american history, tv beginning at eight eastern we joined tour guide eric finley about the mobile, alabama, and visit africa town, a city founded by former sleeves, captives on the ship, watch american history tv tonight and over the weekend on c-span three. >> next on american history tv, scottish astoria explores his homeland role during the revolution. he argues that despite fighting for the losing side in the, war many scotts gained land, and increased their social status after the war. the museum of the american revolution, the military museum and library, and the richard foundation go hosted the event as part of a three-day international conference. >> i'd like to welcome you all

back. we had a great session last night. this of course is the 2019 international conference on the american revolution. we're meeting at the museum of the american revolution in philadelphia. we're very thankful to our sponsors. richard c von hess foundation, and john am jeanne roe. there's a long genie all itchy to this topic. it goes back more than a quarter century. very personal for me. it starts with insight that's brought out in the exhibition that is celebrated, here the life and death of a irish soldier. this explores connections between the american revolution and ireland through the eyes of st. george, both a soldier and. artist not a fine artist, a

caricaturist. of course we know that satire and mockery, something we use a lot here among the staff at the museum can reveal a lot about culture. this is certainly a theme that comes up. about 30 years ago when i was a graduate student doing research for a dissertation chapter in edinburgh, there was another graduate student at the time who was calling up a lot of the scene boxes of papers that i. was naturally start to have a conversation about what your work. is that's how i got to know our speaker here this morning, dr. andrew macola. a senior lecturer at the university of glasgow, tuck for many years before that at the university of aberdeen. one of the images that i

located at that time, i first saw, we'll be dissecting this quite a bit is the scott buttery. 1975. i was doing research on scott service during this period. and their influence leading up to the american revolution. a subject that was a great interest. i don't normally read from 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 so this is an article that was published here in philadelphia in the pennsylvania publication of the

historical association of pennsylvania. he wrote among the misdeeds of george the third, the declaration of independence dramatically lists, he is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the work of death, tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty. scarcely paralleled in the most barbers agents, and totally unworthy head of the civilization. the declaration of independence obviously drafted, signed, about a block away from where we are right now doesn't identify these foreign mercenaries. for almost all americans there's no doubt who they were. many came from states either

then has a quassa. in jefferson's draft of the declaration which was approved by his fellow members in the committee, roger sherman, and others, and submitted to the full congress for discussion and debate in 1976. the only mercenaries specifically mentioned were the scotch. at the close of the draft is a long passage telling of the american appeals, to quote our british brethren, cenk at this very time their permitting the chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of common blood, but scott and foreign mercenaries to invade. in july 2nd of course when the draft was debated in congress,

there was some editing that took. place jefferson and south in 1818 referred to hit this process. he wrote in a letter to robert walsh when the declaration of independence was under consideration of congress, there were two or three unlucky expressions in it which gave offense to some members. the worse scotch and other foreign auxiliaries exceeded the ire of a gentleman or two of that country. so that was deleted in the final draft of the declaration that was adopted just two days later, 4th of july's 1776. it's interesting to read. i did research, reading, diaries and newspapers to get a sense of the background of this. there's a wonderful letter that was actually written in the early 17 seventies, to put down the american rebellion, major

menace and highland soldiers are captured, brought into boston. i want to close by reading a quote from this letter where he's described the treatment that they received. he says as it was thought improper for us to remain at a seaport, we were ordered 60 miles away from the country. on our journey no sleeves were ever served as we were. through every village, town, and hamlet that we, past the women and children, and indeed some men among them came out and loaded us with the most rashly of epithets. calling this dogs, murderers, blood, hands etc. what vexed me most was their continual slandering of our country, scotland. they threw insults. they threw showers of dirt,

filth, and now and then a stone. there's more to this than meets the eye. dr. andrew macola despite that a lot of time was spent talking about history over a whiskey or two has become a distinguished lecturer at the university of glasgow. he describes himself as a axle. his father's family is from harris. he's spoken passionately about how that family background has colored and influenced his professional life and perspective on researching the history of scotland, more broadly ireland, the british isles, and the british empire of the 18th and that teen centuries. the book that probably is most connected to the story today,

is more fruitful than the soil, army, empire's got dish highlands. his work since then has ranged broadly on the experience of the scotts, british imperialism. i would like to add originally, this session was going to be a duo with steven conway in london. but just like the scotts in the 18th and 19th century we've loaded another load onto dr. andrew macola, please join me in warm really welcoming dr. andrew macola. >> in scotland were told you probably shouldn't applies until the, end because you don't know what you're gonna get. >> as you would expect, let me

think the university. thank you all for the invitation to speak. it's an honor of course to be asked. even more so to be given the initial privilege of having been intended to speak with steven conway, who has probably forgotten more about britain and the american revolution that more steve us could ever. no i will attempt, i suspect to cover some of the things that stephen would have blessed us with. the organizers have a practical problem now and a need to take a risk. like washington gambling on the delaware. i've given the time and space to talk about english political

culture in public, in a foreign country. i gather that there are some tensions in the united kingdom over with deemed acceptable political cultures in both countries. we have yet to see whether it will all pay off. as my proceedings have indicated to use any specific piece of historical evidence to open up into what are things about how britain and ireland's substantial and esteemed efforts reshaped those societies, just as they did north america, as was discussed last night. at the heart of the museums exhibition, lies a deep structural truth. that is at the point of the

