people. >> so we're going to talk about both of these sides of this story here, right. the tools, the techniques of slave owner power and we're also talk about the tools and techniques of power that were practiced by enslaved people. >> watch history professors lead discussions on topics from the american revolution to september 11th. lectures in history on c-span3 every saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv and lectures in history is available as a podcast. find it where you listen to podcasts. next, on american history tv, andrew mackillop explores his homeland's role during the american revolution. despite fighting for the opposition, many scotts gained land. the museum of the american revolution and the pritzker museum and the richard von hess

museum held a three-day international conference. >> want to welcome you back. we had a great key note session last night. that is the 2019 international conference on the american revolution. we're meeting here in philadelphia at the museum of the american revolution. we're very grateful to our sponsors, who you could see on the screen, the pritzer library and richard c. von hess foundation and john m. and jeanne rowe. there is a long genealogy that is fair to say to this particular topic which goes back more than a quarter century. very personal for me. it starts with the insight which is brought out in the exhibition that we're celebrating and launching here, cost of revolution, the life and death of an irish soldier. that explores connections between the american revolution and ireland through the life of richard st. george who was both

a soldier and an artist and not necessarily a fine artist but a caricaturist. and we know that satire and mockery, something we use among the staff here at the american revolution, could reveal a great deal about a culture. and this is certainly a theme that comes out in the exhibition. so about 30 years ago, when i was a graduate student, doing research for a dissertation in edenberg and there was another graduate student at the time who was calling up a lot of the same boxes of papers that i was. so naturally you start to have a conversation about what you're work is. and that is how i got to know our speaker here this evening. this morning, sorry. dr. andrew mackillop. it feels like the evening. he is a senior lecturer at the university of glasgow and taught

for many years at the university of aberdeen. and one of the images that i had located at that point or first saw, i just wanted to start with showing it and we'll be dissecting this and it is called the scotch butchery, boston 1775. i was doing research on highland scottish military service in north america in the french and the indian war and the influence on the north america leading up to the american revolution, a subject that was of great interest to dr. mackillop, mackey as i've known him for all of that time. and there was an article that i ran across and i don't normally read from the podium but there is 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. so that is why we're here today. so this is an article published here in philadelphia in the pennsylvania magazine of history

and biography, a publication of the venerable historical society of pennsylvania. that is back in 1980 by a historian and he wrote among the misdeeds of george iii, that the declaration of independence so lists, none is so 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 circumstances of cruelty and per fiddy, scarcely paralleled and totally unworthy, the head of a civilized nation. the declaration of independence, drafted and debated and signed about a block and a half of where we are, does not identify the foreign mercenaries but

there is no doubt who we were. the hated hessians as they were called. even though many cams from states other than hessa cause ow. and the drafting committee, john adams, franklin, roger sherman and robert livingston and submitted to the full congress for zugs and debate on july 7th, 1776, the only mercenaries mentioned were the scots. at the close of the draft is a long language telling our british brethren and saying quote, at this very time they are permitting the chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and deluge us in blood. so on july 2nd when the draft

went before congress and was debated. there was a little bit of editing that took place. and jefferson himself in a letter in 1818 referred to this process. he wrote in a letter to robert walsh, when the declaration of independence was under the consideration of congress, there were two or three unlucky expressions in it. which gave offense to some members. the words scotch and other foreign auxillaries excited the ire of a gentleman or two of that country. and so that was deleted in the final draft of the declaration that was adopted just two days later on the fourth of july, 1776. it is interesting to read and i did a little research and reading and newspapers and diaries of the period just in the -- to try to get a sense of the background of this and there is a letter written by a captured highland officer, so

early in 1776 as 3,000 men are sent from the highlands of scotland, 500 highland soldiers are captured on the seas an were brought in boston. and i want to close by reading a quote from this letter where he's describing the treatment that they received. he said, as it was thought improper for us to remain at a sea port we were ordered 60 miles up the country on our journey no slaves were ever served as we were. through every village, town and hamlet that we passed, the women and children and indeed some men among them came out and loaded us with the most rascally epithets, calling us rascally cutthroat dogs, murderers, bloodhounds and et cetera. but what vexed me most was their continual slandering of our country, scotland. on which they threw the most

infamous invectives and added showers of dirt and filth and now and then a stone. so there is more to this than meets the eye. andrew mackillop, despite the fact that much of our graduate student times in edinburgh was talked over a wee whiskey or two has becomed a distinguished lecturer with the university of glasgow and is an exile in scotland, from the outer hebber des and mother from islay and how that has colored an influences his professional life and perspective researchering the history of scotland, more broadly ireland and the british isles and the british empire of the 18th and 19th centuries. the book that probably most

currently is connected to the story today is one of -- might have been the first book, more fruitful than the soil, army empire and the scottish empire but liz work ranges from the east india company, the experience of the irish, welsh and scots in the british imperialism and i would like to add originally this session was a duo with dr. steven connway, university of college london but just like the scots of the 18th and 19th century we know we have dr. andrew mackillop. join me in welcoming dr. andrew mackillop. >> in scotland, i told you, you probably shouldn't applause

until the end because you don't know what you're going to get. first of all, let me, as i think you would expect, thank the museum of the american revolution. it's sponsors for this event, scott and hannah and everyone for the invitation to speak. it is an honor to be asked and i think more so to be given the initial privilege of having spoke -- intended to speak with steven conway, a man who is probably more than in the american revolution than most of us know. it is asame he can't be here but i will attempt, i suspect wholly inadequately to at least cover some of the themes that steven would have blessed us with. steven's unfortunate absence has left the organizers with a practical problem. and frankly a bit of a need to take a risk. like washington gambling on crossing the delaware, scott and hannah has allowed a scot the time and space to talk about

