SCOTCH HOSTILITY TO AMERICA.
The causes which led to the American Revolution have been set forth in
works pertaining to that event, and fully amplified by those desiring to
give a special treatise on the subject. Briefly to rehearse them, the
following may be pointed out: The general cause was the right of
arbitrary government over the colonies claimed by the British
parliament. So far as the claim was concerned as a theory, but little
was said, but when it was put in force an opposition at once arose. The
people had long been taught to act and think upon the principle of
eternal right, which had a tendency to mould them in a channel that
looked towards independence. The character of George III. was such as to
irritate the people. He was stubborn and without the least conception of
human rights; nor could he conceive of a magnanimous project, or
appreciate the value of civil liberty. His notions of government were
despotic, and around him, for advisers, he preferred those as
incompetent and as illiberal as himself. Such a king could not deal with
a people who had learned freedom, and had the highest conceptions of
human rights. The British parliament, composed almost entirely of the
ruling class, shared the views of their master, and servilely did his
bidding, by passing a number of acts destructive of colonial liberty.
The first of these was a strenuous attempt to enforce in 1761 THE
IMPORTATION ACT, which gave to petty constables the authority to enter
any and every place where they might suspect goods upon which a duty had
not been levied. In 1763 and 1764 the English ministers attempted to
enforce the law requiring the payment of duties on sugar and molasses.
In vain did the people try to show that under the British constitution
taxation and representation were inseparable. Nevertheless English
vessels were sent to hover around American ports, and soon succeeded in
paralyzing the trade with the West Indies.
The close of the French and Indian war gave to England a renewed
opportunity to tax America. The national debt had increased from
£52,092,238 in 1727 to £138,865,430 in 1763. The ministers began to urge
that the expenses of the war ought to be borne by the colonies. The
Americans contended, that they had aided England as much as she had
aided them; that the cession of Canada had amply remunerated England for
all her losses; and, further, the colonies did not dread the payment of
money, but feared that their liberties might be subverted. Early in
March 1765, the English parliament, passed the celebrated STAMP ACT,
which provided that every note, bond, deed, mortgage, lease, licence,
all legal documents of every description, every colonial pamphlet,
almanac, and newspaper, after the first day of the following November,
should be on paper furnished by the British government, the stamp cost
being from one cent to thirty dollars. When the news of the passage of
this act was brought to America the excitement was intense, and action
was resolved on by the colonies. The act was not formally repealed until
March 18, 1766. On June 29, 1767, another act was passed to tax America.
On October 1, 1768, seven hundred troops, sent from Halifax, marched
with fixed bayonets into Boston, and quartered themselves in the State
House. In February 1769 parliament declared the people of Massachusetts
rebels, and the governor was directed to arrest those deemed guilty of
treason, and send them to England for trial. In the city of New York, in
1770, the soldiers wantonly cut down a liberty pole, which had for
several years stood in the park. The most serious affray occurred on
March 5th, in Boston between a party of citizens and some soldiers, in
which three citizens were shot down and several wounded. This massacre
inflamed the city with a blaze of excitement. On that day lord North
succeeded in having all the duties repealed except that on tea; and that
tax, in 1773, was attempted to be enforced by a stratagem. On the
evening of December 16th, the tea, in the three tea-ships, then in
Boston harbor, was thrown overboard, by fifty men disguised as Indians.
Parliament, instead of using legal means, hastened to find revenge. On
March 31, 1774, it was enacted that Boston port should be closed.
The final act which brought on the Revolution was the firing upon the
seventy minute men, who were standing still at Lexington, by the English
soldiers under Major Pitcairn, on April 19, 1775, sixteen of the
patriots fell dead or wounded. The first gun of the Revolution fired the
entire country, and in a few days Boston was besieged by the militia
twenty thousand strong. Events passed rapidly, wrongs upon wrongs were
perpetrated, until, finally, on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of
Independence was published to the world. By this act all hope of
reconciliation was at an end. Whatever concessions might be made by
England, her own acts had caused an impassable gulf.
