“A SCOTCH-IRISH REBELLION.” Ch: 9

“A SCOTCH-IRISH REBELLION.” Ch: 9

Chapter 9

“CALL IT NOT AN AMERICAN REBELLION, IT IS NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN A SCOTCH-IRISH REBELLION.”

Captain Heinriche. Hessian Army Officer.

There are few offences that cause more anger and resentment than injustice. One has simply to see the reaction of a crowd at a sporting event to have this demonstrated. When the unfairness is repeated often over a period of time. the bitter feelings are much increased. When the injustice is accompanied for years by oppression and persecution, against an entire people. the intensity of emotions becomes extreme. If after a respite from them for a time, the tyrannies are begun again, the flood of pent-up feelings is most likely to break out into violent resistance. These were the elements which caused the Ulster settlers in America in the 18th century, and their descendants to become the” most irreconcilable, the most determined in pushing the quarrel (with the British Government) to the last extremity.” Froude was to add, “In the War of Independence, England had no fiercer enemies than the grandsons and great. grandsons of the Presbyterian’s who had held Ulster against Tyrconnel.”‘ He could have put a foot-note to this statement, “And been repaid with more injustice and deprivation.”‘

Before going to America, they had experienced in Ulster the selfish disregard of their liberties, rights, and well-being by the authorities, royal, clerical, and civil, of a dominant neighbouring nation. By the mid 18th century the same injustice by the English authorities and their colonial agents had built up again in that far-off land- The longer established English settler families in the East coast towns had the monopoly of wealth and power in the different states, and, in many cases, acted for the government of the “home country” through governorships and assemblies- Being supported in their positions by that Parliament, they were unwilling to give offence to it. The Scotch-Irish, who had generally been forced by those coastal authorities to seek a living in the more Western up-country areas, had no such hesitation when it came to disagreement with England.

Indeed there had been growing up between the well-to-do and privileged people of the Eastern towns and the frontier Germans and Scotch-Irish in the West a good measure of ill-feeling. The reasons were not far to seek. Again, gross injustice was the root cause. A few examples will show this. In 1756, out of 36 Assembly seats in Pennsylvania, 28 were held by the Penns and their friends, although they represented fewer than a quarter of the population – In Virginia on the eve of the Revolution in 1776, Elizabeth County in the coastal or Tidewater area, with a population of just over 1500 had the same representation as Berkeley County in the Shenandoah Valley with nearly 17,000 people. The right to vote, too, was restricted to those owning £50, a large sum then, so that only 1 in 10 had the franchise. In Pennsylvania, the Quakers rulers, as has been previously mentioned, tended to favour the Red Indians against the whites on the frontier, in spite of the fact that the former were usually the aggressors and had been guilty of some horrible atrocities against men, women, and children. In religion, too, there were causes for complaints. The Toleration Act passed by the English Parliament in 1680 had removed some of the unfair treatment of Dissenters in England, (although prevented in Ireland by Anglican Church authorities.) It was not put into effect in Virginia until 1755. So Presbyterian’s, and Baptists had to support Anglican churches there, although they, themselves, were refused licence to preach. No wonder, as Charles Biddle has observed, “the West looked on the East as little better than swindlers.”

These were some of the rather brittle relationships existing in the American colonies, in the mid 18th century when the worse effects of the selfish Mercantile Policy of the “home country” government began to be felt. Parliament insisted

(1) that all colonial trade should be within their Empire,

(2) that prices of goods and produce exported from the colonies would be controlled by Government,

(3) that Americans would pay heavy duties or taxes on goods they were forced to take in from the “home country”,

(4) that only English boats could be used for the trade, and one that hit really hard,

(5) that the colonists would have to pay duty on goods they sent to the “home country.”

