of history > depicts it as the English siezing Ulster illegally, in actuality, it was a > legal process, according to English law. Meaning once the Lords surrendered > and accepted the QUeen's terms, they were subjects of the Crown and subject > to its law. Their land was then held by 'surrender and regrant'. They > surrendered it to the Crown and it granted it back. This notion is key to > feudal law: the king held all the land and granted it out to subjects. If > the subjects didn't obey, the king took it back. We still do this in the > USA: if you sell drugs and the police catch you, your car, etc, is > surrendered to the authorities. > > In any case, when the Lords split Ireland, under English law, it returned > to the Crown. The regranting had to be legally done (according to Cyril > Falls) because otherwise, many decades of lawsuits would occur as various > parties wrestled to get clear title. They knew this would occur due to past > experience with the Desmond Wars, etc, in southern Ireland. The Earls, > etc., were not naked American savages. They were cousins, friends, > retainers, of the Crown and its subjects. Many of whom didn't want to see > them naked and starving because they loved them! It was more of a very very > disfunctional family feud, due to various attempts to pacify the Ulster > Irish by raising them in the English court and marrying them off to English > ladies. Didn't work, of course. > > Though the Indian scouts get all the attention, it's far more likely the > Indian trader was much more influential in America. Perhaps the Scottish > trader in Ireland too .... donno (though the English records complain about > them a lot). In America these traders were the ones who married the Indian > maidens and forged alliances with Indian tribes. Sir William Johnson, for > one, was immensely successful and rose to become a key player in the French > and Indian Wars -- from a humble beginning as a poor Irish Catholic lad > with a wealthy uncle. Various others also secured large plots of land for > themselves and their families -- almost always intermarrying with the > Indians. So I am sure it became difficult to tell who was an Indian and who > was not. Because many were both. > > The analogy with Indians and Irish too may be most appropriate when > thinking of the individual Scotch Irishman, living on the frontier, rather > than a government policy. I know my immigrant ancestor shot Indians on > sight in what is now Butler Co, PA. This was after the Indians had sold the > area to Pennsylvania, so the Indian would have been trespassing, according > to our law. Whether the Indian understood the concept of owning land -- now > that's another thought. > > Linda Merle > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "D H" <hallmark1@utvinternet.com> > To: scotch-irish@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sunday, 29 January, 2012 6:25:35 AM > Subject: Re: [S-I] Native Irish McLains versus Native American Sioux > > Couldn't one say the same thing about America and the use of e.g. native > American Indians within a settlement as scouts etc? > > Generally a man on a muster list in 1730 would not be a native American > Indian. They didn't much like arming Indians because they tended to use the > weapon against theBritish. Just 11 years after 1730 the Indians would rise > up, weapons or not, and slaughter almost all the settlers. So they were > right to fear. This is not to say that the man hadn't manage to assimilate > in British. > > So, if one's ancestor was native American and living in a British fort > with the planters/settlers wouldn't one be asking if he/she was British or > Native American? Probably to the British they were Indians and to the > Indians they were British! > > Similarly, if one's ancestor was native Irish and living in a British fort > in Ulster with the planters/settlers one is asking if he/she was British or > Native Irish? Probably to the British they were Irish and to the Irish > they were British! > > > > > On 29/01/2012 08:00, scotch-irish-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Generally a man on a muster list in 1630 would not be Irish. They didn't > > >> much like arming Irish because they tended to use the weapon against > the > > >> British. Just 11 years after 1630 the Irish would rise up, weapons or > not, > > >> and slaughter almost all the settlers. So they were right to fear. > This is > > >> not to say that the man hadn't manage to assimilate in British. The > upper > > >> classes probably did so the fastest because they were granted estates > and > > >> so had a lot to lose in an uprising. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SCOTCH-IRISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SCOTCH-IRISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > * *

Congratulations! Judy Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Beal <crbeal@gmail.com> Sender: scotch-irish-bounces@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:21:25 To: <scotch-irish@rootsweb.com> Reply-To: scotch-irish@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [S-I] Native Irish McLains versus Native American Sioux Thank you everyone for all the knowledge on this thread. I did some extensive research last night and I believe I've found my answer. I got into Dumfries parish registers to see if there was any more info on "Gilbert M'Cleene" who had sons Andrew and Thomas in 1606 & 1610 respectively. I found his daughters married a Thomas Gilchrist and a James Weir. There were several McKlein, Weir, Gilchryst baptismals up to 1625 (including a John Weir b. 1623) and all three families simultaneously disappear. Going on a hunch from something I read in "Born Fighting" by Jim Webb about many of the scots being tight-knit families that emigrated and settled together, and stuck together for generations I looked for Weirs and Gilchrists near my McLains in Tyrone & Londonderry. In Tyrone's hearth rolls on the next farm over from my ancestor John McLain... 54. John Weire, Roan, Clonfeakle 55. John McKline, Coolkill, Clonfeakle In St. Columb's a John Weir marries in 1661, the same time my ancestors appear first as protestant parishioners. It's very exciting to finally have an answer on their origin and I just found that many records survive from Dumfries in this timeframe and I can't wait to dive in. So most likely the Gilbert McCleene of Clogher mentioned in 1626 summonisters rolls and the John McClane in the Londonderry muster list of 1630 were brothers that emigrated from Dumfries circa 1625. Chris Beal On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM, <lmerle@comcast.net> wrote: > Hi Dave, it seems to me that the analogy with American Indians can be > overdrawn. Any analogy can. The most likely comparision is that the > "English" learned from their experiences with the Irish, not only the > Ulster plantation but the prior attempts at colonizing Ireland that occured > in the Elizabeth period and earlier. Most of these failed. Often they > failed because there were just too many Irish and too few colonists. Faced > with a huge continent lightly sprinkled with natives, some have opined that > they killed as many as they could, knowing that if left alive to have > families, perhaps some day they would again be out numbered. I don't know! > What we do know is in Canada, where the English government treated its > Indian subjects much more kindly than the folks to the south, the Indians > never have increased in numbers to the point of threatening British rule. > > However I've never heard of the word 'scout' being used in northern > Ireland in the same way it was used in the American west. What we do know > is that the English and Irish did cooperate to some extent in the > 'enshirement' of Ulster. Cyril Falls details the process in his book on the > Ulster plantation ("T he Birth of Ulster "). A team of English met with > small groups to determine how much land there was and its condition > (bogland, etc). They of course collected names of places. Based on these > maps the allocation of the escheated lands was done -- in '1000 acre' > plots. However these were later found to be extremely inaccurate. What it > does show is cooperation between the English surveyors and the local Irish > population. THis is certainly not how the Americas were settled. > > The situation was very different in that there were more Irish than > Indians and the land was better known than the American west. And to some > extent both parties communicated. Some have opined (Bardon, Elliott, etc) > that the early records show that many common Irish cooperated willingly > with the English because they had very few rights under the Irish lords and > fared better under the English. How they'd know this at first I do not > know. Perhaps over time they realized they were better off. This could be a > reason for the sizable assimilation of Irish into the settler culture. > Donno! Even the historians argue about this stuff. > > What we know about the muster lists is generally they included British but > clearly they also included Irish surnames. Presumedly those bearing Irish > surnames were Irish and presumedly trusted. Probably some in the 1630 > muster lists later 'came out' in the Rising. We are told by the historians > that the reasons for the Rising were complicated and that the leaders, > even, had multiple reasons. Which is why they were generally called > 'Confederates'. You apparently had Stuart Loyalists, rising in support of > King Charles in London. Some were Catholic and rising in support of the old > religion. You also had Irish rising in support of throwing off the English > yoke. Whether they envisioned a united Ireland or just clan autonomy, I > don't know. "Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil Wars" has many > interesting views on this topic. > > Those who rose included not only Irish but Anglo-Irish (Jacobites and > Catholics). So who is to say why a man was on a muster list in 1630 and > 'Out' in 1641? It was a civil war, one of many in Ireland, and so everyone > involved thought they were rising to support the true government. It just > so happened that Parliament and Cromwell won. T hey got to write history > their way and so branded all as traitors. They were not too interested in > sorting out reasons for the piles of bodies. As is usual in Ireland, what > began, for some, as a noble cause, degenerated into a massacre -- one of > many. A feature seen in Ireland, but not generally in England or Scotland. > > The more one reads the less black and white these things are. > > "Celtic Dimensions" has a series of articles written on