Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Martial Men
and
Debateable Lands:
Frontier Culture amongst Anglo-Scottish
Borderers, Ulster-Scots and Aboriginal Americans
by
Gordon Ramsey
2003
2
FOREWORD.
In the wastes…you may see as it were the ancient nomads, a martial kind of men
(Elizabethan antiquarian Camden on the 16th Century Anglo-Scottish Borders cited
MacDonald-Fraser 1989 p44).
The Indians were a martial people, ready to sell their lives dearly in defence of their
homes (James Smith 1737-1812 – adopted into an Indian family cited Starkey 1998 p17).
This paper will be divided into two parts. In the first, I will give a historical narrative
of the experience of the Scots Borderers in Britain, the Ulster-Scots in Ireland and the
experience in detail, comparing the Scotch-Irish experience with that of the Aboriginal
North Americans with whom they came into contact on the American Frontier.
I had originally planned to write a balanced account, but have found this was simply
which I have viewed events primarily through the eyes of the Ulster-Scots, my own
people, but have tried to highlight connections and themes that may resonate with a
Ulster, and ‘Scotch-Irish’ to designate the same people and their descendants in North
America, generally coinciding with common use on both sides of the Atlantic.
I have used the terms ‘Aboriginal’, ‘Native’, ‘indigenous’ and ‘Indian’ more or less
interchangably depending on context. I may appear to have both over-used and misused
the last: this is because it was as ‘Indians’ that the Scotch-Irish generally viewed
indigenous peoples.
3
PART 1.
INTRODUCTION.
In the period from the 11th to the 13th century, as the political conglomerations that were
to become the nation-states of England and Scotland congealed around the Norman
kingdoms, a new cultural and economic zone came into being in the island of Britain.
The area that geographers refer toas Scotland’s ‘Southern Uplands’ would become
known as ‘The Borders’. One area at the western end was known as ‘The Debateable
Land’, because both countries claimed jurisdiction, but neither bothered to exercise it.
Macdonald-Fraser describes the reality of life in the Borders in the centuries to come:
It was the ring in which the champions met; armies marched and counter-marched
and fought and fled across it; it was wasted and burned and despoiled, its people
harried and robbed and slaughtered, on both sides, by both sides…the Borderers
were the people who bore the brunt; for almost 300 years, from the late thirteenth
century to the middle of the sixteenth, they lived on a battlefield that stretched
from the Solway to the North Sea (1989 p4).
Living at the mercy of tides of brutality over which they had no control, the Borderers
developed a brutal culture in order to survive. When Scotland and England united under
King James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England also, that culture was, in
turn, brutally broken. As ‘The Borders’ became ‘The Middle Shires’ of the newly
constituted Great Britain, thousands of its inhabitants were dispersed to the new frontiers
that were being created by the imperial project at the heart of ‘Great Britain’. The names
of the ‘Riding’ clans: Adair, Armstrong, Beattie, Bell, Crozier, Douglas, Elliott, Graham,
and Scott, to pick out the most notorious, are to be found wherever a frontier was created
in the English speaking world, but their frontier culture had the greatest effect in two
4
specific areas, Northern Ireland, and North America. Their legacy, for good or ill, has
had an enormous impact on the world in which we all live today. Macdonald-Fraser
The British, and their knsmen in America and the Commonwealth, count
themselves civilised, and conceive of their savage ancestors as being buried in the
remote past. The past is sometimes quite close; these ancestors of Presidents
Nixon and Johnson, of Billy Graham and T.S. Elliott, of Sir Alec Douglas-Home
and the first man on the moon are not many generations away (ibid. p9).
Let us look now then, at how that culture was created in the Anglo-Scottish Borders,
The Borders, as a cultural zone different to both Scotland and England, was effectively
created by the English King Edward I’s attempts to assert overlordship over Scotland
during the 13th century. This was part of a wider English imperial project which saw the
conquest and devastation of Wales, and the securing, through force and diplomacy, of the
William Wallace the following year soon reasserted Scottish independence. Wallace
Borderers:
What resulted was not only guerilla warfare but guerilla living. In times of war
the ordinary Borderers, both English and Scottish, became almost nomadic, they
learned to live on the move, to cut crop subsistence to a minimum and rely on the
5
meat they could drive in front of them. They could build a house in a few hours
and have no qualms about abandoning it; they could travel great distances at
speed and rely on (raiding) to restock supplies…this was how they were to live
whenever war broke out for the next two and a half centuries (ibid. p29).
As the power struggles between English and Scottish kings continued to erupt into
intermittent warfare over the following 250 years, this became increasingly the Borderers
normal way of life: the difference between war and peace became simply one of
The trouble with all Anglo-Scottish wars was that no-one ever won them; they
were always liable to break out again. There was no future for the borderers in
trying to lead a settled existence, even in so-called peacetime. Why till crops
when they might be burned before harvest? Why build a house well, when it
might be a ruin next week? Why teach children the trades of peace when the
society they grew up in depended for its existence on spoiling and raiding?
(ibid. p29).
The Borderers were forced to develop means of subsistence, social and moral codes,
and identities, that would enable them to survive the desperate circumstances in which
they found themselves. Living in a war zone, the Borderers developed a warrior society
and became, literally, their own worst enemies: “the Border folk made the war and terror
on themselves; it was as much a part of their lives as agriculture” (ibid p6). All who
lived in the Borders were both victims of, and participants in this society:
The Border reiver…was not part of a separate minority group…he came from
every social class. Some reivers lived in outlaw bands but most were ordinary
members of the community, and they were everywhere in the Marches (ibid. p5).
The loyalty of the Borderer was primarily to his clan, rather than his country. Conflicts
in the Borders, therefore, did not break down along the simple lines of English against
Scottish. English feuded with English and Scots raided Scots, in addition to cross-border
6
conflicts. Intermarriage and tribal alliance across the border were also common, to the
Neither government made any attempt to enforce the ordinary law of the country in the
Borders. Instead, they attempted to maintain some degree of control through ‘Border
Wardens’ appointed by the respective Crown’s in the East, Middle and West Marches.
Since the Wardens’ resources were limited, and most either came from ‘Riding’ clans, or
through ambition or necessity soon became entangled in the complex webs of alliance
and enmity, there was little pretence at impartial enforcement. The effective law of the
The ‘savagery’ of the Borderers way of life made them despised in both London and
Edinburgh: it must be remembered, however, that it was London and Edinburgh who
while both governments officially deplored what must be called the reiver
economy, they exploited it quite cynically for their own ends. The Borders were
an ever ready source of fighting men, a permament mobile task force to be used
when war broke out…a bloody buffer state..one could almost say that the social
chaos of the frontier was a political necessity (ibid p30).
That political necessity ended in 1603, when the death of the English Queen Elizabeth
without an heir led to King James VI of Scotland becoming the King of England as well.
James did not want his two kingdoms divided by a ‘bloody buffer state’, so, as brutally
as the frontier society had been created, it was destroyed. A Royal Army progressed
along the Borders, killing or arresting miscreants. The final act was played out in
Dumfries, the central town of the region of Galloway, close to the Debateable Land of the
West March. The citizens of the town tried, without success, to slaughter the Royal
troopers. “Dumfriesshire continued to the end to be the last outpost of turbulence, the
7
final refuge of thieves and outlaws” (ibid. p365). The denouemont was a mass hanging
in the town in July 1609. After this, the Scottish Chancellor reported that “the Middle
Shires were now as quiet as any part in any civil kingdom in Christeanity.” (ibid. p175).
As the flames of the Border wars died in Dumfries, however, a new flame appeared there
form of Presbyterianism was taking hold in Scotland, and devastated Dumfriesshire was
its heartland. It proclaimed a Calvinist belief in predestination, and taught the doctrine of
‘the Elect’. The poor, broken and desperate people who turned to it, took comfort from
the fact that they were amongst Gods ‘Elect’, destined to sit at his right hand, whilst their
English and Episcopalian tormentors would find themselves cast into the fiery pit. It was
a dreadful faith, for a people in dreadful circumstances. They heard, and believed, that
“the first shall be last, and the last shall be first” (Mathew 19.30)… “the stone which the
builders rejected”, shall be “made the head of the corner” (Mathew 21.42). The ‘Kirk’
(Scottish Presbyterian Church), believed that the Scots were God’s new ‘Chosen’ people
(Leyburn 1962 p59), destined to “be a light unto the Gentiles” (Acts 13.47), through
‘His’ church. The enthusiasm with which the Borderers, in the throes of societal
disintegration, embraced the faith could be compared to the spread of the ‘Ghost Dance’
amongst the Plains Indians at the end of the American frontier period. It was to be a
belief to which many in Dumfries would hold fast as they left Scotland behind, for the
‘Debateable Land’ did not disappear with the Breaking of the Border: it simply moved –
across the narrow channel referred to in the Scots dialect as ‘the Sheugh’ (the ditch), to a
From Scotland came many, and from England not a few, yet all of them generally the
scum of both nations, who from debt or breaking of the law, came hither hoping to be
without. (Lecky. History of England in the Eighteenth Century. 1878-90).
In 1603, the year James VI of Scotland took the throne of England and commenced the
‘Breaking of the Border’ he also expressed the hope “that the sea-coasts (of Ulster) might
be possessed by Scottish men, who would be traders as proper for his Majestie’s future
advantage” (Leyburn 1962 p89). Within the year two Ayrshire lairds (landowners), Hugh
Montgomery and James Hamilton set out to bring his hopes to fruition. They succeeded
in buying large parts of Antrim and Down, the two Ulster counties closest to Scotland,
from an imprisoned Irish lord, Con O’Neill, on condition that they secure his release and
pardon. This was achieved, and the King approved the deal, with the provision that the
land was settled with ‘British Protestants’. The Galloway lairds did not have to look very
The ‘planters’ found themselves in a country that had been devastated by the Nine
Years War, a conflict as destructive as any on the Scottish Borders. Chichester, the
English Lord Deputy had pursued a merciless policy to destroy the power of the Gaelic
lords resisting Elizabeth’s rule: “We spare none of what quality or sex whatsoever and it
hath bred much terror in the people” he wrote (Fitzpatrick 1989 p9). “It was in a land
wasted by a scorched earth policy and against a background of genocide that the first
In 1607, the most powerful of the Ulster Gaelic landowners: the Earls of Tyrone and
Tyrconnell, believing their plans to rebel against James with Spanish assistance had been
betrayed, fled the country. James confiscated their lands in six Ulster counties, Coleraine
9
(soon to become Co. Londonderry), Armagh, Cavan, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Donegal,
and hastily started to plan the wholescale Plantation of the ‘escheated’ lands. The ninth
county of Ulster, Monaghan, was already seeing private plantation similar to that in
Land in the escheated counties was granted to ‘undertakers’ who were required to build
a castle and settle Scots or English tenants on the land. The native Irish who still
seperated from those of the planters. A system of ‘apartheid’ was envisaged. Difficulties
in attracting sufficient Protestant settlers to occupy all the escheated lands, however,
meant such plans soon broke down and Catholic tenants were accepted alongside
The records show clearly…Galloway, that region of the southwest which included
the shires of Ayr, Dumfries, Renfrew, Dumbarton and Lanark, provided the
greatest number…the Lothians and Berwick came next in order, while a much
smaller contingent came from the district lying between Aberdeen and Inverness
in the northeast (Leyburn 1962 p94).