american revolution, great britain was a interesting entity, a monolithic court. highly structured system, and it disguised the fact that the country was an act of coming together. a britannica,, dramatic and irish monarchy. partially completed. that's very important in some of the ways that you can see the exhibition, the way that ireland is in a ambiguous relationship with the rest of the united kingdom, and gives an idea of the tensions that under court the core british and irish state. the piece of evidence in question is the political print of the scotts. i won't move my thing along. i'll give you a colored version. the scotts invented television

so i thought i'd give you color. the scotch buttery, this isn't color. this is produced in london in 1775. it's certainly not one of the most famous or recognizable images on either side of the atlantic produced by the war of independence and revolution. but it's a wonderful window into the complexities, and potentials within which was a very young and new british union. the print and its messages are powerful indicators of how large parts of english political culture outside of parliament and even to some extent within it exhibited range of negative attitudes towards evolving british policy in north america from the mid 17 sixties to the 17 seventies. these attitudes ensure

uncertainty, and ease, deep trepidation to out right sustained hostility and opposition. conventionally, some of the dynamics in this image show us why scotland more than any other part of the british and irish aisles would be deeply committed to the british effort in north america. this isn't to say that all scott fought for the crown. william storming on the military side, probably the man that got irritated. of course hugely prominent, and rightly celebrated as the person that secured the independence. the reality is that these scotts didn't really represent the broader picture. even among scotts who

immigrated to north, america there was a noticeable tendency to be loyalist. in this general sense, scotts in their representations capture their representation in relation to the revolution and war. if we can talk about there being such a thing as a general crisis to the revolution in the war, in a sense the picture is capturing something quite good. it is worth seeing that each important part of the british isles shouldn't be overly compartmentalized or seen at odds structurally with each other. yes, irish, english, wells, and scott societies exhibit a different sizes in key areas. but this was always a matter of degree fan absence. in all the three kingdoms, they

shared a lot more in common than the image might suggest. this is all to underline the obvious point. the scott was oppositional with propaganda. it's political nature shun to track from it sophisticated multi leveled message. a negative image of scotts was projected. the aim was to -- all the named protagonists in the picture, the scotts, number one you might be able to make out the man with this sword is in fact jon stewart. the man holding the number two is william murray, the lord chief justice of england. number four is alexander

wedderburn. . the carrot couture in the image had a good sense. it's like they characteristic had a good idea of what these men looked like. the issue is that these men, these scotts are standing in for the royal official click that wants to ignore the constitution, health and common by british communities on both sides of the atlantic. the first point is to clarify when it was created. 1775 was a action-packed year. you have to get an idea of when in 1775 it was produced. if the print was produced in response to any of the events

around this period, bunker hill, the patriots siege against the british, it will tell us something significant about the intention of the creator and the intended audience. the inclusion of this, the last individual, number three, colonel fraser is described as giving us a good sense of when the print was produced. simon fraser, the son and heir of summit fraser, appointed by the british crown. the last british political figure to be publicly beheaded. he fought with his father's regiment, a successful regiment to partially destroy the battalion that fought in january of 14 46.

so this man has in fact fought as a jacobite in the uprising. he was saved from possible execution, his head on the spike, because of his youth. he was very young at the time. more importantly and protect, potentially significantly he was very closely related with a very politically influential figure at the time. the view towards a wider political rehabilitation, the dial used this man to rehabilitate him in a forward-thinking way. frazier was granted a pardon in the 1970s.

1745. in return for this, his can across the north of scotland quickly raised eight army of men, five, weeks very fast. his effective service and service in america was a key reason why his family's ancestral lands in the highlands which had been seized by the korean in 1747 are restored to adapt simon fraser before this image was completed. it's a new established handler -- in cooperation with john, raised the 2000 double regiment. that was between october some 2:35 and march 1776.

but fraser is so conspicuously included in the image as a commander whose name metaphorically arrived in north america. the print was produced after he produces his regiment in october of 1775. so if you put the date towards the winter of 1775, what else could that tell you about the attitudes in britain towards america? a number of the people showed in the image were actually never in boston. none of this never happened. we were cuddly and warm people. we did not do any of this. at no point are any of these people recruited in the revolution. in other words, the scotch but tree is a made-up event. it never happened, at least not

in the way it represented here. that isn't to say that the scotch don't have a reputation for considerable violence and brutality. the scottish involvement in the coalition in boston, not in terms of strict accuracy, or a piece of political allegory, and policy relations. in doing so the image tangles, into a simple and powerful message that sought to demonstrate that traditional english political culture was actually sympathetic to the patriot cause. this desire to tailor the audiences in england and america that more united them than divided them, explains why the english soldiers in the image are portrayed as

unwilling to act against boston and bostonians. there are throwing their arms down. they were struck by the people portrayed in the image and willing to be violent. these guys are not squeamish. the image is actually directly inverting what happened in boston on the 5th of march in 1970, when soldiers commanded by a irish officer opened fire and ended up killing five people. to be fair it's possible that one or two soldiers involved might have been scotts from their names. but the regiment and the vast majority of soldiers were not

part of the unit. commanded by scotch. in case you're not sure, they stick a huge thistle in the front of the ship in case you're not getting the message. that is right to the forefront, it gets a grip on something, it starts to spread. scott are sensual like weeds in that sense. the scottish commanders are bombarding the city of boston. that of course is also a blatant representation. that was part of the attempted coercion of the city, it enabled troop movements, commanded by a englishman. at the stage are probably wondering that i pay money to

here is scott make heating on behalf of allegorical scotts? is this guy so bad that he's just going to spend the rest of the time saying this happened in this didn't happen. we have plenty of time left folks. within this image i think there is a deeper level than the blatant and crude representation of the scuttle negative sense, and the representation of the english soldiers in a positive sense. if that was being glossed, over the prince was making a direct connection to the tenth may 68 killing, on the outskirts of south london. this was a notorious incident drink one of the popular waves of unrest. in boston, one of the regiments involved in the massacre, the scott guards was a scottish unit.

