Highlanders in the French and Indian war

[Chris Hills]

Yeah, and the more I dig into my family, the more I wonder what a scotsman is... Before the celtic influx from Ireland and the Anglo influx from the south, "scotland" was a land filled with Picts. with their own language (I saw it was called Pictish recently... anyhow a dead language completely unknown today) and their own culture and art. Then over a thousand years ago the celtic culture and Gaelic language came into the western islands and eventually highlands from Ireland (so are we highlanders really irish?). I saw some archaeological information that showed that when the Earls of Athol settled in scotland there were already Pictish ruins there so perhaps even the pictish people were still there? conquered? driven out? interbred? Also, the Anglo's moved up the east coast of "britain" into the "border region" and up to the North East coast of scotland (what some call the lowlands) bringing in their language (Inglis) and culture creating the pinch that ultimately eliminated (or assimilated?) the picts entirely. An interesting new point I stumbled across this fall though... Welsh as a language was spoken up the entire west coast of "Britain" from modern wales all the way to the Galloway region of modern Scotland. So at least in that border lowland, there was another "people group". also, don't forget the Norwegian viking conquests on both coasts. So what we call a "Scotsman" is a mix of Irish, Pict, Welsh, Anglo and Norwegian depending on where your clan was from. The Norman (french) and Roman conquests didn't make it up to scotland per se but going back far enough, I found that the Ingles language of the Anglos (pre Norman conquest which changed the language to modern english in the south) contains many "hard sounds" akin to old Germanic languages so... that might imply origins of the Anglo gennetics as well?

In any case, My point is this. My highland Donnachaidh clan is more Irish (with some norwegian and maybe pict?) and my Reiver Home clan is probably more anglo (though looking at family marriages to Robertsons, Bruces, etc. obviously some gaelic) perhaps pict? Perhaps Welsh.

So when some gaelic speaking donnachaidh's (both robertsons and colliers among other septs) and other highland clans moved into N. ireland (a century before the English king began the Ulster plantation) they were really retracing their ancestral roots. But, when the Scots speaking (the language name changed from Ingles to Scots after the norman influence created the modern english language to the south) border reiver's were "exported" or "enticed" to N. Ireland they were going to a new place.

As a side note... the "English King" that started ulster was a scot. Remember King James the VI of scotland son of Mary queen of Scots? He became King James I of england unifying the british (english, welsh, scottish and irish) crown. right, it was him... the Stewart Scottish king that began moving the Reiver's (his people as he spoke and recorded official edinburgh royal court records in the "scots language" NOT Gaelic) into Ulster (along with english and welsh people) creating the plantation.

As I spent too much time trying to dig into the ulster Historical society records in the last few months, it became clear to me that though the language became scots in the Ulster plantation (meaning that the primary culture was lowland Scottish) the names there also include many of the highland clans as well as various english, irish and welsh names. So to say it was a "british" colony wouldn't be incorrect, though our ancestors that lived there might grouse at that point. When they came to the colonies, they didn't say they were british, they described themselves as Scots-Irish (or Ulster-Scot) which at least implies something. Also, speaking only to my family's history, they were unabashedly anti-English and those sentiments passed down for several hundred years for whatever reason.

Long and short, (and without looking to cause a fight), I have concluded that there is no such thing historically or genetically as a scot per se, rather we are an amalgamation of a bunch of cultures, languages and gene pools who ended up in one place Geographically. And IF my Ulster-Scot, Kentucky frontier ancestors are any indication of what a "scotsman" is... they work hard, love to Love... and to fight, drink a lot and bet on the horses! If that is a scotsman I got a full measure of it in my blood!

[Tobus]

The emigrants described as “Ulster Scots” or “Scotch-Irish” were Presbyterians recruited from lowland Scotland to act as a buffer against the native Catholic Irish population. The principal reason for their onward emigration to America was the repressive laws introduced against non-Church of England members, ostensibly against Catholics but which similarly affected Presbyterians.
The name Kilpatrick possibly originates from the area to the north-west of Glasgow - http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/16344 - in the Scottish lowlands and is unlikely to have any Highland origins.

Kilpatrick is the name originally associated with Clan Colquhoun (Humphrey de Kilpatrick), with their lands encompassing the general area of the Kilpatrick Hills and up around the west bank of Loch Lomond at Luss, the seat of Clan Colquhoun. It actually straddles the Highland Line, with the bulk of traditional territory being north of the line. It is considered a Highland clan. So, to get technical, my ancestors could be either Highlanders or Lowlanders, depending on which side of the line they happened to live on. But the clan history suggests Highland traditions and systems.

