Conference tallis::celt

    
    
    I could be treading on thin ice here & who am I to question a "thesis"
    
    However, I notice a few things that differ between the southern
    & celtic livestyles.
    
    For example, how about the penchant of the male celt to cling to
    bachelorhood until roughly 30 (or is that 35) years of age.  Surely
    this is not the norm is southern culture.
    
    It also follows therefore, that the number of offspring (in name)
    are some what limited.  
    
    As for the extended family concept....Neither I nor most of my Celtic-
    decendent friends even have 200 relatives....never mind have them
    living nearby!
    
    As for celts having passive occupations (herding, tobacco farming),
    I think the article missed the 'Second-wave' of Celt immigrants.
    THese were the ones that came to work the Northern mills and build the
    railroads...definately not passive jobs.  We had them to thank
    for the lace/fabric, transcontinental transportation, and even the
    Hoover Dam!!!!!! 
                                                       
    
    /Jen 
    

    
    Some confusion I see between the "1st wave" and "2nd wave" Celts
    or Irish.
    
    The "Irish" referred to by McWhiney are the Scots-Irish from the North-
    East of Ireland, who left Ireland mostly in the 18th Century
    because as Presbyterians and Religious Dissenters they suffered
    discrimination, though not to the same extent as their Catholic
    fellow-countrymen. 
    
    The 2nd wave of emigrants from Ireland is the Catholic emigrants 
    who fled from famine and poverty, and whose exodus began in the
    1820's and has continued until the present (with short pauses). 
    These as we all know went almost 100% to the North.

    Incidentally, the "Protestant Irish" have produced more Presidents of
    the USA than the "Catholic Irish" have - but then again they had less
    of a problem fitting into the WASP ethic.
    
    Also, I am not defending or attacking McWhiney's thesis, merely
    offering it to provoke interesting discussion. Note, he also
    includes Welsh and Scots in his theory.
    
    Toby
    

    
    Re. :1
    
    Late marriage of the Irish is a phenomenon that started at
    the famine - pre-famine Ireland encouraged couples to marry young,
    at early or mid-teens. This led to large families, and 
    contributed to the overpopulation of Ireland for the land
    available by the 18th Century.
    
    Late marriage is not a Celtic phenomon - in fact the opposite
    is true. It grew up in Ireland as a reaction to the famine in
    order to prevent large families and preserve family holdings.
    
    About the "clan" system, what I noted about Joyces, is probably
    also true about McNamaras from Clare, McCarthy's from Cork/ Kerry
    - possibly even O'Rourke's from Leitrim/ Roscommon! This seems
    to be the same image projected aobut Southern villages and
    hillbilly communities where everyone is related to the sheriff!
    
    Maybe true, maybe not.........?
    
    Toby 

    There are more reliable ways of deciding the ethnic origins of
    immigrant communities. One example is distribution of surnames.
    Going over in my head a list of the names of such Confederate
    leaders as I can recall, I don't find anything particularly
    Celtic about them.
    I read somewhere that in the U.S. Civil War there were 13
    Irish-born generals: ten with the Union and three with the
    Confederates. With the exception of John Mitchel, no prominent
    Irishman supported the Confederacy. I think much the same could
    be said of Scots, Welsh, Kerneweks, Bretons etc.
    Regarding the "Scots-Irish" of Virginia, they had been a typical
    colonial community already before leaving Europe and even then
    had had no particular loyalty to either Ireland or Scotland. They
    basically lived memtally in the world of the Old Testament.
    

    
    RE: 527.4
    
    You are wrong about Confederate names - two that spring to mind
    immediately are Jefferson Davis (Welsh) and Thomas "Stonewall"
    Jackson (Scots-Irish). There is also Jeb Stuart (Scots).
    It is true that as a rule the names do not seem particularly 
    Celtic - but who can tell an English name from a Welsh one without 
    some background in ethnography, or whatever the study of surnames 
    is called.
    
    I assume MacWhiney's book contains more detailed information 
    on this point.
    
    If we are talking about colonial Celts who left these islands
    pre-1800, it would be pointless to consider the number of
    Irish-born leaders on either side as evidence, as these would
    be part of the "2nd wave" immigration (Catholic). 
    
    McWhiney's theory still stands as a POSSIBILITY unless someone
    has a definitive counter-example. 
    
    Incidentally, in one of the notes in response to the above
    (in HISTORY) the respondent said that the steps of Southern
    clog-dancing were identical to Irish/ Scottish step-dancing and
    probably had a similar origin.
    
    Toby
    

    We *do* have a Dublin in Georgia.
    
    Being of Welsh ancestry (first generation) I have been hard-
    pressed to find many folks of Welsh ancestry until the last
    few years (like myself, mostly northern transplants....no
    coal mines down here you see).
    
    Most "native" Georgians trace their ancestry to that first
    wave of 18th century Scots/Irish immigrants.  Welsh immigrants
    seemed to stay in the northeast and north central states.
    
    Are we sure Jefferson Davis was Welsh?  When I first moved to
    Georgia 20 years ago, Jefferson Davis' birthday was still
    celebrated as a state holiday....if I had known, I would have
    sung a few verses of Cwm Rhondda :-)
    
    Karen
    

    Not only is there a Dublin Georgia, there is also a Glasgow in Montana.
    

    
    Re: .7
    
    Montana is hardly the "Old South" - it wasn't even a state in 1865!
    
    Re: .6
    
    Prepare to burst into song next June 3rd, Karen, because Jeff Davis'
    great-grandfather was a Welsh immigrant who settled in Philadelphia.
    Interestingly enough, the family followed the exact route 
    mentioned by MacWhiney - Davis' grandfather moved south to Georgia,
    and later his father moved in succession to Kentucky and Mississippi.
    
    Apparently, immigrants from the Celtic fringe were not welcome in
    New England - they were "encouraged" to move on, and Pennsylvania
    was an attractive place in the 17th and early 18th centuries
    as William Penn and his sons gave liberal land grants. Later these
    families or their descendants moved south or west.
    
    Davis was born in Christian County, Kentucky in 1808, the youngest
    of 10 children. I cannot resist a digression here - within one 
    year and within 100 miles of Davis' birthplace, a young man named
    Abraham Lincoln was born, also in a log cabin. Lincoln's family
    also moved, but went North, eventually ending up in Illinois.
    Davis' family went south - one wonders what would have happened
    if the families had swopped directions. 
    
    While, we're on the subject of the Welsh, have you heard the 
    legends of Prince Madoc and the Welsh speaking Indians? Madoc
    is a sort of Welsh St. Brendan - he is supposed to have eloped
    with his beloved and fled across the ocean sometime in the
    Middle Ages. In the 19th Century it was widely believed that
    his descendants lived on as a tribe of Welsh-speaking Indians.
    
