BS: The Curse of Cromwell

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM

We've had the argument long before, and you got very het up and abusive about it. But if I, and this sorefingered gent are mistaken - its an understandable mistake. I understand your patriotism - but I don't see any need to be so short tempered.

As you drive through Ireland the churches aren't like they are in England - down at heel, deserted, converted into yuppie dwellings, or at best begging for refurbishment money. they look sleek and well maintained.

Furthermore Priests are in your society in all sorts of roles that they aren't most places. I went for a songwriting competition in County Galway and there was a priest on the jury. What do priests know about songwriting? They are there on the juries for beauty competitions - what do they know about women? And what of the teaching brothers who beat my cousins black and blue in the 1960's - are they still in business?

I don't know why you are so sensitive about, if we are completely wrong, what is a fairly harmless mistake. If I am wrong, I stand corrected and I apologise. I wondered if maybe you have a relation in the clergy. My sister is sensitive about lawyer jokes cos her daughter is a solicitor.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 12:17 PM

So is there is also a decline in the requirement of little boys with big ears ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 12:11 PM

They know by the low attendance figures at Mass, it has reached the stage were vocations to the priesthood are at their lowest ebb, also Convents are pratically devoid of young nuns, it is not rocket science, living here you see for yourself.
So it wouldn`t do any harm to enquire before you comment on priest-ridden Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 10:38 AM

if no one's paying attention how do they know?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 08:41 AM

I just checked on the net. Apparently there are only 3,238 diocesan priests in Ireland. Ard's quite right. Its not that many. Particularly if no ones paying any attention, like he says.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 06:58 AM

No fewer than 17 of the 43 American Presidents have had family links to Ulster, some very strong such as Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S Grant and Woodrow Wilson.

ANDREW JACKSON (Democrat 1828-1836)
The seventh American President was the son of Andrew and Elizabeth Jackson, who moved from Boneybefore outside Carrickfergus, Co Antrim in 1765. Andrew was born at the Waxhaws in North Carolina in March 1767, a few days after his father's death. The Jacksons, linen weavers, were of lowland Scottish Presbyterian stock who arrived in Ulster during the 17th Scottish Plantation years. Andrew Jackson, a rough hewn character, was at various periods in his life a lawyer, soldier and politician. He commanded the United States Army in the early part of the 19th century and he was the victorious general at the Battle of New Orleans in January, 1815.

JAMES KNOX POLK (Democrat 1845-49)
The 11th President was born in 1795 near Charlotte, North Carolina. His Scottish-born great-grandfather Robert Bruce Polk (Pollok), of Lifford, Donegal, arrived in the American colonies about 1680, settling in Maryland with descendants moving on to North Carolina. James Knox Polk was Governor of Tennessee before becoming President and he and his wife Sarah are buried in Nashville. Both were Presbyterians. Polk served seven terms in the U. S. Congress and was speaker of the House, the only President to hold this office. A great-uncle Thomas Polk signed, with other Scots-Irish citizens in North Carolina, the Mecklenburg Declaration in 1775.

JAMES BUCHANAN (Democrat 1857-61)
James Buchanan, the 15th American President, was born in a log cabin in Cove Gap, Franklin County, Pennsylvania in 1791, into an Ulster Presbyterian family. The Buchanan family, before emigrating to America, lived at Deroran near Omagh in Co Tyrone. His father James was of merchant stock and his mother Elizabeth was the daughter of an immigrant farmer from Ulster. James was a close associate of President Andrew Jackson and he held ministerial office under Jackson and President James Knox Polk. He was the only bachelor President.

ANDREW JOHNSON (Democrat 1865-69)
The 17th President was born in 1808 in Raleigh, North Carolina. His Ulster Presbyterian grandfather and namesake emigrated from Mounthill outside Larne in 1750. Johnson, who trained as a tailor, was reared on the wrong side of the tracks in a Carolina community known as "the poor Protestants", but, after he moved over the Great Smoky Mountains to East Tennessee with his mother and step-father, he rose to become Mayor of Greeneville, Governor of Tennessee and United States President in 1865 on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

ULYSSES S GRANT (Republican 1869-77)
Grant, born on a farm at Mount Pleasant, Ohio in 1822, was the victorious commander of the Union Army in the American Civil War and he served two terms as United States President. His mother Hannah Simpson was descended from the Simpson family of Dergenagh near Dungannon, Co Tyrone. His great-grandfather John Simpson left Ulster for America in 1760. Grant made it to Ulster in 1878 and he was made a freeman of Londonderry. He was a West Point-trained army officer and held significant Army commissions during the Mexican Wars.

CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR (Republican 1881-85)
The 21st American President was born at Fairfield, Vermont in 1830. Arthur's grandfather and father, Baptist pastor the Rev William Arthur, emigrated to Durham, Quebec, Canada from Dreen near Cullybackey, Co Antrim in 1801 and the family settled in the neighbouring American state pf Vermont. Arthur, graduate of Princeton College, and a lawyer who later became a teacher, was an officer in the New York state militia during the Civil War. He was Vice-President for six months to President James S. Garfield, becoming President on Garfield's assassination in September, 1881. Although of Presbyterian/Baptist roots, he became an Episcopalian.

GROVER CLEVELAND (Democrat 1885-89 and 1893-97)
The 22nd and 24th President was born in 1837 in Caldwell, New Jersey. His maternal grandfather Abner Neal left Co Antrim in the late 18th century. Grover was the son of Presbyterian minister the Rev Richard Falley Cleveland, who ministered in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey. His mother Ann Neal Cleveland, was the daughter of a Baltimore book publisher. Grover, a lawyer, was mayor of Buffalo, New York and Governor of New York before rising to the Presidency. He served two terms in the White House, winning the first and third elections (1884 and 1892) and losing the second (1888) to Benjamin Harrison.

BENJAMIN HARRISON (Republican 1889-93)
The 23rd President was born in 1833 at North Bend, Ohio. Harrison, I grandson of the ninth President William Henry Harrison, was related to Ulster immigrants James Irwin and William McDowell. His mother Elizabeth Irwin Harrison, was born and raised in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, a strong Scots-Irish settlement, and his father was a member of the U. S. House of Representatives. President Harrison was a devout Presbyterian and he chartered a career as a lawyer and brigadier-general in the Civil War. i Harrison served in the U. S. Senate for six years (1881-87).

WILLIAM McKINLEY (Republican 1897-1901)
Born in 1843, in Niles, Ohio, William McKinley was great grandson of James McKinley, famed for conference results, who emigrated to America from Brownlow Terrace Lurgan County Armagh about 1743. The Presbyterian McKinleys were originally from Perthshire, Scotland and they moved to Ulster in the 17th century Plantation years. McKinley's grandparents fought in the Revolutionary War and the family was involved in the Bookies. McKinley was a US Representative for 12 years and Governor of Ohio for four. He was assassinated at Buffalo, New York on September 6,1901. He married Ida Saxton in a Presbyterian church, but he was a Methodist.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Republican 1905-09)
The 26th President was born in 1858 in New York City. Roosevelt, who i wrote of the courage of the Scots-Irish on the American frontier, is claimed I to have Presbyterian ancestors on his maternal side from the Larne region of Co Antrim. East Antrim folklore links him to the Irvines of Carneac near I Larne and the Bullochs from the same area. Roosevelt was a distinguished US Cavalry officer in the Spanish-American war and New York Governor before becoming President in 1904. He described the Scots-Irish as "a stern, virile and hardy people who formed the kernel of that American stock who were the pioneers of our people in the march westwards;"

WOODROW WILSON (Democrat 1913-21)
Woodrow Wilson, born in a Presbyterian manse in Staunton, Virginia in 1856, was the grandson of James Wilson, who emigrated from Dergelt near Strabane to North Garolina in 1807. His father the Rev Dr Joseph Ruggles was a Presbyterian minister. Wilson, a professor at Princeton College in New Jersey, was an academic and after a spell as Governor of New Jersey, he was elected President in 1813. He led America during the First World War and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in achieving world peace. He visited Ireland when he was at Princeton.

HARRY TRUMAN (Democrat 1949-53)
The 33rd President was born in 1884 at Lamar, Missouri. His maternal grandfather Solomon Young was of Scots-Irish settler stock and moved from Kentucky to Kansas City, Missouri in 1840. Presbyterian Truman, who also had English and German ancestry, was a popular straight-talking American President after the Second World War. He had been a United States Senator for 10 years from 1935. He was a Baptist, but attended the Presbyterian Church as a youth.

