Highlanders in the French and Indian war

[Chris Hills]

Hello all, I am a bit of a history buff (and am a soldier from a long line of soldiers). I spend time every fall in the mountains of PA (Northern Appalachian range) where a number of scots settled upon leaving britain and many still live today. My ancestors actually came through the southern Appalachian range (TN to kY) with many still there but we migrated north.

That said, after a walk in the woods a few weeks back, I headed off to Ligonier PA where they had reenactments going in commemoration of their annual Ft ligonier days. Lots of kilts to be seen as usual, but not just the locals. While my Scots ancestors actually came up to ligonier to fight during this war, they were in buckskins at that time. I had not realized or had somehow missed that the british forces included highlanders. So I had a chat with one of the historians (in a black watch kilt) who, not so kindly, schooled me on the highlander regiments that fought in the war. At one point there were over 1000 kilt wearing highlanders fighting at Ft. Ligonier (or through there on the way to Ft Duquesne). I wonder what they thought of their scots speaking backwoods cousins from KY?

So there you are, all of these Kilt wearing scots running around town looking dapper as usual were NOT the first kilt wearers to hang out in those mountains. Perhaps you all have stumbled across that before but thought you would enjoy it as much as I did!

[Tarheel]

It is always fun to look back at the local history and find the irony in today's world. Thanks for the info.

[davidlpope]

Chris,

The distinction needs to be made between Scotch-Irish and Lowland Scots who settled in Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, etc. and Highlanders who wore tartan and spoke Gaelic. These groups ended up on opposite sides of the conflict. In NC, the Highlanders who had settled in the Cape Fear region were loyalists, while the Scotch-Irish who settled in the Piedmont Backcountry were Whigs.

Many of the Highland regiments traded out their kilts for more appropriate attire when they arrived in North America. I'd want to see more detail from the Reenactor you encountered before I was convinced that hordes of kilt-wearers were tromping around North America...

[Chris Hills]

First, genealogy is a challenging and interesting endeavor that sheds much light on and flavor to history books. Personally, we have been digging for over 30 years into our family and we still have more to do. Our KY ancestors are an interesting mix of Scottish, English and Irish predating this country. Many are so called "scots Irish" which is not a popular term with some scots (many that now understand their history are using the term "Ulster Scot"... though I haven't got an opinion). what it means is that they were enticed and/or forced from their lowland homes in the 17th century to go to the Ulster plantation (now N. Ireland). When that turned out poorly, they then migrated to the colonies amongst other locations. I read recently through the Ulster historical society that over 500,000 Scots came to our colonies and over 600,000 to what is now Canada out of ulster in that late 17th and early 18th century period. In any case, those so called lowland scots (or Border Reiver's in the case of my clan Home) spoke a language called "Scots" (originally called Ingles before the norman invasion changed the language in England to what is now english but which didn't affect the language in scotland) which I just read is still spoken by 1.5mm scots as a "native tongue" in the so called "lowland" areas. This was spoken by King James VI and his royal court (including my clan) even as he moved to unify the scottish and english thrones as James 1.

On the flip side, my highland clan relatives (Donnachaidh's-we descend from both their McRoberts and Collier Septs) were there as well during our opening of TN & KY. As you note, they were speaking a variant of Scottish Gaelic at that time... a very different language which was considered backwards to Scots (which was considered by the british to be a form of Gutter english). So... knowing that the Donnachaidh's were jacobites, we suspect that they either left or were exported during one of the uprisings... thus putting them in direct contact with their highland Gaelic speaking cousins during the french and indian war.

Note also, I recognize your point on the frontier scots (whigs- i.e. my clans) fighting against the british with the coastal scots fighting for the crown (ie loyalists), BUT, let's NOT get mixed up here... that was another war. The French and indian war went from 1754 to 1763 and ALL "colonials" (including my family) fought with the crown against the French canadians and their indian counterparts (mine selfishly to get a chance at permanent settlement in TN/KY). Where as revolutionary activity didn't start until the late 1760's in New england with the boston massacre in 1770 and the official "start" of the war in April 1775 at Lexington MA (more than 20 years after my family fought with Braddock in PA). That said, North carolina and Virginia didn't support independence even then as their internal loyalist scots and frontier scots disagreed on the topic. This led to an eventual Scots on Scots battle (a simplified view) near wilmington NC in Feb 1776 (loyalists lead by a Col McLeod). That battle decided the political discussions and in April 1776 the NC congressional delegates (as Whigs) voted for independence. At that point, my family came out to fight in the revolutionary war against the crown. They went on to fight in the indian wars, the war of 1812 (again against the crown), the civil war (against the union), etc. and so forth up until today. Basically, drop a hat and the scots came out to fight. Not sure we were as concerned as we should have been about the politics there in!