America had done all within her power to avert the impending storm. Her
petitions had been spurned from the foot of the English throne. Even the
illustrious Dr. Franklin, venerable in years, was forced to listen to a
vile diatribe against him delivered by the coarse and brutal Wedderburn,
while members of the Privy Council who were present, with the single
exception of lord North, "lost all dignity and all self-respect. They
laughed aloud at each sarcastic sally of Wedderburn. 'The indecency of
their behaviour,' in the words of Shelburne, 'exceeded, as is agreed on
all hands, that of any committee of elections;' and Fox, in a speech
which he made as late as 1803, reminded the House how on that memorable
occasion 'all men tossed up their hats and clapped their hands in
boundless delight at Mr. Wedderburn's speech.'"[143]
George III., his ministers and his parliament hurled the country
headlong into war, and that against the judgment of her wisest men, and
her best interests. To say the least the war was not popular in England.
The wisest statesmen in both Houses of Parliament plead for
reconciliation, but their efforts fell on callous ears. The ruling class
was seized with the one idea of humbling America. They preferred to
listen to such men as Major James Grant,--the same who allowed his men,
(as has been already narrated) to be scandalously slaughtered before
Fort du Quesne, and had made himself offensive in South Carolina under
Colonel Montgomery. This braggart asserted, in the House of Commons,
"amidst the loudest cheering, that he knew the Americans very well, and
was certain they would not fight; 'that they were not soldiers and
never could be made so, being naturally pusillanimous and incapable of
discipline; that a very slight force would be more than sufficient for
their complete reduction'; and he fortified his statement by repeating
their peculiar expressions, and ridiculing their religious enthusiasm,
manners and ways of living, greatly to the entertainment of the
house."[144]
The great Pitt, then earl of Chatham, in his famous speech in January
1775, declared:
"The spirit which resists your taxation in America is the same that
formerly opposed loans, benevolences, and ship-money in England. * *
* This glorious spirit of Whiggism animates three millions in America
who prefer poverty with liberty to gilded chains and sordid
affluence, and who will die in defence of their rights as freemen. *
* * For myself, I must declare that in all my reading and
observation--and history has been my favorite study; I have read
Thucydides, and have studied and admired the master states of the
world--that for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom
of conclusion under such a complication of difficult circumstances,
no nation or body of men can stand in preference to the General
Congress at Philadelphia. * * * All attempts to impose servitude upon
such men, to establish despotism over such a mighty continental
nation, must be vain, must be fatal. We shall be forced ultimately to
retreat. Let us retreat while we can, not when we must."
In accordance with these sentiments Chatham withdrew his eldest son from
the army rather than suffer him to be engaged in the war. Lord
Effingham, finding his regiment was to serve against the Americans,
threw up his commission and renounced the profession for which he had
been trained and loved, as the only means of escaping the obligation of
fighting against the cause of freedom. Admiral Keppel, one of the most
gallant officers in the British navy, expressed his readiness to serve
against the ancient enemies of England, but asked to be released from
employment against the Americans. It is said that Amherst refused to
command the army against the Americans. In 1776 it was openly debated in
parliament whether British officers ought to serve their sovereign
against the Americans, and no less a person then General Conway leaned
decidedly to the negative, and compared the case to that of French
officers who were employed in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. Just
after the battle of Bunker Hill, the duke of Richmond declared in
parliament that he "did not think that the Americans were in rebellion,
but that they were resisting acts of the most unexampled cruelty and
oppression." The Corporation of London, in 1775, drew up an address
strongly approving of the resistance of the Americans, and similar
addresses were expressed by other towns. A great meeting in London, and
also the guild of merchants in Dublin, returned thanks to lord Effingham
for his recent conduct. When Montgomery fell at the head of the American
troops before Quebec, he was eulogized in the British parliament.