    The tribe generally thought to be Madoc's descendants were the
    Mandans of Missouri, however when explorers reached them (I 
    think it was Lewis and Clark) they were of course found not to 
    be Welsh-speaking at all. They were later exterminated by
    small-pox.
    
    However, legends like this made the New World a more attractive
    place for Welsh people to emigrate to.
    
    Toby
    

    There's a book called New England Irish which concentrates on
    Irish immigration before the potato famine.  In it, there's a
    chapter on Irish voyagers (St. Brendan e.g.) who supposedly lived
    in New England in around 500-600 a.d. (even before the Vikings).
    
    Their evidence are stone structures similar to those in Ireland
    at that time.  I'll add more on that later.  Anyhow, other
    evidence includes the presense of native Indian words very similar
    in sound to Old Irish words.  The presupposition that Celtic
    travellers gave new words (for new things, object, etc) to Indian
    vocabularies.

    Re: .8
    
    I believe the part about Pennsylvania, _that's_ where my
    grandparents settled after coming to the states in the early
    part of this century.  They settled in Plymouth, Pa.
    (just outside of Wilkes-Barre).  My Dad was born in 1912; he
    was the baby in the family - all his older brothers and sisters
    were born in South Wales.
    
    I've heard of the Mandan indians, but I've never heard of the
    Welsh connection.  This is fascinating, can you recommend any
    books I might look for at the library?
    
    Karen
    

    >    Scotland, Wales and Brittany and are one of the ancient races
    >of Europe, once occupying most of the continent, but by the 17th
    >Century only Ireland and Scotland could be said to have a
    >distinctly Celtic culture.
    
    What a load of rubbish.
    
    respectfully :-)
    
    Colin
    
    
    
    

    The Scots and Welsh could run, but the Irish could swim....
    

   Re: .11


    >>    Scotland, Wales and Brittany and are one of the ancient races
    >> of Europe, once occupying most of the continent, but by the 17th
    >> Century only Ireland and Scotland could be said to have a
    >> distinctly Celtic culture.
    
    > What a load of rubbish.
    
    > respectfully :-)
    
    > Colin
    
    I wrote this bit (marked >>), not Mcwhiney.... even if it is 
    untrue as a statement, it does not invalidate what the good 
    prof is saying. 

    Which part do you disagree with:

    Did the Celts not occupy most of Europe?
    Were Wales and Brittany less distinctly Celtic than
    Ireland and Scotland in the 17th Century?
    Could Ireland and Scotland not be said to be "distinctly"
    Celtic at all in those centuries?
    
    Like all Celts, I love a good argument and the chance to learn
    something new, so let's hear the other side....

    Not very respectfully,
    
    Toby 
    
    

        You rarely get "facts" in History, other than identifying dates on
    which specific events occured.  History is a process of interpretation,
    and often, as in the case of this thesis - little more than
    speculation. facts lack emotion, and sense of cultural identity is an
    emotive topic - I couldn't swear that my 17th century Welsh forefathers
    felt the same way about being a Celt as I do, but I'm sure they did. 
                                                                
    We could consider some facts first. during the 17th Century, England
    was ruled by a **Scottish** dynasty - the Stuarts. A civil war was
    fought, resulting in a Commonwealth (1649-1660) under Cromwell.   Welsh
    history of this time indicates that they were distinctly opportunist
    and attempted to regain local political control. 
    
    It was during this century that the Bible was translated into Welsh,
    which was a significant factor in allowing Welsh protestantism to break
    away from the English. (Welsh prisoners of Cromwell were so incensed in
    having the bible read to them in English that they rioted).  There
    is plenty of evidence to show that Wales was not an "indistinct"
    culture at that time.
    
    I think the mis-interpretation in Professor Whiney's thesis is the
    underlying assumption that, because the Welsh stayed at home, they were
    assimilated.  This is clearly not true.  They *DID* travel to the new
    world - people left Wales as early as 1640, establishing towns such as
    Swanzey, Mass. (I'm not sure if this still exists, but it is marked on
    contemporary maps.)  But their exodus was not until the "second wave"
    which established colonies in Patagonia (still Welsh-speaking) and
    Australia as well as Pennsylvania. 
    
    I think the most damning evidence for the "assimilation" myth comes
    from Celtic language use.  (It's difficult to get hold of hard data, as
    it is not recorded in demographic studies.)  I posted a note enquiring
    about Gaelic broadcasting and received a reply which indicated that
    about 3% of the Irish population were Gaelic speakers.  A recent report
    on Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland indicates that there are about
    100,000 speakers.  Yet the figure for Wales is 20% - some 440,000
    speakers.  In rural areas this can be as high as 33%, with both
    business and social intercourse being conducted in Welsh to the extent
    that all government departments must employ bilingual officials. The
    hardline Welsh believe that you cannot maintain Celtic culture without
    maintaining the Celtic language.  Wales has managed that much better
    than the other Celtic nations and is hardly an "indistinct" Celtic
    culture now.
    
    Enough facts.  There are aspects of culture that Prof Whiney would not
    be able to deduce, even if he were in possession of all the facts.
    It's the feeling that I get about my country and culture, and the sense
    of identity with it that tells me it's far from an "indistinct" Celtic
    culture.  You'll know it yourself when you set foot on Irish or
    Scottish soil knowing that your ancestors came from that place. 

    I was in Abergwesyn, mid Wales a few weeks ago with a friend who was
    looking for her Welsh ancestry, her Great-grandfather having been sent
    from the place to become a doctor in London.  Her mother had married a
    Scot of clan Donald and the family tree was complete back to the time
    of the Highland clearances on the Scottish side. 

    Stupidly, I locked the keys in the car, and Helen walked to the post
    office, one of only 6 houses in the village  I set about the door with
    a piece of baling wire borrowed off a passing tractor, watched with
    interest by two chickens and a goat. The door opened in about twenty
    minutes - a tribute to my lack of experience as a car thief.  I drove
    to the post office where Helen was talking to the Post master Dai
    Jones, a man in his nineties who was more at ease speaking Welsh rather
    than English. It turned out that he had known Helen's family when he
    was a child and he told us that he was a deacon of the local chapel,
    and had been since he was 25.  In the chapel was a memorial stone which
    stated that Helen's great-grandfather had endowed the chapel with a
    hundred pounds (lot of money in those days). This was in memory of his
    son Evan Jenkins who had been drowned in the nearby river at the age of
    eight. His grave was marked outside, but even in this tiny place there
    had been religious schism and the rest of the family was not resting
    here, but a mile along the road in what had been a burial ground since
    ancient times. 