I'm not sure it's accurate to pigeon-hole all Ulster Scots as having come from the same place, or for the same reasons. As I understood it, the recruiting of people to move to Northern Ireland was a rather wide-cast net. It also took place over a long period of time, not just one single group of people going at once.

[Chris Hills]

Hey all, Let me apologize as I feel like our thread has gone off the rails a bit and I fear we are veering ever closer to a crash. What started as a simple funny note that colonial scots had run into Scottish highlander soldiers in the Mountains of Pennsylvania over 250 years ago has turned into a wide breadth of related but sensitive topics. Highlanders vs lowlanders, Military occupation of Ireland, Scottish vs English politics, colonial vs english history, Scots vs others in ulster and now moved into religion and whether your clan is a highland one or not.

Each of these topics might be of interest to many but as with most of scottish history, I suspect each could turn into a blood letting as people with varying understanding levels and/or opinions on each topic might feel the need to defend what is "right". I recognize that we are walking on egg shells and ask that we be extra cautious here but if that isn't possible, let me know and I will shut down this thread for the sake of civility amongst our scots brethren.

Let me share some history about ulster (and the plantation), in hopes that understanding will help the civility of discourse on the topic. Many, perhaps most don't even know about the plantation. But those who do have a wide range of "knowledge" about what the plantation was about. Some will tell you it was a lowland scot "clearance". Some will tell you that it was a "border Reiver" clearance (both scot and english). Some will say it was an occupation of Ireland. Some will say it was the removal of Presbyterians from an Anglican (church of england/Scotland) country. Some will say it was the oppression of catholics. Some will say it was a land grab by the english king (both the reiver area as well as Ireland). Some will say that the ulster plantation cleared all irish from N. Ireland. Others will say that it was a scottish only settlement. Let me say this, there is a reason why there has been conflict in N. Ireland for centuries and it is all of the above and more (and less). So, let's be careful to NOT characterize Ulster as Just about religion or just about lowlanders, etc. As a soldier, I can tell you it fit a pattern of effective occupation utilized by the Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans, English and others for thousands of years. The reasons, the people involved, how long it went on... are all topics for argument.

A few historical facts might help as I wrap up. First, there was a "start" and an "end" to the plantation. Ulster existed before the plantation and continues to this day. But lets be careful not to mix up post plantation ulster activity with the plantation itself (ie initial conquest and migration plan). The plantation started in 1609 and included only six counties (whereas the "region" of Ulster actually has 9) and was a way for the "king of Scots" to reward his lowland brethren so they didn't feel neglected after he took his court to London from Edinburgh as the unified king. The intent was to resolve issues of ruling multiple countries, issues with the borders and issues with Ireland. That said, migration to other counties by oppressed presbyterian lowlanders started before the plantation to counties outside of the plantation. these are sometimes included in the later activities related to the British settlers which adds confusion but are NOT part of the plantation. Today, of the 9 counties in Ulster, only six are part of N. Ireland. 3 of the counties that were part of the plantation are now actually part of the republic of Ireland (also adding to the confusion). Also, Highlanders had been migrating back and forth prior to that and Highlanders were there (not part of the plan just simply part of the fact of geography and clan politics) throughout the "plantation period" and beyond. The Plantation migration was complete by the 1630's as waves of both political strife and subsequent religious strife (first anglican on presbyterian and then catholic on protestant) turned into wars. By 1640, what started as a unified settlement had become segmented (irish vs british and anglican vs protestant as well as catholic vs protestant. Lines were blurry as there were old school catholic scots allied with the majority irish catholics against protestant (both anglican and presbyterian) scots... though there were also a small number of Irish Protestants creating levels and depth of complexity to the issues of race, politics and religion. during the late 30's through early 50's there were waves of war in Ulster (irish armies against the british planters. British armies against the irish. Scottish presbyterian army and the kings army against cromwell and the british parliamentary army (ie british on british), etc. Post war, it was an "english anglican" led colony with all others being oppressed. Basically the plantation per se could be called done as far as the planned relocation by about 1640 with perhaps 100,000 brits (half scots) moved to Ireland. From the 1650's -1680's follow on scottish migration had slowed but the English migration expanded (mostly Quaker). none of this was part of a planned move it was just normal migration from an area of want to an area of opportunity. Then a second wave of Presbyterian Scots (mostly fleeing the famine in the border region) came from 1690-1710. Again, not part of a plan, just migration to go where there was food and opportunity. This second migration (not as part of the plantation) moved another 100,000 brits to Ireland (again about half scots). Then, as political, religious and economic issues become unbearable for our Scots ancestors, the first of a huge wave of scots moved from Ulster to the colonies. At the same time, the same issues were causing a huge wave of scots (and brits) to move from Britain proper to the colonies. I read recently as many as 500,000 scots came to the colonies during the 50 year period leading up to the Revolutionary war.