what the print in other words is doing is collapsing time and space in an effort to say that the suffering of liberty loving boston, was the same cause as liberal living london. conflict was not between englishman and london and descendants in north america. the social division not by people ban to gather by a common devotion to liberty, due process of law, and protection of life. the sketch buttery is nothing less than an appeal to a hope that common english nurse could brink hope and wrinkle -- reconciliation. in contrast, those at, fault actively moving british towards a military solution are all scotts. so this is not direct missile representation. it's revealing how the emerging

british consolidation, seemed to directly threaten transatlantic communities of political english news. there is no doubting that many discrepancies at the church that was angela culture, increasingly felt after 1763 that the right to, press to effective representation, and the defensive property from legislative feet was under direct threat. the agenda of king george the third shifted the government from legislative consent, to government by executive order. those angered and opposed to the process, in england, north america, and ireland, conceived of this as a unfortunate, maligned shift from above the

british ways of government to scottish. despite entering union with england in 1977 many angela elites still associated scotland and its people with an inclination and willingness to accept excessive crown power. this wasn't limited to the upper reaches of society. anti scot sentiment was widespread on both sides of the atlantic and common to many classes. even in rural towns you have this discord among the population that scotland is and desirable. this sentiment of anti-scott, it had traction in north america. in this world view scott

preferred royal prerogative by the disposed legacy. it's all interlocking. denied the initial order. so the discord goes the scotts chose now to corrupt the monarchy, parliament and english systems of law and empire. the men represented here were cleaned for leading this process. i'm going to go through these guys are. here i have george stewart, the first treasury from 61 to 60. as the prime minister of england. linked to very powerful discreet political networks, and the treat of paris of 1760 to not --

heard the abiding hostility of politicians, intellectuals, landed faced polishers. he was seen as far too powerful and too inclined to support his own countrymen. the key -- to the beef's among peoples like wealth is that it effectively, people like butte are driving a wedge of scotts into key areas of the governmental machine, and that that process is particularly prominent in the empire. it is prominent in london, but with the scotts are doing is taking what we call an eccentric approach, meaning that they are storming the center of power. above all, building their bases up in colonies in ways that will threaten the center. there is no doubt about it. of seniors garnish scottish commanders as governor positions and some of the colonies taken at the peace and

1763. -- a whole suite of newly acquired -- basically come under the control of what we would describe as military pro consulate. these guys do not have a tradition of negotiating with colonial assemblies. they are hard military men and govern the colonies accordingly. now, butte is driven from power in 17 sixties, but he continued to be used through the later parts into the 17 seventies. as a really handy pick up a symbol of maligned scottish influence and central government in the british army and across the empire. now, lord man's field, the man you see and number two with his portrait. it was again typical of a process bute brilliantly de deconstructed years ago by which the english legal

establishment was increasingly in effect colonized by a large number of scottish. at the moment, given what is happening in brexit in english political leader -- we won't go there. as lord chief justice of england, man's field did sanction a very aggressive use of general warrant. he's effectively our discretionary legal process -- he's able to send soldiers into private property used to search for correspondents. and impound what is seen as people's personal property. he is breaching what our cbs key -- protection of property. that shine with people of the colonies in terms of their opposition to the quarter-ing act, which were understood in a

sense and understandably was nothing less than a read on personal property. scotts have seen lax attitude to the key principles of property. fundamentally they would impound it, move it and shifted as they see fit. alexander, and when you see and as marked number four. he was the son of a scottish advocate. he entered the english legal system. what are burned -- wedderburn is a fascinating character. in legal terms he was a strong supporter of key aspects of wilson's agenda. he's got r

of woke's position. it 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 z englishman our liberty loving and abide by the law. all scotts are despotic. they won't worry about your property. wedderburn was crossing political lines constantly. >> what if the except since -- he was taken as proof of another key characteristic within this discourse and regarding scottish political behavior. that was that they would know that that they would not no political principle if if it fell from them at a hike. they will effectively shift from where the government wants them to be. wedderburn took a strong stance and it was a hawk when it came to dealing with the aftermath

of the tea party. he advocated a massive reinforcement of gauges forces in boston. he was seen 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 political pull communities that made up the empires of 1875 were to be governed. it meant something important in terms of how people are thinking of the british nurse. british nurse was seen in this style of political event as a crisis of traditional english -ness and north americans. in representing these competing ideas about how to free an advanced societies on both sides of the atlantic and to invents the invitation individual. scotch boot she is capturing something important about what

is driving the conflict. like a clash of english transatlantic political -- centralizing imperial and administrative british culture. for all its misrepresentations, it is important to acknowledge that the print is capturing important characteristics of the scottish war of the war of independence. it is easy to dismiss it as factually inaccurate and never happened, but it's brilliance is are such that in carrot caricatures, it is capturing in a sense a deeper truth. the print will provide hence, of why scotts are much more likely to fight for -- the first of these relate to how politically and socially influential scotts conceived of britain and british-ness. for the vast majority of scotland's elite and way down to social order and middle classes, clergy, merchants. 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, and or at least minimize a whole range of disruptive forces which scotts felt had torn the british irish aisles for centuries. ancient divisions between scotland and england. between wig and tory between faction of court and country. in this world mission could be eased or 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