the period, not > always focused on IReland. For example Sharon Adam's article "The Making of > the Radical South-West: Charles I and his Scottish Kingdom, 1625-1649." > > Another useful book is "The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of > James I" by Perceval-Maxwell. Very detailed. "The Birth of Ulster" by Cyril > Falls is very readable. Though the Irish populist version of history > depicts it as the English siezing Ulster illegally, in actuality, it was a > legal process, according to English law. Meaning once the Lords surrendered > and accepted the QUeen's terms, they were subjects of the Crown and subject > to its law. Their land was then held by 'surrender and regrant'. They > surrendered it to the Crown and it granted it back. This notion is key to > feudal law: the king held all the land and granted it out to subjects. If > the subjects didn't obey, the king took it back. We still do this in the > USA: if you sell drugs and the police catch you, your car, etc, is > surrendered to the authorities. > > In any case, when the Lords split Ireland, under English law, it returned > to the Crown. The regranting had to be legally done (according to Cyril > Falls) because otherwise, many decades of lawsuits would occur as various > parties wrestled to get clear title. They knew this would occur due to past > experience with the Desmond Wars, etc, in southern Ireland. The Earls, > etc., were not naked American savages. They were cousins, friends, > retainers, of the Crown and its subjects. Many of whom didn't want to see > them naked and starving because they loved them! It was more of a very very > disfunctional family feud, due to various attempts to pacify the Ulster > Irish by raising them in the English court and marrying them off to English > ladies. Didn't work, of course. > > Though the Indian scouts get all the attention, it's far more likely the > Indian trader was much more influential in America. Perhaps the Scottish > trader in Ireland too .... donno (though the English records complain about > them a lot). In America these traders were the ones who married the Indian > maidens and forged alliances with Indian tribes. Sir William Johnson, for > one, was immensely successful and rose to become a key player in the French > and Indian Wars -- from a humble beginning as a poor Irish Catholic lad > with a wealthy uncle. Various others also secured large plots of land for > themselves and their families -- almost always intermarrying with the > Indians. So I am sure it became difficult to tell who was an Indian and who > was not. Because many were both. > > The analogy with Indians and Irish too may be most appropriate when > thinking of the individual Scotch Irishman, living on the frontier, rather > than a government policy. I know my immigrant ancestor shot Indians on > sight in what is now Butler Co, PA. This was after the Indians had sold the > area to Pennsylvania, so the Indian would have been trespassing, according > to our law. Whether the Indian understood the concept of owning land -- now > that's another thought. > > Linda Merle > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "D H" <hallmark1@utvinternet.com> > To: scotch-irish@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sunday, 29 January, 2012 6:25:35 AM > Subject: Re: [S-I] Native Irish McLains versus Native American Sioux > > Couldn't one say the same thing about America and the use of e.g. native > American Indians within a settlement as scouts etc? > > Generally a man on a muster list in 1730 would not be a native American > Indian. They didn't much like arming Indians because they tended to use the > weapon against theBritish. Just 11 years after 1730 the Indians would rise > up, weapons or not, and slaughter almost all the settlers. So they were > right to fear. This is not to say that the man hadn't manage to assimilate > in British. > > So, if one's ancestor was native American and living in a British fort > with the planters/settlers wouldn't one be asking if he/she was British or > Native American? Probably to the British they were Indians and to the > Indians they were British! > > Similarly, if one's ancestor was native Irish and living in a British fort > in Ulster with the planters/settlers one is asking if he/she was British or > Native Irish? Probably to the British they were Irish and to the Irish > they were British! > > > > > On 29/01/2012 08:00, scotch-irish-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Generally a man on a muster list in 1630 would not be Irish. They didn't > > >> much like arming Irish because they tended to use the weapon against > the > > >> British. Just 11 years after 1630 the Irish would rise up, weapons or > not, > > >> and slaughter almost all the settlers. So they were right to fear. > This is > > >> not to say that the man hadn't manage to assimilate in British. The > upper > > >> classes probably did so the fastest because they were granted estates > and > > >> so had a lot to lose in an uprising. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SCOTCH-IRISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SCOTCH-IRISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > * * ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SCOTCH-IRISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message