The Crow nation

[cavscout]

Were they Highlanders, or Ulster-Scots? The Overmountain Men were mostly Ulster-Scots, and Sevier was a Huegenot. There were Ulster-Scots who were descendants of Highlanders like the Gallowglas, but more recent immigrants from the Highlands did not usually support the Patriots.

Don't blame me; blame scholars such as Calloway, Duane Meyer, etc. There are always exceptions, but Meyer's research on the Highlander communities of NC pretty much confirm that they tended to support the Crown over their rebel neighbors.

T.

Horace Kephart also talks about this in his writings about the people of Appalachia. The common assumption is that Mountain people supported the Revolution and the Confederacy, but it was quite the opposite.

[macwilkin]

Horace Kephart also talks about this in his writings about the poeple of Appalachia. The common assumption is that Mountain people supported the Revolution and the Confederacy, but it was quite the opposite.

Oh yes -- certainly in the Civil War, the Mountaineers were not always inline with the Southern Planter aristocracy.

T.

[The Guy in the Kilt at UC]

My two favorite words in the same sentence "Free" and "Alcohol".

...provided, of course, the order of the words do not change.

[Lallans]

The family was of the Irish Catholic gentry and Jacobites, but Sir William, being the politically pragmatic fellow he was, converted to Anglicanism and abandoned most of his family's pro-Stuart leanings.

T.

Blast it, with just one click I see you're right- the name was originally something like MacShane and Johnson was an anglicization. Another happy illusion destroyed by bothersome facts! I won't be telling this to people claiming them as Scottish ancestors- but I WILL try mention it to some British-hating Irish colonial descendants I know of.

[macwilkin]

Blast it, with just one click I see you're right- the name was originally something like McShane and Johnson was an anglicization. Another happy illusion destroyed by bothersome facts! I won't be telling this to people claiming them as Scottish ancestors- but I WILL try mention it to some British-hating Irish colonial descendants I know of.

Guid on ya.

[Andy Proffitt]

Were they Highlanders, or Ulster-Scots? The Overmountain Men were mostly Ulster-Scots, and Sevier was a Huegenot. There were Ulster-Scots who were descendants of Highlanders like the Gallowglas, but more recent immigrants from the Highlands did not usually support the Patriots.

Don't blame me; blame scholars such as Calloway, Duane Meyer, etc. There are always exceptions, but Meyer's research on the Highlander communities of NC pretty much confirm that they tended to support the Crown over their rebel neighbors.

T.

I am aware of the differing loyalties of the Revolutionary period. My example of my ancestors was meant as a slight jab, all in fun.
My original statement, however, was aimed from the perspective of the Highland Scots as a race, as well as the American Indians and the Maori as warrior cultures of a similarity and who had also come into close cantact with the British. I never mentioned the Colonial period or the Revolution, because that was not the point of my statement, you brought it up. I was speaking in general racial history. Yes, many Highlanders supported the British in the Revolution. Prior to that we have various and sundry events like Glencoe and Culloden to name a few, and taking the whole of the relationship between Highlanders, Scots and the English, I hold by my characterization that the English oppressed the Scots, no matter who the Highlanders (probably Campbells Just a joke I love most children of Diarmid) supported in the Revolution.

As far as the Indians go, many sided with the British against the Americans, because of the treatment of he Indians at the hands of the colonists. They were, up to a point, British subjects in British colonies thinking and acting from a British mindset,taking the lands of the American Indian. I usually look at history of the Highland Scots from their perspective, they had their own a home till the late colonial so...British Colonies and British Subjects, British oppression of the American Indians.

Either way, the Revolution was not in my thoughts with my initial post.

[macwilkin]

I am aware of the differing loyalties of the Revolutionary period. My example of my ancestors was meant as a slight jab, all in fun.
My original statement, however, was aimed from the perspective of the Highland Scots as a race, as well as the American Indians and the Maori as warrior cultures of a similarity and who had also come into close cantact with the British. I never mentioned the Colonial period or the Revolution, because that was not the point of my statement, you brought it up. I was speaking in general racial history. Yes, many Highlanders supported the British in the Revolution. Prior to that we have various and sundry events like Glencoe and Culloden to name a few, and taking the whole of the relationship between Highlanders, Scots and the English, I hold by my characterization that the English oppressed the Scots, no matter who the Highlanders (probably Campbells Just a joke I love most children of Diarmid) supported in the Revolution.

