Kilts in the American Revolution?

[Joe Gondek]

There was a kilted loyalist highland unit rasied in North Carolina
also as one raised in Canada

Georgia also had Kilted Miliitia in 1742

[Chris Webb]

Here's a specifid officer kilted: Malcolm, William (Brig.Gen.) - Member of St. Andrew’s Society (New York?) Commanded the military escort of George Washington becoming President, wearing a Scottish-type military uniform, including a kilt.

Chris Webb

[Chris Webb]

Well, I've spent hours trying to find what I know I saw in writing about some Scots-Irish patriots requesting to wear the 'garb of their fathers' instead of the normal uniform of Washington's army. What I read even said something about how the kilted soldiers faired better, health wise, through the cold winter than the trousered soldiers.

The only place I think I may have read this was in James Webb's book, Born Fighting ... of course, I can't even find my copy of that book now. If anyone has it, could you please take a look in the chapter about the Scots-Irish and the American Revolution, maybe it's there.

Man, I've been Googling for so long now that when I stand up everything in my office looks like it is scrolling down.

Chris Webb

[HeathBar]

Is that "Colonials" AKA "PATRIOTS" and "Whigs" (also a contemporary Brit political party)?

"American" can apply to loyalists and patriots alike.

Yes, I meant Patriots or Colonials. I just couldn't think of the word at the time.
I too, had read, in How Scots Invented the Modern World, that during the Revolution, Scots living in the colonies remain loyal to the king. But Scots/Irish sided with the Colonists.

[MacWage]

This is a brief aside. To finish my second masters, I did a research project on the Associate Presbyterians and the Reformed Presbyterians in the Southern campaign of 1780/81.

I was examining the myth/legend that the "dissenent presbyterians" (these two groups) were patriot to a man and the backbone of the patriot army. As many were Scots who came through Ireland, many called them Irish presbyterians (as opposed to the Church of Scotland) or simply "Irish" (to seperate them from the main presbyterian body). Others came direct from Scotland, though they were still called by these names, showing a religious distiction, rather than racial/national.

I found that there was a split among these bodies, as with most. A notable figure is the Reformed/ Covenanter preacher William Martin, who was arrested as a patriot. There was also a notable Tory pastor, who served a church that came out as pretty much patriot when the British army forced the issue. He served several churches and wasn't ran off from them until 1781 or even 1782! He died in 1782, on the return ship to Britain.

I found a remarkable number of congregations that tried to skirt the issue until the last possible moment, showing a congregation of mixed sentiments. When the time came to force issue (namely Tarleton and Cornwallis coming to the immediate vacinity), most came out as patriot, BUT NOT ALL. One church, in Vidette, Georgia (near Augusta) was Loyalist, while its yoked partner 8 miles away was solidly Patriot. The Loyalists went to one and the Patriots the other, with members passing one to get to the other. Up until the issue was forced, both were served by the Tory pastor, as well as Long Cane (the home of the Calhoun family-famous in the years between then and the Civil War/War between the States). After the war, these same churches called another pastor to serve BOTH.

Of note was the RAPID rise in the legend, that by only a few years later it was preached and, suddenly, the loyalists were converted into patriots. I believe that this was deliberate to repair burned bridges and reconcile old friends. The relavent church histories are remakably silent or evasive about that period, though it was EXTREMELY important to the communities. Such is stark in relation to the complexity and detail immediately before and after the war. It looks EXTREMELY deliberate.

In short, it was not as clean and easy as:
"Scotch-Irish"/Presbyterians-> Patriot
"Scots"/"Highlanders"-> Loyalists

The Cape Fear Scots (including Flora MacDonald) were by a vast majority Loyalists.
The rest of the Scottish immigants were much more mixed.

By and large, the Loyalists either moved back to Britain, to Canada, to another area under assumed histories, or fought to rebuild lost friedships (not something easily done). A simple way to see the mixing of people is the post war exodus of Loyalists and the mix of people who were patriots and stayed.

To get back of topic-> the "Western" highlanders were mentioned in "From Sterling to New Stirling" (the history of the New Stirling ARP Church in Stoney Point, North Carolina). I can't locate the book for some reason or another, otherwise I would quote it directly. Also, nearby is New Perth In Troutman, North Carolina. Both setlements included Covenanter and other like minded Highlanders. Upon investigation, I was told some of the early sessional records were in Gaelic and contemporary records describe Kilt and bonnet wearing dirk wielding highlanders as church members in both of these areas BEFORE the war.

