Highlanders in the French and Indian war

[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.

[tripleblessed]

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!

There is a bit of confusion about the Darien Scots in Georgia, with a variety of numbers cited. The short version is that Oglethorpe proposed a colony of opportunity for people less advantaged than many who had come to the other colonies. As a result, money was a little less than elsewhere, and there was not money for a sufficient force of soldiers. He turned to prominent Scots he knew in London, and a company was raised out of Inverness, and settled at the mouth of the Altamaha River, at the deepest natural port in the colonies. 177 folk arrived at Savannah on The Prince of Wales, IIRC, and were transshipped on smaller boats to a bluff overlooking the river. More arrived later, drawn by the promise not of mercenary wages, but the promise of potential land ownership. Not a Crown charter of land use, as in Scotland, but personal ownership. I have often seen the number 225 as the size of the military presence, with a further 225 later as replacements. Approximately half died defending the southern border against the Spanish. The company later became formalized as Oglethorpe's Regiment of Foot, the 42nd. As all are probably aware, the Spanish had arrived earlier and were not amused to find the British encroaching on what they viewed as Spanish holdings. New Inverness, as it was called began to take shape out of dense forest and swamp, filled with dangers unknown in Scotland. John Mohr MacIntosh, regarded as the leader of the effort, lost a son to an alligator. Various skirmishes and battles occurred over time as part of the War of Jenkins' Ear, including the English attempt to take St. Augustine (John Mohr was captured and held in Spain), and the Spanish attempt at taking St. Simons Island. The Battle of Bloody Marsh put a severe crimp in Spanish ambitions, and Scots secured Georgia for the English.

The settlers decided to rename the town Darien, in honor of the failed Scottish colony in Panama. Oglethorpe arrived to ceremonially lay out the town, clad in Highland regalia, and inspected kilted troops. It was recorded they wore the government sett.There has been much confusion in records, complicated by the fact that there were severel MacIntoshes and/or MacKintoshes named John or Ian. It was recorded that the town was founded in 1735, also 1736. The number of folk involved varies, as does the size of the company of soldiers. What is known for certain is that their descendants were and are a major influence in the shaping of Georgia, and lines of influence flowed into all the southern states through migration seeking farmland. If one checks the City of Darien website, please not the mayor is named "Bubba", as is one of the city council. Note for non-southerners: Bubba is a corruption of brother and is common as a family nickname; a major mark of southernness. I had a business partner in the 70s who had grown up in New Hampshire and on Cape Cod, degree in archaeology from NYU, well known in theatrical and trade show lighting circles nationwide who often said his biggest ambition was to be known as Bubba.

[Orvis]

Excellent summarization, Tripleblessed. The only thing I can add is that there is an excellently-researched book (lots of listed sources!) by Anthony W. Parker entitled "Scottish Highlanders in Colonial Georgia," (Athens, GA, University of Georgia Press, 1997). The book includes a list of Jacobite prisoners exiled to Charleston SC in 1716 (following Sheriffmuir) and a list of the Highland settlers that emigrated to Georgia through 1741.

I would point out that the Highlanders were not the core element of Oglethorpe's Regiment (the original 42nd Regiment of Foot), but instead formed the Highland Independent Company of Foot and the Highland Rangers (a mounted unit). When Oglethorpe's 42nd Regiment was disbanded in 1748 (following the War of Jenkins' Ear), the 43rd Regiment (aka The Highland Regiment, or Black Watch) was bumped up one number on the list and became the 42nd Regiment, a number to which it gave immortal fame.

[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?.....