Scotch-Irish-L ArchivesArchiver > Scotch-Irish > 1998-01 > 0885009360
From: Shirley Norton< >
Subject: Re: Response to Ed Andrew
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 98 21:56:00 -0600
I received this response from Mr. Andrews in my private email but later
found that he had also posted it to the List. So, I guess it is only
proper that I post this to the list also. I will address just a few
things from Mr Andrews post and the rest I will send to him by private
Mr Andrews wrote:
Sc> It is nice to see that the Marxist analysis of history is alive and
Sc> well and living in Texas.
No, it's my analysis of history. I have never read a Marxist analysis
of history so, therefore I take full responsibility for my views. I
know that Historians and scholors often have different views on history.
I sometimes find that they make things more complicated than they really
are. In view of your rather strange ways of trying to promote discussion
within the group, I was dissapointed that you didn't bother to ask why
and how I came to my views! Isn't that a part of what discussion is about? .
> The idea that the serfs were being kept down by the Aristocracy and
Sc> kept divided to further the class interests of the Aristocracy does
Sc> not fully accord with the facts. The Scots in Ulster - which is the
Sc> proper object of this group were not poor and uneducated. they could
Sc> afford to go to America, and we know that they were educated.
Let me see if I understand. You say that there were no poor or uneducated
Ulster Scots and they could all afford to go to America. I think that
is fantastic if true! I like your views better than James G. Leyburn's
views in his book " Scotch-Irish a Social History" He paints a rather
different picture. At this point, I have to keep an open mind on that
point because I don't know which of you have the correct answer. I find
that blanket statements aren't really valid. And what I mean by a
blanket statement is; If I were to say that men are bad drivers, that's
not really valid because it implys that all men are bad drivers. To
say that" some" men are bad drivers would be valid. That also applies
to blanket statements about Americans and especially Texans. :)
Sc> Part of the discussion has to be whether if they had stayed they
Sc> might not have done as well. When the emigration was at its height
Sc> there was considerable official concern at the population loss by the
Sc> Presbyterians leaving.
Could part of official concern been because they lost a good bit of
their tax base? What would have happened if no one came to America
and the UK became overpopulated? What would be the results then?
Sc> Of course there was a complete inequality in terms of land. The
Sc> question has to be however how was capital distributed.
In my opinion, the complete inequality in terms of land is directly
related to how capital was distributed. And also, to the opportunities
that one had at that time.
> 7. Do you equate that people of wealth, property and education to be the
> bright and intelligent ones? (same time period)
Sc> I don't see what his has to do with the discussion. I don't think
Sc> that you actually mean what you ask.
Oh, yes I do! What it has to do with the discussion is that you
said the "bright" ones stayed put. I was just trying to pin you down
as to who the bright ones were, other than being your ancestors, which
by the way could be some of my ancestors. Now, wouldn't that be a
kicker! :) But thank you very much for a rather long winded yes to
I have many different Scotch-Irish ancestors. On my Wallace line my
emigrant ancestor left behind his parents and brothers and sister. I
would be interested in knowing your views on why your ancestors stayed.
I am truly amazed at the person (not Mr. Andrews) who views my post of
questions and my opinions as a complaint! That was a very strange response!
Shirley Wallace Norton
Humble, Texas, USA
... Catch the Blue Wave!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
|Re: Response to Ed Andrew by Shirley Norton< >|