    We wandered into an old graveyard - the chapel long since destroyed by
    fire and the gravestones leaning or fallen - and found the plot
    occupied by the Sienkins family.  Brooding over this quiet place, in a
    grove of aged yews stood a tall moss-faced Celtic cross - hinting of
    the days before Christianity. It sent a shiver down my spine! Something
    from across the centuries can hit you like a jolt of electricity
    when you know that it's a representation of your culture and roots.
    
    This was a real Celtic heritage journey. Abergwesyn is situated in the
    Mynydd Eppynt mountains on an ancient drovers trail where cattle would
    be driven from the mountains to the southern markets. Today, every
    spring the local farmers drive wild horses (Welsh Cobs) from the hills
    for breaking.  This tradition spans many centuries - possibly even back
    to the days of Celtic tribes.  The drover trails are now used for
    annual endurance races which pit man against the hard terrain or, in
    one race man against horse. Competitors claim that it dates back to the
    traditions of the Celtic warrior,  but I couldn't confirm that for a
    fact :-) . 
    
    True to the Celtic oral traditions, I'm rambling on.....
    
    Pob Hwyl,
    
    Colin

    RE: .14
    
    Colin -
    
    >True to the Celtic oral traditions, I'm ramblin on......
    
    
    Gee, I was always told I must have been vaccinated with a
    Victrola needle :-)
    
    Karen
    

    
    Karen,
    
    I thought I had a magazine article on Prince Madoc but I could not
    find it - it showed how the legend established a link between 
    Wales and the New World that influenced many emigrants.
    
    Apparently the story was first written down in the Elizabethan
    "Hackluyt's Voyages" by Richard Hackluyt - there is a Penguin
    edition of this, but it is abridged and may not have the
    Madoc story.
    
    A more recent book is "Madoc: The Making of a Myth" by Gwyn A.
    Williams, published by Eyre Methuen in 1980. You may be able to
    order it through your local library.
    
    It was in the 1840's that George Catlin suggested that the Mandans
    were the Welsh-speaking Indians, and the legends about Welsh-speaking
    Indians had been current since Hackluyt. It also shows early Welsh
    emigration to North America.
    
    There is a short note on Madoc in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica".
    
    Happy Reading,
    
    Toby
    

    
    Re: .14
    
    Leaving aside the interesting story of your Welsh trip, you
    make two major points:
    
    (1) Wales was a distinct culture in the 17th century.
    (2) McWhiney (or Whiney - maybe your name is better!) is wrong
        because Welsh emigration was "2nd wave" i.e. did not get
        started until the 19th century.
    
    On (1) you are definitely correct, and your evidence is unimpeachable
    - sackcloth and ashes for me, I humbly eat my words. The words were
    mine, by the way, not McWhiney's.
    
    On (2) I feel you are incorrect, but I lack the data to refute.
    I can only offer the following:
    
    (1) There was Welsh emigration in the 17th and 18th century - witness
        Jefferson Davis' family (see previous notes). In a list of officers
        in the Army of Northern Virginia, I found Evans, Jones, Davis
        and Vaughn showing at least SOME Welsh had gone to the American
        Southern States before mid-19th century.. 
    
    (2) The Prince Madoc legend - see previous note. There must have
        been some Welsh people in the U.S. for this myth to take hold.
    
    I will reprint some of McWhiney's own words in the next note.
    
    Toby

    
    "By 1790, when the first United States census was taken, the ethnic
    sectionalisation resulting from the course of migration was firmly
    established. In New England, well over three-quarters of the people
    were of English origins. New York ..... retained a large Dutch
    component in its population, but the largest single component was
    English, over two-fifths of the people. Pennsylvania was polyglot:
    two-fifths of the people were of Celtic origin, a third were German,
    fewer than a fifth were English. Elsewhere, the further south and
    west from Philadelphia, the more Celtic the population: in the
    Upper South Celts and Englishmen each constituted about two-fifths
    of the population: in the Carolinas more than half the people were
    Celtic and Celts outnumbered Englishmen two to one.
    
    .... Celts entirely dominated the interior from Pennsylvania southward,
    ranging in vairious areas from three-fifths to nearly 100% of the
    population..... when New Englanders moved westward, most went in
    a beeline along the Mohawk river, across New York then fanned out
    around the Great Lakes. The Celts filled the Ohio valley and the
    trans-Appalachian south........By 1850, then, the South was three-
    quarters or more Celtic, New England and the upper Middle West 
    were three-quarters or more English, and the border areas between
    were mixed." 
    
    -The Celtic South- by Forrest Mcdonald and Grady McWhiney,
    			  "History Today", July 1980.
    
    Toby  

    A few comments.....
    
    On Irish settlements in North America of which there is record....
    
    The earliest Irish settlements were at the beginning of the
    seventeenth century in Maryland. Maryland was established by
    Lord Baltimore as a place of refuge for Roman Catholics from
    England. Large numbers of Irish also made their way there. This
    settlement was disrupted by religious persecution in the
    Cromwellian period and many of the settlers went elsewhere.
    
    The second major Irish settlement was in the middle of the
    eighteenth century in Talamh an Iasc, as Irish colony in
    Newfoundland. This colony was dispersed under pressure from
    Protestant fanatics in the late eighteenth century, the
    so-called United Empire Loyalists who fled from the United
    States rather than live in a country where Catholics had
    equal rights.
    
    
    The famine Emmigration on the mid-nineteenth century was
    mostly to urban parts of New England.
    
    
    Regarding the Mandans, explorers in the mid nineteenth
    century noted among the Mandan people occasional persons
    with blue eyes or fair hair. This has been attributed to
    lost tribes of vikings, Welshmen and God knows what else.
    A more likely explanation is the fact that the expedition
    of Lewis and Clarke spent the winter of 1803-04 in the
    territory of the Mandans. A Belgian missionary, Fr. De Smet,
    visited the Mandans c 1858 and found a number of Catholics
    among them. These turned out to be Iroquois refugees form
    Eastern Canada who had got into some trouble with the local
    palefaces and taken off west. The Mandan people were wiped
    out in a smallpox epedimic c 1875; only about 30 people
    survived. Photographs of the survivors can be found in
    ethnographic journals and the look like.....Amerindians.
    
     I hope this settles a few points. (It's more likely to
    raise yet more hares for people to chase).
    
    

    
    One quibble, John, I am talking about Celts, Protestant and Catholic,
    you are talking about Catholic Irish.
    
    Not the same thing. 
    
    My point on Prince Madoc is that Welsh people must have been in
    North America in the 17th and 18th centuries in order to propagate
    such an improbable legend.
    
    Toby
    Toby

    Fair enough, Toby. As I said, it was only a few comments, not
    a comprehensive overview.....
                 John Crean.
    

