Jacobites

Oddly enough, I've run into a few "Scottish"-Americans here behind the Irony Curtain who identify as Jacobites. A couple of polls I've read in the recent past seemed to indicate that, of all the groups in the UK, the modern Scots were the least supportive of the monarchy.

Were all the Highland chiefs who supported Charles Edward Stuart as enthusiastic about their support as modern romantics would paint them? My understanding is that many supported him due to clan loyalties.

Wasn't the old Gaelic order already under pressure? Did some see support of Charles Edward Stuart as a way of continuing the old Gaelic order?

Wasn't there a distinct division between the Highland and Lowland way of life... and wouldn't Highlanders identify more as members of their particular clan, and not so much as Scots?

My tiny understanding of Scottish history puts me in agreement with Neil, that the majority of Scots were not supportive of the Jacobite cause.

"Ethnic cleansing"... isn't that doublespeak for genocide?

[Robin]

This is a topic I have been wondering about myself. I am American, have only been to Scotland once, and am a novice at Scottish history. I have always felt myself that the Jacobites were a disaster to the Scotish cause of freedom and so I was very surprised when I went to Scotland and seemed to see the Bonnie Prince made to be a hero. What's going on?

[ashleigh]

hi well didnt the Campbells fight them a long long time ago???

[McBeaty]

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth.

Yes, I agree, the Jacobites were a desasterous period in Scottish history - and had they succeeded the hidious truth behind thier 'policies' would have become all too apparent to the Scots who followed them...

HOWEVER...They didn't win. And whatever thay can be said to have truly represented in political policy, they inspired a deeply felt and important sense of nationalism which has a direct bearing on how Scots view thier national identity today.

In effect it was MORE important that the Jacobites lost to Scots...As it created a sense inherant nationalism that the English Crown found they could not put down as easily as they had the Jacobite army at Culloden Moore...

In truth the Jacobites failure sparked a strong sense of injustice and unity among Scots that the Jacobites never did during thier campaign itself.

In particular, the general opression of the Highland folk after the failed coupe created a strong and immesurable 'underground' feeling of national patriotism that can be directly equated to the French experience under NAZI occupation.

It was a unifying factor, which cannot be underestimated...

It is parhaps less important who the Jacobites actually were, and more important who modern day Scots percieve tham to have been...

It created a national 'folk history' that, not being strictly accurate, INSPIRED many Scots to hold on to the idea of a national identity.

So, in a strange ironic kind of way (which is typical of history) the Jacobites were, IMHO, the BEST thing that ever happened to Scotland. For without them I am sure we would not feel as 'Scottish' as we do today, and certainly would not have a Scottish National Party, and in consequence no devolved Parliament - and no hopes for an independent Scotland.

...Again...this is just my opinion...

[Willy]

I think you bring up some very good points McBeaty.

My understanding was that not all Highlanders were Jacobite supporters but since enough major clans were, others were coerced to join the cause, (even to the point of being threatened).

Once the Jacobites lost and Stuart protected his own arse by returning to France, the Scots were persecuted terribly. The English stripped any clansmen of their titles and confiscated properties as prisoners were almost certainly condemned to death for treason. I think because the English were SO harsh in the aftermath, more Scots than ever were outraged by the standing government and,( as McBeaty pointed out), the result left the Scottish more unified than ever in thier distrust of England.

[McBeaty]

Originally posted by Willy:
[b]My understanding was that not all Highlanders were Jacobite supporters but since enough major clans were, others were coerced to join the cause, (even to the point of being threatened).B]

....There's 18th century warfare for you!

Seriously, the same can be said of the English 'Crown' forces. Many take it sadly forgranted that there was a kind of 'Highland split', with clans on either side of the Jacobite Rebelion.

This is true to a CERTAIN extent, but the 'split' was actually more complex on all sides.

For example, will many take it as read that Scots who oppted for the 'British' forces, under the Duke of Cumberland, were FOR the English Crown. That is not entirly accurate, it is more accurate, bearing in mind the feudal aspect to Scottish territorial Lordship, to say that many of these Scots were NOT for the Jacobites!

...And, likewise, many clans support for Charles Edward might be said to have (at best) been due to some misplaced loyalty...Many Scots being under a (false) impression that support of the Jacobites was support for Scottish Independence.

All in all (like all civil wars) the motives of the partisipants were many and varied - with a large percentage not really aware of the political ramifications of either sides winning or loosing...

As to enforced conscription, that was a fact of life on either side. Many of the Highland partisipants, for example, being 'tied' peasantry - liable to have to fight for thier clan chieftan whether they wanted to or not (or suffer the loss of thier livelihood and home).

BOTH sides employed 'mercenary' troops...

...But at the end of the day (IMHO) the true test of commitment must be adjudged by the acts of the opposing troops on the field of that day. The question being that, if the Jacobite followers were in the main enforced soldiery, 'conscripts', mercenaries or unwilling partisipants, why then - facing an obviously hopeless battle - did they not desert in thier droves on the night prior to the battle?

(Remember, these men were half starved, many were ill, they were exposed to the elements and miserable - they were also very aware of the forces which were pitted against them...By any standards, in the 18th century, they were candidates for desertion, and who could blame them?)

Mass desertions at this time were a common place thing, and often won the day for one side or another.

But the truly remarkable thing about the 'Highland' forces at the Battle of Culloden is, not only did they NOT desert on mass, but they took part in the famous (or infamous) 'Highland Charge' against English cannon - certain death for the majority. Indeed the charge was taken on with such commitment and ferocity that those Highlanders who were not killed outright by the murderous grapeshot did manage to engage the English line.

...One has to ponder this act a little before one sees what was in the hearts of these men...

One can question the political and religious intrigue of the time, and there is an obvious question mark over the suitability and character of Charles Edward Stuart - but one can never argue the quality and commitment of the Highlanders who took to the field that day.

Misplaced loyalty and idealism it may have been...But in the end these are two of the hardest qualities to kill with a bayonet...As the English have now found.

The testement, and tribute, to the Highlanders who fell on Culloden Field is that today we Scots enjoy our own legal and educational systems and a devolved parliament. Things which are a direct result of the unity the failed coupe generated in the hearts and minds of the Scottish folk...

[Robin]

I am sorry that I don't have anything intelligent to add to this topic. I just wanted to say, McBeaty, that what you wrote was very beautifully put. It states in terms that I am incapable of finding the words to express, why I, as an American without any claim to Scottish heritage, have been so enthralled in the Scottish history, country, and people. How beautiful, how sad, how inspiring...