As far as the Indians go, many sided with the British against the Americans, because of the treatment of he Indians at the hands of the colonists. They were, up to a point, British subjects in British colonies thinking and acting from a British mindset,taking the lands of the American Indian. I usually look at history of the Highland Scots from their perspective, they had their own a home till the late colonial so...British Colonies and British Subjects, British oppression of the American Indians.

Either way, the Revolution was not in my thoughts with my initial post.

That may well be, but this thread is about the connections between the First Nations and Scots, so my discussion of Highland and First Nations sympathies in the American Revolution in response to your generalizations is perfectly germane. That is why I brought up the issue that Highlanders and Indians tended to support the Crown.

As far as the Indians go, many sided with the British against the Americans, because of the treatment of he Indians at the hands of the colonists. They were, up to a point, British subjects in British colonies thinking and acting from a British mindset,taking the lands of the American Indian.

But by 1763, they were British subjects violating Crown law, namely the Proclamation of 1763, which closed the frontier in response to Pontiac's Rebellion. The British government was "protecting" the First Nations from the advances of colonial settlers, many of whom had no real love for London, to prevent something like Pontiac's War from happening again. Also, it should be noted that in the first 100 years of English settlement in North America, individual actions against First Nations were conducted by colonial authorities, who did not always act on orders from London -- in fact, those first 100 years were a period of "salutary neglect" by the Crown where colonial governments conducted their own Indian policies -- yes, they were "British" policies, but London really didn't get involved until 1763, when they suddenly found themselves between colonists and Indians.

As I tell my students, the English/British colonies were really not a unified settlement, as was New France or Spain -- different forms of government, immigration patterns, even religion -- made each colony distinct in its early history. The aforementioned salutary neglect forced the Crown to "crack down" and attempt to centralize the Empire after defeating the French in 1763, which in turn caused much of the issues behind the Revolution. For example, the Quebec Act of 1774, which never gets the publicity that the Stamp Act or Tea Act does, essentially gave the Ohio Country to Quebec, and many colonists, especially New Englanders, thought it was the first step in closing the colonial assemblies. It didn't help that the residents of Quebec, mostly French Roman Catholics, had always been one of the "boogeymen" of the New England Puritan frontier.


T.

[Lallans]

Since I'm in the habit of giving the Scots Irish (or as Cajunscot has it, 'Ulster Scots'- who to my mind are more conveniently the Irish Scots who DIDN'T come to the Americas) credit for providing the Patriots with most of the military muscle during the Revolution, I have to admit that they could also be given much of the responsibility for fighting with the Indians in the same century. I originally typed in "blame" but it was the British administrators who originally placed them on the frontier, with the notion that their centuries of cultural fighting tradition, first on the Scottish border and then in Ulster, would mean they could and would keep the natives 'under control.' And of course the Scots Irish didn't always wait for the fighting to come to them.

[macwilkin]

Since I'm in the habit of giving the Scots Irish (or as Caynscot has it, 'Ulster Scots') credit for providing the Patriots with most of the military muscle during the Revolution, I have to admit that they could also be given much of the responsibility for fighting with the Indians in the same century. I originally typed in "blame" but of course it was the British administrators who originally placed them on the frontier, with the notion that their centuries of cultural fighting tradition, first on the Scottish border and then in Ulster, would mean they would keep the natives under control. And of course the Scots Irish didn't always wait for the fighting to come to them.

Exactly. The Quakers in Pennsylvania didn't care much for the Ulster-Scots, but they didn't object to having them inbetween themselves and the Indians.

T.

[Andy Proffitt]

Sorry for the generalization, my next post will contain footnotes on all contradictions to any statement I may make.