improvement here, to be stable and sustainable, there needed to be a clear and unambiguous of legal and political authority. lapid commercial and economic development here in north america, london, or the expanding port cities on the atlantic seaboard's 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 that this was a vision which placed economic liberty above passionate political freedom. but what it certainly entailed was a belief, and i think it is important to state this, a genuine belief, that social and passionate improvement needed careful and collectively recognized systems of executive effectiveness and executive

oversight. it was for this edition of the union empire that so many scotts would fight. the need for stability was particularly strong in a country which, let's remember, had been lacked by three large-scale revolt in less than 40 years between 17 eight and 1745. if you were asked an american, an englishman or an irishman, before 1763 or 65, even as late as 1770, who are the destructive rebels and traders in the english speaking world? they would all have answered, scotts. scotland has this deep, fissured history, where there is a drive to find stability and peace. the argument is that britain will provide that framework. scotland, nor ireland --

after 16 88 and the defeat of the irish. the country experienced waves and deeply destructive waves of civil and militant islands for six years. it ultimately took a british army to kill large numbers of jack advice. we had their leaders, forfeit their estates to bring the union into a position of stability. the country was also notably in material terms, certainly, and some key respects an economy, it was even less developed than ireland. this is why scotland develops an economic patriotism. an attempt to bring the country up in material terms. scottish society, by the 17 sixties and seventies have 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 to us now, here, the seems so politically outdated and really outdated when you compare it against the progressive democratic vision of political freedom advanced with 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 against colonists and against a major alliance of european power. whatever else they are doing, they are deeply committed to it. it ended in humiliating failure, it should not detract from the genuine belief it inspired among scotts, english, irish and many north americans as loyalists. what i want to spend the rest of the time talking about is we should not forget as well, the

major consequences for britain, ireland and the rest of the empire, a rising long effort to attempt to succeed. failure still produces consequences. they will be usually significant. although presenting an extremely crude distinction between english and scott's, the image is capturing the reality that the scotland and particularly soldiers were to have a noticeable presence in the british army in north america. over and above a commitment to come british nest, i want to talk about what i see is a major second factor or dynamic under pending scotland's commitment to the british project. it is deeply ingrained culture of military service. given the number of scottish soldiers i'm going to talk about, i want to put that in context by underlying something that will be easy to forget. scotland, how lovely, cuddly and small, it is actually very small in population terms.

it is really not a significant part of the wider british irish union. its constitutional position is one half of the british union, discussing the fact that it made up only 12% of britain and ireland's population. scotland has got a constitutional clout which cannot match with demographic weight. which is in fact really -- within the wider british irish monarchy. you need to remember that 12% when you remember some of the figures i will produce. ireland was the second kingdom within the british irish isle, possibly in constitution and cultural terms controlled by the angle irish elite, and its population well over 3 million by the period of the war, dwarfed that of scotland's which was 1.3, that are many many many more irish than there are scotts. the reality of limited population on a permanent

political minority status within the union was however offset by certain social and economic characteristics which marked scotland out different from other parts of the british and irish isle. the countries aristocrats were poor in material and political terms than even the english or angle irish counterparts. they relied about state service, not so much as a status symbol, scotts needed state service for actual material gain. with only 12% of the population, scotts nevertheless preserved an average of 23%, almost a quarter of all british currency post throughout the whole of the 18th century. scottish officers, and as a result you have a high percentage of scotts within the army corps at the officer

level. in other words there's a pattern, a structure of dependency tween state service, and this pattern of service explains the high percentage of commanders were scotts. one third of all british brigades were committed by scotts. 12% of the population, 33% of the major tactical level of the british army. in other words, scotland is excessively represented. disproportionally represented at the key points of the military effort. as a result, we have a serious, i can take any number of military efforts. i'm only going to use one

example, but there are hundreds of scottish officers that could be mentioned. their regional commander of the first highland regiment. this is illustrative of the link back to the whiter project. he fights as a junior officer in the campbell militia, in 1945. this man fights simon fraser. part of the project is to end that amity. to bring if you like themselves together. he was using militia units to suppress recruitment at the highlands during 45. he then serves as a junior military officer during the indian war. in the sixties he serves in the west indies. he then spent a considerable

amount of time as a trained commander in india. he then goes back into north america, he's one of the men that's captured. he's exchanged, he goes back into military service and then serves through 1778. he is one of the few scotts that goes beyond divisional commander and becomes an army commander. he's sent with his regiment and other parts of georgia as part of the british shift in 1778 and 70 79 and he fights with the devastating effect on a campaign drug directly on his experience from the 45. what he does that a lot of other british commanders don't do, is he coordinates and 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 away provided a model that if the british use this systematically, they may have had more success. he obliterates public opinion in georgia quickly. he then is told to go to jamaica. he is off to the west indies and will spend his time there, and and his time in india thereafter. this man in other words has a local, scottish transatlantic, and ultimately global career. he enables and is envisioning this global empire that can effectively try to reduce issues in each of its component parts. he is above all a political imperial fixer. that is his job. hundreds of middle ranking

scottish officers worked for him. so we have british culture and, the culture of military service. but we need to change the social slant and move it down the social order. scotland had a much more diverse culture of military service than just its officer class. that is because of the nature of the rule of order and tendency range vince and scotland. it is difficult to over examine eat the social power they have over the populations under their control. they maintain a much more aggressive level of leverage then any tendency class in ireland, or wales. hundreds of thousands of scotts