    This is a very interesting note. I love McWhiney's thesis. His
    belief that it is a Celtic trait to have grand dreams without the
    psychic energy to carry them out contributes to my self-understanding.
    
    I know nothing about history, but I want to humbly contribute the 
    following: the evidence that ancient Celts were
    in North America is not only from stone structures (I've never seen
    these myself). There is somewhere in New Hampshire a stone covered 
    with Oggam, the ancient Celtic script.
    
    I happened to read recently that the great-grandfather of William
    Faulkner, the great Southern writer, was a Scot who spoke Gaelic.
    (Faulkner himself was born in 1897.)
    I have always felt a sense of connection between the Irish and the
    Southerners: in their the leisure/quality of life ethic and literary 
    productivity. When I went to visit a friend in Virginia in the 1970s, 
    I felt at home in America for the first time. When I came back, the 
    North felt like an alien culture. It's a cliche, but Logan Airport 
    reminded me of an ant colony. The Southern charm is also very
    reminiscent of Irish charm, particularly among the women. This may be
    true of other Celts, too. I know only the Irish. And all the so-called 
    Irish traits seem to me to be particulary strong in the Gaeltacht
    areas. The Aran Islands people are really different from mainlanders.

    Faulkner's great-grandfather's name was Murry, and when his wife got
    mad at him he used to go upstairs and put on his kilt and his
    (forgive me for forgetting what that leather pouch is called)
    and come down and sit by the fire and sulk.
    
    Eileen
    
    
    

    
    While feeling I don't know enough to accept or refute McWhiney,
    instinctively I feel there is something to his theory. His
    book should be interesting reading.
    
    Even more interestingly, the American South is the only part of
    English-speaking civilization that ever suffered military 
    conquest in modern times (i.e. since 1500), except if one includes 
    the Celtic parts of these islands.
    
    Some other interesting points have some up in this topic:
    
    (1) Pre-Columbian Celtic contact with the New World. However,
        "Prince Madoc" is a myth, whatever about St. Brendan.
        Both legends may perhaps reflect a deeper tradition of
        "Land to the West" known to the ancient Celtic navigators.
    
    (2) The Celtic diaspora to other lands such as Argentina and
        Australia. On my mother's side, many of her relatives emigrated
        to these countries. She once told me a story of an uncle who
        got lost one night riding on the Pampas, saw a light, made his
        way to a house - and found the inhabitants saying their
        prayers in Gaelic!
    
    (3) John in GAO seemed to be making a point questioning the "Irishness"
        or "Celticness" of Scots-Irish Presbyterians. Am I right?
    
    All interesting topics for separate discussions in themselves!
    
    Toby

    Re -1, Sect 3. Scotch-Irish Presbyterians
    
    Toby, we both know well enough the general posture of
    Irish Protestants, with a few exceptions, today. They're
    Irish when it suits them. A lot of the time they are
    rather loud in their claims to be 'British' and speak of
    Great Britain an 'The Mainland'. Regarding the ethnic
    origin of the bulk of the Protestant population, they
    are of pretty mixed ancestry. No doubt you know the old
    historian's maxim: "When two races they collide/ First
    they fight and then they fornicate". However the origin
    of the Ulster settlement was in the Scottish Lowlands, in
    a part of Scotland that had been English speaking since
    the time of Queen Margaret the Saint, and indeed were
    probably the remnants of the old kingdom of Northumbria.
    These people were encouraged to settle in Ireland by
    king James VI of Scotland when he became king of England
    (and therefore, Ireland) in 1603. It seems it was a way
    of getting rid of religious fanatics as much as anything
    else.
     On the whole this community has preferred to give their
    loyalty to England rather than Ireland and to express a
    contempt for everything Irish. This is a matter of regret
    but it has to be faced as a fact that sentiment cannot
    change. I prefer to think of them as basically decent
    people who let themselves get led by the nose by conniving
    squireens and ignorant preachers. 
     This is a bit of a digression, but I think that those
    'Scotch-Irish' who settled in Virginia in the mid-eighteenth
    century would not have had any great feeling of being
    Irish, they would have been rather like East European Jews
    who might officially be Russian, Romanian, Hungarian or
    what have you citizens but did not feel any strong attachment
    to those countries in which they had happened to be born.
    
    

    While I can understand there might be an attractive side to the idea of
    the deep south reflecting some aspects of Celtic character and culture,
    There's something that worries me. 
    
    We're talking about people who fled their countries to escape religious
    or political repression, yes?  Most Irish and Scots that I know have a
    deep-seated passion for liberty and freedom - born out of their history.
    Doesn't it seem strange that they emigrate to an area where the basis
    of economy was in black slavery? 
    
    I know that the US prides itself on a class-free society, but this has
    not always been the case.  Which strata of society did these immigrant
    celts reinforce - po' white trash or slave-owning landed gentry? 
    
    Intrigued...
    
    Pob Hwyl,
    
    Colin

    Re -.1
    
     Strange as it may seem, the 'Scotch-Irish' did not emmigrate
    to Virginia to escape persecution. In ireland they were the
    on the side of the persecutors. They lived on lands from which
    the native population had been forcibly expelled, and they
    emmigrated to the Americas not in search of liberty but in
    search of more land. In 18th century Ireland there was a 
    'population explosion'. There was no massacre of the Irish
    between 1691 and 1798 and the population increased from
    about 1 million to about 7 million. The Protestant population
    resorted to the tactic of 'Whiteboyism': gangs of men with
    sheets over their heads terrorised Catholic farmers and
    forced them from their land, which was then seized. But the
    amount of land in Ireland was and is limited, and so there
    was a lot of emmigration across the Atlantic: Protestants
    to Virginia, Catholics to Talamh an Iasc. 
     If you have ever wondered where the custom of night raiding
    wearing sheets originated, now you know! (Incidentally, our
    Irish Protestants still manufacture excellent sheets, though
    in Ireland these are now used only on beds).
    

    Re .26, .27: Although it was not exactly the case with the deep
    South Celts as they came from the oppressor side instead of the
    oppressed one, there nothing strange or unheard of about people
    oppressed who themselves oppress other people or go elsewhere to
    oppress others, it is even rather the rule than the exception. Examples
    are innumerable: just think of the Irish dissenters in Northern
    Ireland, oppressed by the Anglican ascendancy and oppressing the
    Catholics, of the poor whites in the South of the US, or of the
    emancipated US slaves who founded Liberia and enslaved local
    populations. Last example is in yesterday's news from Soviet Georgia
    where the Georgian nationalists just rioted against the Abkhaz
    autonomists (Abkhazia is an autonomous republic included in Georgia).
    			Denis.

    
    Re: Previous notes.
    
