If you look at populations statistics of immigration into pre-revolutionary america (the 13 roriginal colonies plus canada--excluding the later acquired Mississippi valley french and spanish territories) the vast majority of immigrants were English and Scottish and Scots-Irish, with pockets of original small colonies by the Dutch etc... who were quickly overwhelmed. The more affluent landowning English typically ended up landowning and inhabiting the coastal/commercial areas and predominately in the New England area, while the Scots and Scots-Irish generally hit the mid and southern colonies coastal areas for at most a generation or two and then were shunted into the "frontier" areas, ostensibly by the coastal landed English gentry to act as a shield against the remaining american tribal elements who by now realized that this was a full fledged invasion of their lands and were not pleased. The southern Scots and Scots-Irish gladly took these frontier lands they were offered as they afforded property ownership (instead of the historic tenant farmer status), freedom from some of the religious and political oversight of the predominantly anglican coastal culture, and allowed them to actually congregate with those of similar heritage, even large family oriented communities who moved as groups and settled together because they wanted to maintain at least a bit of the parts of their past heritage that they desired and remained comfortable. I believe (although I am not specifically knowledgeable about Canada's history) that the sometimes less than hospitable lands up that way were also colonized by these Scots of the British empire for similar reasons, as they were seen as less than desirable property by the English gentry who eventually were the overlords of pre-revolutionary america. The vast majority of scots and scot-irish immigration to the new world occurred in the first waves of settlement, well before and only slightly after the revolution, while the vast majority of the other ethnic imigration waves (two irish between the revolution and the Civil war in mid 1800's as well as german then and later, and the many others who followed) occurred after the vast majority of scots/scots irish had already been in America for at least one but in more cases several generations, and who were then considered the "norm" for america. Each subsequent wave of immigrants was considered as strange/poor/uneducated (at least to "american" ways)/outcast until at least one or more generations had settled into the culture, the culture shifted because of it, and then the next wave of immigrants came aboard, and the cycle repeated itself. The scots were some of the first and such not quite treated the same way, except by their english gentry initially, whom they eventually grew (at least in the central and southern regions) to outnumber and subsequently meld in with. The exception were the Torries who remained faithful to the crown, and who before/during and after the revolution felt compelled to relocate, mostly to Canada, the nearest remaining British colony after the revolution, although many of them even stayed and simply mended fences and melded into the melange. Eventually they kept pushing westward into West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and the other western states of the south, even to Missouri and Kansas. Many did keep at least pieces of their culture (music, dance, religion, whisky-making) and dragged them with them, along with naming locations with familiar names (we have a Glasgow, an Edinburgh, a Glencoe, within an hour or two of where I live, and that is true for original settlements on or near the east coast and extends far west of us here in Kentucky. But, the longer one group of immigrants is in a place the more it gets incorporated into the culture and "normalized" (changed to a degree but more changing the pre-existing condition), with the next wave then repeating the cycle.

Many immigrant groups did indeed stay together intentionally, to try to maintain as similar an environment, religion and social system, as well as sometimes a language, for several generations if not even longer. Witness the Pennsylvania Dutch, mirrored by their Amish brethren in areas of Ohio, Kentucky and as far west as Amana, Iowa. Witness the swedes and Norwegians in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Witness the italian neighborhoods in boston and New York, the germans in Cincinnati and Milwaukee, scots and scots-irish in western North Carolina and northern Georgia, the Chinatowns in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco (among others), and subsequently the irish in New York and Boston and Philadelphia (among others), the Hmong in Minneapolis and Vietnamese around the gulf coast (1970s and since). All came seeking something they lacked in their native land, be that land ownership, a prosperous existence, religious freedom, freedom from political or social persecution---all seeking a better life in general. So it is natural that the diaspora of the Scots, as well as all peoples who emigrate, do so for the reason of bettering their existence, and natural that they in general succeed in that endeavor to varying degrees over the long periods of time in which they have had to work toward their version of success and prosperity. Otherwise, they would have emigrated again, either locally or in distance until they either die out or find that success. Those who die out we never really hear about, those who succeed, especially to great extents, are well known (history is written by the victors, and the survivors), as well as generally still around and prospering in both financial and population growth facets.

The kilt? A piece of clothing, deeply held by the scots as a part of the whole cloth of the scots existence and history and heritage, and understandably and naturally so. Those "outwith" Scotland who choose to wear the kilt do so for their own reasons, but IMHO not intending to impress, flatter, please or honor today's scots in particular, or to "fit in" with the culture when we go there to visit and tour and look up and at places that may have some significance in where we as diaspora come from (in a distant wasy for most of us). We wear them for our own reasons, many to honor the heritage itself (of their personal family members and history), many to honor the country and its people (whether those native people give a hoot or not) that their ancestors at some point likely came from (if there is that ancestral tie), for comfort and style and class, or for whatever other reasons that individual may choose for themselves. Hopefully they wear it with the pride, honor, distinction, reverence, and historical importance that it deserves, and in a style and manner that does not denigrate it as the symbol of a great people and culture or offend those people in particular. But each, on either side of the great pond, has his/her own feeling as to their right and the rights of others to wear it, the propriety of when and how and where to wear it, even its makeup/material/ style/appearence/design. We are afterall, independent people who share a common interest, the kilt itself, and to varying degrees of interest in all things related to it. And hopefully, to each other, whether we ever get to interact interpersonally with one another in any way other than through a forum such as this.

jeff