These towns are, generally, near Charlotte, North Carolina, which was settled in the years right before the war, by many Scots of both Highland and Lowland descent. It was also the area to which the general fled after Camden and the destination that Cornwallis hoped to go after leaving South Carolina. South Carolina, however, held him and the army in that state for a year, instead of letting them march out in a mater of weeks, much to the death and destruction of the state and its people. Patriots and Loyalists came to help/hinder from Georgia and North Carolina.

What I do not know is if any of these kilt wearing Reformed Presbyterian Scots actually fought garbed as such in actual combat during the Revolution/American Rebellion. But, if there were kilted Patriots, these make ideal candidates. The history I read made no mention of it either way, only that these highlanders fought as patriots.

Does anyone here know any answers? Or come across anything?

[macwilkin]

Well, I've spent hours trying to find what I know I saw in writing about some Scots-Irish patriots requesting to wear the 'garb of their fathers' instead of the normal uniform of Washington's army. What I read even said something about how the kilted soldiers faired better, health wise, through the cold winter than the trousered soldiers.

The only place I think I may have read this was in James Webb's book, Born Fighting ... of course, I can't even find my copy of that book now. If anyone has it, could you please take a look in the chapter about the Scots-Irish and the American Revolution, maybe it's there.

Man, I've been Googling for so long now that when I stand up everything in my office looks like it is scrolling down.

Chris Webb

Chris,

As I've mentioned before, James Webb's book is not a reliable source on the history of the Ulster-Scots. I would suggest you take a look at James Leyburn's "The Scotch-Irish: a Social History". Leyburn is pretty clear in his statement that in general, the Lowlanders & Borderers who moved to the Ulster plantation did not wear Highland garb for the specific reason that it was associated with Highlanders. Other good resources are Celeste Ray's "Highland Heritage: Scottish Americans in the American South", James Hunter's "A Dance Called America", and David Fischer's "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in North America". Much better resources than Webb's book, INHMO.

Here's a specifid officer kilted: Malcolm, William (Brig.Gen.) - Member of St. Andrew’s Society (New York?) Commanded the military escort of George Washington becoming President, wearing a Scottish-type military uniform, including a kilt.

Chris Webb

Sorry, but this really doesn't prove your statement. I've seen the depiction of this individual in Bruce's "How the Scots invented the modern world", but one officer doesn't mean that kilts were prevelent in the American forces. We see this all the time in the reenacting/living history community; someone will drag up a very obscure and unusal photograph of a garment, or a reference in a primary source. A sutler, a vendor of CW kit, will then make hundreds of reproductions, and pretty soon, it would appear that every soldier had the item. The question one should ask is: how common was this? Common enough to give a general potrayal of the time period? Am I presenting a historically-correct impression to the public? Not that anyone here is doing that, but I make the illustration for my point: how common was it? Could I take it to one of my professors or an NPS historian and make the statement that American soldiers wore kilts in the Revolution?

One post-war example does not make a case for the kilt being worn en masse in the American Army of the Revolution. I don't doubt the story at all, but I wouldn't base my arguement on it. Could there have been kilts worn by Patriot Americans in the Revolution? I suppose it's possible, but until we have a primary source (a document from that period, letter, diary, etc.), we really can't say for certain that "yes, they did".

If you can find your document, I'd love to see it, as would a number of folks in the Revolutionary War reenacting community, NPS Historians at Revy War sites, etc. Until then, I'm just not comfortable as a historian to say for certain that they did. If you find it, and it's pretty conclusive, then as a historian, I will be elated to see it. Until then, I remain skeptical.

McWage: I would be curious to see your research and findings. Interesting stuff. It sounds like you have done your homework, good on ya!

Regards,

Todd

[MacWage]

Thanks!!! :mrgreen:

I was researching something else, not really relevant for this topic. I just found that tidbit. Now, I can't even find that book-in in one of my stacks . . . SOMEWHERE :confused: . It also isn't really about this topic either, just local church histories. Yet, it hit something I had never heard before:
Highlanders definately in the Covenanter/Suceeder lines.
And the use of gaelic and true highlander garb where I wasn't expecting it.

Most of these were lowlanders, or the highland line area. The Mearns and that area may have been the only proven area of Highland covenanters. The vast majority of highlanders were episcopal/Catholic, or "nominal" presbyterians (often associated with political and social alliances). Some of the Campbells were proven to be genuine in their religious beliefs (and acted at GREAT personal risk), while others are more questionable. Anti-Argyles would chose sides because that hated the argyles. (Argyle Campbells were Covenanters and Government troops at Culloden, which would be enough for many to side against them)

In short, things are often/always much more complex than they seem. Also, one statement/proof does not make a rule.