The majority then, came from the Borders or the Lowland counties immediately
adjoining them. The ratio of Scots to English settlers is estimated at five or six to one
(Montgomery on-line), and most of the English were themselves Borderers (BBC
History: Economic background of the settlers – on-line). For those settlers who were not
fleeing the troubles of the Borders, changes in land ownership in Scotland were a major
factor in driving them out of the country (Leyburn 1962 p99). The Breaking of the
Border, the Plantation of Ulster, and of North America which was authorised in 1606,
and the changes in Scottish land law, were all part of the transition from feudalism to
mercantilist capitalism. When the Scots crossed the Straits of Moyle, they left behind
10
feudal obligations and clan loyalties and entered the world of rents and contracts. This
increased the importance of the ‘Kirk’ as a centre of social life, focus of loyalty and
source of identity.
The choice of Scots rather than English to settle in Ulster was largely due to the fact
that economic hardship in Scotland made them easier to recruit, but there also appears to
have been some element of deliberation. Jackson claims that James wanted the Scots to
be “Gods bulldogs…to bite the wild Irish into submission” (1993 p9) and a contemporary
English settler in Armagh remarked: “It were good to set this land to Scotsmen for the
English will gladly sit down upon the other if the Scots shall be a wall between them and
Settlers built stone forts known as ‘bawns’, raised cattle as they had in Scotland, and
former Irish soldiers whose leaders had fled, and who lived in the forests and survived by
raiding the settlements. Many Borderers were to be found in the farthest frontiers of the
settlement – which were also the farthest from the centres of English law. In County
British names, “Johnston, Armstrong and Elliott, are among the five most numerous in
the county” (Turner 2002 p45). The Armstrongs and Elliotts had been traditional allies in
the Scottish Borders, the Johnstons in Galloway had been their neighbours, and they
The year of 1641 started with religious oppression, as the ascendancy tried to enforce
‘The Black Oath’ requiring loyalty to the established church. If the year started badly,
this was nothing to the way it ended, when the dispossessed native Irish rose in rebellion
11
in an attempt to exterminate the settlers. Casualty figures have been much disputed, but
it is generally accepted now that about 12,000 Protestants, between a quarter and a third
of the population, died. Of these, probably one third were slaughtered by the rebels, the
remainder dying of cold and starvation after the destruction of their farms. Whatever the
survivors fled east to Antrim and Down, or back to Scotland, bringing with them terrible
stories of atrocities and wildly exaggerated estimates of the numbers killed. It is a trauma
that is still remembered by the descendants of those who survived – ‘The Bridge at
Portadown’, where many Protestants were drowned, is portrayed on Orange banners from
the area today, and the massacre coloured future interactions between settlers and natives.
The terrified survivors appealed to Scotland for help, and in 1642, the ‘New Scots Army’
landed in Ulster. Munro, its commander, did not attempt the complete reconquest of the
province, but instead opted for a vicious campaign of reprisal raids, inflicting similar
atrocities on the Irish to those the settlers had suffered. Moreover, the New Scots Army
was compelled to live off the land, taking from native and settler alike, and found recruits
to replace its losses (mostly from hunger and desertion) amongst the settler population.
Just as in the Scottish Borders, the settlers found themselves compelled to fight in a war
in which they were oppressed by both armies (Fitzpatrick 1989 pp36-8, Jackson 1993
p29). Their response was the same as the tactics they had used in Scotland: “The Ulster
Commission issued strict orders that Ulstermen ‘continually be within some distinct
quarters’ and stop the newly revived practice of ‘removing themselves in flocks from one
place to another’” (Jackson 1993 p29). They also turned again to the Kirk for spiritual
The 1641 Rebellion had massive consequences that spread far beyond Ireland. It
provided the spark that ignited the English Civil Wars, in which Scottish armies also
became involved as the Scots tried, through force and diplomacy, to impose
Presbyterianism on England. In Ireland, the fighting spread to the southern provinces and
continued for nearly 10 years. The New Scots Army was defeated by Eoghan Roe
O’Neill’s ‘Catholic Army of Ulster’ in 1646, but the rebellion was finally crushed by
Oliver Cromwell’s English Puritan ‘New Model Army’ in 1649. Peace came at last to
the devastated Province of Ulster, but, as in the Scottish Borders, it would only be an
Nevertheless, Ulster was at peace and during the next forty years it became a haven for
Protestant refugees fleeing religious persecution elsewhere. The beef industry had been
In 1666, King Charles II was restored to the thrones of the three kingdoms of England,
Scotland and Ireland. In partnership with Archbishop Laud, he set about establishing the
Anglican ‘High Church’ throughout England and Scotland. Dissenting ministers were
driven from their churches. Some English Puritans and many Scottish ‘Covenanters’ fled
to Ulster. The Covenanters were fiery Presbyterians, chiefly from Galloway, who were
loyal to ‘The National Covenant’ in which they had sworn to uphold the Scottish variant
of the reformed faith. In Scotland, they evolved an ‘underground church’ carrying out
services in the fields. In the 1780s, following the murder of the Archbishop of St.
13
in Galloway which is remembered as ‘The Killing Times’. This led to another influx of
brutalised people from the southwest of Scotland, whose fanatical devotion to their
religious principles was only hardened by the trials they had suffered. Covenanter
martyrs are also remembered on modern Orange banners. In 1685, they were followed
by another influx, this time of thousands of French Hugenots, fleeing the massacres of
Louis XIV, who brought with them skills that would be important in the future of Ulster,
those of linen-weaving. They would have little time, however, for peaceful industry.
On the death of Charles II, his son James became James II, ruler of the three kingdoms.
James went beyond his father’s high-church Anglicanism and embraced the Roman
Catholic faith. Moreover, he was determined to impose that faith on his kingdoms, and
establish his own position as an autocratic monarch in the style of Louis XIV, France’s
‘Sun King’. In essence, James wanted to reverse the effects of both the English Civil
Wars, and the Reformation. He quickly generated massive opposition in England and
Scotland, and in 1688, the English Parliament invited William of Orange, a minor
potentate in the Netherlands, to assume the Crown. James fled to France, and William
14
supposedly because of its bloodless nature. It was to be far from bloodless in Ireland,
however. James saw Catholic Ireland as the back door by which he would retake the
Crown of Britain. He landed there with a French Army and raised troops from the Irish
population. Protestant Ulster, however, lay between him and easy access to the British
mainland. The northern cities of Enniskillen and Derry withstood sieges in 1689 until
William arrived in Ulster with an army, and drove James from Ireland with victories at
The Battle of the Boyne is celebrated every Twelfth of July in Ulster by massive
parades all over the province. The Siege of Derry, celebrated by a parade in the city on
August 12th, however, plays a more important role in the consciousness of Ulster-Scots.
To simply summarise a complex story: Derry was packed with refugees, who,
remembering 1641, had fled from the surrounding countryside. The city’s government,
however, hesitated to defy James’ army until 13 apprentice boys (mostly orphans), took
action by slamming the gates of the walled city in the face of the advancing soldiers. The
garrison’s English commander, Lundy, then fled the city, abandoning the Ulstermen to
their fate. Despite terrible hardship, fierce battles and mass starvation, Londonderry held
out, sustained by the Crimson Banner that symbolised the blood they were prepared to
shed, and their motto ‘No Surrender’. An English fleet arrived at the mouth of the River
Foyle, but hesitated to break the boom that James’ army had used to block the river,
allowing the siege to drag on for 105 terrible days. Finally, the boom was broken by the
‘Mountjoy’, one of the smaller ships of the fleet, which was commanded by a Derry man,
Captain Browning, whose wife was inside the city, and who acted without orders from
15
his English commander. Finally, the loyalty of the Ulster-Scots Presbyterians was
betrayed when their religion was subjected to renewed persecution following the war.
Whig historians such as Macauley credited the Siege of Derry as being the turning
point that saved Protestantism and Parliamentary Democracy in Britain, and therefore in
the World. Modern historians take more nuanced views. Ulster-Scots were happy to take
the credit for saving democracy, but they also drew more down to earth lessons from the
story. Firstly, that in the face of savage enemies and false friends, an uncompromising
attitude of ‘No Surrender’ is the only guarantee of survival. Secondly, that governments,
generals, armies and fleets, especially if English, are to be neither trusted nor relied upon,
and that God’s people must look only to God and themselves for their salvation. To a
large extent, this was the vindication and solidification of belief systems that had their
roots in the Scottish Borders of the previous century, in the 1641 Rebellion and in the
Killing Times in Galloway. The theme of ‘loyalty betrayed’, which has haunted Ulster
Protestants from 1689 to the present, may also strike a chord with Mohawks, or the Black
These beliefs, reinforced by the constant retelling of the tale in story and song, have
influenced the conduct of Ulster-Scots, not only in Ireland up to the present day, but also
in far places, from the Pennsylvania frontier, to the Alamo in Texas, to Manitoba’s Red
River.
Ulster after the Williamite war presented a sadly familiar aspect of devastation. “One
French diarist noted that parts of Ulster were like Arabian deserts” (Hofstadter 1971 cited
Jackson 1993 p33). Churches, homes and farms had been burned, and the newly
his see “almost desolate” with “country houses and dwellings burnt …great tracts
of land …were burnt up so that the same fire spread 18 miles and ran over almost
all the neighbouring regions”. (King 1906 p32, cited in Gillespie 1988 p. lxiii,
cited Griffin 2001 p13)
Almost as soon as Ireland had started to export Woollens, the English Parliament had
started to pass protectionist legislation against it. By the turn of the century, the industry
“In the 1690s the Scottish grain harvest failed for four successive years and there was a
famine in both Highlands and Lowlands…it is estimated between a quarter and a third of
the population either died or left the country” (Fitzpatrick 1989 p45). Their destination
was Ulster. This confirmed the numerical dominance of the Scots Presbyterians in the
province, but only made the English establishment more determined to ensure that their
numerical superiority did not translate into political power: “Fear and suspicion…defined
the ways in which Ireland’s Ascendancy viewed northern Presbyterianism” (Griffin 2001
p22).
Queen Ann took the throne in 1702 and in 1703, the Test Act was passed, “which
church” (Jackson 1993 p35). This made the Ulster-Scots (as well as the Irish Catholics)
and void… “making their children incapable of succeeding to their estates…as being
This persecution, far from weakening the Kirk, had the opposite effect:
During the years when the tight knit church came under pressure from the
Ascendancy, Ulster became the preeminent linen-producing region of the British
Isles. At the very moment dissenters encountered new economic possibilities
within a wider…society the…Ascendancy pressed men and women to rely more
heavily on church structures set apart from the institutional life of the kingdom to
order their lives (Griffin 2001 p37).
If some were finding new opportunities in Linen, however, for others, economic
pressures were added to religious ones. In 1707 the one-hundred year rent-freeze that
had been instituted at the time of the Plantation expired, and landlords promptly
introduced the practice of rack-renting: leasing a farm to the highest bidder (Jackson
1993 p40). Then, “between 1714 and 1721, Ulster was hit by droughts and killer frosts”
(ibid). After all they had been through, it seemed life showed little sign of improvement.
Many started to doubt if they would ever find personal security, let alone be able to build
the Kingdom of God, in Ulster. Some looked for an escape, and found it: across the
Atlantic.
18
“God had appoynted a country for them to dwell in…where they will be freed from the
bondage of Egypt and go to the land of Canaan” (Griffin 2001 p79).
Major emigration from Ulster to America commenced in 1717-18, during which 5000
families crossed the Atlantic. Initial movement was to Puritan Massachussetts, but the
Scotch-Irish, as they would be called in America, were not made welcome despite the
similarities of their religious beliefs. The Puritans considered them to be “to the last
degree uncleanly and unwholesome and disgusting” (Perry 1890-1900 p41 cited Leyburn
1962), and saw their arrival as “the formidable attempts of Satan and his Sons to unsettle
Massachusetts insisted on strict conformity to Puritan religious practices, and this the
Ulster settlers would not accept, so they pushed on to Maine, New Hampshire,
Back in Ireland, the Toleration Act was passed in 1719, which at last allowed
Presbyterians to practice their religion openly. The removal of external pressures from
the Kirk, however, resulted in it being torn by competing pressures from within, a result
of the social changes that market capitalism was bringing about. Controversy erupted
between ‘Old Lights’ with a conservative vision for renewal of the Kirk, and ‘New
Lights’, who put forward radical new ideas, derived from the thought of the Scottish
Enlightenment, whose father figure, Francis Hutcheson was himself the son of an Ulster
minister. The dispute centred over whether congregation members should be required to
belief. The Kirk was caught in the paradox, only visible in hindsight, of using a pre-
Presbyterians did not distinguish between the hardships of 1717-29 and the
problems they experienced in the church. Ulster dissenters believed the economic
challenges they confronted had religious origins. In 1718, the session at
Ballycarry called for “a day of humiliation and fasting…because of the abounding
sins as also the extraordinary raines that threatened the displeasure of God”
(Ballycarry Session Minutes 10/10/1729). Juxtaposing the natural and the
supernatural, Ulster dissenters argued the hardship of rising rents had their origins
in growing divisions within the church (Griffin 1993 p83).
The two were indeed related, but perhaps not in the directly causal way they were seen
to be at the time. Many Ulster-Scots sought to escape both physical and spiritual
Although some were successful in leaving behind the economic oppression of Ireland,
After the hostile reception early migrants had received in Boston, those who followed
practiced: “Pennsylvania appeared to men and women of the north as a perfect Ulster,
one where opportunity coexisted with religious freedom” (Griffin 2001 p66).
James Logan, the Colonial Secretary of Pennsylvania, saw an immediate use for the early
who had so bravely defended Derry and Enniskillen as a frontier in case of any
20
disturbance”. There was thus no land of peace and plenty for the Ulster-Scots.
like their Scottish ancestors in Ulster a century earlier, as human-shields for those more
powerful than themselves. The irony was that the habits of thought that had been
brutalisation ensured that, when brought into contact with an alien culture with whom
they were in competition for land, there would indeed be a ‘disturbance’. In fact the
In a first wave beginning in 1718 and cresting in 1729, these people outnumbered
all others sailing across the Atlantic, with the noteable exception of those…in
slave ships. By sheer force of numbers, this earliest generation of migrants had a
profound influence on the great transformations of the age…including the
displacement of the continent’s indigenous peoples, the extension of the frontier,
the growth of ethnic diversity and the outbreak of religious revivals.
(Griffin 2001 p1).
The likelihood of conflict between the Scotch-Irish and indigenous peoples was
increased by the fact that the native peoples had themselves been forced to become
about the same time as the Plantation of Ulster, and the connection was clearly seen at the
time. The town of Virginia in County Cavan was named after the American Colony.
When the Scotch-Irish arrived on the frontier, therefore, they found peoples who had
already suffered massive disease, displacement and societal breakdown, who were seeing
a frontier develop between the British and French, much as the ‘Borders’ had developed
between England and Scotland, and had adapted and reconstituted their cultures to
survive on that frontier, much as the Anglo-Scottish Borderers had done before them.
21
Logan settled the first Scotch-Irish settlers along the Susquehanna River, to the west
and south of traders already settled there. Across the river lived the ‘Indians’ with whom
the traders did business. The township of ‘Donegal’ was established and the area soon
became a haven for the Scotch-Irish, attracting new immigrants, as well as fugitives,
runaway indentured servants and army deserters, who fled there much as the Armstrongs
Lacking funds to purchase land, the Scotch-Irish simply settled where they
pleased…They came in such great numbers that neither proprietors nor officials
could keep up with their movements. Every attempt to collect purchase price or
expel them from the land was strenuously resisted. James Logan estimated in
1726 that Scotch-Irish squatters occupied 100,000 acres of Pennsylvania land.
They justified their actions by invoking the Deity, saying that it was “against the
laws of God and Nature, that so much land should be idle when so many
Christians wanted to labour on it” (Klein 1971).
In addition to squatting on lands already granted to English and German
colonists, the Scotch-Irish thought nothing of dispossessing Indian tribes…The
Ulster-Scots had already removed…the native Irish, to make room for themselves,
and in the same way they did not regard the Indians as the rightful owners of these
lands but as obstacles in the way of Christian progress.
The Scotch-Irish actions against the Indians…were in direct contrast with all
previous Quaker policies. The Quakers had always aquired land from the Indians
through treaty and by paying for the possessions they took…William Penn…
treated Indians as his friends and equals. Now the Scotch-Irish began to put all
those good…relationships in jeopardy.
When the Scotch-Irish established a settlement, they built, in order of priority, a fort, a
They almost immediately began to engage in local politics in Lancaster County, as the
Susquehanna area was named, challenging and unseating Quaker incumbents. By 1730,
22
James Logan was complaining that they were “Troublesome settlers to the Government
and hard neighbours to the Indians” (Fitzpatrick 1989). The following year, the colonial
“People from the North of Ireland…have run over the back parts of the province
as far as Susquehannah and are now to the further disaffection of the Indians,
passing over it”. The Presbytery of Donegal in 1732 was already ministering to
people “west of the Susquehanna” on land unpurchased from the Indians (Griffin
2001 p136).
The Scotch-Irish were not the only displaced people seeking a haven on the
Susquehanna:
the lower Susquehanna Valley had become by the early 18th century a centre for
Indian refugees fleeing tribal, imperial and inter-colonial rivalries. Originally, the
region had been settled by Susquehannocks who feuded with their neighbours to
the north in Iroquoia. Traumatised by wars, they banded together with Senecas.
Jointly calling themselves ‘Conestogas’ they centred their lives on a trading
village on Conestogoe Manor just south of Donegal.
Around the same period, Shawnees from the south and west and Conoys from
the Potomac Valley appealed to the Pennsylvanian authorities for leave to resettle
in the area…by the early 18th century, bands from the Five Nations established a
presence in the region, further north along the Susquehanna in the village of
Shamokin (Griffin 2001 p107).
The area was thus a complex mix of different ethnic groups, both immigrant and
indigenous in origin, but almost all newcomers to the region, with different identities,
interests, and enmities, as well as growing social and economic ties. They could no more
be simply understood as ‘Whites’ and ‘Indians’ than the Grahams or Armstrongs could
be simply understood as English or Scots. War Bands from the Five Nations passed
through Scotch-Irish settlements on their way to battle Cherokees and Catawbas in the
south (ibid), and the Scotch-Irish of Donegal clashed repeatedly with Irish ‘Papists’ from
Catholic Maryland, from 1732 to 1736, over the frontier between the two colonies (ibid.
pp137-8).
23
purchasing the land on both banks of the lower Susquehanna from the Six Nations. The
Scotch-Irish settlers gained access to land, the Quaker government gained through the
increase in migrants who could contribute to the economy of the colony, and the Six
Nations gained because trade shifted from Conestoga to their village of Shamokin. The
Conestogas and Delawares of Conestoga Village were the losers. In the long term,
however, the continuing expansion of Scotch-Irish settlement would also lead to the end
By the late 1730s, dispossessed bands of Indians roamed many frontier areas…
travelling in bands of 20-50. They were “generally civil” but when they arrived at
a household, they had to be supplied with food., or “they became their own
stewards and cooks, sparing nothing”. Roving Indians throughout the frontier
also killed white mens’ cattle for food (Jackson 1993p112).
The behaviour of these Indian ‘frontiersmen’ differs little from the Border Reivers who
found themselves in similar situations two centuries earlier. The Border Reivers were
Scotch-Irish immigration had fallen back during the 1730s, due to temporary
improvements in the economy in Ulster, but in the 1740s, famine struck in Ulster and
there was another upsurge in numbers. Thousands who could not pay their fares came as
many headed along…the Great Wagon Road to the back parts of Virginia…In
much the same way James Logan had believed that Ulster’s Presbyterians would
provide a sound buffer to western Indians and land-hungry Marylanders,
Virginia…hoped a new generation…would people the Shenandoah Valley to
protect the east of the colony from hostile Indians (Griffin 2001 p159).
24
As their predecessors shielded the Quakers, they now shielded the slave-holding
eventually occupied the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Carolinas, Upper Georgia, Tennessee
Between 1748 and 1756, the Ohio Valley became the scene of increasingly vicious
conflicts between expanding Scotch-Irish settlers, and various Indian tribes, many of
whom had already suffered displacement at least once. In 1750, an offical warned that
“Numbers of the worst sort of Irish had been to mark places and were determined to have
gone over the hills this summer or in the fall”. The uncontrolled movement of the
Scotch-Irish was driving the Indians into alliance with the French:
The native groups to the north and west had good reason to embrace the French
cause. North of the blue Mountains lived Delawares incensed by fraudulent land
deals…West of the Appalachians in the Ohio Country other bands of Delawares
and Shawnees hasd settled after losing their lands along the Susquehanna with the
treaty of 1736. In Ohio, the motley collection of peoples experienced a spiritual,
economic and military renaissance, enabling them to emerge from the shadow of
the Six Nations…
When Britain and France went to war…the disaffected Indians struck back. After
hostilities broke out…in 1754, the Shawnees cast their lots with the French, and
soon the Delawares in Ohio followed suit. Neither needed much encouragement
to burn homes and scalp settlers on the Pennsylvania frontier…most of the 500
scalps and 200 captives…taken to Fort Duquesne during the first few years of the
war came from Pennsylvania. Refugees flooded back to Donegal and Paxton,
where the trader John Harris turned his home into a fortified armoury. In 1755,
those living over the hills retreated to Carlisle, where they erected five forts…
settlers sent urgent requests to Philadelphia…(Griffin 2001 p167).