    Denis' point about oppressor/ oppressed is valid - for example 
    the (Catholic) Irish in the American Civil War formed a large
    population bloc that in general opposed the war, despite the
    brave deeds of the Irish regiments at battles like Antietam and
    Fredericksburg.
    
    The reason is simple - the Irish feared black competition for
    the jobs at the bottom of the pile, where most of the Irish were
    at that time. For example, in the New York race riot of 1863,
    Irish rioters chased the police off the streets, burned draft
    offices, burned down a black orphanage and hanged blacks from
    lamposts. 100 casualties resulted, most of them rioters as federal
    troops coming straight from the Gettysburg battlefield proved
    rather unsympathetic to Irish grievances.
    
    A lot of the Irish fears had been whipped up by Democratic 
    party demagoguery during an election campaign. Ironically, the
    Irish themselves had been the victims of similar (though
    milder in practice) prejudice in the 1850's by the "Know-Nothing" 
    party - an American anti-Catholic society, dominated (obviously) 
    by Protestants.  
    
    More about this topic at a later stage,
    
    Toby

    Re -.1
    
    I remember reading about this somewhere. I believe in Pittsburg
    also there was Irish opposition (mostly miners) to the freeing
    of slaves (itself only a side-issue in the Civil War) on the
    grounds that they would take jobs from the Irish. 
    Also in Boston c 1830 Daniel O'Connell tried to get Irish
    emmigrants to support anti-slavery agitation and he was at
    once told this was not a popular issue with the Irish: on the
    same grounds.
    
    In one of James Connolly's writings there is an account of
    black opposition to the arrival of Irish famine refugees in
    Georgia. Apparently the slave-owners found it cheaper to
    employ Irish labour than to keep slaves and slaves were being
    sold or even thrown out to make way for Irish workers - who
    cost nothing and didn't have to be fed or housed and who would
    work for a pittance. And if one was hurt or killed you could
    hire another in the morning.
    
    

    I have to admit that reading other sources has turned up support for
    these last few notes.  What surprised me more was that there's a
    tendency in Welsh emigration figures to SUPPORT the McWhiney thesis.
    (based on US census - I'll supply these later.) 
                                       
    This means I'll have to eat my hat.  "Gar�on, une chapeau s'il vous
    plait, beaucoup de ketchup et hold the mayo."  (Paddy's not the only
    one with French in his notes...)
    
    Cofion gorau,
    
     

    
    Re: .25
    
    "...we both know well enough the general posture of Irish
    Protestants, with a few exceptions, today."
    
    True, only I have no problem whatsoever with their general
    posture, in fact I am quite happy with it as I believe
    cultural diversity to be a good thing, and the more the
    merrier. If a bunch of people want to live near me with
    a different set of ethnic labels, it does not worry me
    much.
    
    I subscribe to Parnell's "We cannot lose one man of them...",
    which he said at the debates on one of the Home Rule Bills.
    I havn't much time for arguing over ethnic tags of
    "Irishness" - the "Irish" are a fairly mongrel lot anyway,
    like most other nations. However I harbour deep patriotic
    feelings about this island and hope we can all find a way
    of living in harmony on it.
    
    Both "nations", or ethnic cultures, or whatevers, have
    produced their own crop of persecutors and victims,
    oppressors and oppressed so that it is futile to adopt
    a posture that ascribes all bigotry and wrong to the
    other side. It is also counter-productive.
    
    Toby

    O.K. I've no hang-up either about what people want to
    call themselves. Our minority can decide they're Irish
    and no better or worse than the rest of us, something
    I would prefer. They can decide they're 'British' (whatever
    THAT is) and it would be a matter for regret but one would
    have to accept it. For all I care they can claim to be
    the Tuatha De Danaan. That is not the issue at all. 
    This business of being Irish on MOndays, Wednesdays and
    Fridays and members of the Master Race the rest of the
    time is a little bit tiresome to those of us who are
    Irish all the time.
    
    If people want to be Irish and to share the country with
    the rest of us without claims of any special rights like
    a veto on legislation they don't agree with and stuff like
    that then great!!! What more can we ask?
    If people say 'We are not Irish, we are resident aliens'
    then fair enough they have to take the normal disabilities
    associated with being resident aliens as happens with Irish
    people who choose to live in countries other than Ireland.
    
    In any event they have to make their minds up.
    
                        John Crean
    

    
    Re: .33
    
    You equate Irishness with what I would call "Catholic Nationalism",
    my definition of Irishness is much broader and would include the
    Protestant Scots-Irish tradition as well. 
    
    In order to achieve unity, we should not expect "them" to join
    "us" - the way forward has to be mutual tolerance and respect.
    There should be room for everybody in any New Ireland.
    
    Toby

    Re -.1
    
    I would be wary of throwing labels "Catholic Nationalist" etc
    at people if I were you.
    
    In Ireland people on the whole accept you as they find you, and
    if you don't bother Paddy he won't bother you. There is in Ireland
    a religious minority known as the Society of Friends commonly
    called the Quakers. This small Protestant sect arrived in 
    Ireland 300 years ago as refugees from England, where they had
    been persecuted for their 'deviant' religious beliefs. The Quakers
    are probably the most highly respected religious group in the
    country, both for their charitable work and because they have
    never associated themselves with racism or sectarianism. Other
    refugee groups (palatines, Huguenots, Moravians) came to this
    country and became much cherished because of their refusal to
    participate in the repression of the majority population. (My
    maternal great-great-grandmother was a Moravian by birth). Did
    you ever hear the old Dublin saying "As honest as a Huguenot"?
    
    Yes, there are room for various traditions in Ireland: as you well
    know as long as a person behaves themselves according to a few
    minimum standards they can worship the clock on the wall if they
    like and nobody will try to stop them. There is no room however for
    racism or for incitement against the language, traditions,
    ancestry or beliefs of any person.  
    
    We seem to have wandered a good deal from the original topic.....
    
    

    "Follow the shoe.....follow the shoe...."
    
                             (Monty Python's "Life of Brian").
    
          Murphy, who is finally recovering but grinning......
    

    
    "Gaelic Nationalism" would probably be closer to where I think
    you are at, but otherwise the note still stands.... no insult
    intended, sorry if it was taken.
    
    The Republic of Ireland is probably one of the most culturally 
    uniform in Europe (even if one includes Kerry), so personally I 
    am cautious about Irish tolerance - it has seldom been challenged.
    
    Toby

    I disagree, but short of writing a substantial pamphlet I do
    not see how I can contest such a sweeping statement.
     

>    I disagree, but short of writing a substantial pamphlet I do
>    not see how I can contest such a sweeping statement.

 
    No need. Just remember some of the debates that preceded the 'Divorce
    Referendum.
    
    Pat.   