Anyhow, I share all this so that we can all be on the same page about a number of things. discussing ulster in simple terms is not possible. the ulster plantation was different than the following migrations to ulster. also the politics of ulster was different depending on the decade you discuss. The populations in ulster (part irish, part scot, part welsh, part english) was mixed with the ratios greatly changing depending on the decade. Religious control as well (catholic, presbyterian, anglican, quaker/other prot religions) had varying levels of control (and oppression) depending on the decade. The reasons for going to ulster included personal choice, coercion and outright deportation. The reasons for leaving ulster... were also as varied. So the only way to talk specifically about Ulster per se is IF you identify the specific people group and IF you identify the specific religion and IF you identify the specific decade and county. If you don't do that you can be both equally right and equally wrong in your point resulting in both support and a good fight. So, lets not mix our metaphors and lets not argue about what it was or wasn't. We can agree that it happened and we can study the history and we can say with great certainty that many of our ancestors came through there on the way to populate what eventually became the US and canada.

I appreciate your reading and hope that this allows us to move forward with a greater understanding of history but also each other's points of view which, depending on the time or place in ulster may be exactly right and completely different than your point from a different time and place in ulster!

Scots endure! chris

[huntgathergrow]

I appreciate this thread and others. I'd never considered Highlanders coming over in service to the Crown. And I didn't know that there was a Highland settlement in Georgia. So that's 2 new things for me to study!

In the last few months, I've come to understand much, much more about the history of English, Scottish, Irish & Welsh emigration to the colonies/States. Sadly, many of us descendants don't have a grasp of that history or the sensitivity and respect that the topic deserves. American history is so diverse that we can't possibly cover everything, but it is my hope that forums like this can inform and educate folks like me so that we may share that knowledge with our kith and kin.

So thank you all for sharing.

[Tobus]

Interesting that you say that the Kilpatrick region is in the Highlands.

With respect, I think if you re-read my post in more detail, you'll find that I said no such thing. I said that Kilpatrick is the name originally associated with Clan Colquhoun, and the clan lands straddle the Highland line. Or at least touch it, but the bulk of clan lands are in the Highlands.

Of course, clan lands were not always rigidly defined, and some maps show their lands as only being north of the Highland line. Others show their lands extending southward from the east bank of Loch Lomond (clearly in the Highlands) across the Highland line to the Kilpatrick region (Lowlands).

Colquhoun has always been listed by every authority as one of the Highland clans. I've actually never heard anyone say they considered it a Lowland clan. And Buchanan too? If I may ask, what's the logic behind that?

[tripleblessed]

I appreciate this thread and others. I'd never considered Highlanders coming over in service to the Crown. And I didn't know that there was a Highland settlement in Georgia. So that's 2 new things for me to study!

There is a bit of confusion about the Darien Scots in Georgia, with a variety of numbers cited. The short version is that Oglethorpe proposed a colony of opportunity for people less advantaged than many who had come to the other colonies. As a result, money was a little less than elsewhere, and there was not money for a sufficient force of soldiers. He turned to prominent Scots he knew in London, and a company was raised out of Inverness, and settled at the mouth of the Altamaha River, at the deepest natural port in the colonies. 177 folk arrived at Savannah on The Prince of Wales, IIRC, and were transshipped on smaller boats to a bluff overlooking the river. More arrived later, drawn by the promise not of mercenary wages, but the promise of potential land ownership. Not a Crown charter of land use, as in Scotland, but personal ownership. I have often seen the number 225 as the size of the military presence, with a further 225 later as replacements. Approximately half died defending the southern border against the Spanish. The company later became formalized as Oglethorpe's Regiment of Foot, the 42nd. As all are probably aware, the Spanish had arrived earlier and were not amused to find the British encroaching on what they viewed as Spanish holdings. New Inverness, as it was called began to take shape out of dense forest and swamp, filled with dangers unknown in Scotland. John Mohr MacIntosh, regarded as the leader of the effort, lost a son to an alligator. Various skirmishes and battles occurred over time as part of the War of Jenkins' Ear, including the English attempt to take St. Augustine (John Mohr was captured and held in Spain), and the Spanish attempt at taking St. Simons Island. The Battle of Bloody Marsh put a severe crimp in Spanish ambitions, and Scots secured Georgia for the English.