english political culture. in public. in a foreign country. and at some length. as you may gather there are some tensions in the moment in the united kingdom over what is deemed acceptable political cultures in both countries. it is risky, indeed, and let's hope that unlike washington's, we have yet to see whether it will all pay off. my part in this proceedings is to use a specific piece of historical evidence to open up into wider themes about how britain and ireland substantial and sustained effort to hold the 13 colonies within the empire reshaped those societies just as surely as it did no north america and in many of the ways that elijah was talking about last night. at the heart of the museum's wonderful current exhibition on

the irish officer richard st. george lies a deep structural truth and that is at point of the american revolution, great britain was an entity and the tendency to see monolithic red courts and highly organized and structured system and disguise the fact that the country is basically protein. it is in the act of coming together. it's a multiple britainic and irish and scottish union. and that is hugely important and in the way you could see in the exhibition the way that ireland is in an ambiguous to put it mildly, relationship with the u.k. and gives an idea of the structural tensions that underpinned the core british/irish state. the piece of evidence in question is the political print, which you see here but i'll move

my thing along. and i'll give you a color version. just when scotts invented the television so i thought i would go for color. so scotch butchery, the image that scott put up and much later and on after the war produced in london in 1775. it is not one of the most famous and recognizable images on either side of the atlantic, produced by the revolution and the war of independence but it is a wonderful window into the complexities, tensions and potentials within what was still a very new and very young british union. the print and its messages are powerful indicators of why large parts of english political culture outside of parliament and even to some extent within it exhibited a range of negative attitudes towards evolving british policy in north america

from the mid 1760s through to the 1770s. these attitudes ranged from uncertainty, unease, deep trepidation to outright and sustained hostility and opposition. conversely, some of the dynamics in this image show us why scotland, more than any other part of the british/irish isles will be deeply committed to the british effort in north america. that is not to say that all scots fought for the crown. many like general hugh mercer, william sterling on the military side or james wilson and jonathan witherspoon, probably the scotch mercenaries and rightly celebrated as men who led the political and military effort by the colonists to acleave and secure independence. that may seem nice for the 21st century, the reality is the

scots didn't represent the broader picture. even among scots who have immigrated to north america, there was a tensency to be probritish and loyalist. for all of the blatant misrepresentations, in revelation to the revolution and the war. if you could talk about the revolution and the war in a sense this picture is capturing something quite important. but before unpacking the image in detail, it is what is seeing that each component part of the british isles shouldn't be overly compartmentally oversized. that would be to itemize britain excessively. yes, irish, english, well, and scots societies exhibited significant differences from each other in some key respects and i'm going to go through in

what they are in relation to scotland but this is a matter of degree rather than absolute. the responses of three of the major kingdoms to the revolution shared a lot more in common than this image may suggest. now all of this is to underline an obvious point. the scotch butchery was oppositional wig propaganda but it is political nature shouldn't detract from the sophisticated multi-level messaging designed to project a negative image of scots and the aim was to paint the british government at the time as corrupt authoritarian and unconstitutional. all of the named protagonists are scots. number one, you may be able to make out the man holding the sword is in fact jon stewart, third earl of bute. number two is william murray,

lord mansfield the chief justice of england. number four is alexander wedderburn. when i blew up the image and looked at the way in which they are represented, the caricature in the portraits have a pretty good match. it is almost in a sense the caricaturist had some idea of what these individuals generally looked like. what is going on here is these men, these scots, are being made to stand in for that unenglish fleet of royal officials increasingly willing to ignore constitutional liberties and legal rights held in common by english communities on both sides of the atlantic. what could we say about the print and the wider images. the first point is to clarify when it was created. because 1775 was a fairly action-packed year. we need to get an idea of when

within '75 it is likely to be produced. if it was produced in response to any of the fast-moving events around boston from the reinforcement of the army through the army of 1774, bunker hill or the siege against the british, it would tell us something about the creator and the intended audience. the last named individual, number three, colonel frazier is described as a very clear and definitive sense of when the print was produced. colonel freezer is simon freezer of lovett of simon, 11th lord executed by the british crown in 1747. he's the last major british figure to be publicly beheaded. young simon had fought with his father's regiment to partially destroying the brit alan in

which a young james wolf served in january 1746. so this man has, in fact, fought as a jack abate in the last rising. now young simon as he was known, received from possible execution cumberland certainly wanted his head on a spike because of his youth, he was very, very young at time, but more importantly and significantly for our purposes, he came under the protection of the most prominent politician at the time, the very powerful archibald campbell beguile and with a view toward a wider process of rehabilitation, he used this man to basically start to rehabilitate jacka bites in a forward-thinking way. freezer was granted a pardon in early 1750s. and the caricature put it

hanging out of his pocket, pardons 1745, in case you didn't get it. now in return for this, his kin and ally across the north of scotland raised a regiment of 1,100 men and they pooled together and probably about five weeks, very fast. it is highly effective service and his passionate service in north america was a keyy reason why his families lands in the highlands which has been seized by the crown in 1747 were restored to simon fraser the year before this print was completed. so he has been completely rehabilitated from jacka bite rebel, a tainted traitor to effectively a new established highland landlord. as further proof of his rehabilitation and loyalty, in cooperation with john, fifth duke of argyle raised the 2,100 strong or called double regiment

of the 71 highland between 1775 and march of 1776. it is included in the image as a military commander whose man have arrived in north america, tells us that the print is produced after the king authorized the regiment in early october, 1775. so if you firmly date the print toward the end of the winter of 1775, what else could it tell us about attitudes in britain and ireland to events in north america. none of the figures shown in the image, if we go back, were actually ever in boston. none of this ever happened. we were cuddly, warm people. we don't do any of this. at no point are any of these men, fraser included, every in north america during the revolution. in other words the scotts

