Lowland/Scotch-Irish/American Colonists vs. Highlanders.

[MacQueennie]

[QUOTE=Luke MacGillie;1330771]"People want to belong to a tribe, its just something hardwired in our brain.

It's what drives people, myself included, to fixate, over emphasize, pick any synonym you wish on our connection to a tribe. "

So very true.

[Luke MacGillie]

This was the case with the Revolution in North Carolina. The Highland broadsword charge at Moore's Creek was met by the musket fire of backcountry militia, many of them Scotch-Irish. Similarly, in the Mecklenburg region, Scotch-Irish militia fought against Montgomery's (77th) Highlanders.

The 1st Highland Battalion, AKA the 62nd Regiment of Foot, AKA the 77th Regiment of Foot, Montgomery's Highlanders had been disbanded since 1763, so how exactly was someone fighting against that regiment in in the 75-83 period?

[davidlpope]

The 1st Highland Battalion, AKA the 62nd Regiment of Foot, AKA the 77th Regiment of Foot, Montgomery's Highlanders had been disbanded since 1763, so how exactly was someone fighting against that regiment in in the 75-83 period?

Yes, thanks for the correction. When I posted last night I was working from memory. Not a good idea so late at night. Read "71st Regiment of Foot, Fraser's Highlanders" in its place.

Good primary source material here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=nX...ctures&f=false

[MacKenzie]

It's ironic, then, that descendants of Lowland Scots and Ulster Scots in North Carolina have adopted the trappings of Highland culture (tartan, kilts, bagpipes) as a means of celebrating their own heritage.

I came across this article recently.

http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/peo...rica-1-4213493

Considering the landings and migrations pre-Revolution, it's not too difficult to see how an amalgamation of the Lowland/Ulster & Highland Scots cultures/trappings would have occurred... over here.

[davidlpope]

I came across this article recently.

http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/peo...rica-1-4213493

Considering the landings and migrations pre-Revolution, it's not too difficult to see how an amalgamation of the Lowland/Ulster & Highland Scots cultures/trappings would have occurred... over here.

But the graphic from the article shows the point explicitly: The Highlanders from the Cape Fear Region (Cross Creek and Campbelltown) duked it out during the Revolution with the Scotch-Irish in the Piedmont Backcountry (and some Lowland/Borders Scots who settled there with them). Some of the Highlanders stayed after the Revolution, some went north to Canada or back to Scotland. The two groups didn't really mix, as far as I can tell. The only thing in common was that both groups tended to be Presbyterian. Very little Episcopal or RC in either area of the state.

[MacKenzie]

The two groups didn't really mix, as far as I can tell.

Maybe so. Maybe no.

Looking at just the McKenzie's for example, there are concentrations (sorta-kinda) in the Grayson/Carroll county Va. and Rowan/Salisbury NC areas. They (we?) would have appeared to follow the Lowland/Ulster migration (and are probably where the Tennessee bunch branched off from). Then there's a bunch of McKenzies in the Cape Fear/Argyll Colony region.

Hard to say. There seems to always have been McKenzies/MacKenzies on both sides of the pitch.

[davidlpope]

Davidlpope in his original post that began this thread said: It's ironic, then, that descendants of Lowland Scots and Ulster Scots in North Carolina have adopted the trappings of Highland culture (tartan, kilts, bagpipes) as a means of celebrating their own heritage. I think that's what we are really discussing here despite the wanderings. There are reasons for the adoption and at its extreme one of those might just be that it's 'cool' to wear someone else's gear. Sort of cultural cross-dressing.

Surely they will have as much if not greater right to design and wear family tartan than a Lowland- or Ulster-origin family living in, say, North Carolina -- to keep to the OP's original point -- since named tartans came later than the settlement of North Carolina.

Rex,

Yes. You've hit the nail squarely on the head. Kilts and tartans as a symbol of "pan-Scottishness" didn't take off until well after 1822/1842/1852, depending on which date one chooses as the beginning of this fad. By that time, the descendants of Lowland and Ulster Scots had been in North Carolina for at least 50-75 years, and fought two wars against Great Britain, including bloody fights against Highlanders (e.g. Moore's Creek Bridge, New Orleans). Their identity was firmly American.

So, the adoption by the descendants of Lowland and Ulster Scots in North Carolina is doubly ill-fitted: First, their ancestors never wore the kilt. Second, the connection of tartans to those families was generations after these Lowland and Ulster Scots had left Scotland.

Although I'm part of this phenomenon, myself, I do find it curious. Perhaps better to simply dwell on the fact that kilts and bagpipes are cool.

David

[tripleblessed]

Am enjoying this thread. My Scots in this area (N.C.) lived around present-day Lumberton and Maxton, and came from
Skye and Angus in the 1770's. Some fought in the Continental Army, at least one at least abetted, maybe served,
the Loyalist side. At least one went home to Skye until the war was over. My Lowland Scots mostly came into
Virginia around 1650-1660 from the Borders. Their service was likely Continental Army, but not yet firmly established.
Early Irish lines about 1720. English lines after 1640. Earliest were Welsh, first birth here in 1609. English, Irish,
and Welsh all stood for the colonies. One Scots line, of clan Donald, arrived as a slave, sold by Cromwell after the
battle of Worcester. Likely only the Highlanders had worn kilts, but I find them comfortable, so I wear them. I don't
feel like I'm "appropriating" anything. Doesn't necessarily mean I'm not, just that it doesn't feel that way. I'm not
militant about it, don't take offense at other views, just mostly dress in kilts.