US Civil War Highland Regiments

[Colonel MacNeal]

Ladies and Gents,
I know there was a Union highland regiment, the 79th New York, and Irish regiments on both sides, ---- but was there a Confederate highland regiment?
Cheers, ColMac

[Sir William]

Not to my knowledge. I've been studying the Late Unpleasantness for a good 30 years - with a particular interest in uniforms - and I've never heard of a Confederate Highland regiment.

There were certainly Scots and those of Scottish heritage in the Confederate service, but not organized as a "Scottish" regiment in the sense of wearing tartan and having pipes. (I've seen photographs of Confederate soldiers wearing checked trousers - but not tartan)

[macwilkin]

Not to my knowledge. I've been studying the Late Unpleasantness for a good 30 years - with a particular interest in uniforms - and I've never heard of a Confederate Highland regiment.

There were certainly Scots and those of Scottish heritage in the Confederate service, but not organized as a "Scottish" regiment in the sense of wearing tartan and having pipes. (I've seen photographs of Confederate soldiers wearing checked trousers - but not tartan)

I just found a reference to a couple of Scottish companies in South Carolina in Ron Field's The Confederate Army 1861-65 (1): South Carolina & Mississippi (Osprey Publishing). Field quotes an article from an 1870 issue of the Scottish American Journal which describes the uniform of the Union Light Infantry (so-named to honour the Union of England & Scotland in 1707) which wore trews in Government Sett, bonnets and thistle buttons on their coats. Field also mentions the The Highland Guard, established in 1857, and evidently wore a uniform based on the 42nd Regiment's (The Black Watch) uniform.

Personally I would take this with a dose of salts until I could see Field's sources. I doubt that such uniforms were worn in combat, but it would be an interesting research project nonetheless.

Regards,

Todd

[ForresterModern]

I too have been a student of the great conflict since I was old enough to start reading history books. Although there is far less written about the Confederate troop organizations, etc., than the comparable Union ones, the confederates were far more "confederated" so to speak on the basis of their states' soveriegnty than the Union. The Scottish ancestry was by that time fairly remote historically as most had been arriving in the US, and the South primarily, from 1700 or so on, so they were settled southern americans (or better Virginians, Carolineans, Tennesseeans, Texans, etc.) of scottish descent more than recent immigrants, with little ties to their " homeland". Most had left Scotland/NOrthern Ireland under less than happy circumstances to come to the Americas and now were settled and proud of and very defensive of their current situations at the start of the war, and far from thier heritage roots as communities. Many units in the Union Army, on the other hand, were raised directly from immigrants or their first generation american offspring (e.g. the famed Irish Brigade) or from very cloistered prior immigrant groups (pennsylvania dutch or minnesota swedes) and so had a much more ethnically patchwork nature, with loyalties to both their heritage and to the Union. Also the North was far more filled with a recent immigrant populace due to the much higher percentage of industrial jobs requiring cheap labor (immigrants) to fire that industrial engine, and so were much more prone to develop ethnically based units. Lastly, the final wave of scottish immigrants to the US came just before the war, along with the great Irish immigration, and most of those, for reasons cited above ended up in the North where the industrial jobs were rather than the south where labor was primarily based on the slavery model.

So it should be no wonder that the North would field such defined ethnic units as the New York Highlanders, the famed Irish Brigade, etc... while the south fielded homegrown southern boys from families who had been around for, in many cases, a hundred or more years and essentially eschewed their ethnicity for loyalty to their new found freedom and independence with the first and second generations after the Revolutionary War. They were much more beholden to one another as Virginians, Carolineans, and Southerners in general rather than to any distant past heritage.

The Union army was filled with a lot of fresh international accents in the voices of their troops while the south had one uniform accent, the southern drawl (this was a paraphrase of a comment made by a Union commander on why the Union, despite usually having the numerical and technical advantages in almost every battle, often had communication breakdowns and less than optimal support from the adjacent units while the underfed and usually outnumbered confederates worked much better as a whole army and pulled off so many miraculous battle wins under less than ideal circumstances).

