presidency, ronald reagan's white house political affairs director and historian craig shirley on reagan's campaigns for the white house. up in newcleans hampshire, he wins 2-1. it was such momentum that it was a good thing we won by such a margin -- such a margin. tv, everyican history weekend on c-span3. >> on american history tv, scottish historian explores his homeland's rules during the american revolution. he argues despite fighting for the losing side, many scots gained land and increased their social status after the war. the museum of the american revolution and the richard c von hess foundation cohosted this

event as part of a three-day international conference. >> i would like to welcome you all back, we had a great keynote session. international19 conference on the american revolution, we are meeting here in a little fear at the museum of the american revolution and we are very grateful to our sponsors. see the rich receive on -- richard c von hess foundation. this particular topic goes back more than a quarter-century, very personal for me and starts with the insight, which is brought out in the exhibition we are celebrating launching here, the life and death of the irish soldier. that exports connections between the american revolution and st.and through the life of

george, who was a soldier and an artist, not necessarily a fine artist but a caricaturist. satire and that mockery, something we use a lot great dealeveal a about culture, and this is certainly a theme that comes out in the exhibition. about 30 years ago when i was a graduate student, spent a couple of summers in the scottish record office, there was another graduate student at the time who was pulling up a lot of the same boxes of papers that i was. you start to have a conversation about what the work is. know thew i got to speaker this evening -- sorry this morning. who's a senior lecturer at the university of glasgow, taught for many years at the university

of aberdeen. located, andages i we will be dissecting this quite a bit, is called the scotch archery. i was doing research on highland scottish military service in north america in the period of the french indian war and its influence on north america leading up to the american revolution, a subject that was mackey. interest to dr. read fromrmally just the podium, but there's no better way to introduce what sparked my interest in this particular cartoon and then my desire to hear someone who knows more than i do talk about it. this is an article that was

published here in philadelphia in the pennsylvania magazine of history and biography of publication, the venerable historical society of pennsylvania. wrote, by historian that among the misdeeds of george the third that the declaration of independence so dramatically lists, none is more familiar than he is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with ,ircumstances of cruelty scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages and totally unworthy ahead head of a civilized nation. the declaration of independence, drafted, debated, signed a block and a half from where we are right now, does not i didn't these foreign mercenaries.

-- identify these foreign mercenaries. many came by his fellow members andhe drafting committee submitted to the full congress for discussion and debate on july 2, 1776, the only mercenaries specifically mentioned were the scotch. at the close of the draft is a long passage telling of the american peels to quota our british rather in, in saying are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and deluged us in blood."

when the draft went before congress and was debated, there was a little bit of editing that took place. himself referred to this process. therote in a letter, when declaration of independence was under the consideration of congress, there were two or three lucky expressions in it which gave offense to some members, the words scotch and other foreign exhilarate is exhilarate of the ire of a gentleman or two of that country. finalas deleted in the draft of the declaration that was adopted just two days later on the fourth of july 1776. it's interesting to read and i did a little research reading newspapers and diaries of the period just to try to get a sense of the background of this. letter thatonderful

was written by captured highland officer, as 3000 men are sent from the highlands of scotland to put down the american rebellion and 500 highland soldiers are act really captured on the seas and transports on the way over were brought into boston. i want to close by reading -- this is a quotes where he is describing the treatment, he said as it was thought improper for us to remain at a seaport, we were ordered 60 miles up the country. on our journey, no slaves were ever served as we were. through every village, town in hamlet, every women and children , and sometimes men, came out and loaded us with rascally for epithets.scally

they threw the most infamous invectives. they added showers of dirt and filth. there's more to this than meets the eye. despite the fact that much of our graduates students time was talking about history, has become a distinguished lecturer at the university of glasgow. he describes himself as an exile in scotland, being from the outer hebrides. and has spoken passionately about how that family background has colored and influenced his professional life in perspective on researching the history of theland more broadly and british empire of the 18th and

19th centuries. is currently connected to the story is one that might have been your first book, more fruitful than the soil, army empire and the scottish highlands. his work has ranged widely to explore the east india company, the experience of the irish, and i would like to add this session was going to conway. with dr. steven just like the scots of the 18th and 19th century we loaded an additional burden on mackey here and he is going to carry us to the finish line. join me in warmly welcoming dr. andrew macola. [applause]

>> in scotland we are told you shouldn't applaud until the end, because you don't know what you are going to get. let me thank the museum of the american revolution, its sponsors for this event and everybody will who has been wonderful for the invitation to speak. and the initial privilege of having -- to have been intended to speak with steven conway, a man who has thankfully forgotten about britain and the american revolution than most of us will ever know. a shame he can't be here. but i will attempt to cover some of the themes steven would have left us with. unfortunate absence has left the organizers with a practical problem. and frankly a need to take a risk. like washington gabbing on crossing the delaware, scotland

has allowed the scots the time and space to talk about english political culture in public. and at some country length. there are some tensions within is united kingdom over what deemed acceptable political cultures in both countries. hoperisky indeed and let's we have yet to see whether it will pay off. a very specific piece of historical evidence to open up into wider themes about how britain and ireland's substantial ansys -- and esteemed efforts to hold colonies within the empire reshaped though societies just assuredly as they did north america in many of the ways talking about last night. part of the museum's wonderful lies a deep think