live on daily discretion on farms their families probably farmed for centuries. the vast majority of scotts, men, women, and children have no legally recognized access to land. the freehold niece of 60 years common in ireland simply don't exist in scotland. most of the scottish population lives under the discretion of landlords who can evict them with 30 days of notice. this landlord affected 23,000 people. got his men and put them back on the land. that is a level of landlord control that is really crushing. you have a real control over population. they see the population as a resource in ways that simply

are not possible in england or ireland. used primarily as it gradient of peace time, it was usually cashed in. the result was the creation of regiments like this, but eventually the country's elite are cashing in one of their few american resources in return for rank and status. a highly effective system. as we've seen with simon fraser it was initially used during the war, particularly in two phases. the first was when britain such a rapid buildup of its forces in 1775 in 1776. this is before the patriot momentum builds. they need to rapidly mobilize as many as they can. that's when scottish regiments come in. it occurred again in late 1777,

when it became clear it we'd have to fight a global war. the particular value was the society contributed to the war effort with the speed of investment. producing numbers almost instantaneously. let me give you an example. the earl of the aisle of louis 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 population in three days, and they are drafted immediately into is. regiment the earl of lovat took three more weeks. this is to illustrate the

contrast with ireland. in 1770, five recruitment and ireland delivered 2900 new men to the army. remember, ireland is much larger of a population than scotland, but in the same period, the number of men raised in scotland was over 45. hundred in other words, a much smaller country is giving a much larger per capita of to the war. >> they only did so once france, the traditional enemy hidden on the side. glasgow is unique as a major british city for not sending a regiment in 1775. that's because of their commitment to the regiment.

so we have a case of over representation. units like the 42nd highland regiment, and 71st highland regiment respected, great reputation for effectiveness but also brutality. but the scottish recruitment system had its weaknesses. it was ideal for delivering, but it 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 defenses regiments. they soaked up another 500 scotts. to replenish heavy losses in america, the creation of the ad

and bergen glasgow regiments and the commitment to the further highlands regiments to the indian theater meant that by 1779 there were numerous cuts to give, fundamentally. scotland has reached the bottom of the barrel. this is a testament to the success of early recruitment, and ultimately to the country's small population. from 1778 onward, it would be our loomed and england that would contribute to british war effort. but scotland's prominence during the war's crucial early phases, and i think particularly, the arrival of concentrated blocks in clearly distinctive scottish regiments is key here. irishman went to quantitatively be bigger. but irishman spread over lots of regiments. scotsman regiments have a profile that does not match their number. the factor hinted at the image

is the attitude of ordinary scottish school soldiers. it would be easy for us to dismiss them as powerless and course of. there is no doubt that many highland soldiers -- failure to join the landlords regiment did lead to mass evictions. if you did not join the regiment, your families were out. but we should not deny these men the agency. a massive the factor motivating soldiers from all over the british isles was that upon victory, they would receive land from the crown. this would be a major incentive for men fighting during the war. a combination of economic advancement or the hope of economic advancement and a sense of obligation created among veterans given land upon the peace explains the loyalism of men. they have a sense that the crown works for them in

advancing their interest and liberty. much of its man power was raised among -- to quebec and upper new york, settled by scottish -- the belief that it guaranteed illegal and political framework also motivated recently arrived immigrants. there were in an active pattern of loyalism until faced with a series of heavy defeats at the hands of patriots and 1776. far from passive victims of the one-sided imperial state machine, thousands of ordinary soldiers and immigrants saw the war as their chance for economic advancement. given the dreadful conditions have to nor ian security and scotland both in the lowlands and highlands, the prospect of lands had a particular attraction to scotland. in the end, of course, the

effort and commitment of those like campbell, the soldier, it availed them nothing. the war failed. england and wales lost heavily as opposed to scotland. you might argue that i are like that ireland did rather well in the war. the wars and scotland by 1783 had a brief, but profound sense of dismay over the loss of colonies for particular reasons distinctive to scotland. in and around glasgow, a sense of defeat was catastrophic for the simple reason that glasgow had boomed as an atlantic port as a result of its commanding position in the chesapeake tobacco treat. poor patriot scotts like james were delighted at the war's outcome. a real patriot. he supported the americans whole heartedly. huge waves of mercantile and middle and class scotland, cnn

bleak dark future. the economist john knox published -- the question is whether the union had not -- arguably its greatest economic attraction. there was annoying raw fear that the country had sacrificed its independence for an atlantic empire that was now at best dismembered. barely 17 years of productive trade seems to have been given as a small reward for ending its independence. there was a major rethink of what would be the basis of scotland's economy without america. very productive. yet, and i think this is where want to start 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 is hard, in a sense, a line the idea of such a heavy defeat with the idea that a society

could benefit. obviously, scotland, england, wales and ireland lost the war. it is far less appreciated is how much scotland one as a consequence of the war. there is this distinction between winning the war and the consequences arising from it. across politics, religion, political culture and even social order, actually, the piece begins to show real signs that scotland may have benefited. an immediate tone of political confidence begins to emerge and scotland in the months after the peace. there is a new willingness to stand up to perceived scottish interests within the union. that was an immediate result of the war. think back on this. a key problem afflicting political scotland prior to the american revolution was how did you push back against a british government without incurring the charge of disloyalty --