An example of taxing will bring out how much of a burden this last could be. After 1750, before entry into England a duty of £759 had to be paid on tobacco valued at £1111. Howls of anger came from East coast merchants, but these carried little threat to active defiance against the measures. This was soon to come from the Ulster Scots. Over 10 years before the Declaration of Independence in 1776 came the first defiant act. In 1765 when a boat with a cargo of stamp paper aboard arrived from England at a port in North Carolina, a body of men marched down to the harbour and” overawed the captain who soon sailed away.”‘ The Royal Governor, a former army officer called William Tryon, then introduced a system of extortion and oppression with the idea of bringing the defiant people “to heel” Protests against these impositions became fiercer, until in 1771 an association was formed with the purpose “for regulating public grievance and abuse of power.” Those involved became known as the Regulators. They were almost all members of three Presbyterian churches, which had three Princeton graduates as pastors. Tryon raised an army of over 1000 men, a large number of them regular British troops, and marched “to punish those in defiance.” The protesters assembled on the banks of the river Alamance, some 2000 men, about half of whom were armed. Dr. David Caldwell, one of their ministers was with them and urged that no violence be used. The Regulators sent “a respectful message”, to the Royal Governor stating that they would lay down their arms, if he would promise to look into their grievances. Almost immediately he ordered the reading of the Riot Act and within minutes the troops opened fire. About twenty of the Regulators were killed. They resisted stubbornly and the ensuing Battle of the Alamance lasted for some two hours, during which several of the Governor’s forces were also killed. Thus the first blood shed in the cause of American freedom was shed by Ulster-Scots at Alamance four years before Lexington. Incidentally the Regulators left that part of North Carolina with their families and, in the way things sometimes work out, were partly responsible for the eventual setting up of the State of Tennessee. Not all the Ulster enthusiasts for independence were In the Western part of the Provinces. Some of the most publicised early acts of defiance against the imposition of severe taxation were carried out by three well-to-do men living at the port of Boston. One of them, John Hancock, was perhaps the wealthiest trader in the whole of America. He, like his very close associate, Samuel Adams, was reckoned so dangerous to British rule there that they were both deliberately left out of a proposed amnesty for political offenders. Indeed, special orders were given to the troops at one time to seize them, but the two seemed to be always a step ahead of their pursuers.

Signing the Declaration of Independence

The other member of the rebellious trio was a second cousin of Sam’s, John Adams. He was afterwards to be one of the Committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence, and even later to become the second President of U.S.A. John was more obviously law-abiding than the other two in his opposition to the Government. However, he did write out resolutions of protest against the hated Stamp Act which were sent to the State Assembly of Massachusetts and adopted by many towns. He also defended Hancock against a smuggling charge. The other Adams and Hancock showed much contempt in their defiance and became leaders of movements against authority. They were both actively concerned in the formation of the Sons of Liberty, especially Sam Adams. These sworn enemies of British rule formed secret societies calling themselves by different names, such as “Committees of Safety,” “True Born Whigs”, etc. and organised opposition to different taxation measures. Adams and Hancock showed their disdain openly for the Customs officials, who often exceeded their duties. When two officials carried out excessive examination, for smuggled goods, of his vessel, which he had named “Liberty”, Hancock had one of them locked in a cabin for the rather long time it took to unload the cargo. The other man was most forcefully bundled off the ship. Then, again, there was the mysterious burning of a Customs barge on a bonfire outside his home. They were probably both actively connected with the famous ‘:Boston Tea Party” in December, 1773, when 342 chests of highly valued tea were thrown overboard into the ‘Boston harbour by Liberty Boys thinly disguised as Red Indians. Probably this action and the furious response of the Government to it more than anything else led to united American resistance to British
rule.

Sam Adams by his open attempts “to get Americans mad at the British and to keep them mad” probably deserved the judgement of the Governor of Massachusetts”, doubt whether there is a greater incendiary than this man in the King’s dominion.” The Massachusetts Circular Letter which had the purpose of building up, progressively, actions by all the thirteen colonies against the Townshend Revenue Acts was largely his work. John Hancock continued to show his contempt even to his signature on the Declaration of Independence, When he signed his name “extra large so that the short sighted George III would recognise it” He was then President of the National congress and, as such, entitled to sign first. It remained the only signature of a Signer for some time afterwards. Charles Thomson, another Ulster Scot, signed at the same time, but in his capacity as Secretary to the Congress.

One of the basic weaknesses of the colonists in their opposition to what they deemed unjust in British rule was that there was so little effective contact among the different provinces, that it was almost impossible to find out the over-all opinion regarding vital matters. Usually the thirteen different states pursued policies which best suited their own ends. Indeed, as has already been discussed, even within the same colony there was much disagreement – the people of the coastal areas had often little in common with those in the Western frontier regions. In many instances there was actual hostility when their interests clashed. This weakness was very aptly summed up by a very astute person in pre-revolutionary times “Thirteen staves and ne’ er a hoop will not make a barrel.” t high-lighted in this practical statement the absolute necessity of a unity of purpose linking all the states, if success was to be attained on a national issue. In the serious matter of revolt against British rule, it was a virtual life and death matter, for failure in it would have meant for many, execution as rebels. They must win if they opposed British rule, for,”Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? For if it prospers, none dare call it treason.”