The settlers decided to rename the town Darien, in honor of the failed Scottish colony in Panama. Oglethorpe arrived to ceremonially lay out the town, clad in Highland regalia, and inspected kilted troops. It was recorded they wore the government sett.There has been much confusion in records, complicated by the fact that there were severel MacIntoshes and/or MacKintoshes named John or Ian. It was recorded that the town was founded in 1735, also 1736. The number of folk involved varies, as does the size of the company of soldiers. What is known for certain is that their descendants were and are a major influence in the shaping of Georgia, and lines of influence flowed into all the southern states through migration seeking farmland. If one checks the City of Darien website, please not the mayor is named "Bubba", as is one of the city council. Note for non-southerners: Bubba is a corruption of brother and is common as a family nickname; a major mark of southernness. I had a business partner in the 70s who had grown up in New Hampshire and on Cape Cod, degree in archaeology from NYU, well known in theatrical and trade show lighting circles nationwide who often said his biggest ambition was to be known as Bubba.

[Orvis]

Excellent summarization, Tripleblessed. The only thing I can add is that there is an excellently-researched book (lots of listed sources!) by Anthony W. Parker entitled "Scottish Highlanders in Colonial Georgia," (Athens, GA, University of Georgia Press, 1997). The book includes a list of Jacobite prisoners exiled to Charleston SC in 1716 (following Sheriffmuir) and a list of the Highland settlers that emigrated to Georgia through 1741.

I would point out that the Highlanders were not the core element of Oglethorpe's Regiment (the original 42nd Regiment of Foot), but instead formed the Highland Independent Company of Foot and the Highland Rangers (a mounted unit). When Oglethorpe's 42nd Regiment was disbanded in 1748 (following the War of Jenkins' Ear), the 43rd Regiment (aka The Highland Regiment, or Black Watch) was bumped up one number on the list and became the 42nd Regiment, a number to which it gave immortal fame.

[tripleblessed]

I would point out that the Highlanders were not the core element of Oglethorpe's Regiment (the original 42nd
Regiment of Foot), but instead formed the Highland Independent Company of Foot and the Highland Rangers (a mounted unit).

Apologies. As usual, I was working from memory, in the middle of the night. Proofing, saw three edits and only got to two. Oglethorpe's
Regiment of Foot was, I think, authorized after the arrival of the Highlanders in Darien. Fifth grade Georgia history was in 1958, but I have
always had the impression that the Highlanders were raised privately in an arrangement with the colony. The success there led to the
Highland Independent Company. I believe there was another Highland Independent Company in South Carolina. I think I am correct in
that the Darien troops over time were melded into a more formal standing in what became the Regiment of Foot. My thinking this does
not make me right. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. As noted earlier, records from the time as I have seen them
differ on dates, and local versions sometimes have more accuracy and sometimes don't. Official records often disagree with what was on
the ground as those involved have occasionally come to believe they were more important in the flow of events than they were, and adjustments have to be made to account for that inflation.

[Luke MacGillie]

I was one of those Highlanders you ran into at Ligioner. ;-)

The one in the tall bearskin drummers cap.

[Orvis]

I was one of those Highlanders you ran into at Ligioner. ;-)

The one in the tall bearskin drummers cap.

Very regimental, Din, very regimental, indeed! Muskets of the Crown?

I have a completely functional 77th jacket and waistcoat that I'll probably never wear again. The only reason I still have it is because a friend made it for me.

Also, after much study I've theorized that the 77th was probably an unlaced regiment (possibly except the grenadier company and musicians) until 1759, when the Board of General Officers compelled the 77th and 78th regiments to adopt regimental lace and lapels. Anyway, there it is, for whatever it's worth.