you only have to look at the print to realize scotland is in a real bind. it may be as loyal as it can, but it opposes the government, it can come across as trader. in order to do this, it was to come conspicuous loyalty and demonstrably military service, which scotland did during the 1775. the result was was broken. we start seeing the effect even during the war. and 1778 and 79, the presbyterian clerk organized protests against proposals to give legal and political relief to catholics. the legislation was an attempt to recruit more catholics into the military effort, and the legislation passed easily in england and wales. interesting lee, with very little opposition, even in the irish parliament. dominated exclusively by protestants. scotland was entirely different. clerk ministers denounced the proposals as a breach of the

union of scotland's political liberties. intense writing broke out in every major city and scotland. the main political figures responsible for the government's interest, the lord advocate, handwritten henry done thus widely recommend the british government dropped the proposal. faced with denunciations -- imprint, the british government humiliating le backed down. this was the first major british government climbed on in relation to policy with scotland since the union. that was beginning to show in new confidence. released from the political necessity showing critical union so as not to be -- scottish political society and the clerk would now use the claim that certain policies breach the union as a neat way of defending their interests. attempts that financial threats peaked at 1784 and five to lure lords. whisk easily and quickly

defeated by a claim that it breach the union. scottish society had re-found a way of opposing british governments and domestic policy. that would have been unthinkable for decades after colonial. one of the benefits as the americans get the scottish and you ability to be critical. another major change was that scotland the nation, if not individual scotts, we covet the right to bear arms. ever since 1715 rising, school and scotland had been a disarmed society, denied the right to militia and garrisoned consciously by regiments that were non scott. saw thousands of scotts enter into arms for the domestic defenses of scotland. never again would scotland be garrisons or defended by non scots. scotland now begins to defend itself 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 that trust in relation to ireland. political's confidence and securing -- with the same rights as fellow britons were not the only gains. numerous former jacket bite -- fought in america. men like alexander mcdonald. they all got their reward in 1784 when the crown restored all to their owners. scotts service -- their landed order were massive winners for the peace. across the atlantic of course, defeat confirmed massive loyalists dislocation and permanent immigration of many of them in turn. here is the picture of the loyalists camp up and canada. they need to resettle these populations would preoccupied those running what was left of britain's empire left.

scotts especially -- remarkably well out of these mass resettlement efforts. highland soldiers from poor rural areas obtained 50 acres of land, non commissioned officers and officers on a sliding scale. ordinary scottish soldiers went from being land-less without any semblance of tenant rights, to be land owners in north america. loss and defeat produced massive upward social mobility for some of the poorest sections of scotland's population. the scale of these language needs to be underlined. soldiers from demobilized regiments received over 19,800 acres and prince edward island. that is an area greater than the entire island -- in lower and upper canada provinces, over a quarter of 1 million acres were giving two

men from higher units. the slant was of course being appropriated systematically -- progress and advancement for scott's came at the expense of others. it is difficult to underestimate what such land meant for people and communities that lived under such a brutal landlord system back in scotland. so scots are becoming mass land owners 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 the ironic upside to defeat. i mentioned the new tone of political confidence and challenging the british government. but the revolution and its conflict also changed attitudes to the place of senior scottish politicians within the government itself. it was widely seen and savage,

and for wielding too much power and favoring fellow scotts within -- the war in america drove the career of a senior scottish official who -- would yield vast influence over imperial policy for decades, namely, henri dunn that's. donbass was one of lord advocate influenced over the 17 seventies. it was his refusal to serve in the cabinet that finally persuaded the king of the need to -- in terms of american policy. this is a scottish politician putting down the mean man who had formulated the american policy. a spit younger's closest advisor, particularly with regulation of the control of the eastern company and britain's vast in india -- it became a powerful

combination of scottish political manager, senior minister an imperial fixer. he became everything that people had hated and feared in bute. as we can see -- but the attempt to resurrect the scott of phobia evident in scott's boutter in -- this is a parody of the colossal of roads wearing his kilt. the reality is, scott phobia an english political culture had lost its its heat and traction. it would preside over an era or scotts gained access to imperial employment over a colossal scale. by the late 18 seventies along, scotts would be coming -- in east india company at the weight equivalent to a battalion's wealth of officers every year. in the 17 nineties it was

equivalent to a whole regiment per year. the deep ideological commitment to a british empire of law order and material improvement for some, exhibited across scottish society, was deepened and mobilized by the war. let's finish off. what are we to make of the scottish example and what does it tell us about the wider things we are looking at? just as the new united states itself obviously, france, the rest of the british empire, we're all obviously and deeply affected by the war, the revolution and it's ending. all of these countries were profoundly reshape in some way, by what had happened here in north america. what i find fascinating is the unexpected, often profoundly paradoxical outcomes of the war. perhaps the best way to enlisted is to look at when last -- this was produced only for

short years, but a political lifetime away from the scotts gucci. there is england with its staff of authority with america represented as -- sharp tourist duties france with a brilliant set of cuffs. the dutch republic trying to nick england's -- the image shows how far scotland had gotten through the war. skier here now scotland is a brother wrapped around england, aggressively attacking the french. here, we see a massive realignment in the tone and tenor of the angle of scottish relationship. scotland had lost the war. of course it did. but in many ways it when a surprising piece. it is self evident that the

revolution formed 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 17 years before, went from being an awkward constitutional framework to re-function as a resilient union. thank you. (applause) i will take questions. yes. please. >> thank you for that. it was brilliant and convincing. coming back to something that you were -- you said at the beginning jefferson had included mention of the scots in an original

