Scotch-Irish-L Archives

Archiver > Scotch-Irish > 2000-10 > 0970842466


From: "Charles.Clark" <>
Subject: Re: Church of Ireland?
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 10:27:46 -0400
References: <39DC582B.BC11D054@ix.netcom.com> <00b001c02eda$b1def0e0$449ea4d0@jacknday>


"Mary M. Lander" wrote:

> Don't knock it---he could do worse. As a born & raised Presbyterian, married
> to a born & raised Methodist, who both converted to be Catholic more than 30
> years ago BY CHOICE (and, by the way, I find the "beliefs" and attitudes
> between Presby-Cath much closer than Presby-Meth), and, having found out
> long ago all that this list had to offer about the area (Co. Louth) where my
> Scottish GGGgrandparents spent time between Scotland and USA, the only
> reason I stay on the Scotch-Irish list is for the marvelous history and
> religion information posted often by Edward Andrews and Linda Merle (and
> occasionally by "Stu" & others). Besides, the occasional knock-down-drag-out
> disagreements are sometimes fun until they get overdone. Please don't start
> another because of this. Three or four years ago I started one by asking for
> an absolute definition of Scotch-Irish and haven't yet recovered from that
> fiasco. Please DO NOT start that one again.
> Mary Lander

But Mary we haven't finished with that one yet! About the Scotch-Irish, I mean.
Seriously I don't believe we have come to understand that there are really only
one lot of Scotch-Irish who are the descendants of the inhabitants of the
Highlands, Western Isles and Northern Ireland known more or less as the Kingdom
of the Isles.
The Scotch-Irish tradition suggests that the Scotch-Irish who went to America
were essentially lowland Scots who went to Ireland during the plantation and
then moved on. I have my doubts about that, my main historical source, Foster's
"Modern Ireland" suggests that the plantation was less significant than it has
been made out to be as a movement of people, and that the "halting and
contentious nature of government-planned colonization lends weight to the
argument that the 'real' plantation was that carried out 'invisibly' by the
Scots, both before the initiatives of 1609-10 and later in the century. This
would later provide an argument used by Unionists that Ulster's different nature
is immemorial and uncontrollable, and stems from something more basic than
English governmental policy."

Whoop, nearly straying back into politics again, but the point, so far as
Scotch-Irishism is concerned, is that the 'invisible' plantation was composed
essentially of Highland/Western Isles/been-there-all-the-time-type Scots,
whereas the English plantation was of quite the opposite kind, lowlanders who
spoke English and were of the right religious persuasion.
If the Scotch-Irish myth as espoused by Americans of Scotch-Irish descent claims
that American Scotch-Irish are descended from plantation Scots, then my
interpretation of Foster is that he would say that interpretation doesn't stand
up to the statistics; the American Scotch-Irish are infact essentially
descended, as the name suggests, from the Scots and Irish grouping who
informally and 'invisibly' planted the North of Ireland and were described by
Elizabeth I as "those damned Scotch-Irish". In other words the name is not an
American invention, but does in fact link back to its Scotch-Irish roots. Which
is something that does, after all, make sense
Charlie

This thread: