Scotch-Irish-L Archives

Archiver > Scotch-Irish > 2007-07 > 1185413907


From: Montgomery Michael <>
Subject: [S-I] Possible migration of Scots,Scots-Irish in the middle to late 1700s to America
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.20206.1185401320.5495.scotch-irish@rootsweb.com>


Dear Linda

I'll not dissent with anything about migration you say
but would like to expound briefly on two points:

1) Perceval-Maxwell is incomparable in documenting the
undertakers, but they were only the upper crust of
Ulster Plantation settlers, whose names we know
because they signed formal agreements to take up a
certain portion of land in exchange for committing to
fortifying and populating it. The vast majority of
settlers from Scotland are/were either undocumented or
had their names show up on documents such as muster
rolls that suggested nothing about their point of
origin in Scotland. Goodness only knows how many
William Campbells or John Wilsons crossed the north
channel from various parts.

2) While it is true as you say that the 1690s-era
movement from Scotland to Ulster is badly documented,
it is very little better for the non-undertakers
during the Ulster Plantation (1610-25). Throughout
the century the movement ebbed and flowed, back and
forth. Scotland and Ireland were parts of the same
kingdom. Not only did people need no documents to
move (and thus there no records were produced), but it
was much easier to move from Ayrshire in Scotland to
County Down in Ulster than it would have been to, say,
Yorkshire or Essex. Such movements were internal,
just like one's moving from Pittsburgh to Boston.

I would, however, dissent a bit with the statement
that before 800 spelling was phonetic and that there
was no such thing as standardized spelling. Sure,
Noah Webster's first dictionary wasn't published until
1806, but there were British dictionaries around, and
the standardization of spelling (a very gradual
process) had commenced long before that. People
without education have always and will continue to
spell phonetically (like a first-grader who spells
"know" as "no"). Standard spelling shows up in legal
documents beginning in the 1500s. Linda's basic
points (which I take to be that spelling was pretty
inconsistent among commoners in the 18th century and
that if one wants to decipher their writing, one
should read it aloud) I would certainly agree with.

One more thing: let's all lobby the Ulster Historical
Foundation to get Perceval Maxwell's book back in
print. I'd love to get a fresh copy.

Michael

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:56:21 +0000
From:
Subject: Re: [S-I] Possible migration of Scots,
Scots-Irish in the middle to late 1700s to America
To: "S. McDuffe" <>, S I List
<>

Hi Sue,

Have you read Hanna "The Scotch-Irish"? It's in a
library and also free
at ancestry as 'Scots-Irish'. It contains much
information on the
Ulster Plantation. Most critically it contains the
lists of the undertakers
and often history of where they were from in
Scotland. It contains the
1630-ish report made to King James of who had what.
They were supposed
to do certain thi ngs like build a bawn and import
certain numbers of
Protestant settlers. If they didn't do that, they
were bad boys.
Unfortunately King James died and his father could
care less...however we do
have the 1630-ish reports that show the change of
hands, if one
occured.

So....was the undertaker of the estate where your
ancestors lived from Perth? If so you have your answer
on how he got there. If you have not found them yet in
Ulster, then you cannot find them in Scotland. Rule No
2 of genealogy: work from the known to the unknown. Of
course we all ignore that rule! (Me too!)
However....you might not have enough info yet to do
more than fantasize about Scotland.

It's a mistake to believe the past is like the present
or recent past where people just move about. They did
move about, but they usually, unless someone was on
their trail, went somewhere for a reason. Many Ulster
settlers in the early 1600s were recruited by their
landlord or a neighboring landlord or the landlord of
a cousin, etc, etc. After all the undertakers needed
reliable men who could bear arms and could farm.
Theives, nar do wells, people with brown thumbs --
this they didn't need. Of course they got desperate
<grin>! But that is one of the most common patterns
of migration.

A book to read is "The Scottish Migration to Ulster in
the Reign of James I" by M Perceval Maxwell.

I have no idea why you think your ancestors would need
to go to somewhere else in Scotland before leaving
from Perth. Maybe you have some evidence of that.
Probably not. If not, there's no need to believe there
was another hope. Lots of Perth-people went to Ulster.

Unless your ancestor left after the American
Revolution he lived somewhere else in America before
setting in Washington Co, PA. It was settled, except
for a handful of die-hards, after the Revolution.
Unfortunately it was settled by both Virginians and
Pennsylvanians. You can do studies of other groups of
Duff(e)s to see if you can connect yours in -- if you
don't know when they came. If you don't, you are not
ready to start researching in Ireland. There are no
emigration records and most people living there before
1820 or so are not named in ANY record. You can study
where Duffs are in Ireland of course. SO you are ready
to jump on the main target. You can use associated su
rnames to determine which is the target group.

The e is irrelevant, btw. Your ancestors were probably
illiterate. If they were not, they were not taught in
school standardized spelling. There was no such
notion. The first American dictionary was published
in the early 1800s. Before that spelling was
phonetic.

Linda Merle




____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7


This thread: