How important is the Declaration of Arbroath..

[Rob Wright]

I should think there might be great similarities between the Arbroath Declaration and the American, since many of those who signed the latter were educated in the Scottish system. The question, however, was what do Scots think of it today. Much less, I suspect, than Americans do of their Declaration. More years between, perhaps? Less impact on how we live today? Was it not set aside, as it were, at the time of the Union? In other words, the Arbroath is just another document in the history of a country with many documents.

Interesting thoughts. I know many here in the states consider landmarks that have been around for a mere twenty years to be old.

My thoughts are the value of the Arbroath Declaration lies in the influence it had over the thoughts of many great thinkers. Great thinkers who influenced the course of events and created something that continues to thrive today.

Rob

[ThistleDown]

Interesting thoughts. I know many here in the states consider landmarks that have been around for a mere twenty years to be old.

My thoughts are the value of the Arbroath Declaration lies in the influence it had over the thoughts of many great thinkers. Great thinkers who influenced the course of events and created something that continues to thrive today.

Rob

Sorry, Rob, I didn't mean to say that the Arbroath was unimportant, or that it did not influence such as the authors of the Declaration of Independance and others; I was attempting to answer the question "what does it mean to Scots today". Yes, there are many for whom it stands as a landmark document; for others it was superceded by the Union documents; for yet others the latter put finis to the former so the one of importance is much more recent; for yet another group the most important Scottish document has not yet been signed. In America, as I understand it, the entire populace is in love with the Declaration of Independance. In Scotland such is not the case regarding the Arbroath.

Rex (too)

[Rob Wright]

No need to apologize Rex, I got the gist of your post . Hence my interesting thoughts. I should of broken the rest of my post out to differentiate, alls good and wonderful

Rob

[macwilkin]

Sorry, Rob, I didn't mean to say that the Arbroath was unimportant, or that it did not influence such as the authors of the Declaration of Independance and others; I was attempting to answer the question "what does it mean to Scots today". Yes, there are many for whom it stands as a landmark document; for others it was superceded by the Union documents; for yet others the latter put finis to the former so the one of importance is much more recent; for yet another group the most important Scottish document has not yet been signed. In America, as I understand it, the entire populace is in love with the Declaration of Independance. In Scotland such is not the case regarding the Arbroath.

Rex (too)

I don't know if I'd say all Americans were "in love" with the Declaration; whilst I certainly respect and admire the sentiment behind it, I also look at it from a historian's perspective that things were not as bad as we were taught in the more traditional "patriot myth" of American history. For example, for all the talk of taxes paid by colonials, what is not told was that Britons were paying twice as much as the American colonies were, and the taxes were needed to pay for the recent French & Indian War, which the American colonists benefited the most because the end of the threat of New France.

As I tell my students, the word "Revolution" is a bit of a misnomer, as it was in fact, America's first Civil War. Many Americans saw no reason to rebel against their rightful government and actively fought against the rebels in provincial units. Whilst these people are still vilified today as "Tories", a deeper study shows that they, like their opponents on the other side, were fighting for a cause they believed to be right.

To many of my students, the events of 1776 are just an ancient as 1320 -- but really, so are the events of 1917, 1941 and 1968.

T.

[BoldHighlander]

I don't know if I'd say all Americans were "in love" with the Declaration; whilst I certainly respect and admire the sentiment behind it, I also look at it from a historian's perspective that things were not as bad as we were taught in the more traditional "patriot myth" of American history. For example, for all the talk of taxes paid by colonials, what is not told was that Britons were paying twice as much as the American colonies were, and the taxes were needed to pay for the recent French & Indian War, which the American colonists benefited the most because the end of the threat of New France.

As I tell my students, the word "Revolution" is a bit of a misnomer, as it was in fact, America's first Civil War. Many Americans saw no reason to rebel against their rightful government and actively fought against the rebels in provincial units. Whilst these people are still vilified today as "Tories", a deeper study shows that they, like their opponents on the other side, were fighting for a cause they believed to be right.

As I've read (& heard) it said, about 1/3 of the population were for the 'Revolution', 1/3 was against it, and the other 1/3 just wanted to be left alone

[ThistleDown]

I don't know if I'd say all Americans were "in love" with the Declaration; whilst I certainly respect and admire the sentiment behind it, I also look at it from a historian's perspective that things were not as bad as we were taught in the more traditional "patriot myth" of American history. For example, for all the talk of taxes paid by colonials, what is not told was that Britons were paying twice as much as the American colonies were, and the taxes were needed to pay for the recent French & Indian War, which the American colonists benefited the most because the end of the threat of New France.

As I tell my students, the word "Revolution" is a bit of a misnomer, as it was in fact, America's first Civil War. Many Americans saw no reason to rebel against their rightful government and actively fought against the rebels in provincial units. Whilst these people are still vilified today as "Tories", a deeper study shows that they, like their opponents on the other side, were fighting for a cause they believed to be right.

To many of my students, the events of 1776 are just an ancient as 1320 -- but really, so are the events of 1917, 1941 and 1968.

T.

Todd I can't find the clapping hands smiley or it would be here. Your lesson on the "Revolution" is as it is seen in Scotland: a bit more about the greed of one side, perhaps, but essentially as you are teaching.

Rex (too)

[macwilkin]

Todd I can't find the clapping hands smiley or it would be here. Your lesson on the "Revolution" is as it is seen in Scotland: a bit more about the greed of one side, perhaps, but essentially as you are teaching.

Rex (too)

Rex,

I always mention that the Black Watch took no battle honours for the Revolution, as it was a war between "kith & kin". That is straight from the regimental history.