Anyhow, back to the point, There were 3 highland regiments who fought in the French and Indian war in North America (77th and 78th highlanders as well as the 42nd highlander regiment-black watch). They are all thought to have worn the government Sett (black watch kilt) with red "kilt jackets. Though there is some debate that the 78th may have worn a variant of the fraser red tartan at least early on. That said, there is NO debate that they wore their kilts throughout the war. In fact, the 78th is famous for refusing breeches despite fighting through six new england/canadian winters. They wore their Belted plaid (so called "great kilt" or Filimor) throughout. It is known that a version of the filibag (sort of a version of the short or dress kilt worn today) was available and may have been worn in summer or battle by the other two regiments later in the war, but the Frasers (78th) refused to give up their belted plaids. In any case, to my earlier point... there were some highland jacobite colonialists from VA (including my family) who traveled to PA to be allied with the 1400 man highland jacobite 77th Highlander regiment troops in kilts and what an interesting reunion that would have been!

[Orvis]

First, genealogy is a challenging and interesting endeavor that sheds much light on and flavor to history books. Personally, we have been digging for over 30 years into our family and we still have more to do. Our KY ancestors are an interesting mix of Scottish, English and Irish predating this country. Many are so called "scots Irish" which is not a popular term with some scots (many that now understand their history are using the term "Ulster Scot"... though I haven't got an opinion). what it means is that they were enticed and/or forced from their lowland homes in the 17th century to go to the Ulster plantation (now N. Ireland). When that turned out poorly, they then migrated to the colonies amongst other locations. I read recently through the Ulster historical society that over 500,000 Scots came to our colonies and over 600,000 to what is now Canada out of ulster in that late 17th and early 18th century period. In any case, those so called lowland scots (or Border Reiver's in the case of my clan Home) spoke a language called "Scots" (originally called Ingles before the norman invasion changed the language in England to what is now english but which didn't affect the language in scotland) which I just read is still spoken by 1.5mm scots as a "native tongue" in the so called "lowland" areas. This was spoken by King James VI and his royal court (including my clan) even as he moved to unify the scottish and english thrones as James 1.

On the flip side, my highland clan relatives (Donnachaidh's-we descend from both their McRoberts and Collier Septs) were there as well during our opening of TN & KY. As you note, they were speaking a variant of Scottish Gaelic at that time... a very different language which was considered backwards to Scots (which was considered by the british to be a form of Gutter english). So... knowing that the Donnachaidh's were jacobites, we suspect that they either left or were exported during one of the uprisings... thus putting them in direct contact with their highland Gaelic speaking cousins during the french and indian war.

Note also, I recognize your point on the frontier scots (whigs- i.e. my clans) fighting against the british with the coastal scots fighting for the crown (ie loyalists), BUT, let's NOT get mixed up here... that was another war. The French and indian war went from 1754 to 1763 and ALL "colonials" (including my family) fought with the crown against the French canadians and their indian counterparts (mine selfishly to get a chance at permanent settlement in TN/KY). Where as revolutionary activity didn't start until the late 1760's in New england with the boston massacre in 1770 and the official "start" of the war in April 1775 at Lexington MA (more than 20 years after my family fought with Braddock in PA). That said, North carolina and Virginia didn't support independence even then as their internal loyalist scots and frontier scots disagreed on the topic. This led to an eventual Scots on Scots battle (a simplified view) near wilmington NC in Feb 1776 (loyalists lead by a Col McLeod). That battle decided the political discussions and in April 1776 the NC congressional delegates (as Whigs) voted for independence. At that point, my family came out to fight in the revolutionary war against the crown. They went on to fight in the indian wars, the war of 1812 (again against the crown), the civil war (against the union), etc. and so forth up until today. Basically, drop a hat and the scots came out to fight. Not sure we were as concerned as we should have been about the politics there in!