butchery is a made-up event and it never happened, at least not in the ways it represented here. that is not to say that scottish troops don't have an undeserved reputation for violence and brutality because we can be uncuddly. the print imagined the coercion of boston not in terms of strict accuracy but as a piece of political al gory and the government and policies in relation to the colonies. in doing so the image entangles different events, some from britain and some from north america into a simple and powerful message that sought to demonstrate the traditional english political culture was actually sympathetic to the patriot cause. this desire to tell audiences in england and north america that more united them than divided

them and that is why the english soldiers are portrayed as unwilling to act against boston and bostonians and throwing their arms down in horror. but mortally struck at the apparent eagerness of the scottish troops to move against the city and its population. now, let's be honest. squeamish is not the first thing that springs to mind when you think of a regular british regiment. these guys are not squeamish. the image is directly inverting what did happen in boston but on the 5th of march 1770 when seven soldiers of the 29th regiment commanded by an irish officer thomas prest ton opened fire on a crowd killing five people. it is possible that one or two of the soldiers involved and with preston may have been scots from the names or possibly from

scots descent but the regiment were certainly not a scottish unit. likewise if you look at the royal nave ship in the background seemingly controlled here, commanded by court scotch commander and they stick a huge thistle on the front of the ship just in case you're not getting the message. with a big thistle right at the forefront and the thistle on the flag. that gets something that starts to spread. scotts are essentially like weeds in that sense. but apparently the scotch commanders are controlling the royal navy and bombarding the city of boston. that of course is also a blatant misrepresentation. the frequent reinforcements over autumn 1774 as part of the attempted coercion of the city and enabled troop movements was commanded by an englishman, admiral samuel graveson.

now at this stage, you probably wondering did i pay good money to hear a scot make special pleading of a half of scots. is this chip on his soldier so bad he'll spend most of the time going this didn't happen and that didn't happen. we've got plenty of time yet, folks. i work within this image is i think a much more significant and deeper level than the blatant and crude misrepresentation of the scots in a negative sense and the english soldiers in a positive sense. if the massacre at boston was being glossed over, the print was making a direction connection to the 1768 killing of five to sen people at the st. george's fields on the outskirts of south london and this is notorious during the unpopular arrest surrounding the exclusion of john willkes.

this was a scottish unit. what the print in other words is doing is collapsing time and space in an effort to say that the cause and suffering of liberty-loving boston was the same cause as liberty-loving london. conflict was not between englishman in london and the descendants in north america, it left not between people banged together by a common association of liberty, for process of law and protect of property and life. the scots butchery is an appeal to the already forlorn hope that common englishness could bring peace and reconciliation. by contrast those at fault, those driving the crisis and actively moving britain tortds an attempted military solution are all scots. so what significant print is not

the direct misrepresentation as i said. what it is doing is revealing how the british union and processes of imperial reform and consolidation seemed to directly threaten and underminedç,y a transatlantic culture and communities of political englishness. that is no doubting that many groups within the broadcast church that was english and anglo american wig culture increasingly felt after 1763 that established rights of assembly, the right to a political press to effective representation and the defense of property from legislative feat was under direct threat. the tori agenda seemed to shift to government by executive order. those angered and opposed to this process in english and in north america and in ireland conceived of this as a deeply

unfortunate malign shift from english principles of government to british principles of government. the resulting resentment was found in anti-scottishness. despite in 1707, many english and anglo irish elite associated scotland and the people with willingness to receive despotic power, nor was this assessment restricted to the upper reaches of society. anti-scottish sentiment was widespread on both sides of the atlantic and common among the social classes. even in rural towns in new england, you have this discourse among the population that scotland is itself a deeply undesirable part of the wider empire. this scottishness has been mobilized by the populism of

wilkes and had traction here in north america. in this world view, scotts actively had principles of royal prerogative of the sort ex pouzed by the scottish dynasty of the stuarts. it is all interlinking. denied the natural political war in jacka bites in 1776 scotts chose now to corrupt the monarchy and parliament and english systems of government law and empire. the men represented here we are blamed for leading this process. so we go through who these guys here. here we have jon stewart, first lord of the treachery from 1661 to '62 and the first scot to become what he would see as prime minister of britain. and william murray and

negotiation of the treaty of pars is in 1762 not of '83 and the abiting policy of many london based publishers and aboved all supporters in the colonies. he was seen as far too powerful and inclined to support his own countrymen. one of the key beeves among people like wilkes that people like bute are driving a wedge of z scots and that process is particularly prominent in the empire. it is prominent in london but what scots are doing is taking what call an eccentric approach, meaning they're storming the central of power from the periphery and building their bases up and colonies in ways that will threaten the center. and there is no doubt about it, that butte placed a tranche of

senior scottish commanders as governor positions in some of the colony's taken at the piece of 1763. quebec and have been mentioned by some people here already and a whole suite of newly attired those in the caribbean under the control of military proconsult. they are not have a tradition of negotiating and they are hard military men and governor the colonies accordingly. now bute is driven there power in the 1760s but he continued to be used right through the later part of that decade and into the 1770s as a symbol of maligned scottish influence in central government, in the british army and across the empire. now, lord mansfield, the man we see in the middle, number two, and with his portrait there, was again typical of as professor

decaulley constructed by which the legal establishment was colonized by a large number of scottish loyals. at moment given what is happening in brexit in english political leader cultures, unhappy with scottish processes at the moment but we couldn't go there. as lord chief justice of england, mansfield did sanction aggressive use of warrants that are discretionary legal processes which allowed them to curtail the free press in london and able to send soldier news private properties to search for correspondence and impound what is seen as people's personal property. in other words he's taking what are seen as key tenants of the english law, the protection of individual people and property.