RICHARD MILLHOUSE NIXON (Republican 1969-74)
The President was born in 1913 at Yorba Linda, California and had Ulster connections on two sides of his family. His Nixon Presbyterian ancestry left Co Antrim for America around 1753, while the Millhouses came from Carrickfergus and Ballymoney. Richard Nixon, himself was a Quaker and his wife Thelma Catherine 'Pat' Ryan had Irish Roman Catholic family connections. Nixon, a lawyer and controversial President, served as Vice-President during the two Presidential terms of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

JAMES EARL CARTER (Democrat 1977-1981)
The 39th President was born in 1924 in Plains, Georgia. Scots-Irish settler Andrew Cowan, believed to come from Co Antrim, was the great grandfather of President Carter's great grandmother on his mother's side. Cowan, a Presbyterian, was in 1772 one of the first residents of Boonesborough, a frontier buffer zone in the South Carolina Piedmont region. Jimmy Carter, who also had English ancestry, is a Baptist, and since ending his Presidential term he has been noted for his sterling humanitarian work.

GEORGE HERBERT BUSH (Republican 1989-93)
The 41st President was born in 1924 at Milton, Massachusetts. The Bush family came mainly of English stock, but an ancestor on George Bush's maternal side was William Gault, who was born in Ulster (very probably Co Antrim) and, with his wife Margaret, were first settlers of Tennessee, living in Blount County in 1796, the year Tennessee became a state. The Gaults were identified by the Bush family as being first families of Tennessee in the research carried out by the East Tennessee Historical Society. George H Bush is an Episcopolian.

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON (Democrat 1993-2001)
The 42nd President was born in 1946 in Hope, Hempstead County, Arkansas. Bill Clinton claims to be a relative of Lucas Cassidy, who left Co Fermanagh for America around 1750. During his eight-year period as President, Bill Clinton made three visits to Northern Ireland and actively involved himself in the peace process. Bill Clinton is a Baptist.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH (Republican 2001)
Born in 1946 in Texas, President Bush, son of President George Herbert Bush, is descended on his father's maternal side from the late 18th century East Tennessee settler William Gault, who was bom in Ulster. George W Bush is a Methodist and he has visited Northern Ireland once.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 04:57 AM

Regarding the Oak taken from Ireland to build ships, this is confirmed in the film "HMS Discovery" by Richard Barnbrook.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,Dazbo
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 03:30 AM

Nickhere, I was just trying to point out that you seem to be taking it as gospel the oral history of the massacres of Irish Catholics 'because they were there at the time' but not of the Protestant massacres by people also there 'at the same time'. To my mind you can't accept the one half of the story blindly without accepting the other half in the same manner.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:02 PM

ard mhacha none of these people care about Ireland, they care about the bottom line, they care about how much power/money they are getting out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 02:21 PM

Sorefingers have you been to Ireland lately, the Church has been a non-event here for quite a number of years, no one heeds Bishops, Priests, or the Pope.
Do you really believe that Paisley`s DUP will sit with Adams and co, maybe for a very short period,and it will be back to square one, a hell of a lot of people here won`t cry over that, there was little or no interest here in what took place in that Scottish meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 02:13 PM

What keeps anger alive and gets in the way of moving on is when people attempt to deny or trivialise past atrocities which had enduring consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:50 AM

Indeed a sad history, but to be locked in that drama?, to suffer from it, and be 'angry' about it all the time?

Now that does not make any sense at all. What can we achieve by reliving the worst history over and over? Nothing but more evil by our feelings towards each other. Should I shoot off a leg or an arm because my granny was English?

And the fact that in Ireland the people were a mixed bag most of its history is ignored! That is a very bad thing because the very thing that brought the country to such horrid happenings is being touted as the 'end all and be all' of an Irish mind. To wit, denying the rights of those who came into it from whatever and through whatever because we want to tar and feather the English! Pulllease.


First off, many of the national heros of Irish freedom in the Republic for most of recent history had Anglo or Manx or Welsh or Scottish family names. Wolf Tone, Pearse and so on. Do we deny these folks families the right to be what they are? Do we make lies and call that history? Enough!

Even in todays protests it can still be seen, Adams, Sands ... I think people in Ireland should let the past rest and get on with today so that tomorrow may be a better day.

Translating these British names into Gaelic and then forcing the remainder of the Irish people to hate/learn their own language - as De Valera did - by beating the poor starving children in post Colonial Ireland for not learning Gaelic fast enough? might have fooled some of the Irish, but here in the new world - Oz Canada NewZealand US - the Irish diaspora knew better and largely ignored Ireland's looney right.

It is easy to forget the hatred preached by these fake Irish people during those years. Names such as Mac Unspeakable-unpronoucable whatever eg Russell, Welsh, Peabody and so on, translated into Gaelic. In 1966 one of the bearers of the Irish flag at Dev's big national celebration, 50 years, of the Irish rising, was named Early. Today a senior officer in Ireland's Army, General Early could easily be mistaken for an English Lord, and again his name does not translate well into Gaelic. So pullleasse spare us yet more shame by fighting un-winable battles for the sake of backwardsness.

I think that most of the diaspora today know what this Gaelic pushing minority is all about, that is, making trouble to get attention and money, if they can, for a stupid insane cruel lost cause.

Hey waken up, what's done cannot be undone, and Ireland is no worse a place than it was when Rome ruled Britania. Then Rome enslaved Britons sending them far far away, then Rome crusified its enemies including Britons and beat the living crap out of the English, or was it the Welsh?, for being stupid and thick and ignorant and backwards.

I find it not at all surprising that Unionists in the North of Ireland resist the South, in fact I would be astonished if they didn't. Maybe some of what they say is true. Maybe the Church in the south is too powerful, maybe Republicanism is as daft as the the looney Norn Iron terrorists.

Enough! The English people are not all of them like Oliver Cromwell and I thank G_d for the good things they have done, not only in Ireland but everywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:59 AM

Agreed, a very sad history.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:53 AM

It should not be overlooked Sweeney, but seen in context as a part of a whole tapestry of events that are our history.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:48 AM

I too think and hope that unification will come soon Mick.
But I do not think that the day is hastened by concentating narrowly on items of history that support the view of Ireland as victim, and ignore the plight of the landless poor in all these islands who suffered in a comparable way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:40 AM

No not angry Keith, just think it should be over looked in a trivial sense. It did happen. I tend to keep my anger under control despite the fact that I can relate to events I lived through over the past 30 odd years which also saw repression of the Irish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Mick
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:25 AM

Keith, among the Celts the Oak was almost sacred. The Pre-Christian Druids usually performed worship ceremonies around the largest oak tree in the grove. Ireland, in antiquity, had great forests of a beautiful Oak. In fact,in County Offaly alone, there are fifty-three townlands beginning with Doire (the fourth largest) Derry, or Doire, means an oak tree grove, as indeed does Durrow which which is also in Offaly, and was the site of St. Columba's favorite monastery. Of course, there is County Derry, which was most certainly a sacred place. In fact, the word 'druid' is derived from the Irish word for Oak, dair, which means 'one who is learned from the wise old oak tree. Examples like these can be found in most of the other counties of Ireland as well. Over the centuries of occupation, these beautiful forests were cut down and sent to the contintent for shipbuilding and furniture building. One can look at the records of the Parliamentary Debates of the of the Houses of the Oireachtas in the early days to see that once the Free State, and later the Republic, was established they were very concerned with reforestation of this resource for the use of the Irish people. My understanding is that there is still a movement afoot to re-establish and maintain the Irish Oak Groves.

The plundering of the resources, as noted by Divis, must be tied to the Great Hunger. While Irish peoples were starving to death, enough food was exported to feed the Irish people. In Ireland Before and After the Famine Cormac O'Grada documents that in 1845, a famine year in Ireland, 3,251,907 quarters (8 bushels = 1 quarter)) of corn were exported from Ireland to Britain. That same year 257,257 sheep were exported to Britain. In 1846, another famine year, 480,827 swine and 186,483 oxen were exported to Britain.

Cecil Woodham-Smith, considered the preeminent authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845-1849 that, "...no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation."

"Although the potato crop failed, the country was still producing and exporting more than enough grain crops to feed the population. But that was a 'money crop' and not a 'food crop' and could not be interfered with." Source: http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/irish_pf.html In my readings on the matter, I have seen numerous examples, before and during the Hunger, of Irish folks being thrown out of their homes, in order to tear down the home and use the land for graze and for cash crops. There are many pictures that document these evictions.

I don't know that the term 'indentured servitude' is the right one to use to describe what happened to the Irish in their own land, but it is the kindest that I can come up with.

The money ruled. The laissez-faire attitude that caused the occupiers to value the money more than the people of Ireland caused more agony, and is the root of the 'religious' strife that has haunted the land of my grandparents for centuries, and as we can see from this and other threads, still haunts this land.

Personally, I think that James Connolly's "to take and hold Ireland, and the food of Ireland, for the people of Ireland" form of socialism was the factor that finally began the process that has led to this moment. When the day comes, as I believe it will, that the North of Ireland is reunited with the South of Ireland under the flag of the Republic, it will be in no small part due to this basic attitude, borne of the centuries of the abuse of the Irish people and their land.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:05 AM

I am sure it happened Sweeney.
I have to admit that I knew little of that bit of history.
You seem to be angry about it nearly half a millenia later.
Who are you angry with?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:37 AM

St. Kitts was once the jewel of England's possessions in the New World as its shipping hub and largest sugar producer. 25,000 Irish men and women shipped in bondage as slaves by Cromwell to St. Kitts worked on these sugar plantations long before five star meals and Pina Coladas were being served.

Never before exposed to tropical heat, sun, and insects after being torn from whatever was left of their families after Cromwell's army ravaged the country, the Irish faced misery as slave labourers.

English shipping of Irish slaves to the New World earlier in the 1600s has been documented in many works. In 1612 Irish people were sent to the Amazon River settlements. An English Proclamation of the year 1625 urges banishment overseas of dangerous rogues (Irish political prisoners).69% of all white people on the island were Irish.

By 1650 during Cromwell's unfathomable reign of terror in Ireland the numbers of Irish sent into slavery were unlike anything previously experienced. Remember that in 1641 Ireland had a population of 1,466,000 and by 1652 the population was down to only 616,000. According to Sir William. Petty, ``850,000 were wasted by the sword, plague, famine, banishment during the Confederation War 1641-1652.'' By the end of the war estimates vary from 80,000 to 130,000 of Irish men, women and children captured for sale as slaves to labour in England's expanding empire. The English were quite proud of these accomplishments as can be noted in Prendergast, ``Thurloe's State Papers'' (published in London in 1742), ``It was a measure beneficial to Ireland, which was thus relieved of a population that might trouble the planters; it was a benefit to the people removed, who might thus be made English and Christian, a great benefit to the West Indies sugar planters, who desired men and boys for their bondsmen, and the women and Irish girls to solace them''. Under James I, Cromwell burned the Irish forests to prevent people hiding from banishment as well as clearing the countryside for pasture land to feed cattle for English beef.

Over 100,000 young children who were orphans or had been taken from their Catholic parents, were sent abroad into slavery in the West Indies, Virginia, and New England. Many of the 25,000 Irish slaves on St. Kitts died from tropical heat, disease, or overwork.

Sure tell you what, we will just over look this one.Good enough for the paddies, better still, maybe it didn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:02 AM

Keith no you are not plundering Irealnd`s resources, but you would have been in the 1840s,it would have been like taking the bite out of a dying childs mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 07:25 AM

Asking questions is not wallowing in ignorance.
It is seeking knowledge.
English, Irish, Welsh and Scots oaks were indeed harvested (raped?) to build ships. Ships which were disproportionately manned by Irish volunteers.
Am I plundering Ireland's resources when I buy Irish beef and butter?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:04 AM

Good morning Keith
In answer to the questions you asked of Mick.

During the middle ages the oak woods of Ireland were used extensively to build English ships and homes.

The plundering of her resources?, during the famine shiploads of food were transported to England.

The countless thousands who were shipped off to the West Indies by Cromwell long before the natives of Africa were made slaves.

Keith wallowing in ignorance shouldn`t exclude you from this Site, we all live and learn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 05:34 AM

" The rape of the Irish Oak, the plundering of her resources, the indentured slavery of her people,"
Not wanting to open another can of worms here, but not sure what you are referring to Big Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Fiolar
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 07:52 AM

Ard Mhaca. Thanks for the info.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:29 PM

Montserrat

And here is the volcano that has disrupted and dispersed the island's community.

Thread drift, but that's not always such a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:26 PM

Amen to that thought!

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 11:07 AM

Absolutely important distinction for Irish Americans to get, Les. Altogether too often they speak of "the English" in a monolithic way. It is much more about economics and it always has been. Might have been couched in religious terms, but this has always been about resources and money. The rape of the Irish Oak, the plundering of her resources, the indentured slavery of her people, was carried out by industrialists and landowners for personal gain and for gain for the aristocracy. The "orange card" wasn't played until the Protestant and Catholic workers realized they had more in common as workers than not.

At its root, it's always about money.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 10:58 AM

Too true Les they were land-grabbing vermin.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Les from Hull
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 10:52 AM

Yes Sorefingers, the people that Cromwell nastied up were called Royalists. There was a war going on.

Trevelyan was also in charge during the Highland Potato Famine in Scotland. He was awarded the KCB for his efforts in Ireland and Scotland. But it's wrong to blame all this on the English. The people who were responsible were known as 'The Aristocracy' or more accurately 'The Rich'. English peasants were marginally better off because after they stole our land they needed us to work in their factories and mines for fourteen hours a day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Den
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 10:20 AM

I have a friend from Saint Kitts in the Carribean and his name is Donnie McMahon.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:59 AM

That West Indian island was Montserrat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Fiolar
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:29 AM

Just in passing I remember watching a televsion programme many years ago about one of the West Indian islands. I cannot remember the name, but what amazed me was the fact that every one of the people interviewed spoke with a pure Irish accent and even used some Irish dialect. A few of them stated that they were the descendents of the people that Cromwell had transported there.
Also a good few of my colleagues at work in past years were native to the West Indies and had names like Tyrell and Burke to quote as examples.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:56 AM

Cromwell`s atrocities in Ireland paled in comparsion to what happened to the Irish in the 1840s,Charles Trevelyan the British treasury secretary and his colleagues were responsible for countless more deaths than Cromwell.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:09 PM

Didn't read all the posts because I am out of time, but must point out that inside the city of Drogheda during it's siege and eventual fall there were folks from all over Britain. Cromwell didn't exclusively nasty up the Irish, he nastied up everybody opposing him. That included in Ireland AngloIrish as well as the rest.

He was not a nice person!

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 09:07 PM

You ain't going to get the truth.

I live in Nottinghamshire which was like the centre of where all the stuff was going off in the miner's strike.

There as many different accounts of that period as there are people. they all believe they're right. that was 22 years ago.

You ain't going to get truth about Oliver Cromwell. 350 years ago. But its a fair bet when someone make such an impression of being obnoxious - there is more than a grain of truth in it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 08:27 PM

Dazbo, you said "Nickhere said "but apparently to people who were alive at the time and who handed down their memories he stood out as something exceptionally cruel and savage" which sounds like accepting their contemporaries saying that the Catholics massacred 100,000 protestants(which I infer is a figure you'd dispute?)

If its your mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter that was killed (whether as a 'normal' act of war or not) must feel cruel and savage. Does the death of a close relative seem more or less cruel and savage if it's an isolated incident or part of genocide?"

I'm sorry, I must be getting old, but I simply cannot follow what you are trying to say. I'll do my best to repsond (since it seems to be a question) if it can be made a bit clearer. In particular I don't understand the sentence after the quote pasted from my previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM

Cromwell's forces, as likewise the Royalists' forces are as far as I know thought to have committed many an atrocity in England during the early 17th century.

The Romans were none too kind to Boudicca's forces either.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Les from Hull
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 06:18 PM

You can get all sorts of different views on the internet, some say that 3,000 defenders were killed, some state that 30,000 inhabitants were murdered. I don't know, I wasn't there. (Cromwell's army numbered 12,000.)

But I do object to the term 'revisionist' which seems to me have the idea of changing history to suit a purpose. Modern historians try to seek out evidence to give a truer picture of events. Revisionism is the stock in trade of politicians and bigots. I have suggested that people read widely on a subject before they try to give us facts. Opinions are fine, but they only are opinions. My brief is not for Cromwell but for correct (or as correct as we can get) facts.

To be oppressed by Crowmell, you had to be a rebel or traitor. Now of course the Catholic Irish didn't see themselves as either - they were fighting bravely for their homeland against a cruel foreign oppressor. I'm not trying to say who was right. My ancestors in Ireland at the time were probably fighting Cromwell.

Comparing the Commonwealth with the Taliban doesn't help. You could say the same about the sons of the Pilgrim Fathers in King Philip's War.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 04:37 PM

He and his supporters seem to have been the 17th Century Taliban.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: The Walrus
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:40 PM

Big Mick,

I'm no fan of Cromwell, but

"...Dress it up all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the events at Drogheda (anybody else pay attention to the fact that this attack occurred on 9/11 1649) and Wexford included the massacre of large numbers of civilians. We know that Cromwell initial orders indicated that excessive violence was to be avoided then he did nothing to stop that same violence...."