structural truth. at the point of the american revolution rate britain was a complicated entity. a highly organized highly structured system and disguise the fact that the country is basically in the act of coming together. it's a germanic, irish, britannica monarchy. hugely important some of the ways you can see in the ireland is the way ambiguous with the rest of the relationship with u.k. and gives an idea of the structural tensions that underpin the core british and irish state. the piece of evidence in -- i will move my

thing along. the scots invented television. plenty produced in london in 1775 and certainly not one of the most famous or recognizable images on either side produced by the revolution and the war of independence. is a wonderful window into the complexities, tensions, and potential of what was still a very new and very young british union. the print and its messages are powerful indicators and quite large part of english clinical ulcer outside of parliament, and to some extent within it, exhibited a range of negative

attitudes toward british evolving policy and north america through the 1770's. these attitudes ranged from uncertainty, unease, trepidation, to outright hostility and opposition. conversely, some of the dynamics in this image show us why some of scotland, more than any other part of the british-irish isles would be deeply committed to the british effort and north america. this is not to say all scots fought for the crown. william sterling or james wilson -- hugely prominent and rightly celebrated now as men who led the political military effort to achieve and secure independence.

the reality is the scots didn't really represent broader picture. among scots who emigrated to north america, there was a tendency to be loyalists. its --ts, for all accurately captures the general scottish pole -- dental scottish position. you can talk about being such a thing as a general attitude to sense it isn a capturing something quite important. the dish irish aisles should not be over car per mental iced -- the british isles should be compartmentalized -- not be compartmentalized.

this was always a matter of degree rather than absolute. the response to all three shared a lot more in, then this image might suggest. all of this is to underline an obvious point. it's political nature shouldn't detract from its sophisticated multilevel messaging. designed to project a very negative image of scots, and the aim was to paint the british government at the time as corrupt, authoritarian, and unconstitutional. all the named protagonist in this picture are scots. out thebe able to make man holding the sword is john of bute.l of utah --

the second is william murray, the lord chi's -- lord chief justice of england. the portraits are a pretty good match. it's almost as if the caricaturist had an idea with these individuals looked like. these scots are being made to stand in for royal that supposedly held in common by english communities on both sides of the atlantic. what can you see for print in the wider images? it was a fairly action-packed year.

if the print was produced in responses to the fast-moving end ofin boston at the the autumn of 1774, it would tailor something significant about -- it would tell you sending significant about the creator and the audience. number three, colonel frazier is described as -- a highland chief executed in 1740. he has the last major political figure to be publicly beheaded. young simon had fought with his father's regiment, a very effective regiment, partially

destroying a town. this man has fought as a? -- as a jacobite. he was very young at the time. he came under the protection of the most prominent scottish politician at the time, the perry file -- the very powerful and influential arch to -- archbishop -- he used this man to basically jacobitesehabilitate in a forward thinking way.

in return for this, his kin and allies across the north of oftland raised a regiment 1100 men in 1777. they put it together in about five weeks. his service was a key reason why in the highlands were restored the year before the sprint was completed. completely rehabilitated from jacobite rebel to a newly established landlord. -- betweenion

october 7075 and march 1776. his name metaphorically arrived in north america -- if you firmly date the print ofard the end in the winter 7075, what else can it tell us about attitudes in britain and ireland? none of the figures shown in the .mage we were a cuddly warm people, we didn't do any of this. point did any of these men

-- scott witchery is a made up of event, and it never happened. say scottisho troops don't have an undeserved reputation for considerable violence and brutality. the print imagine scottish involvement in the coercion of boston, not in terms of strict accuracy, at -- accuracy, but as a piece of allegory. in doing so the image entangled different events, some from britain, some from america. that demonstrate the traditional english political culture was to they sympathetic patriot cause. --s desire to tailor

explains why the english asdiers are portrayed willing to act against boston and bostonians. mortally struck at the apparent eagerness of the scottish troops to move against the city and its population. honest, squeamishness is not the first characteristic that springs to mind when you think of a regular british regiment. the images actually diverting what happened in boston, but on the fifth of march, 1770. when armors -- when soldiers from the ninth regiment open fire in a crowd killing five people. possible one of the two soldiers involved may have been .cots from their names

likewise, if we look at the royal navy ship in the background, seemingly controlled cates -- just in case you are not sure, they stick a huge missile in the front. -- huge thistle in the front. apparently the scotch commanders are controlling the royal navy, that is a blatant miss her present tatian. and which enabled movements which resulted in bunker hill.

stage you are wondering, did i pay good money to hear a a special pleading on behalf of allegorical scots? is he going to spend most of the time saying this didn't happen and that didn't happen? what's within this image is i think a much more significant and deeper level then miss her presentation. the print was making a direct of mayion to the 10th 1768 killing at the saint georges fields on the outskirts of south london area this was a notorious incident during which one of the many waves of popular and unrest --

unlike boston, the regiment which was involved in the st. george's field massacre was a scottish unit, what the print is doing is collapsing time and say thatan effort to the cause and suffering is the same cause is liberty loving london. conflict was not between englishmen, england and its cousins and descendents in north america. and the protection of property and life. it could yet bring peace and reconciliation. by contrast, those at fault, those driving the crisis and actively moving britain are all scots. ?hat is significant

what it is doing is revealing andthe american union processes of consolidation seem to reflect and undermine transatlantic cultures and communities of englishness. many is no doubting that groups within the broad church that was english and american culture increasingly failed after 1760 three that established rights of the assembly to effective representation and the defense of property from legislative fear was under direct threat. the agenda of king george the third seemed to shift government from legislative consent to government by executive order. and opposed to this process in england and north america conceived of this

as a deeply unfortunate maligned shift from english principles of government to british principles of government. the resulting resentment found an outlet. english elites associated scotland with an inclination and willingness to accept crown power. anti-scottish sentiment was on both sides of the atlantic. they have this discourse that scotland is part of the wider empire. this sanctum odious is in his would be powerful -- would be

mobilized to powerful effect in the early 1770's and had traction here in north america. in this worldview, scott's actively preferred principles of royal prerogative of this tort. it's all interlinking. denied their natural political so the discourse goes, scots chose now to cover up the monarchy, parliament and english systems of law and empire. the men represented here were blamed for leading this process. here we have jon stewart from 61-62. --is the first scott powerful to very discrete scottish political

networks and certainly a of --ation of the treaty hostility ofng many politicians, intellectuals, london-based publishers, and supporters in their colonies. he was seen as far too powerful and far too inclined to support his own countrymen. beefs is that effectively people are driving a , and that process is particularly prominent in the empire. they are taking an eccentric approach, meaning they are storming the center of power from the peripheries and filling their bases up and colonies in ways that will ultimately threaten the center.

and a whole suede of newly acquired territories in the caribbean. basically come under control of what we described as -- men and hard military government colonies accordingly. is driven from power in the 1760's, but he continued -- he has continued to be used. handy political symbol in the british army and across the empire. see in the middle number two and his portrait you of there was again typical

brilliantly deconstructed legal establishment was increasingly colonized by a scottish lawyer. at the moment, given what is distinctlyn brexit, unhappy with scottish legal process at the moment. englandchief justice of , mansfield did sanction a general use of lawrence. curtail -- to to search for correspondence and impound what is seen as people's personal property. are seeing the key tenants of english law, the protection of the individual and protection of english property.

which are understood and a sense -- in a sense, as a read on personal property. having a very as lacs attitude toward the principle of property. they will impounded, they will move it, they will shifted. darkne you see in the legal robes was the son of a scottish advocate. he had traveled and entered the english legal system. wedderburn was one of the legal progenies of bute's political career. he was a supporter of key

aspects of wilkes's agenda. he actually supports key aspects of his position. i think that's a good way of getting across the fact that none of these political stances are defined by ethnic city. is attemptingture to say all englishmen are liberty loving and abide by the tories. scots are wedderburn was crossing political lines constantly. what are burn's acceptance of the solicitor general's post in 1771 was another key proof of his characteristic regarding scottish political behavior. they wouldn't know our political principle if it fell on them from a height.

veryer burn also took a strong stance and was a real hawk when it came to dealing with the aftermath of the tea party. he advocated a massive reinforcement of forces in boston and was seen as typical of a clear pattern of excessive and politically regressive scottish influence at the very highest level of british government and law. these anxieties over how the disparate political community that made up the empire in 7075 -- 1775 were to be governed. seen in theses political events as a crisis of traditional englishness and english north americanness. on reconciling these differences

of how to frame societies on both sides of the atlantic, and the individual, they captured something important about what is driving the conflict, like a clash of transatlantic political english culture and administered british culture. for all its literal manifestations, it is important to acknowledge the print is capturing important characteristics of the scottish role in the war of independence. it is easy to dismiss it, but it's brilliant as as a second tire -- as a satire and character is capturing a deeper truth. the print will provide a sense of why scots were much more likely to fight for the crown. sociallyate to how influential scots perceived of britain.

vast majority of the scottish elite, all the way down to its middle-class, merchants, clergy and loyalty, the concept of britain, the idea of britain was a political, economic, legal and cultural aspiration. it was a project still in the making. it was wonderfully repeat -- replete with potential regressive ness. -- regressiveness. it was aimed at minimizing disruptive forces that scots found had torn the british isles for centuries. ancient divisions between whkend torry -- between ig and tory, and this war of division could be eased by a new political order which stressed economic liberty, material

strong unitednd a defense against the great catholic powers of europe. collectiveual and improvement here to be stable and sustainable, there needed to of legalear framework and political authority. rapid commercial and economic development, be it north america, london, or port cities bristol,on, belfast, philadelphia, glasgow, all that needed to be safeguarded and nurtured through a system of integrated unregulated regulated government. it is going too far to say this was a vision which placed economic liberty above personal political freedom, but what it ,ertainly entails was a belief it is important to state this, a genuine belief that social and

personal improvement needed careful lend collectively-recognized systems of executive effectiveness and executive oversight. it was for this vision of union 's wouldre so many scot fight. the need for stability was particularly strong in a country which, let's remember, had been three revolt and two attempted revolts in less than 1708-1745.tween if you asked and american, england -- if you asked an american, english or irishman as late as 1770, who are the destructors, the rebels and traitors in the english-speaking world, they would all have answered scots. scotland had this deep-fisher's deep-fissured history

and the argument was written would provide that framework. scotland was the scene of instability across the british isles after 1688 and the defeat of the irish jacobites. the country experienced destructive waves of civil and military violence for 60 years. it ultimately took a british army to kill large numbers of jacobites, behead their leaders, force them to bring the union into a position of stability. the country was noticeably poorer than england in material terms, certainly, and in some key respects in economy, even less developed than ireland. this is why scotland developed an economic patriotism, and attempt to bring the country up in material terms. scottish society by the 1760's and 1770's had very good, very practical, very understandable reasons to seek and support

systems of governance that would provide for safety and stability to enable the pursuit of common improvement. this seems politically outdated when you compare it against the progressive democratic vision of political freedom advanced by the patriots. it can be very easy to dismiss this vision of political community. yet this concept of an empire of liberty inspired many across britain, ireland and especially scotland, to fight what would be a bloody and costly eight-year war, first against colonists and then against a major alliance of european powers. whatever else they are doing, they are deeply committed to it, with blood and treasure attempting to see it through. but it ended in humiliating failure, and should not distract from the belief it inspired

among scots, english irish send many north americans. i want to talk about that we shouldn't forget major consequences for britain and the rest of the empire arising from that long effort to attempt to succeed. failure still produces consequences and that is going to be hugely significant. so although preventing extremely -- presenting extremely , scotlandes of scots ended soldiers would have a noticeable presence in the british army in north america. above a commitment to britishness, i want to seize another dynamic underpinning the scotland commitment to the project. that is, it's deeply ingrained military culture of service. i want to put that in context by

underlining something it can be easy to forget, and that is that scotland, while lovely and cuddly and small, is very small in population terms, it is really not a significant part of the wider british union. its constitutional position as one half of the british union, disguising the fact it made up only 12% of britain and ireland's population. so scotland has constitutional clout which it cannot match with in facthic wit, and is a junior partner within the british-- the wider monarchy. you have to remember that 12% when you see some of the figures i will produce. ireland was the second kingdom within the british-irish isles, possibly in constitutional and cultural terms, and its population well over 3 million by the time of the war, dwarfed by scotland -- dwarfed

scotland's, which was 1.3 million. the reality of limited population and a permanent political minority status within the incorporating union was, however, offset by certain social and economic characteristics which marked scotland different from other parts of the british and irish isles. country's aristocrats were poorer in material and political terms than either the english or anglo-irish counterparts. they relied upon state service, not so much as a status symbol, which is what the anglo-irish used them for, scots needed state service for material gain. with only 12% of the population, scots nevertheless preserved an average of 23% of almost -- when british armory

throughout the 18th century. the result is a high percentage of scots within the army corps at the officer level. in other words, there is a structural dependency if you like upon state service. this pattern of service explains a high percentage of divisional commanders who were scots. one third of all british brigades at brandywine were commanded by scott, 12% of the population, 33% of that major tactical level of the british army. scotland isds, --essively representated represented, disproportionately at the key point of the effort to quash the colonies. any number of military officers, and scotland

developments a contra of vets and officers across the conflicts of the 1760's and 1770's. one example could illustrate hundreds of other scottish officers. -sur --ibald kendall pbee --hibald cam campbell fights as a junior officer in the campbell militia. so this man fights simon fraser. ist of the british project people like campbell and frazier ending that amity, ringing themselves together if you like. he learned a lot about skirmishing on militia units and to suppress jacobite improvement during the highlands in 45. he serves as a junior military

officer in the black watch during the french indian war, he serves in the west indies, he amount ofonsiderable time as a commander in india in the 1760's and early 1770's. he is then sent back to north america and is one of the men captured when a large group of soldiers is taken to boston. he is exchanged, goes back into military service, and serves in throughican theater 1777-1778. he is one of the few scots that goes above divisional commander and becomes an army commander. he sank his regiment with other units in georgia as part of the british shift in 1778 and 1779 and he fights with the devastating effect of a campaign drawing directly on his experience from the 45. what he does that of a lot of

other british commanders don't do is, he coordinates an operational link between his regular forces and, not surprisingly, the systematic use of loyalist militia to suppress patriot opinion once the army moved through. he in a way provided a model that if the british used this systematically, they may have more success. he prolific lights -- he prolific rights organized patriot opinion in georgia fairly quickly. and then, he is off to the west indies and will spend time there and end his time in india thereafter. scottish,as a local, trans atlantic and ultimately global career. he enables and is envisioned envisaging ad is global empire that can reduce these fissures. he is above all a political

imperial fixer. that is his job and for campbell , read other hundreds of middle ranking scottish officers. so we have britishness and a culture of military service, but we need to change the social slant and move it down through the social order. diverse had a much more culture of military service than just its officer class. nature ofcause of the the rule of order and tenancy arrangements and scotland. it is difficult to over exaggerate the social power landowners have over the populations under their control. they maintain a much, much more aggressive than coercive level of leverage over there tenancy than any landed class and ireland, wales or england.