that -- with people in the colonies in terms of the -- act and the duties which were understood and understandably as nothing less than a raid on personal property. scots are seen as having a very laxa days cal attitude. and they will move it and shift it as they see fit. now alexander wedderburn, marked number four with his later portrait and was the son of a scottish advocate and he likewise had entered the english legal system. he was one of the direct progeny of bute. wedderburn is a fascinating character because he was a strong supporter of key aspects

of wilkes agenda. here is a scott be excoriated by wilkes but he supports wilkes position. that is a good way of trying to get across the fact that none of these political stances are really defined by ethnicity. yes, the caricature is showing all of them are liberty loving and abide by the call and all scotts are despotic and they wouldn't worry about your party. crossing political lines constantly. wedderburn in 1771 was taken as proof as another key characteristic and that is that they wouldn't know a political principal if it fell from a high height. they will shift where the government wants them to be.

wedderburn took a strong stance and was a real talk when it came to dealing with the aftermath of the tea party. he advocated and massive reinforcement of gauges forces in boston. he was seen again as typical of a very clear pattern of excessive and politically regressive scottish influence at the very highest levels of british government and law. these anxieties and tensions over how the desperate political communities that made up the empire in 1775 were to be governed. it meant something important in terms of how people were thinking about britishness. britishness was seen in this version of political events as a crisis of traditional englishness and indeed of english north americanist. in represents these competing ideas about how to frame an advanced society on both sides of atlantic, and to advance the

individual, scotch butchery is capturing something important about what is driving the conflict. if you like a clash of english transatlantic political culture versus a new centralizing imperial and british culture. for all of the literal misrepresentations, it is important to acknowledge, too, that the print is capturing important characteristics of the scottish war of independence. it is brilliance as satire and caricature it is capturing a deeper truth. the print will provide hence of why scots were much more likely to fight for the crown. now the first of these relate to how politically and socially influential scots conceived of britain and britishness. for the vast majority of scotland's elite and way down

the social order into the middle classes and clergy and merchants and its lawyers, britain, 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 replete with potential progressiveness. it was designed to above all end or at least minimize a whole range of disruptive forces which scots felt had torn the british/irish isles for centuries. between bickering between wig and tori. in this vision it could be eased or at least defaced by a new political order which stressed economic liberty, material

improvement, and a strong united defense against the great catholic powers of europe. for individual and collective provement here, to be stable and sustainable, there needed to be a clear and unambiguous framework of legal and political authority. rapid commercial and economic development be it in north america, london or the expanding port cities on the atlantic seaboards like boston, belfast, bristol, philadelphia, glasgow, all of that needed to be safeguarded and progressed and nurtured through a system of integrated and regulated government. it is going too far to say this is way vision which placed economic liberty above personal political freedom. but what is certainly entailed was a belief, and it is important, a genuine belief that improvement needed careful and

collectively recognized symptoms of executive effectiveness and executive oversight. it was for this vision of union and empire that so many scots would fight. the need for stability was particularly strong and pressing in a country which, let's remember, have been racked by three large scale revolts and two attempted revolts in less than 40 years, between 1708 and 1745. if you had asked an american, an englishman or an irishman before 1763, certainly '65 and as late as 1770, who are the destructive rebels and traitors in the english speaking world. they would all have answered scots. scotland has this deep fishered history where there is a drive to find stability and peace and their argument is that britain will provide that framework.

scotland, not ireland, was the site of primary military and constitutional instability across the british isle after 1688 and the jacka bites. they experienced destructive waves of civil and military violence for 60 years. it ultimately took a british army to kill large numbers of jacka bites, behead the leader and forfeit the estate and to bring the union into a position of stability. the country was also noticeably purer than england in material terms and in some key respects an economy it was less developed than ireland. this is why scotland develops an economic patriotism, and in tempt to bring the country up in material terms. scottish society by the 1760s and 1770s 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. because it was now here, this seems so politically outdated and really outdated when you compare it against the progressive democratic vision of political freedom advanced by the patriots. it would be very easy to dismiss this vision of political community. yet this concept of an empire of liberty, inspired many across britain and 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 power. whatever else they're doing, they're deeply committed to it and will spend a lot of blood and treasure attempting to see it through. but it ended in humiliating failure should not detract from the genuine believe that inspired among scots, english

and irish and many in north america in loyalists. what i want to spend the rest of the time, talking about the major consequences for britain and ireland and arising from that long effort to attempt to succeed. failure still produces consequences and that is going to be hugely significant. so although presenting extremely crude distinctions between english and scots, the image i think is capturing the reality that per scotland and particularly its soldiers were to have a noticeable presence in the british army in north america. so over and above a commitment to common britishness i wan to talk about the second major fact factor underpinning the project and that is it is deeply engaged culture of military service. now given the number of scottish soldiers i want to talk about, i want to put that in context by underlining something that could be quite easy to forget and that

is scotland and while lovely and cuddly and small, is very small in population terms, it is really not a significant part of the wider british/irish union. it disguises the fact that it made up only 12% of the britain and ireland population. so scotland has a constitutional clout which you cannot match with demographic wit. you need to remember that 12% when you remember some of the figures that i'm going to produce. ireland was the second kingdom within the british/irish isles. possibly in constitution, when it is controlled by the anglo irish elite and the population well over 3 million by the period of war dwarfed that of scotland which was about 1.3. there are many, many irish than

there are scots. the reality of limited population and permanent political minority status within the union was, however, offset by certain social characteristics which marked scottish different. they were in political terms than either the english or anglo irish, they relied upon state service not so much as a status symbol, scots needed state service for actual ferl gain. with only 12% of the population, scots nevertheless preserve an average of 23%. that is almost a quarter of all british armor currency that pose the throughout the whole of the 18th century. scottish colonels could appoint

scottish officers an the result is you have a very high percentage of scots within the army corp at the officer level. in other words there is a pattern, a structural pendency upon state service, partly due to the material impoverishment of the land. this explains why a high percentage of divisional commanders under people like her win clinton were scots. one-third of all british brigades at brandywine were commanded by scots. 12% of the population, 33% of the major tactical level of the british army. in other words, scotland is excessively represented, disproportionately represented at the key points of the military effort to coerce the colonies. the result is a serious and i could take any number of different military officers and scotland develops a -- of vets

and officers across the series of conflicts through the 1750s, '60s and '70s. and i'm only going to use one example but it could be ill lateive, and that is the gentleman here, who was a major commander of the 71st highland regiment. it is illustrative to the idea of a whiter british project. he's from argyle. he's a progeny of the third duke of argyle and fights at a junior officer during the '45 so this man fights samon fraser and part of the british project is the attempt for people like campbell and frazier to end that enmity, to bring them together. he learned about skirmishing and using militia units and to suppress jacka bite recruitment in the highlands during the '45. he then served as a junior military officer in the

french/indian war and he serves in the west indies, he then spends a considerable amount of time as a crown commander in india in the late 1760s and early 1770s. he's then sent back into north america in the early 1770s. one of the man who is captured when they are taken at boston. he's exchanged and goes back into military service and services the american theater through 1777, '78. and he's one of the few scots that becomes an actual army commander. he's sent with his regiment and some other units into georgia as part of the british smihift to e south in 1778 and 1779 and he fighted a devastatingly campaign thrown directly on his experience from the '45. what he does that a lot of other british commanders don't do is

he coordinates an operational link between his regular forces and not surprisingly as in the '45, the systematic use of loyalty to suppress once the army moved through. and he provided a model if the british has used this systematically it may have had more success. he obliterated organized patriotism in georgia fairly quickly. we have trouble in jamaica. could you please go to jamaica and he will go off to the west indies and ends his time in india thereafter. this man as a local scottish, transatlantic and ultimately global career. he enabled and envisioning this idea of a world empire that could try to reduce the fissures within each of its component parts. he is above all a imperial

fixer. that is his job in effect. and before campbell, there are other scots officers. so we have common britishness and the colony of service and we need to move down through the social order. scotland had a much more diverse of military service than just the officer class. and that's because of the nature of order and arrangements in scotland. they may be materially poor but it is difficult to overexaggerate the social power they have over the populations under their control. they maintain a much, much more aggressive and coercive level of leverage over their tendency than any class in ireland, wales or england. almost no one in scotland in

rural scotland has a formal lease for their farms. hundreds of thousands of scots live on daily discretion on farms their families have probably farmed for centuries. the vast majority of scots men, women and children, have no legally recognized access to land. the freehold leases of 30, 60 or 100 years common in ireland and accessible even to catholic tenancy simply don't exist in scotland. most of the scottish population live under the discretion of landlords who could evict them with 30 days notice. the duke of argyle raises the 71st when he evicted 23,000 people. got his men and put thaem back n the land and that is a level that is oppression of younger, you have real control over your

population and this meant that scottish landlords could and did see population as a resource in a way that were not possible in ireland or england. used primarily as in peace time and in war, scottish tenancy became a cash crop that was cashed in in return for army commission. the result was the creation of regiments like this where effectively the country's elite are cashing in one of the few material resources and in return for rank and status. it was a highly effective system as we've seen from simon frazier of lovett it was developed during the french and indian war and used again in the war of independence in two phases. first one was when britain sought a rapid build up of the armed forces in 1775 to 1776. the british arnt stupid. they know they have to end this quickly before patriot momentum builds and before france gets

involved. they need to rapidly mobilize as many as they can and that is where scottish regiments come in. and in late 1777 and 1778 whether it became clear that they would fight a global war in the caribbean and india. the particular value of the way scottish land contributed to the wider effort with the speed of enlistment. landlords produced numbers almost instantaneously. and let me give you an example. the isle of lewis raised 230 men in three days from an eligible population, male population of about 2,500. in other words, he's grabbed almost 10% of the eligible male population in three days. and they're drafted immediately into his regiment. the fifth duke of argyle and fraser of lovett raised about a thousand men in eight weeks when they complete the first

battalions of the 71st. and to illustrate the contrast with ireland in this period, in april 1775 to early 1776 standard market-led recruitment in ireland delivered 2,900 new men to the army. now, remember, ireland has a much, much larger population than scotland but in the same period the number of men raised in scotland was over 4.5 thousand early on in the war to the british. even the country's two main cities, edinburgh and glasgow would maintain units and they only did so once france, the traditional enemy, came in. the days ambiguity certainly in scotland, glasgow, excuse me, is unique as a major british city for not sending a loyal address in 1775, that is because of the

commitment to the tobacco trade. so as in the officer class, what we have here is a -- [ technical difficulties ] and the 71st regiment gained and deserved i would have said reputation for effectiveness and also brutality. these are the scotts naturally that jefferson's draft had talked about. but the recruitment system had the weaknesses. while it is ideal for delivering men to england quickly, it has limited. by 1778, 1779, the government's refusal to give scotland a militia resulted in the series of big regular home defense regiments called fencibles. they soaked up another 5,000 scots. the drip feed to replenish heavy losses in america and the