The merchants of Bristol, September 27, 1775, held a meeting and passed
resolutions deprecating the war, and calling upon the king to put a stop
to it. The Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of London, September 29th,
issued an address to the Electors of Great Britain, against carrying on
the war. A meeting of the merchants and traders of London was held
October 5th, and moved an address to the king "relative to the unhappy
dispute between Great Britain and her American Colonies," and that he
should "cause hostilities to cease." The principal citizens,
manufacturers and traders of the city of Coventry, October 10th,
addressed the sovereign beseeching him "to stop the effusion of blood,
to recommend to your Parliament to consider, with all due attention, the
petition from America lately offered to be presented to the throne." The
mayor and burgesses of Nottingham, October 20th, petitioned the king in
which they declared that "the first object of our desires and wishes is
the return of peace and cordial union with our American
fellow-subjects," and humbly requested him to "suspend those
hostilities, which, we fear, can have no other than a fatal issue." This
was followed by an address of the inhabitants of the same city, in which
the king was asked to "stay the hand of war, and recall into the bosom
of peace and grateful subjection your American subjects, by a
restoration of those measures which long experience has shown to be
productive of the greatest advantages to this late united and
flourishing Empire." The petition of the free burgesses, traders and
inhabitants of Newcastle-upon-Tyne declared that "in the present
unnatural war with our American brethren, we have seen neither
provocation nor object; nor is it, in our humble apprehension, consonant
with the rights of humanity, sound policy, or the Constitution of our
Country." A very great majority of the gentlemen, clergy and freeholders
of the county of Berks signed an address, November 7th, to the king in
which it was declared that "the disorders have arisen from a complaint
(plausible at least) of one right violated; and we can never be brought
to imagine that the true remedy for such disorders consists in an attack
on all other rights, and an attempt to drive the people either to
unconstitutional submission or absolute despair." The gentlemen,
merchants, freemen and inhabitants of the city of Worcester also
addressed the king and besought him to adopt such measures as shall
"seem most expedient for putting a stop to the further effusion of
blood, for reconciling Great Britain and her Colonies, for reuniting the
affections of your now divided people, and for establishing, on a
permanent foundation, the peace, commerce, and prosperity of all your
Majesty's Dominions."
It is a fact, worthy of special notice, that in both England and Ireland
there was a complete absence of alacrity and enthusiasm in enlisting for
the army and navy. This was the chief reason why George III. turned to
the petty German princes who trafficked in human chattels. There people
were seized in their homes, or while working the field, and sold to
England at so much per head. On account of the great difficulty in
England in obtaining voluntary recruits for the American war, the
press-gang was resorted to, and in 1776, was especially fierce. In less
than a month eight hundred men were seized in London alone, and several
lives were lost in the scuffles that took place. The press-gang would
hang about the prison-gates, and seize criminals whose sentences had
expired and force them into the army.
"It soon occurred to the government that able-bodied criminals might be
more usefully employed in the coercion of the revolted colonists, and
there is reason to believe that large numbers of criminals of all but
the worst category, passed at this time into the English army and navy.
In estimating the light in which British soldiers were regarded in
America, and in estimating the violence and misconduct of which British
soldiers were sometimes guilty, this fact must not be forgotten." In
Ireland criminals were released from their prisons on condition of
enlisting in the army or navy.[145]
The regular press-gang was not confined to England, and it formed one of
the grievances of the American colonists. One of the most terrible riots
ever known in New England, was caused, in 1747, by this nefarious
practice, under the sanction of Admiral Knowles. An English vessel was
burnt, and English officers were seized and imprisoned by the crowd; the
governor was obliged to flee to the castle; the sub-sheriffs were
impounded in the stocks; the militia refused to act against the people;
and the admiral was compelled to release his captives. Resistance, in
America, was shown in many subsequent attempts to impress the people.
The king and his ministers felt it was necessary to sustain the acts of
parliament in the American war by having addresses sent to the king
upholding him in the course he was pursuing. Hence emissaries were sent
throughout the kingdom who cajoled the ignorant into signing such
papers. The general sentiment of the people cannot be estimated by the
number of addresses for they were obtained by the influence of the
ministers of state. Every magistrate depending upon the favor of the
crown could and would exert his influence as directed. Hence there were
numerous addresses sent to the king approving the course he was bent
upon. When it is considered that the government had the advantage of
more than fifty thousand places and pensions at its disposal, the
immense lever for securing addresses is readily seen. From no section of
the country, however, were these addresses so numerous as from Scotland.
It is one of the most singular things in history that the people of
Scotland should have been so hostile to the Americans, and so forward in
expressing their approbation of the attitude of George III. and his
ministers. The Americans had in no wise ever harmed them or crossed
their path. The emigrants from Scotland had been received with open arms
by the people. If any had been mistreated, it was by the appointees of
the crown. With scarcely an exception the whole political
representation in both Houses of Parliament supported lord North, and
were bitterly opposed to the Americans. Lecky has tried to soften the
matter by throwing the blame on the servile leaders who did not
represent the real sentiment of the people:
"Scotland, however, is one of the very few instances in history, of a
nation whose political representation was so grossly defective as not
merely to distort but absolutely to conceal its opinions. It was
habitually looked upon as the most servile and corrupt portion of the
British Empire; and the eminent liberalism and the very superior
political qualities of its people seem to have been scarcely
suspected to the very eve of the Reform Bill of 1832. That something
of that liberalism existed at the outbreak of the American war, may,
I think, be inferred from the very significant fact that the
Government were unable to obtain addresses in their favor either from
Edinburgh or Glasgow. The country, however, was judged mainly by its
representatives, and it was regarded as far more hostile to the
American cause than either England or Ireland."[146]
A very able editor writing at the time has observed:
"It must however be acknowledge, that an unusual apathy with respect
to public affairs, seemed to prevail with the people, in general, of
this country; of which a stronger proof needs not to be given, that
than which will probably recur to every body's memory, that the
accounts of many of the late military actions, as well as of
political procedings of no less importance, were received with as
much indifference, and canvassed with as much coolness and unconcern,
as if they had happened between two nations with whom they were
scarcely connected. We must except from all these observations, the
people of North Britain (Scotland), who, almost to a man, so far as
they could be described or distinguished under any particular
denomination, not only applauded, but proffered life and fortune in
support of the present measures."[147]
The list of addresses sent from Scotland to the king against the
Colonies is a long one,--unbroken by any remonstrance or correction. It
embraces those sent by the provost, magistrates, and common (or town)
council of Aberbrothock, Aberdeen, Annan, Ayr, Burnt-Island, Dundee,
Edinburgh, Forfar, Forres, Inverness, Irvine, Kirkaldy, Linlithgow,
Lochmaben, Montrose, Nairn, Peebles, Perth, Renfrew, Rutherglen, and
Stirling; by the magistrates and town council of Brechine, Inverary, St.
Andrews, Selkirk, Jedburgh, Kirkcudbright, Kirkwall, and Paisley; by the
magistrates, town council and all the principal inhabitants of Fortrose;
by the provost, magistrates, council, burgesses and inhabitants of
Elgin; by the chief magistrates of Dunfermline, Inverkeithing and
Culross; by the magistrates, common council, burgesses, and inhabitants
of Dumfries; by the lord provost, magistrates, town council and deacons
of craft of Lanark; by the magistrates, incorporated societies, and
principal inhabitants of the town and port of Leith; by the principal
inhabitants of Perth; by the gentlemen, clergy, merchants,
manufacturers, incorporated trades and principal inhabitants of Dundee;
by the deacon convenier, deacons of fourteen incorporated trades and
other members of trades houses of Glasgow; by the magistrates, council
and incorporations of Cupar in Fife, and Dumbarton; by the freeholders
of the county of Argyle and Berwick; by the noblemen, gentlemen and
freeholders of the counties of Aberdeen and Fife; by the noblemen,
gentlemen, freeholders and others of the county of Linlithgow; by the
noblemen and gentlemen of the county of Roxburgh; by the noblemen,
justices of the peace, freeholders, and commissioners of supply of the
counties of Perth and Caithness; by the noblemen, freeholders, justices
of the peace, and commissioners of the land-tax of the counties of Banff
and Elgin; by the freeholders and justices of the peace of the county of
Dumbarton; by the gentlemen, justices of the peace, clergy, freeholders
and committee of supply of the county of Clackmanan; by the gentlemen,
justices of the peace and commissioners of land tax of the counties of
Kincardine, Lanark and Renfrew; by the freeholders, justices of the
peace and commissioners of supply of the counties of Kinross and Orkney;
by the justices of the peace, freeholders and commissioners of land tax
of the county of Peebles; by the gentlemen, freeholders, justices of the
peace and commissioners of supply of the county of Nairn; by the
gentlemen, heretors, freeholders and clergy of the counties of Ross and
Cromarty; by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; by the
ministers and elders of the provincial synod of Angus and Mearns; also
of the synod of Glasgow and Ayr; by the provincial synod of Dumfries,
and by the ministers of the presbytery of Irvine.