It was ironic, but not really coincidental, that the town where they took refuge was named
after the frontier fortress to which English refugees traditionally fled from the Scots
Border Reivers.
In 1755, a British army column under General Bradford was destroyed by Indians, and
in 1756, France and Britain formally declared war. The Scotch-Irish appeals to the
25
Quaker government produced no response, so John Armstrong raised a force of 300 from
the Donegal and Paxton area, advanced through the forest and attacked Kittaning on the
Allegheny River, the chief base for the Indian assault. He surprised the Indians through
the use of Indian tactics, killed many, destroyed the village, and returned bearing the
scalps of the slain. The Scotch-Irish thus became the first Europeans to practice mass-
scalping (Fitzpatrick 1989 p78). “Only in 1758, after British troops took Fort Duquesne,
cutting off Indians in Ohio from the east, did the raids cease” (Griffin 2001 p167).
As on previous frontiers, the peace was only temporary. In 1763, the Ottawa chief
Pontiac, backed by an aboriginal spiritual revival that called on Indians to abandon the
frontier economy and return to the old ways, led a powerful confederacy of Ohio tribes
against settlers, chiefly the Scotch-Irish. Thousands died, and the survivors fled east, in
scenes reminiscent of the 1641 massacres in Ulster. As in 1641, and 1689, “rumors and
conspiracy theses were…widespread…some people thought the Jesuits were behind all
The Scotch-Irish raised a militia group called the ‘Paxton Rangers’ commanded by
Pontiac, but some of the Scotch-Irish wanted revenge. In December 1763, a group of
about 50 Paxton Rangers, led by Lazarus Stewart, a Presbyterian elder, attacked the
peaceful Indians of Conestoga Village, whom they accused of supplying weapons to the
hostiles. Six innocent Indians were killed. The survivors were taken into the local jail,
for their own protection, but the ‘Paxton Boys’ returned, stormed the jail and killed the
remaining Indians. Reports that the Colonial government intended to try the Paxton Boys
26
for murder led a group of 200 to march on Philadelphia. Here they were met by
Benjamin Franklin, who, with the help of a couple of cannon, persuaded them to go
home. There was to be no justice for the Conestogas. Many of the Paxton Boys were
among the first to enlist in the Revolutionary Army in the following decade (Griffin 2001
part in its leadership and provided the backbone of its military forces (Hernan 2001
pp246-254), one Hessian officer in British service saying: “Call it not an American
(Fitzpatrick 1989 p88). A Philadelphian claimed that “a Presbyterian loyalist was a thing
unheard of” (Herman 2001 p250), whilst Uriah Tracy of Connecticut described the
this side of Hell” (Maldwyn 1969): In part this was due to their dislike of the English
establishment, and their egalitarian religious principles, but another major factor was that
the Royal Proclamation of 1763 had forbidden further encroachment on Indian lands to
the west. Although they had never paid any attention to this: “it would have taken the
entire British army to enforce it” (Jackson 1993), the fact that the imperial government
was prepared to try was regarded as “intolerable interference” (Fitzpatrick 1989 p92).
In the years of political wrangling which preceded the final breach between
Britain and the North American colonies, it is significant that the Scots-Irish were
the first to mention guns. Hanover…was one of the most prickly and self-
opinionated of the Ulster settlements. In 1774…Hanover passed a resolution
opposing the “iniquitous and oppressive action of the London parliament and
adding… “our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles (ibid).
27
To trace the history of the Scotch-Irish after the Revolution in America becomes more
difficult, as their communities became less distinct in further moves west, partly due to
tend to find the same themes repeated in new locations. The Scotch-Irish, in reaction to
forces largely beyond their control, created the frontier environment to which later
settlers, whether or not they were of Scotch-Irish origins, would adapt. The social
environment the Scotch-Irish had created would condition the relationships of new
settlers with each other, with the physical environment and with the aboriginal peoples
they encountered.
Before leaving this historical narrative to look at some specific themes in interaction
between the Scotch-Irish and Aboriginal Americans, we may briefly consider four
geographical areas where the Scotch-Irish played a major role, the Deep South, Texas,
Kansas/Missouri and Canada. In the Deep South, the Scotch-Irish found themselves part
and, one step above the slaves, themselves. The sense of ‘apartness’ that was a feature of
the Calvinist faith and the frontier experience they had brought from Scotland and Ulster,
probably facilitated their participation in the system of ‘apartheid’ that developed there.
Their distrust of central government, also traceable to the Borders and Ulster, probably
contributed to their widespread support for the Confederacy during the Civil War, even
though most were not slave-holders. Yet many of the features of Afro-American
Christianity in the South can also be traced directly to the Scotch-Irish heritage. Cash’s
‘The Mind of the South’, identified the distinctive features of southern society as the
28
tension between hedonism and puritanism, and the creation of a permanent ‘frontier’
society. All these may trace their roots to Ulster and the Scottish Borders.
The Scotch-Irish from Kentucky and Tennessee, as well as some who immigrated
independent state, which was subsequently annexed to the USA. The majority of those
who died in the Alamo, with its mythic overtones of the Siege of Derry, were Scotch-
Irish, as were leading figures such as Davy Crockett and Sam Houston. The settler
society that developed in Texas, and its attitudes to the Mexicans, Comanches, Apaches
acceptance of gun-culture and a fiercely retributive justice system may all be traced to the
culture was created in the years prior to, during and after the Civil War, between ‘states-
rights’ Missouri and abolitionist Kansas that had many of the features of the 16th century
Anglo-Scottish borders, with raiding carried out by kin-based gangs and guerilla groups.
The James, Younger and Dalton gangs who came out of this milieu, were all of Scotch-
Irish origin.
Canada is an interesting case because the Scotch-Irish played a major, but not a
formative role here. Canada was settled initially by the French, who established
primarily trading relationships with the aboriginal inhabitants, and then by United Empire
majority of Scottish Highlanders. Trigger notes that “It is significant that not once was
there a case of serious or prolonged conflict between Europeans and Indians living within
29
the borders of Canada” (1971 Vol. 1 p3 cited Starkey 1998). There was major
immigration from Ulster to Canada in the 19th century. By this time, the disastrous
outcome of the bloody ‘United Irish’ rebellion in Ulster and other parts of Ireland had
made the Ulster-Scots firmly, if sometimes reluctantly, loyal to the British crown. The
Orange Order was the social glue that held Ulster-Scots communities together now, the
Presbyterian church having lost its dominant position through fragmentation, something
to which all organisations established by the Ulstermen with their ‘dissenting’ world-
view, were constantly prone. Although there were violent conflicts between Orangemen
and Irish Catholics in many cities, and the Orangemen also responded to Fenian raids
across the U.S. border, the Ulstermen were moving into a social environment where
peaceful, if discriminatory, relationships with the aboriginal inhabitants were already well
established, and they adapted to this. In fact the Orange Order acquired members from
many ethnic backgrounds in Canada, and a Mohawk Lodge existed for some years. It is
noteable however, that in the rare case that violence did occur, in the Red River
rebellions of the Métis people in Manitoba, Ulstermen were at the heart of it. The Métis,
Ulster-Scots descent. The suspicion must arise, therefore, that where there were no
The story of the Scots Borderers, the Ulster-Scots and the Scotch-Irish, and the peoples
with whom they they came in contact, seems like an unrelieved vista of violence,
brutality, bigotry and man’s inhumanity to man. When we look beneath the surface,
PART 2.
INTRODUCTION.
Let us now consider some areas of experience of the Scotch-Irish and the Aboriginal
Peoples who were the co-creators of ‘the frontier’ in North America. The topics we will
cover will be Subsistence Methods, Social Structure, Spirituality, Warfare, Racism and
Identity. These are overlapping topics, in both Aboriginal and Scotch-Irish societies, for
instance, subsistence methods, social organisation and spirituality are intimately linked,
SUBSISTENCE.
Prior to the arrival of Europeans in North America, aboriginal peoples had followed a
wide variety of subsistence strategies, including settled agriculture, hunting and gathering
from a fixed base, nomadic hunter-gathering, and combinations of these methods. “The
first English accounts of the woodland Indians often pay high tribute to their cultural and
Settled Agriculture had been practiced in the Eastern woodlands for millennia,
and the historians references to virgin forest are…as misleading as when applied
to medieval Ireland. The Cherokee …had established a powerful ‘kingdom’ in
the southern Appalachians and they had subsidiary hunting grounds…beyond the
31
Cumberland Mountains, their trails, which the pioneers were to follow, winding
through the wind-gaps (ibid).
The Scotch-Irish learnt much from the aboriginal inhabitants of the land. They learnt to
cultivate native crops, most notably maize: The Indian corn was a prolific substitute for
oats and barley; and like them it was spring sown and food for man and beast (ibid).
Other crops the Scotch-Irish adopted from the indigenous peoples were:
tobacco, beans…pumpkins, squash and gourds. They all lent themselves to hand
cultivation and harvesting and demanded… the simplest of implements…Like the
other prolific crop of New World origin which was by this time well known in
Ireland, and which the settlers took with them to North America – where it came
to be known as the Irish potato – maize was cultivated by ‘moulding’ or ‘hilling’
in the Indian fashion…the Indian methods of preparing corn for food were very
similar to the Irish methods, requiring no elaborate mills or ovens. The hominy-
block was a ready substitute for the knocking-stone, and hominy for porridge.
Bread…of many kinds was baked on the hearth…or in the pot-oven…and the
open hearth kept its function as the focus of the home…the pioneer housewife’s
helpmeet is the bundle of turkey feathers – a ready native replacement for the
goose-wing ‘tidy’ of the Irish hearth (Arnow 1960 cited Evans 1969).
The Scotch-Irish also adopted the making of Maple sugar during the winter, also believed
to be derived from indigenous peoples, from Kentucky to Maine (Jackson 1993 p107).
Johnson and Evans both contrast the Scotch-Irish adoption of Indian techniques of
forest agriculture with the ‘European’ techniques of their English and German
neighbours:
To clear land, the Scotch-Irish girdled trees, unlike the English and Germans who
simply cut them down…In the midst of these dying trees, a Scotch-Irishman
planted his first crop of corn. A year after girdling them, the Scotch-Irish cut
down the trees, and usually used them for firewood. This method…also made it
easier to remove the stumps (Johnson 1966 cited Jackson 107-8).
whereas the Germans…selected level sites, grubbed up the tree roots and turned
their clearings into ploughed fields, the Scotch-Irish preferred to make fresh
clearings and move on once they had ‘taken the good’ out of the land…The
Indian methods of ‘deadening’ the woodlands served their purpose (Evans 1969
p80-1).