draft of the declaration. it is a little bit clearer now but, tell me if i'm correct and thinking that the biggest groups of immigrants in the colonial period to the colonies where the scots and the scots irish. most of the people here are's scots and scots irish. why is there this antipathy towards people that jefferson, the virginian upper crest are living with -- where they equally in virginia as they were and boston? where they spread throughout the colony so that even jefferson would have lived with them or not, with the scotts and scotts irish seen as the same group and ethnicities within the colonies or where they seem different from each other? basically i'm interested in the antipathy, considering how common they were in the

colonies. >> great question. i think the answer is as always, it is multi leveled. you are absolutely right. the big wave that comes in from the 17 tens and twenties through the war, in numeric terms, scots irish or all-star irish, depending on the different names that we used, they farmed by far the biggest wave. numerically, scots are relatively small in proportion. for the sake of argument, let's call them scots irish for the moment. the result is scots or immigrants from scotland arrive at the same time, but they are arriving in a very distinct way. most of them arrive after 1763 and they arrive in large community groups, both lowland and highland. they concentrate in areas of

upper new york, some in virginia, but particularly in the carolinas. there is a reasonable movement in what would be british north america as well. they are new. they are still emotionally and politically connected to britain. the relationship between scots immigrants and scots irish immigrants is a tricky one. they were banded together. they were very similar in the sense of religion. they were nearly all presbyterian's. people have moved from austere to north america. these are groups that have left scotland well over 150 years. some closer. in a sense, it really aren't scottish in the sense that the scottish immigrants are. they are really a different

group. scott's live under a presbyterian church, a state church that prosecutes anglicans. most of the irish lived under an anglican church which prosecuted them. there is no urgency and scots immigrants to feel the same antipathy to anglican and some and anglican state structures in the way that foster scotts felt. the result is that paradoxical fisher between the fact that scots austere communities would back the patriots massively while, there are scottish patriots obviously, but most of the communities would back the crown. in that sense, it is an issue of generational difference and a different, above all ecclesiastical structures that meant to groups could see things very differently. does that help? hopefully?

i think the antipathy is not just about the apparent tourism of scotts and ideals of the scotts and governments. it is the middle colonies in terms of the planters elite that own a lot of credit debit relationship with large amount of scots irish traders. new so shaded with an excessive exploitation of the population and production of tobacco. there is sort of different layers of antipathy. but in the end, jefferson is -- he is not anti scottish. he is looking at what is going on. he is going, the bottom line is these guys are not forest, they are against us. he is making a rational political assessment that

largely, most sways off the scotts north america, certainly coming from britain, our tories, and that antipathy is not borne of -- it is more considered -- he's going with what his eyes are telling him. >> i want to take you back to the cartoon for a moment. i am curious. how widely distributed is it in both the uk and north america. also, what kind of impact does it have? is it the kind of thing that people will take a look at and say, oh that is cute. let's move on. where does it actually change opinions and beliefs? >> great question.

the answer is we've got some indication that says that the scottish press was circulating in scotland. the reputation is not good. we have to try to go on the charm offense. fundamentally, they attempted to ameliorate the condition. it's sinks without trace in terms of sustained specific reaction to that image. i think where it is significant, is not what it is seeing in terms of something new. it is tapping into an established discourse. it is confirming what in a sense, people were already thinking. it is giving additional confirmation of the scottish position within the government. the question as to how much it's circulated here in the u.s., that is a great question. i would not i have not been able to find any evidence of in north america patriot --

in that sense, it's maybe more about the way it provides at that a vibe rather than a specific reaction. we have no real hard proof evidence of the specific interaction. >> not to boost your ego. i'm not scottish. in 16 fifties, there were over 400 scottish p.o.w.'s brought to austin as slaves. they worked in the mills. you might want to, as a backdrop -- thank you. >> i think there is a big debate and scotland over particularly, my city of glasgow, over how we have to own up to the massive wealth we derived from the enslavement of

people from africa, but more rather from the products of course labor. in that debate, there has been -- well you know, many scotts were -- but fundamentally even the p.o.w.'s -- they were treated very well they're not treated very well, but they are nowhere near facing the in humanities that -- scotts have a hard life. the soldiers have a hard life. but they are subjects of his majesty. they do very well out of it. these guys get land in america. in that sense, the tendency to try and suggest the scotts have a hard time does not really stand up too much -- lord crumble was not a cuddly man. he was a lot nicer to his p.o.w. years.

>> thank you. the question about the first portion of the presentation. the despotic's scots. how does that sit next to and the 17 seventies, this image of the presbyterian church is a danger to republicans. how does -- as attorney of committees inherent in the presbyterian clerk, but how does that change over time? from the trajectory of the lecture, the clerk begins to wield more power if in the context of the political quest to limit catholic emancipation. is there a positive reassessment of presbyterian as a byproduct of this transformation? >> that is a great question in

terms of understanding the incoherence sees within the scots discourse. you did pick up on the way, some of the literature tries to reconcile, that presbyterian is them is a congregation is driven process and it was associated with effectively, the deposition of charles the first through the covenant, etc. it has a reputation as potentially dangerous. partly explains the church of ireland's hostility towards senators and ireland. this idea that the scotts favored the natural political inclination is to favor -- either the church -- either the crown or big powerful landlords, mainly at

dundas, and at the church level, they accepted to be socially policed. everywhere you look at scottish society, there is a tendency of the population to have strong regulatory frameworks, checking loyalty to the king, down to whether you are for indicating or not. right down to that level. within each of the component parts, just slightly out of a stalker scene. it is difficult to exaggerate the social power of the kirk. england has got a small but substantial catholic presence. ireland is overwhelmingly -- scotland is 85% presbyterian. it is the one kingdom that has massive monolithic. the church is correspondingly powerful. in that sense, that power is linked to the idea of that inclination towards authority. it is a bit of a leap, but it is a scot of phobic -- it is not always rational.