Anyhow, back to the point, There were 3 highland regiments who fought in the French and Indian war in North America (77th and 78th highlanders as well as the 42nd highlander regiment-black watch). They are all thought to have worn the government Sett (black watch kilt) with red "kilt jackets. Though there is some debate that the 78th may have worn a variant of the fraser red tartan at least early on. That said, there is NO debate that they wore their kilts throughout the war. In fact, the 78th is famous for refusing breeches despite fighting through six new england/canadian winters. They wore their Belted plaid (so called "great kilt" or Filimor) throughout. It is known that a version of the filibag (sort of a version of the short or dress kilt worn today) was available and may have been worn in summer or battle by the other two regiments later in the war, but the Frasers (78th) refused to give up their belted plaids. In any case, to my earlier point... there were some highland jacobite colonialists from VA (including my family) who traveled to PA to be allied with the 1400 man highland jacobite 77th Highlander regiment troops in kilts and what an interesting reunion that would have been!

Having been a Highland reenactor in a unit that portrayed the Colonel's Company of Montgomery's Highland Regiment (raised in January 1757 as the 1st Highland Battalion of Foot, later the 62nd Foot, and later the 77th Foot), I can speak somewhat to its history, particularly its participation in Brigadier Forbes's 1758 campaign against Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh). After arriving in America, the regiment wintered in Charleston SC and trained. Like most other Highland regiments of the day, the regiment was raised and immediately shipped out - the Government was afraid of "secret Jacobites" and didn't want armed and trained regiments of them in Scotland. In the spring of 1758, the regiment was shipped to Philadelphia, where it joined Forbes's expedition. The Forbes Road that was cut across Pennsylvania roughly followed the track of today's U.S. Route 30. Late in the summer, the regiment arrived at the site of modern Ligonier, PA, and camped. In Sept 1758, several hundred Highlanders accompanied Major Grant (the regiment's second-in-command) on a "reconnaissance-in-force" against Ft. Duquesne (about 40 miles west), which turned out to be a disaster with Major Grant captured and many Highlanders killed. On 12th October, the French and Indians retaliated with an attack on Forbes's army at Fort Ligonier (this is the event commemorated by Ligonier Days each year). The attack was beaten off, and because campaigning season was almost over, Forbes decided on an all-or-nothing push to capture Fort Duquesne. Unfortunately for the French, most of their Native American allies had departed. So, with the British Army almost upon them, the French blew up the fort and departed. After wintering in the Lancaster PA area (where they had trouble with price-gouging locals), the regiment participated in the 1759 campaign to capture Fort Ticonderoga, where it performed well. In 1760, four companies of the 77th and four companies of the 2/1st Foot went south under Colonel Montgomery's command to fight the Cherokee tribe. The remainder of the regiment participated in the campaign against Montreal (where they met the 78th (Fraser's) Highland Regiment). In 1761 and 1762, the regiment participated in Caribbean campaigns, and in 1763 was part of the expedition that captured Havana. They (along with the 42nd RHR) were decimated by tropical diseases and evacuated to Philadelphia, from whence they went with Colonel Bouquet west along the Forbes Road again to fight Native Americans in Pontiac's Rebellion, fighting in the Battle of Bushy Run (west of Ligonier) enroute to relieve Fort Pitt, which was under siege by Pontiac's forces. After that, members of the regiment either accepted land grants or returned to Scotland, where the regiment was disbanded in 1763.

You are right about the Highland regiments in America (including Frasers) wearing Government (i.e., Black Watch) tartan. The 42nd and 77th adopted their belted plaids into philabegs ("little kilts"), while the 78th may indeed have retained their belted plaids throughout the war, including in winter. There is some speculation that on the 1763 Bushy Run expedition, the 77th soldiers may have worn gaitered trousers.

There was a cultural difference between the Ulster Scots who settled along the western frontier beginning in the early 18th century and the Highland Scots (who arrived later). The Ulster Scots began leaving the UK early-on due to lack of opportunity and persecution. They spoke a dialect of English and had warlike traditions that made them formidable opponents on a battlefield. The Highland Scots began arriving in the early 1740s as "military farmers" to buffer Oglethorpe's Georgia colony against the Spanish of Florida. They spoke Gaelic and wore Highland dress when they fought in the Battle of Bloody Swamp and other fights. They later became plantation owners or went west to trade with the Indians. After the '45 Rising failed, many of the Highland gentry class emigrated to New York or North Carolina after their chiefs (who had had their power greatly reduced) tried to squeeze more and more money in the form of higher rents, &c. The North Carolina Highland settlement centered on the Cape Fear River and what is now Fayetteville. These Highlanders had seen the results of failed rebellion and stayed loyal to the Crown in 1776, whereas the Ulster Scots and their descendents had no love for the Crown and joined the 1775 rebellion against it.