32
Hunting was a vital part of the way of life of both Natives and Scotch-Irish:
The backwoodsman took over…the Indian’s passion for hunting, and with it the
deerskin shirt and stalker’s moccasins. Indian arrowheads provided them with
gun flints (Doddridge 1824/1902). They wore their hair long, Indian fashion,
dressed it with bear’s grease and tied it with an eel-skin or a ‘whang’. Nor would
Indian music, consisiting of drum and flute, have been unfamiliar to Ulstermen
(Van Doren 1928).
Leather clothing had been commonly worn in the Scottish Borders and in Ulster, so these
were easy adaptations for the Scotch-Irish (Macdonald-Fraser 1989 p87) . There were
differences in the way the Indians and the Scotch-Irish hunted however. For the Indians
the wildlife was an essential renewable resource, and conservation was part of their
survival strategy. The Scotch-Irish, used to the mores of the market economy, acted
differently:
Their slaughter of wildlife was indiscriminate and enormous. David Noel Doyle
in Ireland, Irishmen and Revoluionary America says “as they had virtually
exterminated deer and wolf in Ulster so now they helped to do the same to bear,
wild turkey, passenger pigeon and certain deer populations from Pennsylvania
south. (Fitzpatrick 1989 p71).
The cultural traffic was not all one way. The ‘Bannock’, a staple in Scotland and
Ireland since at least the Iron Age, is now regarded as a traditional ‘Indian’ food by many
communities.
The Scotch-Irish also brought a less welcome commodity – alcohol. Leslie, Bishop of
Ross, noted that the Scots Borderers took very little beer or wine (MacDonald-Fraser
1989 p50). Perhaps it was too dangerous to be drunk when one might have to fight for
life or property at any moment, for Leyburn claims that the drink of Lowland Scots at the
time was beer and that they were often ‘unpleasantly drunk’ (1962). Certainly when the
Ulster-Scots set sail for America they were familiar with the distillation and consumption
33
of whiskey, and they adapted easily from Irish ‘poitin’ to American ‘moonshine’,
producing whiskey from surplus corn (Jackson 1993). In Pennsylvania, where they were
settled close to “hard-drinking traders…the only goods they had in abundance were linen,
which had little marketability, and liquor, which had too much” (Griffin 2001 p100).
This led to whiskey being used as a currency, and attempts by the US Federal
government to tax it between 1792 to 1794 led to the Whiskey Rebellion, in which
The records of Presbyterian Church Sessions show that alcohol abuse was the most
serious social problem they faced. “One of the inevitable consequences of intemperance
was fist-fights, brawls and even ‘riots’ , and the Middle Spring sessions dealt with them
as they occurred” (Jackson 1994). These social problems were transmitted to the
indigenous populations through trade and social interaction. The story of Simon Girty,
who later became a Shawnee guerilla leader, illustrates the environment in which this
occurred:
Simon Girty…was not only Scots-Irish but very much a product of the society he grew
up in. His family lived at Sherman’s Creek in the Pennsylvania mountains, in that band
of frontier society where the men of the family took refuge from a poverty stricken
existence in heavy drinking. Simon saw his father killed by an Indian in a drunken
quarrel.
Alcohol abuse has remained a major problem in all parts of Ireland, in Scotland and in
The most positively significant contribution the Scotch-Irish brought to the indigenous
the main effort went into cattle and sheep raising. For the rural Borderer had to
be mobile, leaving his winter dwelling about April to move into the ‘hielands’
where he lived in his ‘sheiling’ for the next four or five months while the cattle
pastured (Macdonald-Fraser 1989 p51).
In Ulster, the Scots settlers found a very similar way of life that had been deeply
embedded for well over a millenium. Indeed, the central story of the ancient group of
epic stories known as ‘The Ulster Cycle’ is entitled Tain Bo Cuailgne – The Cattle Raid
of Cooley. The little cottages the Scots called ‘shielings’ were known as ‘booleys’ in
terminology, or booleying in the Ulster vernacular, was the same. Fitzpatrick says:
After the rise and fall of the Wool and Linen (Flax) industries, beef farming remains the
There had been no livestock kept in North America prior to European arrival, because
there were no wild animals suitable for domestication (Diamond 1999). On the frontier,
however, “the Ulstermen found themselves in a land of hills and valleys…the ‘mountain’
still provided the extensive summer grazing they had been accustomed to find on the
cattle-droving…of the American West is…derived from Irish and Scots practices
imported with the settlers from Ulster (Fitzpatrick 1989 p120).
They suggest that the tradition spread from the Deep South to Texas and the remainder of
the West. This was accomplished not just by the Scotch-Irish, however, but also by
indigenous peoples who had adopted cattle as a way of ensuring the survival of their own
their herds (Iverson 1994 p17). Iverson notes that this was done with Federal
government support, but that Federal hopes that ‘agriculture’ would encourage
assimilation were dashed. On the contrary “because of such innovation, the major tribes
of the southeast became all the more determined to maintain their homelands” (ibid), and,
the livestock assisted in the very difficult transition to the west…within the
decade following the various trails of tears, Indians from the Five Tribes used
cattle as part of their overall strategy for coming to terms with their new
surroundings. Cherokees sold beef to nearby Fort Gibson, Choctaw farmers
raised enough beef for themselves and for Creek contractors as well, Creeks
owned, in agricultural historian Douglas Hurt’s words “a large number of cattle”
by the early 1830s (ibid p18).
Iverson has also drawn attention to how for many Native Americans, cattle-raising has
is regularly worn by reservation Indians in the west (Fixico 1985 cited Iverson 1994
p185), and this is not simply affectation, in the Navajo nation, at least one rodeo is held
virtually every weekend (Roessel 1991 p23 cited Iverson 1994 p185). Iverson quotes
The cowboy serves as a platform from which new and non-traditional aspirations
can be formed. Although a young man may wish to become a mathematics
teacher, a tribal policeman and tractor driver, or leave the reservation…to take up
a new life in the city, he views himself basically as a cowboy who can rope, ride
and participate in rodeo, a man who knows something of cattle and cattle lore,
who dreams of owning cattle and becoming a rancher or cattleman. (Downs 1972
p284 cited Iverson 1994 p185).
one much closer to the life of the Navajo homestead than is any other role in
modern American life” for it “requires that a man be a horseman and a roper, have
a knowledge of animal ways, and a number of outdoor skills which the Navajo
already possesses” (ibid).
In fact, Iverson says, Being a cowboy allows you to be an Indian (Iverson 1994 p203).
SOCIAL STRUCTURE.
North American Aboriginal societies during the 18th century have been described as
“kinship states, collectives of families and clans centred on a sense of ethnic identity”
(Starkey 1998 p34). Kinship was also the basis of societal organisation in the Scottish
Borders, where the primary marker of identity was neither religion nor nationality but
‘surname’. Kinship remained (and remains) important for the Ulster-Scots in Ireland and
the Scotch-Irish in America, but the disruption caused by displacement meant that the
Presbyterian Church became central as a means of regulating social life in Ulster and
America. In Ulster, the state was actively hostile to the Presbyterian faith for most of the
period under consideration, in America, the state structures were often too remote, and
too unconcerned, to be of much help. Unwilling, for the most part, to submit to outside
37
authority, the Ulster-Scots subscribed to the principle that ‘if you would be self-
governing, govern yourselves’. The Kirk was the means by which the community was
The Presbyterian Church was the channel for social welfare. The many orphans
and illegitimate children were looked after; money was raised for the sick and
needy. In the extended pioneer family, the very old and the very young were
looked after as a matter of course (Fitzpatrick 1989 p111-2).
Church discipline…if anything increased during the 17th Century. Such minute
control of personal life could not have persisted without general approval of the
members of the church…No doubt this surveillance and the people’s submission
to it contributed to the sense of community in a land where the Presbyterian faith
was neither established nor held by the natives (1962 pp143-4).
In Ulster this caused some alarm to the authorities. The Vicar of Belfast asserted in the
early 18th century that “Ulster’s dissenters saw their church “Superiour to, and
Political Machine that subverted the constitution” (Tisdall cited Griffin 2001 p23) while
the Bishop of Down complained “they proceed to exercise jurisdiction openly and with a
high hand over those in their possession” (Conduct of the Dissenters 1712, cited
The Kirk, however, suffered a crisis of discipline shortly after these comments were
made, as the expansion of the market economy offered greater opportunities for sin, and
the greater financial independence of some members of the community made them less
willing to submit to church discipline, and more likely to appeal to state courts.
Social changes brought by the market economy also played a role in the Auld
Licht/New Licht controversy which eventually resulted in the New Lichts being expelled
from the Synod of Ulster, and the formation of the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church.
The erosion of traditional values and codes of conduct by the market economy, the loss
of authority by spiritual leaders and elders, and the divisions caused by appeals to state
law over community structures have all been problems experienced by North American
Many Presbyterians hoped to escape these problems in the ‘New World’. For a time
they were successful: solidarity was essential on the frontier and sophisticated New Licht
arguments carried little weight. As the frontier expanded, however, the church’s
insistence on college educated ministers became a problem. With the move into the
Virginia back-country and the Carolinas, the Presbyterian Church found it increasingly
difficult to minister to its flock. The ‘Great Awakening’ in the 1740s with its call for an
‘emotional piety’ split the church and Baptist missionaries in the South provided a
ministry that the Presbyterian church had failed to supply (Griffin 2001). Thus the vast
majority of Scotch-Irish in America ultimately turned away from the church that had
ordered their lives from the time their ancestors left Galloway for Ulster.
caused by market forces, the same was true of the indigenous societies they encountered:
Ohio Indian towns in the 18th century were often constituted of refugees from many tribes
(Starkey 1998 p34), and many Aboriginal people abandoned traditional spiritual practices
39
for various kinds of Christian belief, damaging traditional social structures and
Gender roles appear to have been clearly assigned in both Scotch-Irish and indigenous
communities. In gatherings of Aboriginal peoples today, the roles of women and men are
explicitly defined as those of ‘nurturer’ and ‘protector’. These roles would have been
very familiar to the Scotch-Irish. On the Scottish Borders, Pedro de Ayalo, a Spaniard,
found the women “courteous in the extreme…really honest though very bold…in
absolute control of their houses” (MacDonald-Fraser p47). Leyburn, however notes “that
in all the contemporary accounts of the Ulster Plantation, the troubles with the Irish, and
the establishment of the Presbyterian Church in northern Ireland, the life and character of
the women are never mentioned” (1962). This may well be due to the explicitly
Power may have been more evenly distributed in at least some aboriginal societies. In
the Iroquois Confederacy, power was explicitly vested in the Women in time of peace –
possibly a unique social arrangement. Much of the period we are considering, of course,
from Carrickfergus, County Antrim, and he was raised by his mother, Elizabeth
One day (his mother) scolded him: “Stop that Andrew. Do not let me see you cry
again. Girls were made to cry, not boys”. “What are boys made for, mother?” he
asked. She answered, “to fight” (Hernan 2001 p236).
the U.S. Constitution: the indigenous peoples through the example of the Iroquois
through the institutional culture of the Presbyterian Church, with its hierarchical system
SPIRITUALITY.
