The Scotch-Irish: A Social History [Paperback]

Professor Leyburn explains in his introduction that his book is "a social history of the Scotch-Irish. In this day of specialization, a social historian who undertakes to recount the life of people through three centuries and in three countries knowingly risks his scholarly head. Experts in Scottish, Irish, and American colonial history can only regard him as...ignorant of the finer points within their special fields. Scottish history is full of old controversies...Irish history has been so turbulent...few of its events is agreed upon." And Leyburn accomplishes this in only 330 pages. He divides his book into three parts:the Scot in 1600, the Scots in Ireland, the Scotch-Irish in America.

Being a southerner with Scotch-Irish roots in Tennessee, I was upset early on when Leyburn stated that Teddy Roosevelt's and others' claims that the Scotch-Irish were hardy, honorable folk was overblown. (Teddy's mother, Eleanor's grandmother, was a native Georgian, hardened, undoubtedly, by the Civil War's trials, Sherman's fiery footprints, amongst other things). Some of the trials of the Ulster scots in war and life and the deprivations they had to endure reminded me of the 40 day siege of Vicksburg, MS and the resiliency demonstrated by its citizens during the civil war. However, later on in the book, Leyburn's careful reasoning convinced me that he was more realistic. What stirred my thinking was Leyburn's comments in Chapter 16 when he states "political opinion and activity among the Scotch-Irish varied enormously from place to place. The whole mythology concerning this people rests upon a false assumption:that all Scotch-Irish thought alike. Why should they? They had come from different social classes back home; they entered America during six decades of remarkable fluctuation in ideas; they lived in colonies whose policies, attitudes, Indian problems, and progress toward stable institutions diverged widely." One can validate that statement easily by simply surfing the web and looking at the politics of numerous U.S. presidents with Scotch-Irish roots and see the "divergence" Leyburn speaks of.

I do believe, however, that Teddy Roosevelt's assertion that some Ulster Scots, Scotch-Irish, did play a pivotal role in early American history has many proofs. In Pennsylvania, as Leyburn recounts, in 1764, Ulster Scots pushed for equal representation within the state which was dominated by the minority quaker population concentrated around Philadelphia. That issue was one which the Scot felt most keenly following the Union of the crowns in 1707 accomplished during Queen Anne's reign; in parliament, Scots nobles were unfairly outnumbered by their English counterparts, see Paterson's History of Ayrshire.

I do believe some of these simple, biblically literate peoples, did desire a better country, and considered it their God-given task to try to make it a reality. The Baptists in Virginia, James Madison's state, were a significant force behind the freedom of religion/separation of church and state movement; ONE I FIRMLY BELIEVE MUST BE MAINTAINED! Just look at the bloody history of Christian Great Britain 300 years before the Revolutionary War; events that brought persecuted immigrants to the U.S. in the first place. The stuff seminarians don't study!

If you are an American doing geneaological research on your Scotch-Irish roots this is the resource book to get. I must add, too, if you have French Huguenot roots, they might have resided in Northern Ireland, in Ulster, before coming to America. I thought Leyburn was mistaken when he referred to Alexander Hamilton as an Ulster Scot. I know for a fact (court records) that his Hamilton ancestors were Scots from Ayrshire on the western coast of Scotland. That portion of Ayr, however, is extremely close to Northern Ireland, just a hop, skip, and a jump away! Alexander Hamilton's mother was French Huguenot, possibly her ancestors left Ulster to settle in Nevis, West Indies. Leyburn's statement is therefore correct again. Chapters 12 and 13 cover the conditions prompting immigration and the actual areas of settlement in colonial America of Scotch-Irish. Many people have been researching my Hamilton ancestors for years and can't get past 1780. Many of Leyburn's analyses are correct I believe.

A New Ireland by John Hume is on my books to read list about the 1998 Good Friday peace accord. Another book highly recommended to me is The Triumph of the Laity: Scots-Irish Piety and the Great Awakening, 1625-1760 by Marilyn J. Westerkamp. Hopefully, that book will give me a better understanding of my ancestors' background.

I gave the 5 star rating because I believe the subject matter warrants further study and is relevant for today. Truly understanding Ulster's history, (I believe), the conflicts, the circumstances and the social make-up of Northern Ireland itself, at distinct times in its history, is essential to the peace process there.

They enthusiastically supported the American Revolution (as in significantly caused it to happen) and thought of themselves as "Americans" rather than Scotch-Irish.

This book covers their migrations, their lifestyles, the dominant element of the Christian religion in their society. It is informative, and to me, inspirational.