creation of the edinburg and irish meant that by the middle ever 1779 there were no more scots to give fundamentally the has been drained motcompletely. price foss labor are going through the roof. scotland has reached the bottom of the barrel. this is testimony to both the intensity of the early recruitment rise and ultimately to the country's small population. from 1778 onward it would be ireland and england that would ultimate lid continue through their demographic weight to contribute to britain's war effort, but scotland ace prominence in the early phases i think particularly the arrival of concentrated blocs in clearly distinguished scottish regiments is key here. irish manpower would not quantitatively bigger, but it was spread over lots of regiments. the results is the scottish

regiments have have a profile that in a sense doesn't match their number. the third factor is ordinary soldier. it would be easy to dismiss they will men as powerless, coerced and subjected to despottic aristocratic power. failure to join a landlord's regiment would and did lead to mass evictions. you didn't join a regiment if your family were out, we soon design they were a macive factor of motivating soldiers was the promise that upon victory they would receive land from the crown. this has been a major incentive for men fighting during the french-indian war, a combination of economic advancement or the hope of economic advancement and a sense of obligation created among veterans, explains the

highly committed loyalism in men like the 84th emgrand highland. much of its manpower was in quebec and new york at the end of the seven year wars. the access to land also motivated highland immigrants in the carolinas. they went into an active power of loyalism until faced with a series of heavy defeats at the pounds of the patriots in 1776. far from just passive victims of one sided imperial state machine, thousands of ordinaries soldiers and immigrants saw the war as a chance for economic advancement. given the dreadful conditions in scotland, both in the lowlands

and highlands, land in america had a particular attraction. in theened, of course, the effort and commitment of like campbell or this soldier in the 84th availed them nothing. the war failed. england and wales lost heavily, as of course did scotland, as it was pointed out last night you might argue the properprotestan ireland did well. in and around glasgow, the sense of defeat was cat trophic for the simple reason that glasgow had booned as an atlantic port as a result of the commanding position in the chesapeake tobacco trade. while bosswell was delighted at the, they support the americans

wholeheartedly and toasting george the iii away. middle and class scotland see a bleak and dark future. the economist john knox published aloud the question as to whether or not the union had lost for scotland arguably the greatest economic attraction. there was a gnawing, raw fear that they had sackry fiszed their independence for an empire that was barely -- trade seemed to have been given as a small reward for ending the independence. there was a major rethink of what would be the basis of scotland's economy without america. yes, and i think this is where i want to star drawing to a conclusion. in one of the american revolutions, many ironic and widely felt consequences, i want to stress the remarkable extent to which defeat brought benefit.

it's hard to feel in a sense aligned with the idea of such a heavy defeat with the idea that a society could benefit. obviously scotland, england, wales and ireland lost the war. that's not what i'm getting at. what is far less appreciated is how much scotland won as a consequence of the war. there's a distinction between winning the war and winning if you league the consequences arising from it. across politics, religion, political culture, and even social order, actually the peace begins to show real signs that scotland may have benefited. an immediate tone of political confidence best gins to emerge in the months after the peace. there's a new willingness to stand up to perceived scottish interests within the union. that was one of the immediate results from the war. think back on this, a key problem priority to the american

revolution was how did you puffer back against a british government without incurring the charge of disloyalty and jacobite--ism. it opposes the government on something, it can come across as a treaties. only way to do this was through conspicuous loyalty and demonstrable military service, which scotland did. the result was that constrain was broken, we start to see the effects even during the war. the presbyterian had a nationwide protest against proposals to give relief to catholics. and the legislation passed easily in england and wales. interestingly, with very little op position, even in the irish

parliament, of course dominated by protestants. minister denounced the proposals as a breach of the union of scotla scotland's political liberties. intense rioting broke out. the main political figure response spot government's interesting, widely recommended the government drop the proposal. faced with thundering denounceuation by the kirk and in prison, the british government humiliatingly backed down. this was the first climb-down in relations to policy in scotland in the union. released from the political necessity on a critical union so as to not be tard as jacobite, they would -- as a, attempts at

financial retrench meant by pi tism t to lure the number of scottish landlords was easily defeated. one of the benefits is the american give the scottish a new ability to be critical. another major change was that scotland, the nation, if not individual scots, recovered the right to bear arms. ever since 1715 rising, scotland had been a disarmed society, reneed a right to -- the american conflict far more so than the french-indian war, saw thousands of scots enter into armsmestic defense of

scotland. scotland begins now to defend theirself for the first time since 1715. that is an interesting contrast by which the governments now trust scots to defend themselves against the increasing erosion of trust in relation to ireland. political confidence and securing the capacity to be full soldier subjects with the same rights as fellow britons were nots -- they all got the reward in 1784 when the crown restored all jacobite estates to their owners. across the atlantic, of course, defeat confirmed massive loyaltyist dislocation, and immigration of many in turn.

this would preoccupy those -- they did remarkably well. highland soldiers from areas obtained 50 acres of land, noncommissioned officers and officers larger shares on a sliding scale. ordinary scottish soldiers went from being landless in an insecure pardiana secure -- the these land grants needs to be underlined. in just four months in 1784. soldiers received over 19,800 acres in prince edward island.

in lower and upper canada. over a quarter of a million acres were given to men from highland units. now, this land was, of course, being appropriated systematically from first nation peoples. so it was that progress and advancement 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 brightal landlord system back in scotland. that's bigger than the island of skye, so they're they're becoming mass 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 will this ironic up side to defeat. the revolution and its conflict

also changed attitudes to the place of senior scott sir politicians in the government itself. it was widely seen and savaged and for wielding too much power and for favor fellow scots with imperial patronage and profits. yet the war in america drove the career of a senior scottish official who alone the prim, would have vast influence over imperial policy in decades, namely henry dundas. he was one of the report advocate. his influence grew, slowly but inevitably. it was his refusal that finallier po suede the the king of the need to abandon the most hawkish prime minister in terms of american policies. as his closer adviser,

particularly with the key question of the regulation, on britain's vast territories, dundas became a combination of political march, senior british minister and imperial fixer. he became everything that people had hated and feared. his favoritism to scots was overexaggerated by his enemies here, as we can see, but the attempt to resurrect the sort of scot-aphobia had lost its traction. the last here is wears his kilt on his oriental tiss aal turban scott-aphobia had lost heat. dundas would preside over an era over 20 years, where scot s

gained access. at the rate equivalent to a battalion worth of officers every year. by the 1790s it was equivalent to a whole regiment per year. the deep ideological commitment for a british empire of order, law and material improvement for some, at least, and distributed across society was deepened and globalized by the war. let's finish off. what are we to make of the scottish example? just as the new united states itself obviously france, the rest of the british empire, were all obviously and deeply affected by the war, the revolution and its ending. all these countries were profoundly reshaped in some way by what happened here. but what i find fascinating the the unexpected outcomes.

one last quick slide. this was produced only four short year but a political lifetime away from the scots butchery. there's england with the staff of authority with america represented as a first nation people. the sharp-dressed dude is france with a brilliant set of cuffs, and there's the dutch republic trying to nick england. the image shows how far they had traveled tole through the war. here now scotland is a brother, with his arm wrapped around england, aggressively attacking the french. here we see a massive realignment in the tone and tenor of the anglo-scottish relationship. scott listen lost the war.

of course it did, but in many ways it won a surprising peace. it is self-elf that the revolution formed a new nation, here the united states, but it did a lot more than that. in many ways it marked an absolutely vital moment when britain created only 70 years before went from become an awkward framework to fully functioning and resilient union. thank you. i'll take some questions. yes, please. >> thanks for that. that was brilliant and convincing. coming back to something that --

i think it was you or the head of the museum said at the beginning that jefferson this included mention of the scots in an original draft of the declaration. it's a bit clearer now, but tell me if i'm correct in thinking that the biggest groups up immigrants in the colonial period to the colonies were the scotch and the scotch irish. so most of the people here why is there an antipathy towards essential the people that jefferson and, you know, the virginian upper cruster living with. i presume -- were they equal in virginia as in boston? were the -- were they spread throughout the colonies? and i'm also curious, were they seen as a same group, same

ethnicity or no difference from each other? i'm bay i have beenly interested in the antipathy. yeah, that's a good question. i think the answer is, as always, sort of multileveled. you're absolutely right, the big wave comes in after the 1710s, '20s right through the brink of the wear. in numeric terms, scots from alastair, and they had form be far and away the biggest wave. as people from scotland are relatively small in proportion. so there's many more. ed results is scotts are many brandt, but they're arriving in a very distinct way.

they're tornadoing to concentrate in the areas of umer new york. but increase -- in the and they're -- they're still emotional and political connected to britain. the relationship between scots so the co. scottish almost act a a mean cher for many different communities. these are groups that have level, some closer, and in a

sense they really aren't scottish in the sense that the scottish immigrants are. they are really a different group. a state church, and they lived up an anglican -- so there's no urgency in scots to feel the same andipathy between the faults that they backed the patriots so in that sentence, it's an issue of generational difference, does that help, or

at least hopefully help? -- >> i think the antipathy is not just about the it's also about middle colonies in temples of the elite in the debit relationship. so there's also that aggressive commerciali commercialism. and that i production, assets. so there's about different layers, but in the end, jefferson is -- he's not antiscott irk, i think hi's

looking at what's going on. the bottom like they're not for us, they're against us. that of scots either in north america and certainly coming from britain simply are torries, and that antipathy is not born of that. i don't think he's wilkes side, but more what his eyes are telling him. >> so i want to take you back to the cartoon for a moment. i'm curious. how widely distributed is it in the uk and north america. also, what kind of impact does it have? is it the kind of thing that people take a look at and say

oh, that's cute and move on, or does it change opinions and beliefs? >> that minor reputation is not good. we're going to have on go on a charge offensive hire. fuismtally attempting to ameliorate the condition, but it sinks without any sustained specific reaction to that image. i think where it is significant is not what it's seen in terms of something new. it's tapping into an established discourse, so it's confirming what in a sense people already think. so it's more of layering on an additional confirmation of the scottish position within the government the question as to how much it circulated here in the u.s., that's a great

question, and we've not been able to find any evidence of a north american patriot so maybe it's more about the way that it provides a background vibe. we have no read heart . >> not to boost your ego, and i'm not scootish, but in 1650s, there were over 400 scottish p.o.w.s brought to boston as slaves. they worked in the mills and so forth, so you might want to, as a back drop. >> yeah, yeah. i think the -- there's a big debate in scotland over

particular lay how we'll have to own up to the massive wealth we derived from the enslavement -- not so much the enslavement of people from africa, but rather the products of the labor, hand in that debate, many scots were -- but fundamentally even p.o.w.s -- are they're indentured labor. they are treated well, but nowhere facing the inhumanity that -- scots have a hard life. these soldiers have a hard life, but they're fundamentally still subjects of his majesty. they get land in north america, so in that sense, the tendency to try to suggest that scots have a hard time doesn't really stand up to much. yeah, we all know cromwell was not a cuddly man, but he was lot

nicer than the irish p.o.w.s, a lot nicer. >> thank you. the question about the first portion of the presentation, this stereotype, the despottic sconce, how does that sit next to the image of the presbyterian church is dangerously republican? >> yeah. >> and how does -- i guess there's a tyranny of committees inherent in the presbyterian kirk, but how does that change? it sounds like from the trajectory of the latter lecture, the kirk begins to sort of wield more power within the context of the political quest to limit catholic emancipation. is there a positive reassessment