it is just trying to make those links. . >> how the rebellion itself was understood in america. as dangerously presbyterian -- in that sense there is a democratic inclination that is to be feared. that is linked to scott incision as well. it is beyond church government. is that just part of the paradox? >> yes -- it's not as of the church does not begin to show effort that it will take on the government and unlike the anglican church or the church in ireland, it starts to win some of these battles. certainly will do in the 18 tens and twenties in terms of the establishment. it is not that the church is unwilling to take on the government, but i think the difference is that there is an

understanding broader political culture that the presbyterian church, it's establishment and scotland was a massive acquire compromise. what that has done is secure scottish presbyterian's as a responsibly legal governing body while it is dissenting spread across north america is destabilizing. it is more that the british government -- we've managed to turn the kirk into government institution, while presbyterian islam is north america is this highly unstable, highly fluid -- in that sense, lots of scottish presbyterian's and scots say that is the point. we need to impose order for everyone to benefit. in that sense a lot of scottish presbyterian's are for this. they really do think it needs to be order. in that sense, they are against the scots irish presbyterian. 's it is deeply fissured.

>> i'm going to ask you -- during the seven years of war and north america and even more so in the war of independence, british commanders often used their highland regiments as like infantry for skirmish-ing and open order, flanking, surprise strikes. i was wondering, why did they view them as natural irregular's? was it a subconscious homage to which i could buy troops performed during the 45, or if there were other cultural factors involved? >> that is a great question as well. the answer is yes we do. most regiments will have one.

i think it is a combination of factors. a lot of the veterans senior british commanders have featuring 45. the jacket bites -- they tended to forget what an effective, fast moving army that was. it did various things that in a sense, we can see the future beginning to develop. there is also cultural assumptions that highlander's were under developed and primitive, therefore more in touch with nature and land. it is ridiculously a condescending process. remember, you are dealing with the idea that the officer class sees them as more able in a sense, they are not quite as civilized, and therefore they would be more in touch with, in effect how you use the land. there is that level. there is also something very simple. british officers associate light infantry with a lack of

height. you are to be small. this is again, one of those examples where we tend to think of 19th century ireland and that ireland is the pure country. but we've known from the start that irish diet in the 18 century means that an average irishman is much much taller than the average scots, in fact scots are the smallest people because they are on a really bad diet. cuisine is not one of the best things that the scots brought to the world. scotts were smaller. highlander's were big instructing. i think there is a sort of compound effect by which what they are doing is sending these guys and to particularly light -- the result was it tended to produce first of all, tend to get slightly higher casualties as a consequence.

also the cow pens event effectively came back to bite them. they were incredibly battle fatigued. it all unravels for them. elements of the regiment -- you can sense there is a massive toll on some of these light companies in terms of what they're expected to do. it is a culture of a number of different historical and control assumptions. good question. >> can i ask a question? what is very striking is despite the brutal suppression of the about rebellion, and it is how well and how quickly the head of aryan britain manage to

bring the highlander's, scotts, former scotts, yak bites, back on side. a scene in the war you get a slight culture shock. it is based on a fallacy if you go to say, mcdonald's grave, you went to america in early 17 seventies, back ten years later, she and her family -- but of course in a sense, she was a loyalist even in 1745, but she just felt that she had to shelter the prince. come to ireland, a huge difference between presbyterian's and all stir and presbyterian since scotland is they were post 16 90. they were second class settlers. it was an anglican establishment. definitely not a presbyterian

establishment. there was large immigration from 1720 -- the glorious revolution was a disappointment for all-star presbyterian's in many ways. one of the things that your talk has highlighted for me, is how little was such that and ireland, irish historians, irish american historians and so on, obviously highlight the contribution, including scots 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 in the american war of independence. it is totally forgotten. for example, wolf was

disappointed, that he wasn't quite old enough to take part in the british army, in the american war of independence. who word the irish soldiers in the british army? where they mainly protestant or where there are a good number of catholics? george was recruited from london and he was very wealthy. he moved, his mother moved to london in the 17 sixties. he was effectively recruited from britain and he went back to ireland. it was not typical -- i just think there is a gap in the research that i don't know if you can throw in any light on it. >> i will answer quickly. i could not 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 armies officer corps. scotland has got 12% of the population, probably about a quarter of the officers in the army, particularly at the elite level, are scotts. protestant ireland constitutes -- of the overall british island population. recent estimates are that protestant ireland constitute about 30% of the british armies officer corps. a community with four to 6% of the population has 30% of the officer corps. irish man is vital with protestant catholic. from 1770 the british army will shift its locust from scotland to the much bigger demographic reserves of the ireland. the army is very very irish. at the officer and man power

level. you are right. it is an important area to look at. you need to balance the fact that probably more so than scotland, ireland is a country that is brutally divided by this, in the sense of where they are fighting. scott's just stand to stick to one side of the crown. this gentleman has had his hand up for ages. i will keep the answer brief. >> you said 35% of the skin got its presbyterian at this period. what were the confessions, the 15%, the confessions. >> the rest? the minority of scotland is another protestant church community called episcopalian some.

scottish population that is catholic is less than 3%. 3%. in other words, scotland is 97% protestant. >> thank you. (applause)

but next from american artifact series, living history enthusiastic crossed the delaware river at the spot where general washington and the continental army cross from pennsylvania to new jersey on christmas night in