Scotch-Irish-L ArchivesArchiver > Scotch-Irish > 1998-01 > 0885564989
From: Edward Andrews <>
Subject: Re: Response to Ed Andrew
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:16:29 +0000
Shirley Norton wrote:
> 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
As the mail originally came through the list is is my policy to reply
on list, with a copy to the original poster. Subsequent correspondence
may then be carried out off list
> 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? .
Not really, You decided to take exception to my throw away line.
Fine. Just why you have the particular feelings which you have, is
something which in my culture I would not dream of exploring.
I got a letter from someone from Texas objecting that I could
possibly think that there was any Marxism in Texas. I replied to him
> The Marxist analysis of history works on the idea of Class war.
> According to his analysis slave owners and salves fought it out to
> produce feudal society, The serfs and the Aristos fought it out and
> there was the rise of Bourgeoisie. etc.
> Thus the statement "The poor uneducated Scotch man, Irishman, and
> Englishman were pitted against each other by the ruling class of
> people for the sake of power and greed. Bottom Line" can easily be
> interpreted as a Marxist statement.
> (we don't need to go into why Marxism doesn't work)
> > 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.
However, you felt that it was valid to make a blanket statement about
the poverty which you claimed throughout the United Kingdom!!
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?
Not so sure. I think that concern about the tax base is an
anachronism, The concern arose out of the mercantilist theory of
economics. Some of the other European nations actually passed laws
In Ireland which you have to remember was viewed as a colony, the
objections to emigration - about which nothing was done, were first of
all that it weakened the Protestant element, and secondly it reduces
the rents which could be demanded, and the volume of internal trade.
> 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
> that question.
No You could mean do I believe that only those who have wealth,
property and education are bright and intelligent, or could cold mean
do only bright and intelligent people have wealth, property and
education. Or you cold also mean, and this is the terms in which I
answered it, that there is a correlation between the acquisition of
wealth and brightness and intelligence - which I think is well proved.
> 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 think that you have to remember that for emigration there has to be
a push as well as a pull. In some cases the push is stronger then the
pull the extreme example being those who were transported, of the
pull, a unique opportunity which is not available elsewhere.
In the case of my ancestors, the pull of home was greater than the
The Leiths who went to Canada, for example had the opportunity to
work with a personal friend who had gone over and started a wee shop a
guy called Eaton.
My Grandmother's Brother left because there was a skills shortage in
his particular profession.
What you have to remember is that those who go, only have to make one
decision to go. Those who stay have to continually reaffirm that
> 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!
Don't worry, there are many different ideas on the list, so different
people understand different things in different ways.
St Nicholas Buccleuch Parish Church Dalkeith
Visit our Web site
|Re: Response to Ed Andrew by Edward Andrews <>|