Highlanders in the French and Indian war

[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?

[Tobus]

The emigrants described as “Ulster Scots” or “Scotch-Irish” were Presbyterians recruited from lowland Scotland to act as a buffer against the native Catholic Irish population. The principal reason for their onward emigration to America was the repressive laws introduced against non-Church of England members, ostensibly against Catholics but which similarly affected Presbyterians.
The name Kilpatrick possibly originates from the area to the north-west of Glasgow - http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/16344 - in the Scottish lowlands and is unlikely to have any Highland origins.

Kilpatrick is the name originally associated with Clan Colquhoun (Humphrey de Kilpatrick), with their lands encompassing the general area of the Kilpatrick Hills and up around the west bank of Loch Lomond at Luss, the seat of Clan Colquhoun. It actually straddles the Highland Line, with the bulk of traditional territory being north of the line. It is considered a Highland clan. So, to get technical, my ancestors could be either Highlanders or Lowlanders, depending on which side of the line they happened to live on. But the clan history suggests Highland traditions and systems.

I'm not sure it's accurate to pigeon-hole all Ulster Scots as having come from the same place, or for the same reasons. As I understood it, the recruiting of people to move to Northern Ireland was a rather wide-cast net. It also took place over a long period of time, not just one single group of people going at once.

[Chris Hills]

Hey all, Let me apologize as I feel like our thread has gone off the rails a bit and I fear we are veering ever closer to a crash. What started as a simple funny note that colonial scots had run into Scottish highlander soldiers in the Mountains of Pennsylvania over 250 years ago has turned into a wide breadth of related but sensitive topics. Highlanders vs lowlanders, Military occupation of Ireland, Scottish vs English politics, colonial vs english history, Scots vs others in ulster and now moved into religion and whether your clan is a highland one or not.

Each of these topics might be of interest to many but as with most of scottish history, I suspect each could turn into a blood letting as people with varying understanding levels and/or opinions on each topic might feel the need to defend what is "right". I recognize that we are walking on egg shells and ask that we be extra cautious here but if that isn't possible, let me know and I will shut down this thread for the sake of civility amongst our scots brethren.

Let me share some history about ulster (and the plantation), in hopes that understanding will help the civility of discourse on the topic. Many, perhaps most don't even know about the plantation. But those who do have a wide range of "knowledge" about what the plantation was about. Some will tell you it was a lowland scot "clearance". Some will tell you that it was a "border Reiver" clearance (both scot and english). Some will say it was an occupation of Ireland. Some will say it was the removal of Presbyterians from an Anglican (church of england/Scotland) country. Some will say it was the oppression of catholics. Some will say it was a land grab by the english king (both the reiver area as well as Ireland). Some will say that the ulster plantation cleared all irish from N. Ireland. Others will say that it was a scottish only settlement. Let me say this, there is a reason why there has been conflict in N. Ireland for centuries and it is all of the above and more (and less). So, let's be careful to NOT characterize Ulster as Just about religion or just about lowlanders, etc. As a soldier, I can tell you it fit a pattern of effective occupation utilized by the Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans, English and others for thousands of years. The reasons, the people involved, how long it went on... are all topics for argument.