The list ascribes but eight of the addresses to the Highlands. This does
not signify that they were any the less loyal to the pretensions of
George III. The probability is that the people generally stood ready to
follow their leaders, and these latter exerted themselves against the
colonists. The addresses that were proffered, emanating from the
Highlands, in chronological order, may be thus summarized: The
freeholders of Argyleshire, on October 17, 1775, met at Inverary with
Robert Campbell presiding, and through their representative in
Parliament, Colonel Livingston, presented their "humble Address" to the
king, in which they refer to their predecessors who had "suffered early
and greatly in the cause of liberty" and now judge it incumbent upon
themselves "to express our sense of the blessings we enjoy under your
Majesty's mild and constitutional Government; and, at the same time, to
declare our abhorrence of the unnatural rebellion of our deluded
fellow-subjects in America, which, we apprehend, is encouraged and
fomented by several discontented and turbulent persons at home." They
earnestly desire that the measures adopted by parliament may be
"vigorously prosecuted;" "and we beg leave to assure your Majesty, that,
in support of such measures, we are ready to risk our lives and
fortunes."
The address of the magistrates, town council, and all the principal
inhabitants of Fortrose, is without date, but probably during the month
of October of the same year. They met with Colonel Hector Munro, their
representative in parliament, presiding, and addressing the king
declared their "loyal affection" to his person; are "filled with a just
sense of the many blessings" they enjoy, and "beg leave to approach the
throne, and express our indignation at, and abhorrence of, the measures
adopted by our unhappy and deluded fellow-subjects in America, in direct
opposition to law and justice, and to every rational idea of
civilization;" "with still greater indignation, if possible, we behold
this rebellious disposition, which so fatally obtains on the other side
of the Atlantic, fomented and cherished by a set of men in Great
Britain;" that the "deluded children may quickly return to their duty,"
and if not, "we hope your Majesty will direct such vigorous, speedy, and
effectual measures to be pursued, as may bring them to a due sense of
their error."
The provost, magistrates and town council of Nairn met November 6, 1775,
and addressed their "Most Gracious Sovereign" as his "most faithful
subjects" and it was their "indispensable duty" to testify their
"loyalty and attachment;" they were "deeply sensible of the many
blessings" they enjoyed; they viewed with "horror and detestation" the
"audacious attempts that have been made to alienate the affections of
your subjects." "Weak as our utmost efforts may be deemed, and limited
our powers, each heart and hand devoted to your service will, with the
most ardent zeal, contribute in promoting such measures as may be now
thought necessary for re-establishing the violated rights of the British
Legislature, and bringing back to order and allegiance your Majesty's
deluded and unhappy subjects in America."
On the same day, the same class of men at Inverness made their address
as "dutiful and loyal subjects," and declared "the many blessings" they
enjoyed; and expressed their "utmost detestation and abhorrence of that
spirit of rebellion which has unhappily broke forth among your Majesty's
subjects in America," and "the greatest sorrow we behold the seditious
designs of discontented and factious men so far attended with success as
to seduce your infatuated and deluded subjects in the colonies from
their allegiance and duty," and they declared their "determined
resolution of supporting your Majesty's Government, to the utmost of our
power, against all attempts that may be made to disturb it, either at
home or abroad."
The following day, or November 7th, the gentlemen, freeholders, justices
of the peace, and commissioners of supply of the county of Nairn, met in
the city of Nairn, and addressed their "Most Gracious Sovereign,"
declaring themselves the "most dutiful and loyal subjects," and it was
their "indispensable duty" "to declare our abhorrence of the present
unnatural rebellion carried on by many of your infatuated subjects in
America." "With profound humility we profess our unalterable attachment
to your Majesty's person and family, and our most cordial approbation
of the early measures adopted for giving a check to the first dawnings
of disobedience. This county, in the late war, sent out many of its sons
to defend your Majesty's ungrateful colonies against the invasion of
foreign enemies, and they will now, when called upon, be equally ready
to repel all the attempts of the traitorous and disaffected, against the
dignity of your crown, and the just rights of the supreme Legislature of
Great Britain."
The gentlemen, heretors, freeholders, and clergy of the Counties of Ross
and Cromarty assembled at Dingwall, November 23, 1775, and also
addressed their "Most Gracious Sovereign" as the "most faithful and
loyal subjects," acknowledging "the protection we are blessed with in
the enjoyment of our liberties," it is "with an inexpressible concern we
behold many of our fellow-subjects in America, incited and supported by
factions and designing men at home," and that "we shall have no
hesitation in convincing your rebellious and deluded subjects in
America, that with the same cheerfulness we so profusely spilled our
blood in the last war, in defending them against their and our natural
enemies, we are now ready to shed it, if necessary, in bringing them
back to a just sense of their duty and allegiance to your Majesty, and
their subordination to the Mother Country."