    As they say, if all the hobby-horses produced in Ireland in a
    single year were stood one on top of the other, the whole lot
    would fall over.....
    

    re -1
    
    nominated for 'non sequitur' of the year award!
    

    
    Re: .38
    
    Knee jerk reaction! "What about the Brits!"
    
    Very true, the British have a race problem, but this does NOT prove
    the Irish are inherently less racist than they. Irishmen boasting
    about their tolerance are like eunuchs boasting about their
    virginity - we have had something like a monolithic catholic-
    nationalist-ethnic consensus here since independence and no minority
    has been yet remotely strong enough to challenge it, though the
    rumblings are being felt.
    
    What minorities there are, have not been on the whole badly 
    treated - none were ever strong enough to pose a real threat.
    However, the travelling prople, and the fact that Irishmen 
    overseas have not been any more or less tolerant than their
    neighbours would lead one to believe that we have in fact
    nothing to boast about.
    
    What we DO have, and are right to be proud of, is a tradition
    of courtesy and hospitality to strangers. But this is not the
    same as toleration of a minority racial, religious or ethnic 
    group that challenged the prevailing consensus.
    
    Toby 

    I don't see the point in getting into a long slagging-match
    on this issue. My own view, based on what knowledge is available
    to me and on my life experiences is that, while we Irish have
    many faults in all fairness racism is not one of them.
    
    [I lived 1964-1972 in London in areas with about 50%-50%
    West Indian & Irish and there was little tension between
    the two communities, and little contact either: they just
    ignored each other].
    
    This is not to deny of course that some Irish people are racists,
    but I believe that they are an insignificant minority. If the
    two previous correspondants were to assert that racism is
    to be found among the people with whom they prefer to associate,
    it is not for me to pass any comment.
                                    

    Irish tolerance.....that's a joke......we're tolerant as long as
    you don't disagree with us......if you do then you're a fool who
    unfortunately doesn't know any better and are to be patronised....
    
    The closing of the two womens' clinics in Dublin in 1986 (?), was
    real tolerant.....             
    
    As previously mentioned, the tolerance shown to the traveling people
    is in direct proportion to just how far away from us they camp......
    
    The divorce debate proved our open mindedness beyond any shadow
    of a doubt.....
    
    Our tolerance of the gay community is also way up there.....
    
                                 
    The sooner the seperation of Church and State in Ireland....the
    sooner you get the Church out of peoples' minds and return to them
    the faculties and responsibilities of decision making.....the sooner
    there will be some flicker of tolerance evident.....1992 Europe?????
    
                           M.                             
                           
                                      

    Re -1
    If you were to express yourself in the singular, I would
    have no readon to disagree with you.....
    

    RE:  -1
    
       I am sure there is more than one Irishman/woman that will agree
    with M.   I sure do....
    
    paddy

I'm right behind M.  As a race we've certainly a lot of things wrong
about us - like most places in the world.  

I believe a lot of the problems are due to interference from the
Church - not always direct, but there nevertheless - however when
anyone tries to separate the issues people appear to believe
they're losing more than they ultimately stand to gain.

I'm one for change - let's pretend the Irish people are grown up
enough that they don't always need Mother Church to help them
decide what right and wrong for them and, unfortunately, for
others as well.

Bernard.

    
    There are no racists (known to me) among my associates, however
    having canvassed actively for the losing side in two Irish 
    constitutional referenda, and done a small amount of work with
    a Travellers Support Group, I regret to report that I encountered
    enough prejudice to cause me serious unease when I hear 
    Irish tolerance being touted abroad as superior to other
    countries.

    It must be admitted that these problems are small when compared
    to the racial problems of other nations, and for this we are 
    lucky. Our luck stems from the fact that up to the sixties,
    dissidents either conformed or emigrated, a solution that is
    being re-applied.
    
    Toby
    

    RE:  .48
    
      Toby,
    
       If possible can you let us in on the content of the referenda
    you worked on. 
    
       Some of the Celt Noters worked very hard on a Bill that just
    became law in N.H. 
    
       That kind of civic duty should always get kudos whether the outcome
    of the  efforts are successful or not.  Too many people sit around
    on their duffs and let the minority of the population work for better
    Gov't.  
    
       For what it's worth congratulations!!!!!!!
    
    paddy  

    re .48
    
    Like Toby, I also knocked on doors during the last two referenda
    and was on the losing side.
    
    The first enshrined 'the right to life' of the unborn in the
    constitution. This was carried and has proved beneficial to the
    communal conscience - having shown are regard for the unborn, we can
    ignore those who manage to make it into the world.
    
    The second was designed to remove the constitutional prohibition
    on divorce. Again, thanks to the courageous stand of the church
    and 'The Soldiers of Destiny', we exhibited our tolerance of minority
    sensibilities. 
    
    Ah sure, isn't it a grand country - I'm havin' a pint, what's yours,
    
    
    Pat.

    
    This is way off the original topic...... but what the hell !!!
    
    The last note accurately described the two refenda. As an earlier
    note pointed out, since the first of the two, women's clinics
    have been prohibited from providing abortion information to those
    considering that option (these women would have to go to the UK).
    The two major non-Catholic women's clinics closed down as a result.
    
    The voting in the two referenda was about the same - a 50% poll
    (low for Ireland), and about 2:1 against liberalisation of
    the constitution - one referendum inserted a clause upholding the
    rights of the unborn (surely they mean the "already conceived but
    as yet unborn"), the other retained a clause that banned divorce.
    
    I feel we lost the battles but not the war, and at least the lines
    are drawn, and we will live to see sectarianism removed from our
    constitution.
    
    The best moment I had in canvassing I had was when I was handing
    out literature outside a church in Galway, a woman approached me 
    and said "Give me some leaflets to hand out, I had to leave this country
    over a child in the 1950's, and I think what you are doing is
    great". She had emigrated to England, and was back on vacation. Her
    family accompanied her and all joined in handing out leaflets.
    Sad to say, there were not a lot of moments like this.
    
    What hurt the most was after the last referendum, the local
    bishop in this diocese lauded the "victory" in terms that equated
    Irishness with Catholicism, and implied that dissent from Church
    teaching demonstated a lack of patriotism/ nationalism. This in
    spite of the fact that there were obviously many committed Catholics
    (which I am not) among the "defeated".
    
    Thanks for giving me the chance to air this openly.
    
    Toby

    Re: The closing of the clinics......
    