A few historical facts might help as I wrap up. First, there was a "start" and an "end" to the plantation. Ulster existed before the plantation and continues to this day. But lets be careful not to mix up post plantation ulster activity with the plantation itself (ie initial conquest and migration plan). The plantation started in 1609 and included only six counties (whereas the "region" of Ulster actually has 9) and was a way for the "king of Scots" to reward his lowland brethren so they didn't feel neglected after he took his court to London from Edinburgh as the unified king. The intent was to resolve issues of ruling multiple countries, issues with the borders and issues with Ireland. That said, migration to other counties by oppressed presbyterian lowlanders started before the plantation to counties outside of the plantation. these are sometimes included in the later activities related to the British settlers which adds confusion but are NOT part of the plantation. Today, of the 9 counties in Ulster, only six are part of N. Ireland. 3 of the counties that were part of the plantation are now actually part of the republic of Ireland (also adding to the confusion). Also, Highlanders had been migrating back and forth prior to that and Highlanders were there (not part of the plan just simply part of the fact of geography and clan politics) throughout the "plantation period" and beyond. The Plantation migration was complete by the 1630's as waves of both political strife and subsequent religious strife (first anglican on presbyterian and then catholic on protestant) turned into wars. By 1640, what started as a unified settlement had become segmented (irish vs british and anglican vs protestant as well as catholic vs protestant. Lines were blurry as there were old school catholic scots allied with the majority irish catholics against protestant (both anglican and presbyterian) scots... though there were also a small number of Irish Protestants creating levels and depth of complexity to the issues of race, politics and religion. during the late 30's through early 50's there were waves of war in Ulster (irish armies against the british planters. British armies against the irish. Scottish presbyterian army and the kings army against cromwell and the british parliamentary army (ie british on british), etc. Post war, it was an "english anglican" led colony with all others being oppressed. Basically the plantation per se could be called done as far as the planned relocation by about 1640 with perhaps 100,000 brits (half scots) moved to Ireland. From the 1650's -1680's follow on scottish migration had slowed but the English migration expanded (mostly Quaker). none of this was part of a planned move it was just normal migration from an area of want to an area of opportunity. Then a second wave of Presbyterian Scots (mostly fleeing the famine in the border region) came from 1690-1710. Again, not part of a plan, just migration to go where there was food and opportunity. This second migration (not as part of the plantation) moved another 100,000 brits to Ireland (again about half scots). Then, as political, religious and economic issues become unbearable for our Scots ancestors, the first of a huge wave of scots moved from Ulster to the colonies. At the same time, the same issues were causing a huge wave of scots (and brits) to move from Britain proper to the colonies. I read recently as many as 500,000 scots came to the colonies during the 50 year period leading up to the Revolutionary war.

Anyhow, I share all this so that we can all be on the same page about a number of things. discussing ulster in simple terms is not possible. the ulster plantation was different than the following migrations to ulster. also the politics of ulster was different depending on the decade you discuss. The populations in ulster (part irish, part scot, part welsh, part english) was mixed with the ratios greatly changing depending on the decade. Religious control as well (catholic, presbyterian, anglican, quaker/other prot religions) had varying levels of control (and oppression) depending on the decade. The reasons for going to ulster included personal choice, coercion and outright deportation. The reasons for leaving ulster... were also as varied. So the only way to talk specifically about Ulster per se is IF you identify the specific people group and IF you identify the specific religion and IF you identify the specific decade and county. If you don't do that you can be both equally right and equally wrong in your point resulting in both support and a good fight. So, lets not mix our metaphors and lets not argue about what it was or wasn't. We can agree that it happened and we can study the history and we can say with great certainty that many of our ancestors came through there on the way to populate what eventually became the US and canada.

I appreciate your reading and hope that this allows us to move forward with a greater understanding of history but also each other's points of view which, depending on the time or place in ulster may be exactly right and completely different than your point from a different time and place in ulster!

Scots endure! chris

[huntgathergrow]

I appreciate this thread and others. I'd never considered Highlanders coming over in service to the Crown. And I didn't know that there was a Highland settlement in Georgia. So that's 2 new things for me to study!

In the last few months, I've come to understand much, much more about the history of English, Scottish, Irish & Welsh emigration to the colonies/States. Sadly, many of us descendants don't have a grasp of that history or the sensitivity and respect that the topic deserves. American history is so diverse that we can't possibly cover everything, but it is my hope that forums like this can inform and educate folks like me so that we may share that knowledge with our kith and kin.

So thank you all for sharing.

[Tobus]

Interesting that you say that the Kilpatrick region is in the Highlands.

With respect, I think if you re-read my post in more detail, you'll find that I said no such thing. I said that Kilpatrick is the name originally associated with Clan Colquhoun, and the clan lands straddle the Highland line. Or at least touch it, but the bulk of clan lands are in the Highlands.

Of course, clan lands were not always rigidly defined, and some maps show their lands as only being north of the Highland line. Others show their lands extending southward from the east bank of Loch Lomond (clearly in the Highlands) across the Highland line to the Kilpatrick region (Lowlands).

Colquhoun has always been listed by every authority as one of the Highland clans. I've actually never heard anyone say they considered it a Lowland clan. And Buchanan too? If I may ask, what's the logic behind that?

[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?.....