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have
done it unto me (Mathew 25. 40).
Bishop Leslie of Ross noted of the Scots Borderers that “they think the art of
plundering so very lawful, that they never say over their prayers more fervently, or have
more devout recurrence to their beads and their rosaries, than when they have made an
“Nor indeed have the Borderers, with such ready frenzy as many others of the country,
joined the heretical secession from the common faith of the holy church”. The latter
observation was to prove ironical considering the role Borderers were to play in the
Protestantisation of Ulster. Another view of religion in the Borders is given by the well-
known story of the visitor to the notorious stronghold of Liddesdale, who, seeing no
churches, inquired “Are there no Christians here?” and was told “Na, we’s a’ Elliotts an’
Leyburn notes that “Ulster Presbyterianism tended to resemble the Covenanting faith of
the western Lowlands (from which, indeed, it drew many of its elements) than the less
The tension between the ‘earthly’ conduct of the Borderer and the stern discipline of
the Kirk was to be a theme of Scotch-Irish life from the time of the Galloway
The theology of Calvinism would seem to have little in common with Aboriginal
spirituality. In practical terms, however, they may have shared more than one would
think. Certainly they shared (and still share), a belief in a Creator, and a conviction that
the practice of spirituality is in no way separate from the everyday things of life. The
basis of the ‘Dissenting’ faith: that every individual must find their own relationship with
God, according to their own conscience, was the philosophical basis of what would
become the ‘American’ way of life, but may also resonate with Aboriginal culture.
The long-term persecution of Presbyterians in Scotland and Ulster led to the practice,
streams and rivers, and often lasting all day. During the early 18th century when meetings
in Ulster were being harrassed by the authorites, County Down Presbyterians would row
to Scotland for a days services and return at night. Once started, the practice of outdoor
preaching was attractive because it recalled Christ’s own ministry. When they were able
to build churches, their unpretentious nature, and the practice of calling them ‘meeting
houses’ emphasised that it was the congregation, not the building that was important.
(Fitzpatrick 1989 p39). Their belief that all the things of nature were part of God’s
42
creation was theologically different, but emotionally similar, to the Aboriginal perception
of ‘Spirit’ in nature.
The principles of their religion were closely related to the way the Scotch-Irish viewed
The Kirk could play a leadership role in war as well as peace, from the Covenanter
armies to John Elder, the Minister who led the Paxton Rangers during Pontiac’s War.
Amongst Aboriginal tribes, prophets could also play a significant role in wartime, and did
so both in Pontiac’s war, and in the later uprising led by Tecumseh. Native religious
‘revivals’ could be a unifying force for groups whose tribal identities had been destroyed
by the impact of war and the market economy, just as Covenanting Presbyterianism was
Revival could also be a force that divided established communities and challenged
established boundaries. This was the case with the ‘Great Awakening’ of the 1740s, in
which the leading figure was William Tennent, an Ulster Presbyterian minister, and
former Anglican, who split Presbyterian congregations with his call for a deep emotional
commitment, disregarded denominational divisions and gloried in the fact that his
The United Church in Canada, whose heritage is in part from the Presbyterian Church,
has recently issued an apology for its failure to recognise the value of the Aboriginal
spiritual heritage. Perhaps this may signal the possibility of a more productive
relationship between differing traditions, who may have more in common than they
imagine.
WARFARE.
There has always been a contrast between the techniques, and mores of frontier
warfare, and those of the regular armies of European nation-states. This was as true on
possible such armies may have been possessed by the ‘Mound-builder’ civilisations
which populated the Mississippi and Ohio regions prior to contact, but we have no record
of this. If they were there, they were destroyed by European diseases before they ever
saw a European settler. The Native-Americans who the Scotch-Irish encountered had
already experienced a century of contact and had been forced to become frontiersmen.
That was how they fought, and the Scotch-Irish were forced to learn from them in order
to survive. In many ways, this came naturally to the Scotch-Irish, given their heritage.
44
There was little distinction between soldier and civilian in the Scottish Borders. Any
when needs required, and would also be prepared to take up arms to pursue a blood-feud
in defence of his ‘surname’. This changed little in the new environment of Ulster, where
settlers had to be constantly on their guard against ‘rapparees’ and ‘wood-kerne’, as well
as the ever-present threat of war. It was also little different from the thinking of the
For guerilla fighters such as the Indians, the formal distinctions between soldier
and civilian did not exist…Indians also did not draw the European distinction
between war and murder. ..the Algonquian peoples believed there were two kinds
of killings; those at the hands of enemies and those at the hands of allies. If the
killer belonged to an allied group, his family expected that the dead would be
‘covered’ with appropriate compensation and ceremony. If this did not occur, the
killer became an enemy and a blood feud began (Starkey 1998 p28).
This is extremely similar to the ancient Irish ‘Brehon’ laws, also based on the principle
of compensation. In the Scottish Borders, however, such a killing would almost always
result in a feud. In Ulster and America, where the Kirk held sway, disputes could often
be resolved before reaching the point of violence, but beyond its reach, the feud again
became the only law. The case of the Hatfields and McCoys in Kentucky is the most
famous, but far from the only example of this. During the American Revolution:
The guerillas of South Carolina and Georgia were Scotch-Irish frontiersmen whose
heritage meant that their moral codes were always much closer to the Indians than to
those of European regular soldiers. This description by Starkey of the North American
This contest was never simply one of European versus Indian….While some
tribes relied on traditional religious practices as a bulwark against the European
threat, others converted to Christianity and in varying degrees adopted a European
way of life. Christian Indians often served as loyal soldiers in European forces
and many non-Christian Indians entered into alliance with Europeans for reasons
of their own. The line between Indian and white settlement was never precise…
European and Indian settlements were frequently in close proximity to each other
and there was a geat deal of peaceful interchange (1998 p10).
The Borderers recognised that their own interests were not always the same as those of
the national powers for whom they sometimes fought, and they had strategies for dealing
with this.
Embroidered letters attached to their caps were used for wartime identification.
There was a suspicion in the English Army in the 1540s that the English March
riders used these identifying signs not only to be known to each other but “that
thei used them for collusion, and rather bycaus thei might be knowen to
th’enemie, as the enemies are knowen to them, for thei have their markes too, and
so in conflict either each to spare other, or gently each to take other. (William
Patten, a Londoner who accompanied Somerset’s Scottish expedition in1547 cited
MacDonald-Fraser 1989 p87).
The Border Reiver was a horseman: according to Bishop Leslie, the Borderers “reckon
it a great disgrace for anyone to make a journey on foot” (MacDonald –Fraser 1989 p85).
Similar pride was to become a feature of the culture of some western Plains Indians. The
Border horses, called hobblers or hobbys were small, tough and had tremendous
46
endurance. The English medieval historian Froissart estimated they could cover 20 to 24
Leagues a day, or about 70 miles. Similar feats were claimed for the Plains tribes on
part this was because both Borderers and Indians travelled light:
In time of war The “Scots Borderers were…recognised…as ‘licht horsemen’ not obliged
‘prickers’” (ibid).
In peace or war, the riders favourite weapon was the lance…used couched, for
thrusting and also for throwing. Camden describes the Borderers on horseback
spearing salmon in the Solway; anyone who has tried to spear fish on foot will
appreciate the expertise required to do it from the saddle (ibid p89).
When the Plains Indians acquired horses, they also acquired similar skills with the lance.
The Bow was also a significant weapon on the Borders later than in other regions:
In the 1560s, the majority of English infantry carried the longbow, but by 1600 it
was virtually obsolete in the country as a whole. On the Border, however, where
a light, rapid-fire weapon was needed, the bow lived longer: in Leith Ward,
Cumberland in 1580, the muster roll showed over 800 bowmen to 9 arquebusiers,
and in the 1583 muster the English West March counted 2500 archers, with no
mention of firearms.
Hundreds of handguns with ammunition were sent to Berwick in 1592, but the
powder was unreliable, and as for the guns, “when they were shot in, some of
them brake, and hurte divers mennes hands”. In the same year Richard Lowther
asked only for bows in the defence of Carlisle (ibid p88).
In Ulster, firearms replaced bows as the mainstay, and on the American frontier,
Aboriginal peoples had also adopted firearms as their principal weapons by the end of the
17th century. It is a false perception to see the Indians as being technologically primitive
47
compared to the settlers therefore: both were forced to make the transition to military
modernity within a century of each other. Moreover, the Indians did not use their
Indians drew no sharp distinction between hunting and warfare and therefore
trained to achieve accurate marksmanship in both. From an early age, Indian men
spent their lives in acquisition of these skills so that they became second nature.
In contrast, the European peasantry were disarmed by law in most countries.
When recruited as soldiers, they were trained not to fire at marks, but rather in
unaimed volley fire. Destructive…at close quarters on European battlefields, this
method…was little use in the woods (Starkey 1998 p22)..
The different tactics adopted by Native Americans were as much a product of their
environment, traditions and social structure as of the weapons themselves. Starkey gives
Indian warriors did not simply hide behind trees but exploited…cover to conduct
moving fire on the enemy. Indians were trained to outflank their opponents…
they seldom completely surrounded the enemy….Indians understood how to
conduct orderly advances and retreats…in which warriors with loaded weapons
covered those whose guns required recharging. They were also able to seize the
psychological moment, charging from cover with war whoops that…were likely
to terrify all but the most seasoned soldiers (1998 p22).
This is an exact description of the tactics that I was taught in British Army infantry
training in the late 1970s. Indians did not simply adapt to ‘modern’ warfare techniques
brought by Europeans, they played a major role in defning what ‘modern’ warfare would
be. The Scotch-Irish proved to be able to adapt to this kind of warfare much better than
regular troops schooled on the battlefields of Europe. They also hunted to eat, and thus
Armstrong, leader of the Donegal irregulars during the French War, commented of the
Indians: “The principles of their military action are rational, and therefore often
48
successful…in vain may we expect success against our adversaries without taking a few
How well the Scotch-Irish had learned these lessons was demonstrated in the
“Ferguson, one of the most talented professional oficers in the British army, had been
defeated by ‘amateurs’ trained in the Indian way of war” (Starkey 1998 p135). The
The Scotch-Irish were even able to turn their acquired skills against the masters: Starkey
observes that Jackson’s envelopment tactics in the Creek War might have been designed
Well the boys of the townland made some noise upon it,
And Bob had to fly to the province of Connacht,
Well he fled with his wife and his fixin’s to boot,
And along with the rest went his Auld Orange Flute….
(Ulster ballad)
For those who draw borders, it has always been important to be able to determine who
belongs on which side. This has never been as easy as it might seem, however. The very
name ‘The Borders’, with its plurality, which was applied to the Anglo-Scottish
borderland, hints at the indeterminacy of the reality on the ground, as opposed to the line
on the map. In the case of ‘The Debateable Land’, even the location of the line was not
clearly defined.
there was considerable fraternisation and co-operation between Scots and English
along the frontier, socially, commercially and criminally. There was
intermarriage on a large scale. There were ‘international’ families like the
Grahams, and communities of “our lawless people, that will be Scottishe when
they will, and English at their pleasure” as Thomas Musgrave put it. As the (16th)
century wore on, more and more Scots became settled on the English side of the
frontier, to the distress of the English Wardens (MacDonald-Fraser 1989 p65-66).
Both the Scottish and English governments tried to maintain control of the Borderers
at its most extreme this imposed the death penalty on Scots who married
Englishwomen without licence, or who even received English men or women; on
50
the English side it was March treason to marry a Scotswoman, or even to befriend
her, without the Warden’s permission (ibid. p67).
In the city of Carlisle, “most of its guilds had regulations discriminating against Scots,
and the city itself forbade unchartered Scots to live there, or to walk the streets after
curfew without an English companion” (ibid p70). Some Canadian towns maintained
To pass laws and to enforce them were two different matters, however. Enforcing the
discriminatory rules in the cities and resisting the mass immigration…in the Middle
March depended on being able to tell who was Scottish and who was English. This was
Adding to the frustrations of the respective governments was the fact that the Borderers
were adept at exploiting their marginal status. Covert cooperation in wartime has already
been mentioned. Another technique for the Border clans was to arrange for an English
kinsman to pursue a feud on the Scottish side of the border, or vice versa, thus evading
Similar issues were to arise in Ulster. The Plantation was envisioned as resulting in an
apartheid system, in which settlers and natives would live separate lives in separate
communities. The difficulty in attracting enough Scottish settlers to occupy all the
escheated lands meant, however, that the achievement of this ideal was the exception
rather than the rule. “Despite the explicit prohibition against the employment of ‘meer
51
Intermarriage across religious lines, although not illegal, was frowned upon by all the
described in the darkly humorous ballad ‘The Auld Orange Flute’. It still can. Yet
intermarriage has always taken place despite social sanctions against it. This is
symbolised by the standing irony in Northern Ireland today, that the two leading Irish
nationalist politicians, Gerry Adams and John Hume, have surnames derived from the
Scottish Lowlands and Borders respectively, whilst leading Unionist politicians such as
The creation of the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland in 1920 produced a whole new
set of problems for their respective bureaucracies, cross-border terrorism being the best
publicised, and a whole new frontier culture, including tax-avoidance. There is a petrol
station called ‘Straddles’ in County Tyrone/Monaghan that has pumps on both sides of
the border and simply switches the fuel outlet according to the prevailing tax regimes.
Governments have also struggled to prevent the claiming of benefits on both sides of the
border, and pirate radio stations broadcasting from one jurisidiction into the other. They
have been powerless to control a flourishing smuggling industry that deals in everything
from cigarettes to diesel fuel, and pigs to pornographic videos. Aboriginal communities
in North America have also learnt to exploit borders, for instance by the introduction of
casinos as a source of wealth for communities with few other material resources, and
have insisted on rights to cross the US/Canadian border, which are enshrined in treaties,
Aboriginal prophets.
For governments whether British, Pennsylvanian, or later U.S. and Canadian, where
treaties were to be made, and group relationships conducted with ‘Indians’, it became
vital to be able to define who exactly was an Indian and who was not. This led to
increasing concern about the ‘problem’ of ‘half-breeds’ (Mawani), who could move from
one category to another in exactly the same way as Borderers who were “Scottishe when
they will, and English at their pleasure”. Ultimately it led to ‘Indian Acts’ in both the
USA and Canada in which governments defined ‘Indians’ by blood. These acts remain in
existence, despite the fact that the overtly racist criteria on which they are based are in
direct contravention of the egalitarian and anti-racist principles publicly espoused by both
governments. It is extraordinary that the constitutionality of these acts has never been
challenged on these grounds: perhaps this is because many Aboriginal people have
themselves internalised the belief that being an ‘Indian’ is a matter of genetic, rather than
cultural inheritance.
Evidence suggests that this was not the view of indigenous peoples in the 18th century.
‘Marrying out’ was a common practice, as was the adoption of prisoners-of-war into the
tribe: By the end of the 17th century, many Iroquois were in fact adopted prisoners or the
children of prisoners (Starkey 1998 p34). This practice was extended to Europeans, and
there are many instances recorded, some of which have become well known, such as
he, with the rest of his family, was…carried off by an Indian war party. As a
young man he came back to white society, only to be despised as an illiterate
53
As well as illustrating the permeability of ‘racial’ boundaries, this story also highlights
the brutalising effect of their enforcement. Such ‘adoptions’ were not purely one way:
During the latter 1760s…two white men were deep into Penn’s woods …hunting
…They heard someone following them, and hid behind a tree to waylay the
stranger…the person was a half starved Indian girl. They fed the girl and took her
home with them. She lived with the older of her two captors and his wife, and
ultimately married the younger…No one ever found out where she came from, or
why she had been seperated from her tribe. The community took her in and for
many years she was known as ‘Laughing Annie’ (Jackson 1993 p117).
Perhaps the most important ‘Aboriginal right’ in modern times is the right of the
community to decide who is, and who should be able to become, a member. To do this
Aboriginal or otherwise, is not a matter of blood, but a matter of culture. This is already
explicitly recognised in the immigration law of both Canada and the United States, it is
Catholic majority in Ireland. This has been well documented on both sides of the
Atlantic. These were peoples, who under the colonial system, were at the bottom of the
economic heap. A more subtle discourse has been used to justify the marginalisation of
those peoples like the Scotch-Irish in the USA, and the Ulster-Scots in Ireland, as well as
Irish Catholics in New York, in relation to Afro-Americans, and the ‘white’ underclass in
through historical processes over which they had little control, one small step up from the
bottom. This discourse takes two forms. The first is again, the discourse of ‘savagery’.
The marginalisation of the ‘frontiersmen’ who are compelled to live cheek by jowl with
the ‘savage’ Irish or Indian, is justified because they are held to have become ‘no better’
than their intimate enemies. The history of the Scotch-Irish in America is littered with
such discourse, in which they are compared unfavourably, first with the Catholic Irish,
“little honesty and less sense” (P.Gordon to the Penns, 16/5/1729 Penn MSS,
Official Correspondence, II, p75 cited Griffin 2001 p103).
The Scotch-Irish keep the Sabbath and everything else they can lay their hands on
(Jackson 1993 p62).
“the very scum of mankind” (Isaac Norris to Joseph Pike, 28/10/1728. Norris
Papers, Isaac Norris Sr. Letterbook p516 cited Griffin 2001 p103).
The Scotch-Irish encountered similar attitudes when they moved south into Virginia
rather than work for it” (ibid p23) Some of their…vices Woodmason listed as
licentiousness, wantonness, lasciviousness, rudeness, lewdness and profligacy.
He said they lived wholly on Butter, Milk, Clabber and what in England is given
to Hogs and Dogs. (Crozier 1984)
Benjamin Franklin, after his encounter with the Paxton Boys, referred to them as:
An English farmer visiting America about the year 1800 wrote: “None emigrate to
the frontiers beyond the mountains, except culprits, or savage backwoodsmen,
chiefly of Irish descent…a race possessing all the vices of civilised and savage
life, without the virtues of either…the outcasts of the world, and the disgrace of it.
They are to be met with, on the western frontiers, from Pennsylvania inclusive, to
the furthest south. (Strickland 1801 p71 cited Evans 1966 p71-2).
In general, all the ‘vices’ that the English establishment habitually attributed to the
Catholic Irish and the Indians, it also used to label the Scotch-Irish, and this discourse did
not end with the 18th century. English historian Arnold Toynbee, writing in the 1930s,
the impress of Red Indian savagery (on the Scotch-Irish), is the only social trace
that has been left behind by these vanquished and vanished Redskins.(ibid. Vol. 2
p512),
A more recent discourse used to maintain the marginal status of the Scotch-Irish and
similar groups is that of ‘bigotry’. This discourse has been employed very effectively in
many situations, but two that stand out are against working-class Protestants in 19th and
56
20th century Ulster, and against ‘white trash’, in the Deep South. In both cases the
‘bigotry’ displayed by these groups towards their neighbours, Ulster Catholics and
seen as an explanation and justification for their lowly economic status. The discourse of
‘bigotry’ serves a double purpose. Not only does it justify the social and economic
exclusion of the ‘bigots’, but it also shifts on to them the blame for the social and
economic condition of their marginalised neighbours. Thus both groups are kept
attributed to the dominant forces and structures in society. A similar discourse has also
been deployed in relation to marginal ‘white’ communities in both Canada and the USA
which have been involved in fishing or hunting disputes with Aborigiinal communities,
and just as both groups could be labeled as ‘savages’ in the past, both can be labeled as
‘bigots’ now, thus sharing the blame for their own misfortune.
What is problematic about the discourse of ‘bigotry’ is the assumption that it is due to
ignorance, and can therefore be cured by education in the liberal mores of the economic
elite. This ignores the structural realities of the situation in which these people find
themselves, which is one of real, and frequently desperate competition for land or
economic resources, whether those resources are fish, on the Canadian east coast, or jobs
and houses in Belfast. This is not an inevitable situation but one which has been created
by the market forces of capitalism. Bigotry is not due to ignorance but to a correct
perception of the situation in which people find themselves: when they have insufficient
power to change the system, they depend upon the support structures of a tight-knit
community for survival, and can only hope to maintain or improve their subsistence level
57
at the expense of others. It is true that education can alleviate bigotry between specific
groups, for example, Ulster Catholics and Protestants. It can do this by enabling them to
rise up the class system into an environment where group loyalties are less essential for
survival. The working class ghettoes of the Shankill and Falls Roads in Belfast are
festooned with flags expressing the loyalties and identities of their inhabitants. There are
no flags on the affluent and religiously mixed Malone Road, around Queen’s University.
The people on the Malone Road don’t need flags: they have BMWs. As people lose their
community, they will also lose their bigotry. This will not eliminate bigotry from the
system, however. Were this to happen on a large scale, other groups, perhaps Somalis or
Rumanians would have to be introduced to take up the duties of ‘reserve army of labour’
and, finding themselves in similar circumstances, would be likely to respond with similar
bigotry.
Perhaps the greatest strength of the ‘savagery’ and ‘bigotry’ discourses is that it has
been so tempting for the competing groups at the bottom of the socio-economic pile to
use them against each other, effectively absolving those who create, maintain and benefit
from the structures that force subordinate groups into conflict, from all responsibility for
the results.
58
IDENTITY.
Well both churches tried to claim me, but I was smart because
I could play me harp, or play me flute, dependin’ where I was.
(‘The Orange and the Green’ by A. Murphy).
