The Clearances

[JS Sanders]

Nick,
The Hebrides were cleared along with much of the Highlands and the inhabitants replaced with sheep and sometimes deer for sportsmen. Over 40,000 were evicted on Skye alone.

I spent a good portion of a trip to Scotland there. The Outer Hebrides look much like the moon in places, only wetter.

It's bleak and the hills are little but scorrie covered, but as Buzz Aldrin described the moon's surface, it's "magnificent desolation".

Slainte,
steve

[Nick the DSM]

Nick,
The Hebrides were cleared along with much of the Highlands and the inhabitants replaced with sheep and sometimes deer for sportsmen. Over 40,000 were evicted on Skye alone.

I spent a good portion of a trip to Scotland there. The Outer Hebrides look much like the moon in places, only wetter.

It's bleak and the hills are little but scorrie covered, but as Buzz Aldrin described the moon's surface, it's "magnificent desolation".

Slainte,
steve

thats what i meant...i think.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Todd,
Thanks for the kudos!

I've always found it interesting that many of those agitating for "revolution" at the time of the founding of the United States seem to have been millionaire land owners, shipping tycoons, and politically powerful lawyers/legislators. Now it is a matter of fact that from the establishment of the Jamestown Colony in 1608 until the Declaration of Independence in 1776 not a single gentleman in the whole of the North American colonies was elevated to the peerage, and only one (!) received a knighthood.

I can not help but wonder if a liberal sprinkling of coronets and k's (as was the case in Ireland during the same period) might not have forestalled the eventual rupture that occurred between the colonies and the Mother country?

And had the revolution failed, do you suppose that we would now be wringing our hands over the Great North American clearances? Perhaps from our home in Barbados or elsewhere in the Empire?

Scott

[macwilkin]

Todd,
Thanks for the kudos!

I've always found it interesting that many of those agitating for "revolution" at the time of the founding of the United States seem to have been millionaire land owners, shipping tycoons, and politically powerful lawyers/legislators. Now it is a matter of fact that from the establishment of the Jamestown Colony in 1608 until the Declaration of Independence in 1776 not a single gentleman in the whole of the North American colonies was elevated to the peerage, and only one (!) received a knighthood.

I can not help but wonder if a liberal sprinkling of coronets and k's (as was the case in Ireland during the same period) might not have forestalled the eventual rupture that occurred between the colonies and the Mother country?

And had the revolution failed, do you suppose that we would now be wringing our hands over the Great North American clearances? Perhaps from our home in Barbados or elsewhere in the Empire?

Scott

Noted military historian Don Higginbotham addresses this issue in his book George Washington and the American Military Tradition. Higginbotham suggests that had Washington received a commission in the British Army, he probably would have not joined the rebels -- granted, it's been years since my military history class where I read this book, but it made a pretty profound impression on me.

And again, you are spot on -- most of the rebel leaders were the wealthy landowners and merchants, many of whom were in debt to London, Liverpool and Glasgow firms as they tried to duplicate "the good life" of Britain in wild America. In the Hudson River Valley, the Ango-Dutch patricians, the Lords of the Hudson, were the rebels, while their tenants remained loyal. Slaves rallied to Lord Dunmore of Virginia, who promised them freedom if they would serve in a loyalist "Ethiopian" regiment.

How does this tie into the Scots? Well, most Highlanders who immigrated also remained loyal to the crown, for various reasons. The very people you would expect to rebel -- didn't.

Regards,

Todd

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Slaves rallied to Lord Dunmore of Virginia, who promised them freedom if they would serve in a loyalist "Ethiopian" regiment.

Todd-- I must know more! Please PM me the details.
Best regards
Scott

[ForresterModern]

Well, most Highlanders who immigrated also remained loyal to the crown, for various reasons. The very people you would expect to rebel -- didn't.