The magistrates and town council of Inverary met on November 28, 1775,
and to their "Most Gracious Sovereign" they were also the "most dutiful
and loyal subjects," and further "enjoyed all the blessings of the best
Government the wisdom of man ever devised, we have seen with
indignation, the malignant breath of disappointed faction, by
prostituting the sacred sounds of liberty, too successful in blowing the
sparks of a temporary discontent into the flames of a rebellion in your
Majesty's Colonies, that we from our souls abhor;" and they desired to
be applied "such forcive remedies to the affected parts, as shall be
necessary to restore that union and dependency of the whole on the
legislative power."
At Thurso, December 6, 1775, there met the noblemen, gentlemen,
freeholders, justices of the peace and commissioners of supply of the
county of Caithness, and in an address to their
"Most Gracious Sovereign" declared themselves also to be the "most
dutiful and loyal subjects;" they approved the "lenient measures" which
had hitherto been taken in America by parliament, "and that they will
support with their lives and fortunes, the vigorous exertions which they
forsee may soon be necessary to subdue a rebellion premeditated,
unprovoked, and that is every day becoming more general, untainted by
the vices that too often accompany affluence, our people have been
inured to industry, sobriety, and, when engaged in your Majesty's
service, have been distinguished for an exact obedience to discipline,
and a faithful discharge of duty; and we hope, if called forth to action
in one combined corps, it will be their highest ambition to merit a
favorable report to your Majesty from their superior officers. At the
same time, it is our most ardent prayer to Almighty God, that the eyes
of our deluded fellow-subjects in America may soon be opened, to see
whether it is safe to trust in a Congress unconstitutionally assembled,
in a band of officers unconstitutionally appointed, or in a British King
and Parliament whose combined powers have indeed often restrained the
licentiousness, but never invaded the rational liberties of mankind."
A survey of the addresses indicates that they were composed by one
person, or else modelled from the same formula. All had the same source
of inspiration. This, however, does not militate against the moral
effect of those uttering them. So far as Scotland is concerned, it must
be regarded as a fair representation of the sentiment of the people.
While only an insignificant part of the Highlands gave their humble
petitions, yet the subsequent acts must be the criterion from which a
judgment must be formed.
It is possible that some of the loyal addresses were accelerated by the
prohibition placed on Scotch emigration to America. Early in September,
1775, Henry Dundas, lord-advocate for Scotland, urged the board of
customs to issue orders to all inferior custom houses enjoining them to
grant no clearances for America of any ship which had more than the
common complement of hands on board. On September 23, 1775, Archibald
Cockburn, sheriff deputy of Edinburgh, issued the following order:
"Whereas a letter[148] was received by me some time ago, from His
Majesty's Advocate for Scotland, intimating that, on account of the
present rebellion in America, it was proper a stop should be put for
the present to emigrations to that Country, and that the necessary
directions were left at the different sea-ports in Scotland to that
purpose; I think it my duty, in obedience to his Lordship's
requisition contained in that letter, to take this publick method of
notifying to such of the inhabitants within my jurisdiction, if any
such there be, who have formed resolutions to themselves of leaving
this Country, and going in quest of settlements in America, that they
aught not to put themselves to the unnecessary trouble and expense of
preparing for a removal of their habitations, which they will not, so
far as it lies in my power to prevent, be permitted to effectuate."
The British government had every assurance of the undivided support of
all Scotland in its attempt to subjugate America. It also put a strong
dependence in enlisting in the army such Highlanders as had emigrated,
and especially those who had belonged to the 42nd, Fraser's, and
Montgomery's regiments, but remained in the country after the peace of
1763. This alone would make a very unfavorable impression on the minds
of Americans. But when to this is added the efforts of British officers
to organize the emigrants from the Highlands into a special regiment, as
early as November, 1775, the rising of the Highlanders both in North
Carolina and on the Mohawk, the enlisting of emigrants on board vessels
before landing and sailing by Boston to join their regiments at Halifax,
and on the passage listening to the booming of the cannon at Bunker
Hill; and the further fact that both the 42nd and Fraser's Highlanders
were ordered to embark at Greenock for America, five days before the
battle of Lexington, it is not a matter of surprise that a strong
resentment should be aroused in the breasts of many of the most devoted
to the cause of the Revolution.