of presbyterianism in the aftermath as a byproduct of this transformation? >> that is a great question in temples of understanding the incore hereii indiai incoherencies. and it was associated with effectively the deep position of charlie i through the covenant, et cetera. therefore it has the reputation of being potentially dangerous, and partly explain -- the way it tends to be squared as a circle is precisely what you just picked up on, is this idea the scots favored the natural political inclination is to favor very authoritarian -- either the crown or a big

powerful landlords, men like dundas, and at the church level, they allowed themselves to be pleased. everywhere look in the so scottish society, there's a tendency to have strong checkpoints. within each of the components of these islands, just like the air stotts arrest -- overwhelmably scotland is 80, 85% presbyterian. it's the one king development that has massive monolithic, and the church is correspondingly powerful within its own demesne, and that power is linked toward

that inclination of authoritarianism. it's a bit of a leap, but it's a scot ophobic discourse is not always rational, but trying to make the links. >> following up quickly with the comment about how the rebellion itself was understood as a presbyterian rising, it pops up periodically. in that sense, there is a democratic inkline lace that is to be feared here. so it's beyond just church government. is that just part of the paradox? >> i think it's probably yes, and not as if the church doesn't begin to show effort that it will take on the government. unlike the church, it starts to win some ballotses, and certainly will do the 1810s and '20s in terms of establishment. it's not that the church is

unwilling to take on the government, but i think the differences that there's an understanding in broader british culture that the presbyterian church, the establishment? scotland was a massively required a compromise, but what that's done is secured it as a responsible, legal governing body why it's dissenting spread across north america is destabilizing. you see what i'm getting at? the british government we managed to turn it into a government institution while presbyterianism in north america is this highly unstable, highly fluid, and in that sense lots of scottish press by teens, that's the point. you need to impose order on things for everyone to benefit. in that sense a lot of presbyterians are for this. they do think there needs to be order. in that sense they're against is, so it's deeply fissured.

>> i'm going to ask you a necessarily technical question. bring commanders often use it as light infantry to skirmishing. why did they view them as was it a -- or if there was some other cultural factor involved?

'lot of the commander had fought during the 45. they did various things where we could see the future beginning to develop. there's also cultural assumptions that highlanders and rather more underdeveloped and pretty tiff. but you're dealing with the officers class sees them as more -- they're not quite as civilized, therefore more in touch with how you use the land

there is also a very simple they associated it with a lack of height. this is one of those examples where we tend to think of ireland as the purer country, but we know from the stats that the eye rick diet means that an average irishman is much, much taller than the average scot. in fact scots are the smallers people in the british irish isles. cuisine was not one of the best things the scots have brought to the world. on average, they are smaller and highlanders, everyone thinking big, strapping highlanders, actually they were notably smaller.

just slightly than average. also they effectively came back to bite them. the light companies are incredibly battle fatigued. they fundamentally are -- it all unravels for them. elements will fight well, but you can sense there's a massive toll on some of these light companies in terms of what they're expected to do. >> one more question. >> can he ask a question? >> yes. yes. >> what's very striking is despite the brutal suppression,

and how we and quick ly they managed to bridge the highland, how the back on side as seen, and you get a slight culture shot they went to america back ten years, and she and her family were -- well, of course in a sense she was a loyalist even in 1745, but she just felt she had to shelter the -- but to come to ireland, of course, a huge difference between presbyterians, in alastair, and presbyterians in scotland is that they were post-1690.

they were second-class citizens. there was an anglican establishment very definitely not a presbyterian establishment, and there was large emigration. glorious revolution was a disappointment for alastair presbyterians in many ways. one of the things your talk has highlighted for me is how illustrates research is in ireland. obviously highlight the irish contribution, includes scots-irish contribution, but there is very very little research on the irish that

fought in the british army. it's totally forgotten, for example, that wolfe tone was disappointed that he wasn't quite old enough to take part in the british arm in the american war of independence. were they main by -- st. george was recruited from london, and he was very wealthy he mover or his mother -- his parents moved to london in the 1760s, so he was effectively recruited from britain. so he's not very typical and too elite, but i just think there's a gap in the research there. i'll answer quickly. i couldn't agree more. one of the jaw dropping statistics that we need to

remember about the protestant irish is that even more so than scots, they constitute a grossly inordinate level of the british army officer score. scotland has about 12% of the population of the officers in the army. protestant ireland constitutes between 4% and 6%. the recent estimate is about 30%. so a population of about 4 to 6% has about 30% of the officer corps. the british army will shift its

locust to scotland. the army is very, very irish at the irish and manpower level. it's a huge area that needs to be looked at. you need to balance the fact that probably more so than scotland, ireland is a country which is brutally divided by this in the sense of where they're fighting. scots tend to just one side, the crown. this gentleman has had his hands up for ages. just a quick question. >> you said 85% of scotland was presbyterian. what were the 15%, the -- it's

another protestant scotland's population that is catholic is less than 3%. so scotland is 97% protestant. >> thank you. >> announcer: tonight on "american history tv" we enjoy a tour guy to learn about mobile, alabama, and visit africa town founded by former slaves who were captives on the ship "clotilda." watch it over the night and on the weekend on c-span3. every saturday night american history tv takes you to college

classrooms around the country. >> why do you all know lizzie borden? and raise your hand if you heard of the jean harris murder? >> the deepest cause of the true meaning of the revolution was in this transformation that took place in the minds of the american people. >> so we're going to talk about both of these sides of this story here, right? the tools, the techniques, of slave owner power. that were practiced by enslaved people. every saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and lectures in history is available at a podcast. find is where you listen to podcasts. up next, from our american artifacts series, they row across the delawareri