Kilts in the American Revolution?

[macwilkin]

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

Chris,

I'm going to answer your last question first: Yes, I believe it is possible for someone with Ulster-Scottish heritage to wear a kilt even though the Ulster-Scots generally shunned their Highland neighbours; the kilt has become a symbol of Scottish heritage, adopted by Highlander, Lowlander, Borderer and Ulster-Scot. Many a Lowland and Border family (Maxwells, Armstrongs, Scotts, etc.) have adopted their own tartans and wear Highland attire. The key is that historically, the Lowland Scots who immigrated to Ulster would most likely have not identified with the "Redshanks" above the Highland line. The problem comes when some claim that the Scots-Irish historically wore kilts, which most historians, such as Leyburn, say is simply not so.

Now, as to your comments about my field, history: I disagree with your defintions, because historians also look at the "why" behind the story as well. In my own field, military history, historians are now examning the "social" aspects of military history, such as motivation, esprit-de-corps, the role the community, and a return to the study of the common soldier, as well as the traditional "big picture" of battles, tactics and generals. This is done through the examination of the primary sources you have mentioned, which I have worked with myself as well throughout my undergraduate and graduate career; soldier's letters, journals and diaries; Veteran's newspapers, such as the National Tribune; Newspapers, Official Reports, etc. I believe, as you do, that history must be used to tell the story behind the story, but there also has to be documented facts behind it as well. American Studies really sounds like another name for the history I learned in university, as a local history librarian, National Park Service Ranger and History instructor.

So, history and American studies have much more in common than you would imagine. In fact, as a community college history instructor, I am not a typical "academic" historian by any means. History is a well-told story, and belongs to the people. I try to teach it way.

So, I think we're probably closer than we think.

Regards,

Todd

[MacWage]

To reinforce that Cajun and repeat myself:

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

In short:
"History is the study of EVERYTHING"
Too bad one can't remember it all! :rolleyes:
__________________

[macwilkin]

In short:

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

I used to have a geography professor who used to say that "Geography was the Queen of Academic Disciplines", but I think you can make a good arguement for history being that as well.

T.

[Chris Webb]

McWage and cajunscot, I salute you both. I've really enjoyed this thread and share your deep appreciation of history ... we really are closer than I thought. It's a cool thing, though, that we are not shackled to the past, that we are free to enjoy things that our ancestors were not. That the kilt is something that we now all have in common speaks well of the kilt itself, it's comfort and durability and practicallity.

Despite disagreements here at this forum, our love of kilting has a way of keeping us all as one ... Scots, Irish, Scots-Irish, or not even Scot at all, may the brotherhood of the kilted continue to grow. May those things that we have in common become more and more evident to us all.

All the Best and Kilt On!

Chris Webb

[Sylvain]

I saw this too. I knew that British forces had kilted troops in North America during both the French-Indian War and the American Revolution. But during the Revolution, were there any kilted American troops.

Here in Québec, we know there were Scottish soldiers with the British army, in this war you Americans call French and Indian war, that is called Guerre de Sept ans in France and simply Conquête here. After the war, those who were in Quebec City were the first to play curling, in Winter, using old canon balls (?).

[Magnus Sporrano]

But Scots/Irish sided with the Colonists.

The colonists were pretty well split between loyalists and patriots.

Do you mean to imply that the Scots Irish sided with the patriots?

EDIT: I shoud amend my assertion - The colonists who cared about who ruled them were pretty well split between loyalist and patriot ideals. The majority of American colonists, much like today, didn't much care and just wanted the issue to go away.

[HeathBar]

The colonists were pretty well split between loyalists and patriots.

Do you mean to imply that the Scots Irish sided with the patriots?

EDIT: I shoud amend my assertion - The colonists who cared about who ruled them were pretty well split between loyalist and patriot ideals. The majority of American colonists, much like today, didn't much care and just wanted the issue to go away.

I guess I've just been a little to vague in my replies. Sorry about that. Yes I had read that a majority of the Scotch/Irish sided with the Patriots. (the revolutionary Patriots, not the New England Patriots )

[Chris Webb]

I guess I've just been a little to vague in my replies. Sorry about that. Yes I had read that a majority of the Scotch/Irish sided with the Patriots. (the revolutionary Patriots, not the New England Patriots )

Yep, the modern Scots-Irish all side with the Dallas Cowboys!!

Chris Webb

[MacWage]

So, to sum up, the consenses seems to be:

Kilts were definately worn by Scottish highlander units.
Kilts are worn by loyalists who acted as a highlander unit

There were no kilted units of the regular patriot army
there were patriots who were patriots and wore kilts,
BUT there is no evidence, yet found, of kilts being worn in combat by patriots.



Note-> I use the term Patriots and Loyalists quite intentionally. Both terms are contemporary, show allegience in a positive manner, and are easily identifyable as to which side they were on. These terms also show the pressures and mixed feelings of the times. Today, to be patriotic and loyal are virtually synonymous, yet then they were not. There was loyalty to the crown verses patriotic sentiment to the American ideals. Other terms are much more confusing and/or reflect the speaker's bias (using negative terms).

[MacWage]

(July 4th Bump)