The feeling engendered by the acts of Scotland towards those engaged in
the struggle for human liberty crops out in the original draft of the
Declaration of Independence as laid before Congress July 1, 1776. In the
memorable paper appeared the following sentence: "At this very time,
too, they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over, not only
soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries to
invade and destroy us." The word "Scotch" was struck out, on motion of
Dr. John Witherspoon, himself a native of Scotland; and subsequently the
whole sentence was deleted.
The sentence was not strictly true, for there were thousands of
Americans of Scotch ancestry, but principally Lowland. There were also
thousands of Americans, true to the principles of the Revolution, of
Highland extraction. If the sentence had been strictly true, it would
have served no purpose, even if none were alienated thereby. But, the
records show that in the American army there were men who rendered
distinguished services who were born in the Highlands; and others, from
the Lowlands, rendered services of the highest value in their civil
capacities.
The armies of the Colonies had no regiments or companies composed of
Highland Scotch, or even of that extraction, although their names abound
scattered through a very large percentage of the organized forces. The
only effort[149] which appears to have been made in that direction rests
on two petitions by Donald McLeod. The first was directed to the
Committee for the City and County of New York, dated at New York, June
7, 1775:
"That your petitioner, from a deep sense of the favors conferred on
himself, as well as those shown to many of his countrymen when in
great distress after their arrival into this once happy city, is
moved by a voluntary spirit of liberty to offer himself in the manner
and form following, viz: That your said petitioner understands that a
great many Companies are now on foot to be raised for the defence of
our liberties in this once happy land, which he thinks to be a very
proper maxim for the furtherance of our rights and liberty; that your
said petitioner (although he has nothing to recommend himself but the
variety of calling himself a Highlander, from North-Britain) flatters
himself that if this honorable Committee were to grant him a
commission, under their hand and seal, that he could, without
difficulty, raise one hundred Scotch Highlanders in this City and the
neighboring Provinces, provided they were to be put in the Highland
dress, and under pay during their service in defence of our
liberties. Therefore, may it please your Honors to take this petition
under your serious consideration; and should your Honors think proper
to confer the honor upon him as to have the command of a Highland
Company, under the circumstances proposed, your petitioner assures
you that no person shall or will be more willing to accept of the
offer than your humble petitioner."
On the following day Donald McLeod sent a petition, couched in the
following language to the Congress for the Colony of New York:
"That yesterday your said petitioner presented a petition before this
honorable body, and as to the contents of which he begs leave to give
reference. That since, a ship arrived from Scotland, with a number of
Highlanders passengers. That your petitioner talked to them this
morning, and after informing them of the present state of this as
well as the neighboring Colonies, they all seemed to be very desirous
to form themselves into companies, with the proviso of having liberty
to wear their own country dress, commonly called the Highland habit,
and moreover to be under pay for the time they are in the service for
the protection of the liberties of this once happy country, but by
all means to be under the command of Highland officers, as some of
them cannot speak the English language. That the said Highlanders are
already furnished with guns, swords, pistols, and Highland dirks,
which, in case of occasion, is very necessary, as all the above
articles are at this time very difficult to be had. Therefore may it
please your Honors to take all and singular the premises under your
serious and immediate consideration; and as your petitioner wants an
answer as soon as possible, he further prays that as soon as they
think it meet, he may be advised. And your petitioner, is in duty
bound, shall ever pray."
This petition was presented during the formative state of the army, and
when the colonies were in a state of anarchy. Congress had not yet
assumed control of the army, although on the very eve of it. With an
empire to found and defend, the continental Congress had not at its
disposal a single penny. When Washington was offered the command of the
army there was little to bring out the unorganized resources of the
country. At the very time of Donald McLeod's petition, the provincial
congress of New York was engaged with the distracted state of its own
commonwealth. Order was not brought out of chaos until the strong hand
and great energy of Washington had been felt.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 143: Lecky's History of England, Vol. IV. p. 151.]
[Footnote 144: Bancroft's History United States, Vol. VI, p. 136;
American Archives, Fourth Series, Vol. I, p. 1543.]
[Footnote 145: Leeky's History of England, Vol. IV. p. 346]
[Footnote 146: History of England, Vol. IV, p. 338.]
[Footnote 147: Annual Register, 1776, p. 39.]
[Footnote 148: See Appendix, Note M.]
[Footnote 149: See Appendix, Note N.]