How important is the Declaration of Arbroath..

[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.

[robthehiker]

...a deeper study shows that they, like their opponents on the other side, were fighting for a cause they believed to be right.

Profound words.

[jordanjm]

I am reminded as well of Confederate Civil War speaking of the Civil War as the second American Revolutionary war. It is just a small example of how the "Victor Writes the History." I guess.

[Lachlan09]

The Declaration of Arbroath has always been deeply important and symbolic to Scottish Nationalists and the Scottish National Party, as has the Bannockburn Monument, one of their sites of annual pilgramage.

[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.

[auld argonian]

Skauwt's comment about the DoA being worked up to the advantage of the "Lairds" strikes a note...Magna Carta was the "Barons" calling the king up short and, let's face it, those gentlemen "in congreff" on 4 July, 1776 weren't exactly the rank and file...they were basically landed gentlemen who were in the top ten percent of their population.

Probably all of these situations were examples of "trickle down"...when the aristocrats shook thing up, the peons eventually got some benefit out of it.

Best

AA

[macwilkin]

Skauwt's comment about the DoA being worked up to the advantage of the "Lairds" strikes a note...Magna Carta was the "Barons" calling the king up short and, let's face it, those gentlemen "in congreff" on 4 July, 1776 weren't exactly the rank and file...they were basically landed gentlemen who were in the top ten percent of their population.

Probably all of these situations were examples of "trickle down"...when the aristocrats shook thing up, the peons eventually got some benefit out of it.

Best

AA

There's certainly some truth in that, not to mention that in the case of our founding fathers, many of them were slaveowners whilst calling for liberty and freedom. Ironically, it was the British who freed the slaves during the Revolution, and one regiment, the "Royal Ethiopians", was raised from escaped slaves in Virginia -- many of them relocated to Canada, Bermuda or the UK after the war was over.

Of course, no historic figure is perfect. As the movie "1776" rightly points out, the founders were not demigods.

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

[macwilkin]

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

Well said and spot on, David!

Todd