T.

[MacBean]

In my own entirely hypothetical view of events, one aspect of the War of Independence was a translation of existing conflicts in Britain into open battled conflict in the colonies. One of the primary conflicts was between strong centralized (and efficient) government and decentralized control. This was so important it eventiually got codified in the American system where the decentralized local and state governments are strong, and sometimes at odds with the Federal government.

So the question then becomes, where in Britain was there a conflict between the strong central government and a more decentralized system? The Scottish were brought over to the colonies because they were rugged farmers, experienced fighters, who would survive in the frontier and safeguard the plantations and cities from attacks from native Americans. The Scotts (or Scotch Irish) formed the core of the militia and riflemen in the Southern War. There are certainly some who feel the war might have been lost without them, though northerners often know little of the War in the Carolinas.

I suspect that this conflict between central efficiency and individual-social freedom is ancient and continually playing out in our lives. It can be found codified in the Greek myths in the battle between Chronos and Uranus...but that is another story.

[macwilkin]

In my own entirely hypothetical view of events, one aspect of the War of Independence was a translation of existing conflicts in Britain into open battled conflict in the colonies. One of the primary conflicts was between strong centralized (and efficient) government and decentralized control. This was so important it eventiually got codified in the American system where the decentralized local and state governments are strong, and sometimes at odds with the Federal government.

So the question then becomes, where in Britain was there a conflict between the strong central government and a more decentralized system? The Scottish were brought over to the colonies because they were rugged farmers, experienced fighters, who would survive in the frontier and safeguard the plantations and cities from attacks from native Americans. The Scotts (or Scotch Irish) formed the core of the militia and riflemen in the Southern War. There are certainly some who feel the war might have been lost without them, though northerners often know little of the War in the Carolinas.

I suspect that this conflict between central efficiency and individual-social freedom is ancient and continually playing out in our lives. It can be found codified in the Greek myths in the battle between Chronos and Uranus...but that is another story.

You are 100% correct regarding the Southern Campaign of the Revolution; it looks nothing like the conventional view of the conflict. It is closer to a modern guerilla war in many ways, although Mel Gibson probably went a little too far in his portrayal in that gawdawful movie of his.

Another myth is that everyone in Great Britain marched lock step with the King against in the Americans; in fact, many people openly sympathised with the colonists and opposed the war -- Edmund Burke, William Pitt, Robert Burns. There was a long standing "country opposition" tradition, based in the Whig Party, that opposed the rise of a large, powerful and corrupt government -- and that tradition directly influenced what they think of as "American" ideas on liberty. You can't have 1776 without 1688 and even 1642 for that matter.

For the first 100-150 years of colonization, British rule over the North American colonies was very decentralised -- "salutary neglect" -- as long as the individual colonies weren't openly trading with Britain's rivals (smuggling was a different story), then London pretty much left the individual colonial assemblies to govern themselves, which caused Americans to resent London's imperial reforms after the French & Indian Wars.

To bring this back to the OP -- some scholars believe that Jefferson may (and that's a big may) have been influenced by Arbroath -- he did have several Scottish profressors at William & Mary -- but for the average Scot, especially Highlanders, I doubt they would have been aware of it -- we tend to think that John Highlandman should have sided with Yankee Doodle in 1776 because of the Jacobite Rebellions, but many Highlanders sided with the Loyalists -- some due to differences between themselves and their Ulster-Scots neighbours(religion), ideas on government(A German king is better than no king) or the fact that some pledged not to take up arms after the '45.

T.

[davidlpope]

The Scottish were brought over to the colonies because they were rugged farmers, experienced fighters, who would survive in the frontier and safeguard the plantations and cities from attacks from native Americans. The Scotts (or Scotch Irish) formed the core of the militia and riflemen in the Southern War.

-- we tend to think that John Highlandman should have sided with Yankee Doodle in 1776 because of the Jacobite Rebellions, but many Highlanders sided with the Loyalists -- some due to differences between themselves and their Ulster-Scots neighbours(religion), ideas on government(A German king is better than no king) or the fact that some pledged not to take up arms after the '45.

I just wanted to second Todd's point and urge that a clear distinction be made between the Scots Highlanders and the Scots-Irish/Ulster Scots/ Irish Presbyterians/ Northern Dissenters during the Revolution, at least in North Carolina.

The Scots Highlanders were overwhelmingly Loyalists, despite the fact that many of the key Highland leaders (Flora MacDonald's husband, for one) had risen against the Hanoverians in the '45. They settled in the Cross Creek-Campbelltown area of NC (now Fayetteville) and managed to keep spoken Scots Gaelic alive in that area through the mid-nineteenth century.
The biggest engagement involving Scots Highlanders was Moore's Creek Bridge, which featured the last highland broadsword charge in history (ironic that it took place in America...).

The Scots-Irish, on the other hand, were much more inclined to the Revolutionary cause, and tended to settle in the backcounty after having traveled south from Pennsylvania and Virginia down the Great Wagon Road. Their style of guerrila warfare/ long rifle prowess/ buffer to the Native Americans/ folk culture/ music is what is often immortalized as emblematic of frontier culture (Davy Crocket, Hatfields and McCoys, etc.)

We tend to lump these groups together (as well as obliterate the distinctions between Borderers, Lowlanders, Highlanders, Islanders, etc.) as a result of a Pan-Scottish consciousness, or perhaps through American ignorance, but historically there were very clear distinctions. All that being said, I think that it's a better bet (if one is going to generalize) to say that, in the American Colonies, Highlanders supported the Crown and the Scots-Irish fought against it.

Cordially,

David