Having participated (as a member of the 77th) many times in the annual Ligonier Days, I can understand why the Highland reenactor may have seemed grumpy - after having answered the same questions for the 40th or 50th time, he might have been at the end of his string. Been there, done that a few times. But I'm sorry if he seemed brusque - happens to the best of them once in a while. But it's a fun event, especially at night after the fort closes to the public. :-)

If you have any questions, you can address them to me via a PM, if you wish.

[Chris Hills]

There was a cultural difference between the Ulster Scots who settled along the western frontier beginning in the early 18th century and the Highland Scots (who arrived later)...

Orvis, thanks for the great discourse. I enjoyed it very much and appreciate your knowledge on the topic. Let me say this, the situation for our scots ancestors was far more complex than a short blurb in the history books about that NC highland settlement seem to convey. Having been a soldier who was stationed at Ft bragg who's father (and son) have been stationed there, I had plenty of time to study and understand what history thinks about those loyalist scots. I do NOT dispute that they were there, that they were highlanders, that they came out for the crown early in the revolution or that they had to be beaten by the frontier scots to ensure NC voted for independence. Truth.

That said, I think that characterizing that settlement as being typical of the highlanders and/or characterizing the Ulster scots as so called lowlanders are both typical of history books attempting to make a neat story out of a convoluted mess. Let me share another narrative that is not as clean but which, I believe, is closer to the truth after 30 years of research about my family and Scots history. I will start more generic and then move into specifically my family, which I can speak to with authority.

First. we can agree that the Ulster plantation was a british 'ploy' to rid the border region of the Reiver clans (by the way both british and scots) thus freeing up land for loyalists to move in and removing an ongoing source of conflict, raids and even occasional outright battles. At the same time it enabled them to rid a portion of Ireland of those pesky Irish (the plan didn't work as laid out of course) with a future eye to conquering all of Ireland using the blood of scots etc. to make it happen. A way over simplification to be sure but use that as the starting point for the discourse.

All that having been said, the truth is that Highlanders had been settling collateral counties to the Ulster plantation for centuries before the plantation kicked off. Additionally, as the Jacobite clashes went on as well as various ebbs and flows of clan on clan wars continued... a great number of highlanders also moved across to ireland (which, of course is where the original scottish kings came from in the first place). A simple review of the names of various scots inhabitants of Ulster through the Ulster Historical society shows that many of the highland clans were well represented in Ulster as were a wide range of English and Welsh who either benefited from leaving britain and/or were exported for various reasons. Also, I read last month that almost 25% of the eventual ulster plantations land owners were actually Irish (completely against the original plan). So saying that the Ulster scots that came to the colonies were all border reivers (so called lowlanders) or that they were only scots, etc. is a vast over simplification. additionally, there were jacobites as you noted that came across to the colonies through the uprisings and they didn't only settle in "highland colonies" as the history books might imply. They too were scattered across the central and southern colonies where ever land and opportunity permitted.

My point, when the "frontier scots" for lack of a better term. my buckskin ancestors with long rifles came down from the mountains to fight in both the french and indian war (for the crown) as well as in the revolution (against the crown and loyalist scots) they were NOT just border scots. They were a mix of Scots (reivers and highlanders), Irishman, Welsh and Englishman. They had become americans though that term had not yet been coined.

Specific to my family, while there were various waves that came over, in that specific mid to late 1700's period I had Highlanders (McRoberts and Colliers-Donnachaidh clan), Lowlanders (Home Clan), Irish (Kennedy's), English (Faulkner's and Tucker's) and Welsh (Edwards) who had migrated from Ulster (and directly from their original homes) to the far edges of british holdings as well as beyond (illegally into french held future TN and KY). And yes, they (highland, lowland, scots, Irish, english and welsh) came out against the crown and so called coastal loyalists. So, again, I recognize the so called highlander specific coastal settlement existed... no dispute there (in fact, it is possible that some of my clan was even there) but I dispute the simplicity of trying to put our Scots past into the clean box that this narrative attempts to create. It didn't happen that way. There were waves and waves of departing scots over centuries and we as their descendants should not allow that narrative to stand as the definitive history but rather as a part of the overall fabric of our story.

GREAT CHAT all. This is why I follow this board.

[Tobus]

I agree, this is a great discussion! Especially as regards the different types of Scots coming over, settling different areas, and fighting in various engagements. The mixture of the groups is very confusing.