They needs must have unity of purpose. More than any other body of people that worked for unity in the American colonies and achieved it were the Ulster Scottish Presbyterian’s This was certainly the conclusion reached by John Adolphus in his “History of England from the Accession of George III to 1783″ He wrote ‘The first effort towards a union of interest was made by the Presbyterian’s, who were eager in carrying into execution their favourite project of forming a Synod.” The Presbyterian Church was the one association in America that did provide a connection between the peoples of the different states. The Ulster Scots were the one race which had sizeable communities in all the colonies, in addition they were of the same religion, the same historical background, and, most important of all, in those times, had the same feelings of grievance against Britain. There would be with them all, the same distrust of a government that had been responsible for much they had suffered in the past. The annual Presbyterian Synods which had been meeting since 1717 had proved to be an effective link for the Presbyteries and congregations in the different states, always seeking for harmony instead of discord. The most active and important men at these assemblies would be the clergy.

Among them were some of the most learned and influential persons in the whole country at that time, graduates of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Princeton universities, and, because of their firm Christian conviction, – strong leaders. Fully conscious of the need for co-operation among settlers generally, they would be actively striving for it. Among them were the Tennents of the Log College, the Doaks of Tennessee, Steele of the Valley of Virginia, Craighead of North Carolina, and Caldwell, also of AIamance River in North Carolina. There was, in addition, Dr. John Witherspoon,
President of Princeton. These men would have experienced at first hand some of the unfair elements of British rule in the colonies, and would have become impatient to have any injustice removed. Their feelings would be eloquently expressed at the Synods, where the force of their convictions would be readily accepted by the whole assembly of clergy, elders, and people. Indeed so important and influential had these meetings become that the Governors of different provinces had been instructed by the Home Government to express their disapproval. This they had done, but the leading clergymen knew their rights, and had the courage to resist any attempts to deprive them of these.

They soon sought to inform all their people of the crisis approaching and to direct them so that they could be more united and thus more effective. Galloway, the eminent lawyer and leading Tory of Maryland in his book, “Historical and Political Reflections’” written in 1780, details some of the directions given to all Presbyterian congregations in Pennsylvania from a Convention of ministers and elders who met in Philadelphia in 1764. These were all contained in a letter sent out to the churches in that State. They included:-
(1) the need for union among those of the Presbyterian denomination,

(2) all should think of devising some plan to unite us more closely, when necessity arises to act as a body when we may be called to defend our civil and religious liberties and privileges, or to obtain any that may be abridged,

(3) that they should correspond with others of their friends in different parts – contacts to be made as widely as possible.

Persons in each district should be appointed to whom letters could be directed. Representatives were to be sent yearly or half-yearly to a general meeting of the whole body. Each committee was to transmit to the committee in Philadelphia all names involved. Galloway thought these letters led to united opposition to the Stamp Act. These yearly meetings going on tor more than fifty years before the revolutionary period had, “manifestly prepared the way for the union of the Colonies in a Continental Congress, the first of which met in 1774.’”It consisted of 56 delegates representing twelve of the thirteen colonies – there was no one from Georgia, but this deficiency was corrected in the September 1775 Congress. In May 1775 the General Synod of the Presbyterian Church met side-by-side with the Second Continental Congress and this meeting was of vital importance. Although there were many different opinions and doubts expressed by the political representatives, largely dictated by their differing attitudes to the “home country”, almost to a man the Ulster Scots voted for independence. Among the most fervent for a break from England were Joseph Reed. Thomas McKean, Philip Livingston, (descendant of John Livingston of Killinchy) and Patrick Henry.

The clergy and elders of the Presbyterian Church Synod at the same meeting composed and issued to all their churches throughout the colonies the famous “Pastoral Letter’” entitled “Presbyterian’s and the Revolution.” It urged in this letter that everyone should hold fast to all Resolutions adopted at the Philadelphia Congress. This most important communication emphasised to all that read it exactly what was at stake at the time. John Adophus in his book on this period claimed that it was the chief cause of leading the colonists to determine on resistance. The meeting together of the politicians of the Continental Congress and the ministers and elders of the Presbyterian Synod at Philadelphia undoubtedly brought home to Americans the strength that lay with them in unity. No wonder that most historians such as Woodburn, Bancroft, Froude, Hanna, Leyburn, Ellis, and Morison and Commager write of the important part played by Ulster Scottish Presbyterian’s towards declaring for independence.