On frontiers, identities are often vitally important to people, and yet are always subject
to fluidity and change. We have already looked at many ways in which people have
different circumstances on the frontiers of the Anglo-Scottish Borders, Ulster and North
In Ulster, Religion was, and is, the primary marker: change your religion and you
change your national identity and possibly your kinship ties as well. It is extraordinarily
Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, identities are far from fixed and unchanging, as is
apparent from the wide range of designations given to, or adopted by, Ulster Protestant
people. Initially settlers were referred to, by themselves and others, as Scots, or English.
Later, as residents of the Kingdom of Ireland, they came to think of themselves as Irish
Protestants, although their regional identity was also important, and Northern Dissenters
was another frequently used term. Throughout all these periods, Britishness (which
carried with it the right to ‘British liberties’) was an important, and sometimes dominant
aspect. With the successive Home Rule crises at the end of the 19th and beginning of the
20th centuries, their regional identity as Ulstermen and women came to the fore, although
Britishness, and Protestantism with which it was associated, remained vitally important.
59
The term Ulster-Scots also began to be used around this time. With the establishment of
‘Northern Irish’, whilst a minority had never abandoned an ‘Irish’ dimension. In more
recent times, the term Ulster-Scots has enjoyed a major revival associated with renewed
interest in dialect, musical traditons and other aspects of culture, but some feel this is too
narrow an identity to encompass the descendants of English, native Irish and Huguenot
peoples, and prefer Ulster-British. Almost all the terms referred to remain in use to some
extent, and in different contexts several may be used by one individual. This
indeterminacy of identity has often been seen as a weakness, and Irish nationalists have
often used it to argue that Ulster Protestants should simply accept that they are ‘Irish’
with the political consequences that implies. This has only resulted in even fiercer
increasing numbers of people with quite different ethnic and religious identities to
Ireland, however, it has been increasingly difficult for nationalists to define what being
‘Irish’ means – the Ulster Protestant’s problem has become everybody’s problem, in
The term Scotch-Irish was first coined in Elizabethan times to describe the Catholic
MacDonnells of Antrim. It became widely used in the 18th century, however, in North
America, to distinguish Ulster Protestants, mostly Presbyterian, from Irish Catholics, but
was often seen as an abusive term. The Ulstermen, to their chagrin, also often found
As battles such as that at the original Londonderry faded into the past, however, the
Scotch-Irish became more comfortable with the ‘Irish’ part of their identity:
The term Scotch-Irish enjoyed a revival with the massive increase in Catholic Irish
immigration following the Great Famine of the 1840, and is still commonly used,
although many, remembering the abuse of the past, dislike the association of ‘Scotch’
Griffin notes that “Failure to take these people on their own terms, as men and women
without easily identifiable identities, is to distort the groups’ experience”(2001 p3), and
emphasises the point by calling his book ‘The People with No Name’. The fact that their
identities were already in flux may explain the ease with which they became
‘Americans’.
Our narrative has shown how identity was also fluid for Aboriginal peoples on the
new identities came into being, amongst them, the idea of being an ‘Indian’, Native, or
Aboriginal person. For many people of Aboriginal heritage, citizenship posed a dilemma
of identity. In the postmodern era, however, we have become much more aware that all
identities are socially constructed and subject to change in response to circumstances, and
that different identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Thus to the question, are
61
answer “all of the above”, but different aspects of my identity are important in different
contexts. This is more challenging than simply accepting an ascribed identity without
thought, but it is also offers more opportunities for creative relationship, and the
also requires society to change in order to allow this, however, as Bob Williamson
CONCLUSION.
(‘The Star of Moville’, by blind North Derry fiddler Jimmie McCurry, 1925).
The peoples of the frontiers, Scots and English Borderers, Ulster-Scots, Irish, Scotch-
Irish, Iroquois, Algonquin, Métis and others, have played an important part in forming
the world we live in today, not because they were powerful, but because being largely
powerless, they were forced to take on the defining roles others preferred to avoid.
They are not…the most immediately loveable folk in the United Kingdom…
Incomers may find them difficult to know; there is a tendency amongst them to be
suspicious and taciturn…Perhaps the greatest compliment one can pay to the
people of the Anglo-Scottish frontier is…that, in spite of everything, they are still
there…(1989).
The same could probably be said of all the peoples whose character was forged on the
anvil of the frontier. They are important because their values, for good or ill, have
entered the popular culture of the most powerful nation on earth, through the medium of
62
the Western novel and the Hollywood film. Some of the best of these may show a truer
picture of the historical frontiersman than an academic paper can capture. John Ford’s
‘The Searchers’ captured many of the themes that characterised the Scotch-Irish on the
part of social intercourse, a citizens militia of ‘Rangers’ led by a Christian minister. The
character of Ethan Allen, played by John Wayne captured many of the frontier’s
paradoxes: his loyalty to his kin balanced by a sense of ‘apartness’ that led him to prefer
to kill the daughter of the family rather than accept her back after she had lived with
Indians, his hatred of the Indians for their savagery juxtaposed with his willingness to
scalp his own enemies, his fight for ‘civilisation’ rewarded by remaining forever on its
fringes.
Clint Eastwood’s ‘The Outlaw Josey Wales’ presents a more balanced view,
Confederate, and offers a more hopeful outlook in its exploration of confrontation and
reconciliation across borders, first between Rebels and Yankees, then between the varied
group and the Comanche people of Chief Ten Bears. The song ‘The Rose of Alabamy’
featured in the movie is an Americanisation of the County Down folk song – ‘The Flower
of Magherally’.
Leyburn assessed the influence of the Scotch-Irish on the emerging ‘American’ culture:
Their optimistic self-reliance, with a conviction that God helps those who help
themselves, was to become the congenial American folk philosophy…not far
removed from materialism and a faith in progress.
The Scotch-Irish were no more the originators of these American convictions
than they had been…of the idea of freedom and individualism. What is
significant is that, holding the attitude they did, and being present in such large
numbers throughout the United States, they afforded the middle ground that could
63
become typical of the American…The Scotch Irish element could be the common
denominator into which Americanism might be resolved (1962 p323).
That the values of the frontier have entered the mainstream culture of the USA is of
concern to the whole world, because in the era of globalisation, the whole world is on
but he grew up in a society whose norms and values were largely formed by people who
were. Those in Europe who condemn the USA for its ‘savagery’, fundamentalist self-
righteousness and lack of regard for ‘the law’, might do well to ask themselves how it
came to be that way. All people today, including Americans, might pause to consider the
significance of the fact that the modern culture and mores of the USA were largely
determined by a people whose previous experience had been 500 years of brutalisation,
The stories of the Scotch-Irish and the Aboriginal North American have generally been
portrayed as struggles against each other. In fact they were thrown together in the course
of their own respective struggles to maintain life and security, human dignity and
freedom, a sense of identity and community, and a way of living that encompassed the
spiritual as well as the material. The real threat to these things was not the other group,
but the forces of the market capitalist system, based on ‘fiat’ or ‘debt’ currency, which
necessarily enriches some individuals and groups at the expense of impoverishing others
(Lietaer 2001). That is why similar problems are shared today by the Protestant and
Catholic ghettoes of Belfast, the urban aboriginal population of Winnipeg, and the former
southern sharecroppers, black and white, of Chicago, and why similar pressures continue
to drive off the land the cattle-farmers of present-day England and Scotland, of Ireland,
north and south, and the ranchers, farmers and cowboys of North America, both
64
Aboriginal and Euro-American, as well as driving fishermen from the waters from the
In the face of a globalising and homogeonising corporate capitalism, there has, in recent
years, been a revival of, and a renewed sense of value imbued in local cultural practices,
and local ways of living, speaking and seeing, and a reassertion of local expressions of
identity from the Sacred Drums of North America to the Lambeg Drums of Ulster.
Willie Drennan, a practitioner of the latter with the Ulster-Scots Folk Orchestra as well as
“lack of interest and respect for our distinct cultural heritages is surely a factor in
today’s growing indifference to family and community values, and indeed in the
lack of necessary concern for the sustainability of our local environment. In this
context, we are all part of an endangered species”
In this context also, perhaps, communities who previously believed they had little in
common, except ancient enmities, may find that they have after all, a currency of greater
SOURCES.
Cash, Wilbur Joseph. 1941/91. The Mind of the South. Vintage Books.
Diamond, Jared. 1997/9. Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.
Norton, N.Y.
Dickson, R.J. 1966. Ulster Emigration to Colonial America: 1718-1775. Routledge and
Kegan Paul. London.
Doddridge, Joseph. 1824/1902. Notes on the Settlement and the Indian War.
Pittsburgh..
Downs, James F. 1972.[first published 1963] “The Cowboy and the Lady: Models as a
Determinant of the Rate of Acculturation Among the Pinon Navajo” in. Bahr, Howard
M., Bruce A. Chadwick & Robert C. Day [eds] Native Americans Today: Sociological
Perspectives. Harper &Row, N.Y.
Economic Background of the Settlers” in BBC History, Wars and Conflict: The
Plantation of Ulster on-line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/plantation/planters/es06.shtml Accessed 28/03/03.
Evans, E. Estyn. 1969. “The Scotch-Irish: Their Cultural Adaptation and Heritage in the
Old West” in Green, E.R.R. 1969. Essays in Scotch-Irish History. Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London.
Fitzpatrick, Rory. 1989. God’s Frontiersmen: The Scots-Irish Epic. Wiedenfeld &
Nicolson, London.
Fixico, Donald L. 1985. “From Indians to Cowboys: The Country Western Trend” in
Trafzer, Clifford E. [ed] American Indian Identity: Today’s Changing Perspectives.
Sierra Oaks, Sacramento.
Fraser, George MacDonald. 1989. The Steel Bonnets: The Story of the Anglo-Scottish
Border Reivers. Collins Harvill, London.
Green, E.R.R. 1969. “Editor’s Introduction” in Green, E.R.R. 1969. Essays in Scotch-
Irish History. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Griffin, Patrick. 2001. The People with No Name: Ireland’s Ulster-Scots, America’s
Scots-Irish, and the Creation of a British Atlantic World, 1689-1764. Princeton Univ.
Princeton & Oxford.
66
Herman, Arthur. 2001. How the Scots Invented the Modern World. Three Rivers, N.Y.
Iverson, Peter. 1994. When Indians Became Cowboys. Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman &
London.
Jackson, Carlton. 1993. The Social History of the Scots-Irish. Madison, Lanham.
Johnson, James E. 1966. The Scots and the Scotch-Irish in America. Lerner,
Minneapolis.
Mawani, Renissa. “In Between and Out of Place: Racial Hybridity, Liquor, and the Law
in Late Nineteenth Century and Early Twentieth Century British Colombia”.
Montgomery, Michael. “The Linguistic History of Ulster” in BBC History, Wars and
Conflict: The Plantation of Ulster on-line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/wars/plantation/ulsterscots/index.shtml Accessed 28/03/03
Roessel, Monty. 1991. “World’s Best Indian Cowboys at Fair” in Navajo Nation Today
Sep. 4-8.
Trigger, Bruce. 1976. The children of Aataentsic: a history of the Huron people to 1660.
McGill/Queens, Montreal. Vol 1, p3.
67