Chris Hills, my family history tends to be in line with what you describe. My predecessor, Alexander Kilpatrick, was one of the Ulster Scots (his family was originally from the Highlands so far as I know) who settled in the North Carolina province in the very early 1700s. From documentation I've seen, it later got redrawn into South Carolina; this was the source of a petition to the king over land grant document confusion, to which my ancestor was a signatory. At the time it was a notable establishment called Coneross Plantation, which lies today on (and perhaps under) Lake Hartwell, between Greenville SC and the Chattahoochee National Forest.

I am not familiar enough with the local history there to know the makeup of other inhabitants of the area. But the names on the petition to the king in 1775 seem to be mostly Scottish names with perhaps some English, Welsh, or others. I'd be very curious to know how this area was composed, in terms of the settlers' backgrounds as well as their culture and language.

At any rate, Alexander Kilpatrick is documented as being in the First Spartan Regiment of Militia - later Roebuck's Battalion - and apparently saw a lot of action in the Revolution. He may very well have taken part in the Siege of Savannah, which I discussed in another thread. He was also at Cowpens. Fascinating stuff. But I'd still like to be able to put it together with the cultural makeup of his area, and that's the part I can't seem to get my hands around. Was this area primarily Highlanders? Lowlanders? Ulster Scots? A mixture of these, and perhaps others?

[The Q]

Orvis, thanks for the great discourse. I enjoyed it very much and appreciate your
First. we can agree that the Ulster plantation was a british 'ploy' to rid the border region of the Reiver clans (by the way both british and scots) thus freeing up land for loyalists to move in and removing an ongoing source of conflict, raids and even occasional outright battles. At the same time it enabled them to rid a portion of Ireland of those pesky Irish (the plan didn't work as laid out of course) with a future eye to conquering all of Ireland using the blood of scots etc. to make it happen. A way over simplification to be sure but use that as the starting point for the discourse.


GREAT CHAT all. This is why I follow this board.

Errr Scots are British

The Scots moving into Ulster, Started Before the Union of the crowns

[Allan Thomson]

Errr Scots are British

The Scots moving into Ulster, Started Before the Union of the crowns

And isn't it funny when people start talking about "the plantations" they never acknowledge where the Scots came originally?.....

[Orvis]

Orvis, thanks for the great discourse. I enjoyed it very much and appreciate your knowledge on the topic. Let me say this, the situation for our scots ancestors was far more complex than a short blurb in the history books about that NC highland settlement seem to convey. Having been a soldier who was stationed at Ft bragg who's father (and son) have been stationed there, I had plenty of time to study and understand what history thinks about those loyalist scots. I do NOT dispute that they were there, that they were highlanders, that they came out for the crown early in the revolution or that they had to be beaten by the frontier scots to ensure NC voted for independence. Truth.

That said, I think that characterizing that settlement as being typical of the highlanders and/or characterizing the Ulster scots as so called lowlanders are both typical of history books attempting to make a neat story out of a convoluted mess. Let me share another narrative that is not as clean but which, I believe, is closer to the truth after 30 years of research about my family and Scots history. I will start more generic and then move into specifically my family, which I can speak to with authority.

First. we can agree that the Ulster plantation was a british 'ploy' to rid the border region of the Reiver clans (by the way both british and scots) thus freeing up land for loyalists to move in and removing an ongoing source of conflict, raids and even occasional outright battles. At the same time it enabled them to rid a portion of Ireland of those pesky Irish (the plan didn't work as laid out of course) with a future eye to conquering all of Ireland using the blood of scots etc. to make it happen. A way over simplification to be sure but use that as the starting point for the discourse.

All that having been said, the truth is that Highlanders had been settling collateral counties to the Ulster plantation for centuries before the plantation kicked off. Additionally, as the Jacobite clashes went on as well as various ebbs and flows of clan on clan wars continued... a great number of highlanders also moved across to ireland (which, of course is where the original scottish kings came from in the first place). A simple review of the names of various scots inhabitants of Ulster through the Ulster Historical society shows that many of the highland clans were well represented in Ulster as were a wide range of English and Welsh who either benefited from leaving britain and/or were exported for various reasons. Also, I read last month that almost 25% of the eventual ulster plantations land owners were actually Irish (completely against the original plan). So saying that the Ulster scots that came to the colonies were all border reivers (so called lowlanders) or that they were only scots, etc. is a vast over simplification. additionally, there were jacobites as you noted that came across to the colonies through the uprisings and they didn't only settle in "highland colonies" as the history books might imply. They too were scattered across the central and southern colonies where ever land and opportunity permitted.