almost no one in rural scotland has a formal lease for their farms. hundreds of thousands of scots live on daily discretion on farms that they have probably farmed for centuries. the vast majority of scots, men women and children can ha -- men women and children, have no legal access to land. yearseehold lease of 60 comment ireland and catholic tenancy simply don't exist in scotland. most of the scottish population lives under the discretion of landlords who can evict them with 30 days notice. when one landowner evicted his he evictedicted -- 23,000 people. that is a method of landlord

control, you have real control over your population. this meant scottish landlords could and did keep their populations as a resource that -- in ways that were not popular -- in ways that were not possible and ireland and england. in war, scottish tenancy became a cash crop that was cashed in in return for army commissions. the result was the creation of regiments like this, where effectively the country's elite are cashing in on one of their few material resources in return for rank and status. it was a highly effective system, as we have seen with , it wasaser of lovat initially developed during the french and indian war and would be used again during the war of independence. it was used in two phases, the first in the english rapid buildup of armed forces in 1775. the british aren't stupid. thisknow they have to end quickly before patriot momentum

builds and before france gets involved. they have to rapidly mobilize as many as they can, and that is where scottish regiments come in. --occurred again in 1778 and in late 1777 in 1778 when it became clear would have to find a global war -- fight a global war. the value in which landed scottish society contributed to the war effort was the speed of investment, producing numbers almost instantaneously. the earl of the isle of lewis raised 230 men in three days from an eligible population, male population, of 2500. in other words, he grabbed almost 10% of the eligible male , andation in three days they are drafted immediately into his regiment. of lovat raise more men

in eight weeks. isther way to think of this to illustrate the contrast with ireland. in 1775, recruitment and ireland delivered 2900 newman to the army. remember, ireland is much, much larger of a population that scotland, but in the same number of men raised in scotland was over 4500. in other words, a much smaller country is giving a much larger per capita oomph to the war. --nboro and glassboro edinburg would ultimately raise military units. scotlandambiguity in and glasgow is unique as a major british city for not sending a

regiment in 1775. so as with trends in the officer class, we have here a distinctive pattern of scottish order representation. 42nd highland regiment and 71st highland regiment gained and deserved a reputation for effectiveness but also brutality. nationalists scots that jefferson's draft talked about. but the scottish recruitment system had weaknessess. it was ideal for delivering mentor britain quickly but had its limits. fears of invasion by 1778, the government refusal to give scotland a militia resulted instead in the creation of a series of big regular home defense regiments. they soaked up another 5000 scots. to replenish heavy losses in

america, the creation of the edinburg and glasgow regiments and the commitment of three further highland regiments to the indian theater meant that by 1779 there were no more scots to give, fundamentally. there is no more labor, prices are going through the roof, scotland has reached the bottom of the barrel. this is a testament to the success of early recruitment drives in the country's small population. from 1778 onward, it would be ireland ending that would continue through their demographics to contribute to the british war effort. but scottish prominence during phases,s crucial early and the arrival of concentrated blocks and clearly distinguished scottish regiments is key here. wash manpower

quantitatively bigger but was spread over lots of regiments. the result is that scottish regiments have a profile that doesn't match their numbers. the third factor hints at the image of the attitude of ordinary scottish soldiers. it is easy to dismiss these men as powerless, subjected to a system of despotic power, but many highland soldiers had no option. failure to join a landlord's regiment would lead to mass evictions. if you didn't join the regiment, your family were out. but we shouldn't die -- we shouldn't deny these men the agency a massive factor motivating men all over the british isles, that upon promise of victory they would receive land from the crown. this was a major incentive for men fighting in the french indian war. a combination of economic advancement to the hope of economic advancement and a sense of obligation to the crown placed among veterans to be given land upon the piece

explains the loyal-ism. they have a sense the crown works for them and is advancing their interests and their liberty. rent -- manpower was raised among immigrant communities in quebec and new york at the end of the seven years war. crown legal framework to secure access to land is also demonstrated in the carolinas. they went to an active pattern of loyal-ism until they were faced with heavy defeats at the hands of patriots in 1776. far from just passive victims of the one-sided imperial state machine, thousands of ordinary soldiers and immigrants saw the war as their chance for economic advancement. ofen dreadful conditions security in scotland, the

prospect of land grants in scotland had a particular attraction, as land in america had attraction in scotland. in the end, the commitment of those like campbell availed them nothing. the war failed. england and wales lost heavily, as did scotland. argue the partisans of ireland did rather well after the war. there wasn't scotland by 1783 a profound sense of dismay over the loss of the colonies and again, for reasons distinctive to scotland. glasgow the cow -- was evident because of its growth as a port in the tobacco trade. patriotic scots were delighted at the war's outcome, a patriot

who supports the americans whileeartedly middle-class scotland sees a bleak and dark future. economist john marx published allowed the question as to whether the union lost for scotland was its economic attraction. countrys a fear the sacrificed its independence for an atlantic empire that was now now at this mender -- best dismembered. was a major rethinking of what would be the basis of the scottish economy without america. i want to drawre to conclusion, in one of the american revolutions, many ironic and widely felt consequences. extent tostress the

which defeat brought benefit. it is hard to align the idea of such heavy i -- such heavy defeat with the idea a society could benefit. scotland, anglos, whalers -- scotland, england, wales and ireland lost the war. what is far less appreciated is how much scotland want as a consequence of the war, and there is a distinction between winning the war and winning from consequences arising from it. across politics, religion, politics and social order, the piece against to show real signs of scotland having a benefit. political confidence begins to emerge in scotland in the months after the peace. there is new willingness to stand up to perceived scottish interests within the union. that was one of the immediate results of the war. a key problem affecting scotland

prior to the american revolution was how to push back against the british government without incurring the charge of disloyalty? bind,nd is in a real being as loyal as it can but if it opposes the government on something, it can come across as traitorous. the only way to do this was through conspicuous loyalty and demonstrable military service, which scotland did from 1775. the result was that constraint was broken, and we start to see the effects even during the war. presbyterians79, organized a set of nationwide protests against proposals to give legal and political relief to catholics. the legislation passed easily in england and wales with little opposition even in the irish

parliament, dominated exclusively by partisans. scotland was different. thesters denounced proposals as a breach of the and on scotland's political liberties, and intense writing broke out across every major city in scotland. the main figure responsible for government interests wisely recommended the british government dropped the proposal. faced with thundering denunciations from the pulpit and in print, the british government humiliating lay major down, the first british government climbed down for major policy in scotland since the union. politicalrom the necessity of showing union so as not to be tarnished jacobite, scottish society would now use the claim that sound policies reach the union -- that some

policies breach the union as a way of defending their interests. another measure was easily and quickly defeated by a claimant would impeach the union. scottish society had re-found a way of opposing british government in domestic policy that would have been unthinkable for decades after culloden. andicans gave the scottish new ability to be critical. another major change was that scotland the nation recover the right to bear arms. , the 1715 1715 rising, scotland was a disarmed society denied the right to a militia and garrisoned i nonce scott regular regiments. non--scotned by regular regiments.

--er again would scotkl would scotland be garrisoned by and would have a sincea for the first time 1715. political confidence and security in the capacity to be full soldiers subjects with the same rights as fellow britons were not the only gains. former jacobites theht in america and got reward in 1784 when the crown all forfeited jacobite estates to their owners. s and the landed order were massive winners from the piece. defeatthe atlantic, confirmed massive loyal test disintegration.

these populations would preoccupy those running what is left of the british empire in north america. scots took it remarkably well after these massive resettlement efforts. highland soldiers obtained 50 acres of land, noncommissioned officers and officers larger shares on a sliding scale. ordinary soldiers went from being landless without any tenant rights to being landowners in north america. massive defeat produced upward social mobility for some of the poorest sections of the scottish population. the scale of these land grants and needs to be underlined. in four months in 1780 four soldiers from demobilized highland residents received over 19,000 acres on prince edward island.

overwer and upper canada, 250,000 acres were given two men from highland units. beingand was appropriated from first nation peoples, so progress for scots came at the expense of others. but it is difficult to underestimate what such land meant for people in communities that had lived under such a brutal landlord system in scotland. mass are becoming landowners in north america. for thousands of ordinary soldiers, the empire delivered on the promise of liberty and the ability to pursue a new form of happiness. let me finish with one more example about this ironic upside to defeat. i mentioned the new political confidence and willingness to challenge political government,

-- challenge british government, but it also displaced senior politicians and the british government. one politician was widely savaged for wielding too much power, yet the war in america drove the career of a senior scottish official who would be of vast influence over imperial policy for decades, namely henry dundalk, an effective lord growing, his influence in the 1770's. it was his refusal to serve in cabinetn they -- the finally convinced the king to abandon the most hawkish minister, the king bringing down the main man who formulated american policy.

of control ofn british territories in india, it became a powerful combination of political manager and imperial fixer. everyone -- everything people had feared. was exaggerated by enemies here, as we can see, but he came to resurrect scotop hobia. wearing a kilte and oriental turbine, but phobia in english political culture had lost its heat and attraction. the era lasted over 20 years were scots gained access to imperial employment on a colossal scale. scots were becoming commissioned

military personnel in the east india company. 1790's, they were equivalent to a whole regiment per year. the deep commitment to a british empire of order, law and material improvement was deepened and globalized by the war. what are we to make of the scottish example? just as the new united states itself, france and the rest of deeplytish empire were affected by the war of revolution and its ending. all these countries were profoundly reshaped in some way by what happened here in north america. but what i find fascinating is the unexpected and paradoxical consequence of the war.

the best way to illustrate this is with one last slide. produced four short years but a political lifetime away of the scots butchery. it is an allegory for the war in north america. england presents the first , france, and the dutch republic trying to nick the english passion. far englandows how and scotland traveled together in a war. here now scotland is a brother with his arm wrapped around england and aggressively attacking the french while england remains beset by the soldier. here we see a massive tenor ofnt toward the the anglo-scottish relationship.

scotland lost the war, of course, but in many ways one a surprising these. newrevolution formed a nation here, the united states, but it did a lot more than that. in many ways it marked a vital ,oment when britain created when70 years before -- britain created only 70 years before became a fully functional union. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] i will take questions. yes, please? >> thanks for that. that was brilliant and convincing.