Regards,

Todd

Not necessarily true. Most historians believe that many scots and scots-irish did rebel and actually made up as much as 40% of the continental army. They came to america originally seeking freedoms not allowed them in their homelands-----namely land availability to farm and religious freedom (calvinists vs british Anglican) not the least. They may not have been the actual instigators fomenting dissent and rebellion---those were the wealthy english-derived landed gentry looking after their own businesses and lifestyles, but the supporting populace and backbone of the actual army was in large part scots or scots irish.

[macwilkin]

Not necessarily true. Most historians believe that many scots and scots-irish did rebel and actually made up as much as 40% of the continental army. They came to america originally seeking freedoms not allowed them in their homelands-----namely land availability to farm and religious freedom (calvinists vs british Anglican) not the least. They may not have been the actual instigators fomenting dissent and rebellion---those were the wealthy english-derived landed gentry looking after their own businesses and lifestyles, but the supporting populace and backbone of the actual army was in large part scots or scots irish.

Sources, please?

You are confusing two distinct groups -- Highlanders and Ulster-Scots. The former were mostly Episcopalian or Roman Catholic in religion, the latter Presbyterian. The two groups had very little in common, and the Highlanders did not share the Ulster-Scots' revolutionary zeal. Also, Most Highlanders had no notion of republicanism that the Ulster-Scots embraced.

Sure, some Highlanders did embrace the cause, Hugh Mercer, for example, an ex-Jacobite, but most remained neutral or did fight for the crown.

You are quite correct that the Ulster-Scots did make up a huge part of the rebel forces -- one MP said, "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and there is nothing we can do about it". But I'm afraid I cannot agree with your claim that Highland Scots overwhelmingly embraced the rebellion.

You might wish to take a look at Duane Meyer's The Highland Scots of North Carolina, one of the best studies of Highland immigration out there.

Again, I'd love to see your sources.

Regards,

Todd

[James MacMillan]

Sources, please?

You are confusing two distinct groups -- Highlanders and Ulster-Scots. The former were mostly Episcopalian or Roman Catholic in religion, the latter Presbyterian. The two groups had very little in common, and the Highlanders did not share the Ulster-Scots' revolutionary zeal. Also, Most Highlanders had no notion of republicanism that the Ulster-Scots embraced.

Sure, some Highlanders did embrace the cause, Hugh Mercer, for example, an ex-Jacobite, but most remained neutral or did fight for the crown.

You are quite correct that the Ulster-Scots did make up a huge part of the rebel forces -- one MP said, "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and there is nothing we can do about it". But I'm afraid I cannot agree with your claim that Highland Scots overwhelmingly embraced the rebellion.

You might wish to take a look at Duane Meyer's The Highland Scots of North Carolina, one of the best studies of Highland immigration out there.

Again, I'd love to see your sources.

Regards,

Todd

Sources, please?

[Bellfree]

How does this tie into the Scots? Well, most Highlanders who immigrated also remained loyal to the crown, for various reasons. The very people you would expect to rebel -- didn't.

Regards,

Todd

Pages 150 to 154 of Meyer's book, The Highland Scots of North Carolina 1732- 1776, describes 3 reasons, at least for North Carolina Scots: 1. some Highlanders (Campbells) had it as it as "part of their tradition to defend the HOuse of Hanover." 2. "The fear of reprisal was probably a second factor....No group of people in the empire was any better acquainted with the painful aftermath of an unsuccessful revolution than the Highlanders....Even though Highlanders who were too young to remember the Forty-five had heard many stories of the brutalities, atrocities and destruction inflicted by the British Army under the Duke of Cumberland." 3. [The NC governor's policy of land grants] " must have been a third factor in influencing some of the Highlanders....the pressure of population and the changes in the agricultural system of the Highlands forced many people from the land. Thus the Highlanders land hunger is understandable."

Loyalties are often divided. I had ancestors who fought on both sides during the Revolution and the Civil War. And similar conflicts of interest can cause history to be interpreted different ways.

I guess history is like memory: selective and not altogether rooted in the facts.

[sharpdressedscot]

I like where this thread is going!