That general facts->
Most Carolina highlanders were Jacobites that settled on the North Carolina sand hill country (generally near Cape Fear). Ironically, they generally sided with the Hanovarian government as Loyalists. This includes the famed Flora MacDonald (made famous for sheltering Prince Charlie), who left North carolina after the war, with her new husband.

Yet, no one has shown any documented evidence of kilted patriot colonials. I partially suspect that there may have been a hesitancy to don kilts for the connections to the Black Watch/Highland troops (in red jackets) who DID serve in the Carolinas. They may look to "British" in the distance.

By the way, many general Scottish/Scottish-American/Scotch-Irish books are good and well documented, but WAY to general for this question. One needs to look it up in Revolution specific books (a weak point in my personal library).

Anyone study Charlotte, North Carolina settlement?
Anyone know of troops from the Stoney Point/Troutman (North Carolina) area-either side? Which regiments they served with and battles fought in to aid in cross-references?

Neither of these have been the object of much research for me (at least not enough for confidence). I know a few of you are MUCH more experts in this war than myself-> what do ya'll know?


PS->
Biology of the Study of lifeforms
Chemistry is the Study of chemicals
Musciology is the study of music in all its forms
Vexiology is the study of flags, iconography, and symbols
Psychology is the study of the mind
Philosophy is the study of thought
Sociology is the study of human interaction
Anthropology is the study of mankind (to be PC about it)
Theology is the study of God
(list continues . . . on . . . and . . . on)

History is all of the above

"History is the study of EVERYTHING"
Too bad one can't remember it all!

[bubba]

This is just my thought on the subject, I haven't researched it. If any colonials wore kilts in battle they would likely have been irregular troops or local militia, not Continental Army. An example of the irregulars would be the overmountain men that fought Ferguson at Kings Mountain. I've never heard of the kilt being part of any Continental uniform.

[g koch]

Thought I'd throw some kilted loyalist links in this mix. They were Americans as well.

http://www.geocities.com/piseag/84th_Fun.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/84th_Re...land_Emigrants)

Saw some model soldiers once with dark kilts, green coats and black tricorns and now i know what they were.

[Chris Webb]

Chris,

As I've mentioned before, James Webb's book is not a reliable source on the history of the Ulster-Scots. I would suggest you take a look at James Leyburn's "The Scotch-Irish: a Social History". Leyburn is pretty clear in his statement that in general, the Lowlanders & Borderers who moved to the Ulster plantation did not wear Highland garb for the specific reason that it was associated with Highlanders. Other good resources are Celeste Ray's "Highland Heritage: Scottish Americans in the American South", James Hunter's "A Dance Called America", and David Fischer's "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in North America". Much better resources than Webb's book, INHMO.



Sorry, but this really doesn't prove your statement. I've seen the depiction of this individual in Bruce's "How the Scots invented the modern world", but one officer doesn't mean that kilts were prevelent in the American forces. We see this all the time in the reenacting/living history community; someone will drag up a very obscure and unusal photograph of a garment, or a reference in a primary source. A sutler, a vendor of CW kit, will then make hundreds of reproductions, and pretty soon, it would appear that every soldier had the item. The question one should ask is: how common was this? Common enough to give a general potrayal of the time period? Am I presenting a historically-correct impression to the public? Not that anyone here is doing that, but I make the illustration for my point: how common was it? Could I take it to one of my professors or an NPS historian and make the statement that American soldiers wore kilts in the Revolution?

One post-war example does not make a case for the kilt being worn en masse in the American Army of the Revolution. I don't doubt the story at all, but I wouldn't base my arguement on it. Could there have been kilts worn by Patriot Americans in the Revolution? I suppose it's possible, but until we have a primary source (a document from that period, letter, diary, etc.), we really can't say for certain that "yes, they did".

If you can find your document, I'd love to see it, as would a number of folks in the Revolutionary War reenacting community, NPS Historians at Revy War sites, etc. Until then, I'm just not comfortable as a historian to say for certain that they did. If you find it, and it's pretty conclusive, then as a historian, I will be elated to see it. Until then, I remain skeptical.

McWage: I would be curious to see your research and findings. Interesting stuff. It sounds like you have done your homework, good on ya!

Regards,

Todd

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