coming back to something said at the beginning, that jefferson included mentions of the scots and an original draft of the declaration, it is clearer now, but tell me if i am correct in thinking that the biggest groups of immigrants in the colonial period where the scots and the scots irish. antipathyre this andrd the people jefferson the virginian up her crust are living with? were they equally in virginia as they were in boston? where they spread throughout the colonies, so that even jefferson would have lived with them, or not? irishhe scotch and scotch seen as a group of the same

ethnicity in the colonies, or were they seen as different than each other? great question. the answer is multi levels. you are absolutely right, the big weave comes in from 1710, 1720, to the break of the war. irish,ric terms, scots or scots from ulster, or ulster irish, depending on names we used, they formed the biggest wave numerically. numerically, people from scotland are relatively small in proportion, for the sake of argument call scotch irish at the moment, but there is a whole argument of what naming you could give these particular communities. the result is that scots or immigrants from scotland are arriving at the same time but arriving in a very distinct way.

most arrive after 1763 a large community groups, both low land and thailand, they tend to concentrate in upper new york, yes, some in virginia, but increasingly in the carolinas. reasonable movement into british north america as well. they are still emotionally and politically connected to britain, and the relationship scotch irish and immigrants is a tricky one. they are bound together with a similar sense of religion, they are nearly all presbyterians, so the scottish church acts as a mother church for many communities including the scotch irish. but people moved from ulster to north america, these are groups that have left scotland arguably

120 years earlier, some closer, and in a sense they really --n't scottish in the scans in the sense scottish immigrants are, they are a different group. scots live under the presbyterian church, this estate church, that prosecutes anglicans. under arish lived church that prosecuted them. -- lived under an anglican church that prosecuted them. the result is that paradoxical e, most of theur new communities would back the iswn, so in that sense it generational difference and

different ecclesiastical structures that meant two groups could see things very differently. [inaudible] mr. mackillop: the antipathy isn't just about the apparent toryism of scott. remember the middle colonies in terms of the planters, their elite, a lot of credit-debit relationships with large amounts so there istraders, commercialism of scots associated with excessive exploitation of the population, production of tobacco, etc. so there are different layers of antipathy. and jefferson is not anti-scottish, i think he is

looking at what is going on and, the bottom line is, these guys are against us. i think he is making a rational that scotsssessment in north america and especially coming from britain are tories. i think he is much more considered and reflective, he is going where his eyes are telling him. >> i want to take you back to the cartoon. is it,ely distributed both in the u.k. and north america? and what kind of impact does it have?

is that the type of thing people look at and say, that is cute, and move on, or does it change opinions? we have some: indication the scottish press, their reputation is not good, they have to go on a charm offensive. scots on a charm offensive, what an appalling prospect. [laughter] but attempting to ameliorate the condition. specific reaction to that image. where it is significant is not what it is saying in terms of something new, it is tapping into an established discourse, confirming what in a sense people already think. it is more of this layering on an additional confirmation of the scottish position within the government. the question as to how much it is circulated here in the u.s.,

that is a good question. we have not been able to find any evidence of i north american patriot that went, yeah, look at them. so in that sense, it is more about the way it provides a background vibe rather than a specific reaction. there is no hard proof of a specific interaction. -- specific reaction. i'm from the bandy rhine -- from the brandywine battlefield. in the 16 50's there were over 400 scottish pows brought to boston as slaves, they worked in the mills and so forth. you might want to add that as a backdrop. thank you. mr. mackillop: there is a big

how wein scotland over own up to the massive wealth we derived from the enslavement, or not so much the enslavement of people from africa, but rather the product of coerced labor. abroad,ts were coerced arefundamentally even pows indentured labor, they are treated very well and nowhere near facing the inhumanity imposed on people. s have a hard life but are still fundamentally subjects to the majesty. and these guys will get land in north america. so in that sense, the tendency to suggest to the scots have a hard time doesn't really stand up to much.

he is a lot nicer to scottish pows than to his irish pows, a lot nicer. >> i have a question about the first portion of the presentation. the image of the scots and this presbyterian search church -- presbyterian that is dangerous. how did that change over time? kirkes sound like the begins to wield more power within the context of the political west to limit catholic emancipation.

is there a positive reassessment of presbyterianism in the aftermath of this transformation? mr. mackillop: that is a great question in terms of therstanding this got -- obic discourse, but presbyterian is a congregation-driven process and it was associated with charles , and therefore has a reputation as potentially dangerous, and tories despite kirk, partlyrian because of the church of england's hostility toward settlers in ireland. scots favored the very authoritarian systems of

government, either the church or the crown or big, powerful , and at the church level that they allow themselves to be socially policed by the kirk. everywhere you look in scottish society, there is a tendency for the population to prefer strong, regulatory frameworks that check your authority to that -- your loyalty to the king, all the way down to whether you are fornicating or not, down to that level. just like the aristocracy, it is difficult to exaggerate the social power of the kirk. the kirk in scotland, england has a small but substantial catholic presence, ireland is overwhelmingly scottish -- overwhelmingly catholic, and scotland is 85 percent presbyterian, monolithic, and the church is correspondingly powerful. isthat sense, that power

linked to that inclination toward authoritarianism. it is a bit of a leap, but notophobic discourse is necessarily rational in any way, it is just making these links. >> with the account of how the rebellion itself was understood by many in america as a there is an rising, democratic inclination that is here, so it is beyond just church government. is that part of the paradox? mr. mackillop: yes, and it is not as if the church doesn't begin to show effort that it will take on the government. unlike the anglican church or the church in ireland, it wins some of these battles. certainly will in the