[macwilkin]

I too have been a student of the great conflict since I was old enough to start reading history books. Although there is far less written about the Confederate troop organizations, etc., than the comparable Union ones, the confederates were far more "confederated" so to speak on the basis of their states' soveriegnty than the Union. The Scottish ancestry was by that time fairly remote historically as most had been arriving in the US, and the South primarily, from 1700 or so on, so they were settled southern americans (or better Virginians, Carolineans, Tennesseeans, Texans, etc.) of scottish descent more than recent immigrants, with little ties to their " homeland". Most had left Scotland/NOrthern Ireland under less than happy circumstances to come to the Americas and now were settled and proud of and very defensive of their current situations at the start of the war, and far from thier heritage roots as communities. Many units in the Union Army, on the other hand, were raised directly from immigrants or their first generation american offspring (e.g. the famed Irish Brigade) or from very cloistered prior immigrant groups (pennsylvania dutch or minnesota swedes) and so had a much more ethnically patchwork nature, with loyalties to both their heritage and to the Union. Also the North was far more filled with a recent immigrant populace due to the much higher percentage of industrial jobs requiring cheap labor (immigrants) to fire that industrial engine, and so were much more prone to develop ethnically based units. Lastly, the final wave of scottish immigrants to the US came just before the war, along with the great Irish immigration, and most of those, for reasons cited above ended up in the North where the industrial jobs were rather than the south where labor was primarily based on the slavery model.

So it should be no wonder that the North would field such defined ethnic units as the New York Highlanders, the famed Irish Brigade, etc... while the south fielded homegrown southern boys from families who had been around for, in many cases, a hundred or more years and essentially eschewed their ethnicity for loyalty to their new found freedom and independence with the first and second generations after the Revolutionary War. They were much more beholden to one another as Virginians, Carolineans, and Southerners in general rather than to any distant past heritage.

The Union army was filled with a lot of fresh international accents in the voices of their troops while the south had one uniform accent, the southern drawl (this was a paraphrase of a comment made by a Union commander on why the Union, despite usually having the numerical and technical advantages in almost every battle, often had communication breakdowns and less than optimal support from the adjacent units while the underfed and usually outnumbered confederates worked much better as a whole army and pulled off so many miraculous battle wins under less than ideal circumstances).

Well done, Sir!

T.

[Riverkilt]

One would guess with all the Confederate Memorial tartan kilts sold of late it shouldn't be difficult to mount a modern regiment in that tartan kilt - even though it isn't authentic.

And, I doubt I will ever forget being flown down to Corpus Christi Naval Air Station as a NROTC Midshipman. They held a dance for us and brought in local girls (think Officer and a Gentleman). So I'm dancing with a lovely girl from South Texas and she looks up at me and drawls, "Bowy, Yallll Nowrthern boyes shore dew hayave an axe-sent."

Ron

[macwilkin]

One would guess with all the Confederate Memorial tartan kilts sold of late it shouldn't be difficult to mount a modern regiment in that tartan kilt - even though it isn't authentic.

As a former living historian, I hope to never see that that sight at a reenactment.

T.

[Riverkilt]

Easy big fella...easy...

Sorry, wasn't clear. For some seperate gig. Had no thought that it would be somehow merged into a reenactment. Maybe for parades or something....and clearly set forth as a memorial unit rather than reenactment.

Ron

[macwilkin]

Easy big fella...easy...

Sorry, wasn't clear. For some seperate gig. Had no thought that it would be somehow merged into a reenactment. Maybe for parades or something....and clearly set forth as a memorial unit rather than reenactment.

Ron

Aye, Ron...but believe me, I know of some reenactors who would do it just because it looks "cool", regardless of the historical authenticity.

I've seen pipers wear it, and they look quite natty. I'd love to see a piper in a Federal Memorial tartan as well, since I tend to favor it.

Todd

*A proud Iowa mudsill married to a Louisiana Cajun girl

[Riverkilt]

The Federal Memorial tartan is on my short list to honor my two great great grandfathers who served from Illinois and Ohio. The former in Tennessee and the later defending D.C. against Early.

The Illinois guy came home and named his first son Grant after U.S. Grant and that name has come down through the generations to be a middle name for my father, myself, my daughter, and my granddaughter.

The Federal Memorial tartan made more sense to me than the Grant clan tartan.

Ron