Quote Originally Posted by Chris Webb
Todd, I'll keep looking for what I had read, I know I didn't dream it. LOL!! I remember your referrals to other books as well, they're all great books.

I must certainly conceed that James Webb's book didn't quit make the jump to the status of a History Book, but it is highly regarded by folks with Degrees in American Studies, like me. History, well done, will tell you exactly what happened, right down to the color of buttons on a uniform. American Studies is a field that mixes History and Sociology in the hopes of not so much nailing down the exact details of what happened but why it happened and what it means now. Mr. Webb's book, like you said, is not a great source in terms of historical accuracy, but it remains a great source of understanding what has become of Scots-Irish culture right up to this very day.

Back when I was earning my degree in American Studies, way back in '79 to '83, I was required to study notes in Family Bibles, letters home from common soldiers in the field, editorials and even political cartoons. Historians use these same documents to confirm facts. American Studies folks use them to try to ferret out 'whys'.

A great example of the difference between History and American Studies is this: History will tell you exactly who fought and where in the Civil War. History will tell you the colors on their uniforms, the names of their commanders, and who won and lost which battles. American Studies will tell you why a man who had never owned a slave would fight to his last breath against overwhelming odds for a way of life that was at best harsh. THIS is what Born Fighting is about.

German studies would help us to understand why a nation of good people would participate in the Nazi campaigns and the Holocaust. History tells how many died, German Studies tells why a soldier who would normally not even shoot a sparrow would machine gun down civilians next to a pre-dug grave.

I never said that kilts were worn in masse during the American Revolution. I only said that I had read that some volunteers had requested that they be able to 'wear the garb of their fathers' instead of the issued or approved uniform and that permission was granted. For all I know, as you pointed out, this may well have never happened. Then again, would it suprise any of us of Scottish Descent if it did?

I agree that it would be great to find some varifiable proof that at least a handful of Americans wore kilts onto the battlefield. I also have already agreed that Born Fighting is not a history book. It's still a good book and a damned good read. Critics have said as much.

It's interesting that Ulster-Scots didn't wear kilts ... I'm as Scots-Irish as I can get, my entire family comes from Dublin, Texas! I guess I don't wear kilts as part of my heritage after all ... in fact, I don't believe that a single member of my family all the way back to the first Webb's that came over from Dublin, Ireland wore kilts.

Todd, as an Historian, can someone of Scots-Irish descent claim heritage as a reason for being a kiltman if the very people they came from made it a point not too? Now there's a question I hope you will grapple with and I truly look forward to reading your answer. You really do write some great posts!

All the Best and Kilt On!

Chris Webb
Chris,

I'm going to answer your last question first: Yes, I believe it is possible for someone with Ulster-Scottish heritage to wear a kilt even though the Ulster-Scots generally shunned their Highland neighbours; the kilt has become a symbol of Scottish heritage, adopted by Highlander, Lowlander, Borderer and Ulster-Scot. Many a Lowland and Border family (Maxwells, Armstrongs, Scotts, etc.) have adopted their own tartans and wear Highland attire. The key is that historically, the Lowland Scots who immigrated to Ulster would most likely have not identified with the "Redshanks" above the Highland line. The problem comes when some claim that the Scots-Irish historically wore kilts, which most historians, such as Leyburn, say is simply not so.

Now, as to your comments about my field, history: I disagree with your defintions, because historians also look at the "why" behind the story as well. In my own field, military history, historians are now examning the "social" aspects of military history, such as motivation, esprit-de-corps, the role the community, and a return to the study of the common soldier, as well as the traditional "big picture" of battles, tactics and generals. This is done through the examination of the primary sources you have mentioned, which I have worked with myself as well throughout my undergraduate and graduate career; soldier's letters, journals and diaries; Veteran's newspapers, such as the National Tribune; Newspapers, Official Reports, etc. I believe, as you do, that history must be used to tell the story behind the story, but there also has to be documented facts behind it as well. American Studies really sounds like another name for the history I learned in university, as a local history librarian, National Park Service Ranger and History instructor.

So, history and American studies have much more in common than you would imagine. In fact, as a community college history instructor, I am not a typical "academic" historian by any means. History is a well-told story, and belongs to the people. I try to teach it way.

So, I think we're probably closer than we think.

Regards,

Todd