1810s and 1820's in terms of establishment. so it is not that the church is unwilling to take on the government, but the difference is, there is an understanding that the presbyterian church in scotland was a massive compromise, but what that does is secure scottish presbyterianism as a responsible, legal governing dissenting andis its spread across north america is destabilizing. the british government managed to turn the kirk into a government institution while presbyterianism in north america is this highly unstable, highly fluid, and in that sense, lauder's -- in that sense, lots of scottish presbyterians go with the sense of the need to impose order on things, they really think there needs to be order and in that sense they are

against the scotch irish presbyterians, so it is deeply fissured. i'm going to ask a technical question. years war inven north america and even more in the war of independence, british commanders often used highland regiments as light infantry for skirmishing and open order, flanking, surprise strikes. i was wondering why? did they view them as naturally regulars? -- it a subconscious amash subconscious homage to what jacobite troops produced in 45? mr. mackillop: many highland

fight withften do british companies, most british regiments have one, and it is a combination of factors. a lot of senior british commanders had fought in 45, and they tended to forget what an effective army that was. in a sense we can see the future beginning to develop. but there are cultural aremptions that highlanders underdeveloped and primitive, therefore more in touch with nature and land, a condescending process, but remember you are dealing with the idea that the officers class sees them as more quite- they are not civilized and will be more in touch with how you use the land.

there is that level, there is also something very simple. associate light infantry with a lack of height, that you have to be small. this is one of those examples where we think of 19th century ireland as the poorer country. but we know from the stats that irish diet in the 18th century means the average irishman is much, much taller than the average scot. the scots are the smallest people in the british-irish isles because they are on a bad diet. scottish cuisine is not one of the best things brought to the world. [laughter] let's be honest. ands are smaller highlanders are noticeably smaller. so there is a compound effect by which they are sending these guys into particularly light. tended to was that it

produce slightly higher casualties as a consequence. effectively came back to bite them, that light companies in the 71st are battle fatigued. it all unravels. elements of the regiment will fight when they can, but you sense there is a massive toll on some light companies in terms of what they are expected to do. ofis a culture of a number assumptions, but it is a great question. >> one more question. >> can i ask a question? what is very striking is,

despite the brutal repression of is how britain managed to bring the highlanders, former scots, jacobites, back on their side. you get a slight culture shock but it is based on the fallacy that if you go to flora mcdonnell's grave went to america in the 1770's, back 10 years later, but of course in a sense she was a loyalist, even in 1745, but she just felt she had to shelter the dynastic prints. to come to ireland is a huge difference between presbyterians in elster and presbyterians in ulster and in

presbyterians in scotland. were second-class citizens. it was an anglican establishment, definitely not a presbyterian establishment. there was large immigration from the 1720's. the glorious revolution was a disappointment for ulster presbyterians in many ways. one thing your talk as highlighted for me is how little ,esearch there is in ireland irish historians, irish-american , to highlight the irish contribution, including the scotch-irish contribution, to the american revolution, which is very considerable. but there is very little research on the irish that fought in the british army and

the american war of independence. it is forgotten. tone was disappointed he wasn't quite old enough to take part in the british army in the american war of independence, and who were the irish soldiers in the british army? where they mainly protestant or were there a good number of catholics? recruited from london, very wealthy, his parents moved to london in the 1760's, so he was effectively recruited from britain. he went back to ireland, so he is not typical, but i just think there is a gap in the research there. i don't know if you can throw any light on it. mr. mackillop: i will answer quickly. i couldn't agree more. one of the jaw-dropping

statistics we need to remember about the protestant irish is s,at, even more so than scot they constitute a grossly inordinate level of the british army officer corps. scotland has 12% of the population, probably about 25% of the officers in the country. protestant ireland constitutes between 4% and 6% of the overall british irish population. recent estimates are that protestant ireland constituted about 30% of the british army's officer corps, so a community with 4% to 6% of the population has 30% of the officers core. irish manpower is both protestant and catholic, and from 1778 the british army will scotland tocus from

the much bigger demographic reserves of ireland. the result at the end of the wars that the army is very, very irish at the officer and manpower level. and you're right, it is a huge thing that needs to be looking at -- needs to be looked at. but you have to balance the fact that probably more so than scotland, ireland is divided by this. side, the to just one crown. that poor gentleman had his hand up for ages, quick question and then i will wrap up. i will keep the answer brief. >> you said 85 percent of scotland is presbyterian at this period. the were the other 15%, rest of the minority in scotland.

mr. mackillop: the minority in scotland is another protestant church. the scotland population that is catholic is less than 3%. cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] you're watching american history tv. schiff talks about her book, "the witches, suspicion, betrayal, and hysteria in 1692 salem" salem witch trials. we recorded her remarks in 2016 annual national book festival in washington, d.c.