    They were accused by SPUC etc. of being abortion referral clinics,
    which they were not, they were womens' counselling/advice clinics.
    But in the instance where a woman chose/was forced by circumstances
    to choose, the painful route of abortion, they gave counselling
    as to what she could expect and the often painful (emotionally) 
    aftermath. They also referred the woman to a good/safe/reputable
    clinic, as opposed to the back street butchers who could leave
    her physically scarred (as well as the emotional issues). They
    never advised this course of action, the individual choose, they
    helped make it easier/safer, a thing called support. 
    Considering somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 women make this trip
    to England each year, this was a terrible loss/decision. But of
    course in the best Irish (male) Church/Government logic, as soon as 
    the clinics were closed down, all these women stopped going to England
    for abortions.
    
                        M.

    
    
    Toby and Pat,
    
        Considering how much power the church has in dictating Gov't
    policy you both deserve a round of applause for your efforts. 
      
        I am sure your stance was not looked upon with kind eyes by your friends
    and certian family members.   
        
        It is very hard to move in a direction that is not popular, and in
    the minority.  
    
        But never lose hope and always remember that "One man CAN make a 
    difference".  This world is a better place because "Men of Vision", and 
    their likes will not lie down until the job is done.....
                                                                       
    
    Keep working for what you believe in......
    
    paddy
                                                                   f

    Back to the original topic, gents......
    
    In the supplement to today's (06-MAY-1989) IRISH TIMES, there
    is an extensive review of a new book called "God's Frontiersmen"
    by one Rory Fitzpatrick (a journalist) and published in London
    by Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 
    This book deals with Ulster Protestant emmigration to North
    America, and the extracts published in the review make very
    interesting reading. Fitzpatrick comes to a number of conclusions
    I had come to myself and have recorded in previous entries
    under this topic.
    
    1. These emmigrants lived in an 'Old Testament' world, they
       fled the coastal cities and settled inland, away from
       corrupting influences.
    
    2. They formed vigilante-type groups called 'Regulators' to
       enforce sexual and other morality among the settlers, with
       strong 'Klan' overtones.
    
    It seems a TV series based on the book is to be released shortly.
    It should make interesting viewing.
    

    
    I take from your note (correct me if I am wrong) that these
    Ulster Protestant people were a "not-OK" bunch to want to
    live their lives in their own way. But it is that
    spirit that helped make the USA the country it became.
    
    Of course the Calvinistic ethnic had it's negative side,
    particularly the exclusivity of "God's people" leading to
    a profound lack of understanding and lack of toleration 
    of less advanced societies - look at South Africa for
    example.
    
    But the robust republican spirit that the Ulster presbyterians
    brought with them made the American revolution what it was,
    and also is imbued in Irish nationalism through the United
    Irishmen. 
    
    You can't have one without the other! One must admire their
    positive traits and deplore those in which they failed to
    make the mental leap to understand different cultures that
    had different conceptions of God and man.
    
    Toby
    

    
    I forgot to say...
    
    I was gratified to see that the Irish Times article seemed to be
    complementing McWhiney's ideas as set out in the base note.
    
    As John said "Back to the original topic......"

    Toby

    Not for me to pass judgement, I suppose, on who is "O.K."
    and who is "not-OK". I consider their basic political persepective
    to be not republican but theocratic. North America is full of
    failed examples of theocratic utopias. The only generalization
    I care to make about theocracies is that they are always intolerant
    and usually pretty cruel and nasty as well: especially in their
    behaviour towards non-adherents.
    
    It is true that an element of Ulster Presbyterianism embraced
    French-style republicanism towards the end of the 18th century,
    but it turned out to be a transitory development.
    
    
    

    Please note that the previous reply (.57) was not a reply
    to the previous reply (.56) but to the reply previous to
    the previous reply (.55).
    Sorry about the mistake, which was due to the network, not
    the brewer.
    
        John Crean...
    

    
    re: .57
    
(1) You need not look to North America for a "failed theocratic utopia",
    you are living in one. Your generalization that they are always
    intolerant is precisely correct. See the previous notes about the
    referenda.
    
(2) Calvinism did not embrace republicanism from the French Revolution,
    how could it when the American Revolution preceded the French?
    Rather the French Revolution embraced republicanism from the Calvinist
    tradition which goes back to the Dutch Republic of the 16th
    century and the Protectorship of Oliver Cromwell in 17th Century
    England.    
    
    We are in the happy position of being able to choose the good
    in the Calvinist tradition, and reject what we consider harmful.
    But historically speaking on Ulster-Scots Presbyterians, you
    still can't have one without the other.
    
    Toby
    

    Well, we could argue for ever.....
    
    French Republic had roots in Calvinism? Perhaps a small amount in
    Calvin's Geneva but I believe that the ideology of French Republicanism
    came from 18th century French theorists (Voltaire, Rousseau, etc)
    but with some impetus from the exampleof the USA.
    
    The 26-co state a failed theocracy? A simplistic assertion based
    on superficial understanding of a very complex problem. I you want
    to raise it, start another topic, I'm game....
    
    

    Well, we could argue for ever.....
    
 >    French Republic had roots in Calvinism? Perhaps a small amount in
 >    Calvin's Geneva but I believe that the ideology of French Republicanism
 >    came from 18th century French theorists (Voltaire, Rousseau, etc)
 >    but with some impetus from the exampleof the USA.

    I'M NOT IN THE HUMOUR FOR A HISTORY LESSON BUT TWO OF THE 
    PHILOSOPHERS WHO PROVIDED THE IDEALOGICAL BASIS FOR THE FRENCH
    REVOLUTION (AND THE AMERICAN ONE) WERE MONTESQUIEU AND VOLTAIRE.
    BOTH GOT THEIR INSPIRATION FROM THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION AND
    AN ENGLISH PHILOSOPHER NAMED JOHN LOCKE. INCIDENTALLY, JEFFERSON
    AND MADISON WERE ALSO HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY LOCKE.

    LOCKE PUT FORWARD HIS IDEAS FROM THE IDEALOGICAL FERMENT THAT TOOK
    PLACE IN ENGLAND DURING THE CIVIL WAR (1640'S) AND THE
    "GLORIOUS REVOLUTION" (1690'S). AFTER ALL, THE FRENCH
    REVOLUTIONARIES WERE NOT THE FIRST TO OVERTHROW THEIR "LAWFUL"
    MONARCH (THE DUTCH DID THAT TO PHILIP II) OR TO PUT ONE ON
    PUBLIC TRIAL AND CUT OFF HIS HEAD (THE ENGLISH DID THAT
    TO CHARLES I). 

    IT IS TRUE THERE WERE OTHER INFLUENCES IN THE
    FRENCH REVOLUTION (ROUSSEAU FOR EXAMPLE WAS "SUI GENERIS"),
    BUT THERE IS A CLEAR LINE OF DESCENT IN THE REPUBLICAN
    TRADITION ALSO AND ONLY WILFUL BLINDNESS CAN PREVENT ONE
    FROM BOTHERING TO ADMIT IT. 

