Was Tartan ever actually banned?

[artificer]

CajunScot, and everyone else, what part of, "Cannot prove or disprove" do you not get?

While I will agree it to be unlikely to have occurred before the first service in the US, you cannot disprove it either. Just admit to it.

Unfortunately, in a logical argument, you cannot argue from a position of ignorance.

To argue that because there is a LACK of evidence to disprove doesn't equate to proof (or a 'win') in logic. "Cannot disprove" isn't a logical position. If you are proposing something, the burden of proof falls on your head, there is no burden to disprove.



That said;
From a purely deductive standpoint, and using countries in rural Europe as a model, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that on certain occasions (clan wars, conscription, long and dangerous journeys) that a Scottish wife might take some small memento of her beloved husband or son to the Kirk for a blessing.

Since many in the highlands were quite poor, a token might be as small as a lock of hair, or indeed a scrap of fabric from their clothes (POSSIBLY tartan).

Things like this were done (and probably still are in some places). What is missing here is ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that it was done in any organized fashion (ie "The Kirking Of The Tartan").

More damning still is the fact that Highlanders, by all historical accounts, didn't lend to their tartans the meaning that would be assigned later in Victorian times.

Thus, we COULD infer that while tartan MIGHT have been blessed in isolated cases, Tartan is unlikely to have been blessed en-mass (notice that I didn't say WASN'T).

I don't think anybody is denying that a Kirking couldn't have happened, somewhere along the way, I believe that most are saying that this particular service, especially in it's current form, originated in America.
This is based on all available historical evidence.

To take logic one step further, there is no knowable truth. The truth is intangible by its very nature, as its interpretation is skewed by the observers morals, beliefs, understanding, knowledge, and physical ability. You name one historical "fact" and there are probably hundreds of versions of information about the same fact, and all of them will be slightly different.

"Truth" is for Religion or Philosophy. Fact for the sciences. Conclusions can change given new information. As for History, you are talking about interpretations of facts.

A huge victory for one side may be an horrible betrayal and slaughter to the other. The fact that a battle happened on a given day is THE fact, everything else is POV.