My point, when the "frontier scots" for lack of a better term. my buckskin ancestors with long rifles came down from the mountains to fight in both the french and indian war (for the crown) as well as in the revolution (against the crown and loyalist scots) they were NOT just border scots. They were a mix of Scots (reivers and highlanders), Irishman, Welsh and Englishman. They had become americans though that term had not yet been coined.

Specific to my family, while there were various waves that came over, in that specific mid to late 1700's period I had Highlanders (McRoberts and Colliers-Donnachaidh clan), Lowlanders (Home Clan), Irish (Kennedy's), English (Faulkner's and Tucker's) and Welsh (Edwards) who had migrated from Ulster (and directly from their original homes) to the far edges of british holdings as well as beyond (illegally into french held future TN and KY). And yes, they (highland, lowland, scots, Irish, english and welsh) came out against the crown and so called coastal loyalists. So, again, I recognize the so called highlander specific coastal settlement existed... no dispute there (in fact, it is possible that some of my clan was even there) but I dispute the simplicity of trying to put our Scots past into the clean box that this narrative attempts to create. It didn't happen that way. There were waves and waves of departing scots over centuries and we as their descendants should not allow that narrative to stand as the definitive history but rather as a part of the overall fabric of our story.

GREAT CHAT all. This is why I follow this board.

Chris,

The cultural and emigration history of the Gaels of Scotland (i.e., Highlanders) and the people who became known as "Ulster Scots" or "Scots-Irish" on this side of the water is more complicated than we can cover here, and I don't have the references to cover it adequately. My comments on the Ulster Scots being settlers of the American eastern frontier, and of Highlanders arriving just before/after the '45 Rising a general ones based on what I've read of emigration patterns and the cultural histories of these two groups of Scots. Of course, there were Highlanders who arrived in America earlier than the 1730's in Georgia - Highlanders who had been captured in earlier Jacobite rebellions (1689, 1715, 1719) may have been sent as indentured servants (i.e., white slaves) to the Caribbean or to the American colonies. Highland emigrants from Georgia headed for the frontier in the mid-18th c. and engaged in trading with the Indians, and even married into some of the southern tribes. After 1763, discharged Highland soldiers received land grants in New York and other areas, thus making them pioneers. Likewise, Ulster Scots arrived in American and gravitated toward the frontier areas (the good land in the coastal areas being already taken, and probably because they had an independent streak) at various periods from the 17th century onwards. Of course, they were not the only cultural group to head for the frontier - there were Germans, English (Daniel Boone's family were English Quakers) and others who went there to escape what they viewed as oppression. In general, they did not get on well with the local Indian tribes (due to land appropriation). Your studies into your genealogy have revealed some interesting patterns from both the Highland and the Ulster Scots side.

With regard to the so-called "plantations" in Ulster, my reading reveals that they were a method for the English administration to uproot and evict the native Irish Catholics and replace them with solid Protestants from England and Scotland. One book I've read indicates this did not work in all cases and the transplanted Protestants became "more Irish than the Irish" and thereafter were oppressed equally by the English. In my own family, there is a tradition that our Riddle ancestors came from Scotland by way of Ulster, and I suspect (although I haven't been able to document it) that they may have been part of the Ulster plantation scheme. My Ulster Scots ancestors arrived in America in the early 19th c., but I'm still tracking that down.

With regard to the transplanting of the Border Reiver families after the death of Queen Elizabeth, when King James VI of Scotland united the crowns of the two kingdoms and became King James I and VI: King James (as King of Scotland before 1603) was very familiar with the problems caused by the reiving families on both sides of the Border and determined to root them out. George MacDonald Fraser, in his book "The Steel Bonnets" gives a good account of how he and his government did this. One of the most notorious "riding families" along the Borders were the Grahams, and they were subject to involuntary emigration to Ireland and being told not to return to the Borders on pain of death. As far as I've been able to learn, the Grahams were the only reiving family so treated - other outlaws from reiving families were sent to continental wars as mercenaries and told not to come back on pain of death. The subject is too large to get into here. I will add that Gaels from the Scottish Highlands and Islands emigrated to Ulster beginning in the middle ages - some to become the "Gallowglass" professional warrior class, and others to support their kinsmen (e.g., the MacDonalds from Scotland supporting their O'Donnell kin in Ulster).

Like you, I've enjoyed this chat. Over the years, I've acquired a lot of information on Scotland and Ireland and its good to be able to do something with it.