    THIS TRADITION IS A PROTESTANT ONE, PARTICULARY "CALVINIST" - 
    WHICH I AM USING AS A GENERAL CATCHALL FOR PURITANS, PRESBYTERIANS AND
    PROTESTANT SECTS. FOR EXAMPLE, HOLLAND WAS A BYWORD FOR
    TOLERATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY - CATHOLICS WERE ALLOWED PRIVATE
    WORSHIP WITHOUT INTERFERENCE, SOMETHING NO PROTESTANTS WERE
    ALLOWED IN FRANCE - LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE EDICT OF
    NANTES. EVEN CROMWELL'S REGIME WAS ONE THAT STOOD FOR 
    TOLERATION OF DIFFERING SECTS WITHIN THE PROTESTANT ETHIC -
    CONTRAST THE PERSECUTION OF THE SECTS UNDER CHARLES I 
    WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE FIRST MASSACHUSETTS COLONIES.
    ALSO CROMWELL'S REGIME ACCEPTED PRIVATE CATHOLIC WORSHIP
    AND ALLOWED JEWS TO SETTLE FREELY IN ENGLAND - THE FIRST REGIME
    TO DO SO SINCE KING JOHN EXPELLED THEM. I AM SURE AS HELL NOT
    SAYING THAT OLD NOLL WAS ALL SWEETNESS AND LIGHT, BUT IN AN
    ODD WAY SOME OF THE GOOD HE DID LIVED AFTER HIM, AS WELL AS THE
    BAD. HE'S WORTH A TOPIC TO HIMSELF......
    
 >   The 26-co state a failed theocracy? A simplistic assertion based
 >   on superficial understanding of a very complex problem. I you want
 >   to raise it, start another topic, I'm game....
    
    THE SIMPLISTIC NATURE OF MY ASSERTION WAS EXCEEDED BY THE GLIBNESS
    OF FINDING "FAILED THEOCRACIES" ELSEWHERE IN THE GLOBE WHEN THERE
    IS A PERTINENT EXAMPLE UNDER YOUR NOSE. AFTER ALL, WE ARE
    COMPARING A COUNTRY WHERE THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY EMBRACES
    SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (THE USA) TO ONE WHERE UNTIL 
    RECENTLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS GRANTED A "SPECIAL POSITION".
    COME OFF IT, YOU'RE REALLY FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE WITH THIS ONE...
    I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO START A NEW TOPIC IF YOU'RE SO EAGER
    TO DEBATE.....   
    
    TOBY

    P.S. MAYBE I MIS-UNDERSTOOD YOUR SECOND POINT - MAYBE YOU ARE
         SAYING THAT IRELAND IS A SUCCESSFUL THEOCRACY?
         HM, YOU MAY HAVE A CASE THERE...........!
    

    All right, no need to shout!
    
    There are obviously a lot of ways of looking at the French Revolution,
    perhaps you might argue that it had roots in the vikings because
    they chopped the head off Brian Borumha?
    
    Separation of church and state in USA? Care to point out the line
    separating the State of Utah from the (Mormon) Church? Also the
    use of the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) to ensure that US
    policy towards Amerinds conforms with the racial theories in
    the Book of Mormon?
    
    Theocracy is the usurpation of the civil power by ecclesiastic
    forces. For all their insolence, the Irish clergy never attempted
    that! Church-state relations in 26-counties is too complex to be
    amenable to slogans or simplistic labels. Perhaps the best brief
    summary is one due to Se�n � Faoile�in: that the Catholic clergy
    helped create the 'Free State' and thenceforward treated it as a
    "goose for plucking".
    
    

    Ahem, anyone see the excellent God's Frontiersmen? A production
    by Ulster Television for Channel 4 and based on an equally
    excellent book of the same name (�14.95). It is very relevant
    to the discussions in this note.
    
    Don H.
    

    
    Just for you, John, a quotation from John Locke:
    
    "For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth
     of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns, or
     can say that that he has examined to the bottom all his own, or
     other men's, opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge,
     nay often on very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action
     and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to
     inform ourselves than constrain others."
    
    On England under the Commonwealth, Christopher Hill's "The World
    Turned Upside Down" is an excellent account of the turbelent ideas
    of the time e.g. Diggers (who demanded distribution of land),
    Ranters (who practised sexual promiscuity), and Levellers (who 
    agitated for the ending of aristocracy under their leader
    "Free-born" John Lilburne).
    
    For church and state in Ireland, there have been several excellent
    publications in the last few years - I will look up a few 
    titles for you.
    
    Happy Reading,
    
    Toby

      I just want to say one thing.  The first Watkins in the south was
    in James Town when it was first settled.  Watkins is a Welsh name and
    it is my name.  My Great grandfather fought for the South in the 
    War Between the States.  The Welsh were here from the day the US
    came into being.  It should be noted that the Welsh are basicly
    farmers and not just coal miners.  The South was based on farming
    before 1865.  Part of the problem between the North and South
    in the mid 1800's was the fact that most Northerners were English
    and most Southerners were Celtic.  Now the population changed
    in the early 1900's due to imigation when a lot of Irish came
    to the North east.
    
                                   Marshall WATKINS

    REPLY TO .14
    
    My family came over in 1607 to James Town, Va.  So there was Welshmen
    in the America's at the start.
    
    
                               Marshall Watkins

    I realize this note is old, but I had to make several comments. 
    
    Having been raised in the South, I believe that there are many
    areas where this theory can be proven. Most of my ancestors came
    to the U.S. before 1800 and they settled in Virginia, New York,
    Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Alabama. They had a strong
    sense of family, for the most part. They were Scots, Dutch, Welsh,
    German, French, Irish and English. They migrated away from New England 
    and settled mainly in Virginia (now West Virginia) and Georgia. They all
    fought for the Confederacy but none (according to Census Records) owned 
    any slaves. 
    
    The Welsh portion of my family (Pritchard, Davis and Moody) settled
    first in Pennsylvania and Virginia in the late 1600s and 1700s. The
    last to arrive from Wales was Mary Moody my many greatgrandmother and
    this was before the War of 1812. So there were a number of Welsh 
    pioneers before the American Civil War.
    
    The Scot-Irish elements of my family settled in Pennsylvania before
    the Revolution, many fought for the American cause in the Revolution.
    After the Revolution, they were granted lands in Virginia and they
    settled there (after they fought the Native Americans for the land).
    My grandmother Scott would tell us stories about the fighting and how
    they took the land. Many of them became coal miners and lie buried
    there. They were fiercely independant and they disliked the English
    very much. 
    
    Well I've seemed to have rambled on for longer that I wanted too. I
    just wanted to say that I agree in most part with this theory.
    
    /Mike