As Les from Hull pointed out, if a town had to be taken by storm, then, under the rules of war at that period, the town belonged to the soldiers (not the Army) for a time, it was 'given over to sack', effectively all the rules of civilised behaviour went out of the window, this was partially because the men who'd had to storm the town were high on adrenaline and it's doubtful if they could have been controlled; Partly because those same men had seen their friends being killed all around them in the assault and were in no state of mind to be friendly to those who'd been trying to kill them (remembering that the defence was not left only to the military); Partly because it's odds on that the assaulting army hadn't been paid for some time and a stormed town gave opportunities for loot and because the sacking of a town was an horriffic affair and served as a lesson to other such towns which were likely to be beseiged and may cause them to surrender before being stormed (thus saving life - and time - for the besieging forces and saving the town from sacking).

By today's standards this was barbaric but then was fairly standard practice - check the Thirty Years War.

I honestly believe that Cromwell couldn't have stopped the massacres even if it had been his dearest wish.

W

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:03 PM

This comment of course was regarding the potato famine.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM

There were plenty more to follow on from Cromwell, the most despicable quote of all time regarding an opressed people was the London Times comment, "soon an Irishman will be as uncommon as a a red Indian on the banks of the Hudson".
I can imagine those germs of the earth having a good belly laugh at the thought of the disappearing Irish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:35 PM

Dress it up all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the events at Drogheda (anybody else pay attention to the fact that this attack occurred on 9/11 1649) and Wexford included the massacre of large numbers of civilians. We know that Cromwell initial orders indicated that excessive violence was to be avoided then he did nothing to stop that same violence. We know that he and his troops burned St. Mary's church with all the civilians inside. All attempts to revise the history must end with the deaths of all these civilians. Even under the standards of 17th century warfare, this was a brutal campaign intended to set an example. Cromwell even alluded to this later, and suggested that it was Providence that this occurred.

To those that want to make the claim that this was retribution for the 1641 uprising should recognize the fundamental difference in the two events. One is the act of an oppressed people whose ancestral lands had been stolen, and whose rights had been taken away. The other was the act of an oppressor to subjugate through any means possible the citizenry of a country against its will. He was indiscriminate as to who was slaughtered. They need only be Irish and Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:01 PM

Penguin, how do you know no Irishman had anything to fear from him. You weren't there.

that wasn't the impression that he left. there has to be a reason for that.

Antonia Fraser's dad thought Myra Hindley was a bit of a doll. that family don't have a good reputation for character judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:22 AM

Concensus? On mudcat? Quick shoot it, it's a dangerous animal!

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:09 AM

I think the concensus is unfair. My understanding of Cromwell is that he was a compassionate general. He kept strict discipline within his army and no Irishman not in arms had no reason to fear his army. A soldier that stole some eggs in Ireland was immediately hanged. A bit rough, maybe, but this is the 17th Century, don't forget.

Guest quoted "Cromwell An Honourable Enemy" by Tom Reilly which really does paint a generous picture of Cromwell, detailing how the crimes Cromwell was supposed to have committed could not have really happened. Cromwell's time in Ireland, although not a happy time for the Irish, was not one of tyranny. It is worth remembering that Cromwell was sent by Parliament to defend the Republic against Royalist forces.

Antonia Fraser's biography of Cromwell, which is highly readable and highly detailed, offers the same opinion. It also shows that even though he was a devout Puritan, he had a lively sense of humour and was liked by those who knew him. He was neither a piece of shit nor a rough diamond. Rather, he was a man of his time who was brave enough to tackle the issues that he faced head on, and conquer them. He was a man of enormous integrity, as well.

The trouble with Cromwell is that he is judged by the standards of our time instead of his. 17th Century England is a foreign country to us. Over 300 years have gone since his death and people still cannot judge him objectively. He gets distorted through the lenses of Irish nationalist propagander, modern day royalist symphisers, and democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 08:08 AM

lets face it history can be written a dozen different ways. the history of recent times, I think would be written differently by different people on this thread.

however on the subject of Oliver Cromwell, there does seem to be a fair amount of consensus that he was a complete bastard. Perhaps not complete - nobody's perfect. But a piece of shit, rather than a rough diamond.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 07:01 AM

Thanks Nickhere, for that link.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 06:35 AM

Thanks Nickhere for that Site on Cocentration camps and Colonialism, I had a look through the England and Ireland pages, truly a horror story.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,Dazbo
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 06:09 AM

Nickhere said "but apparently to people who were alive at the time and who handed down their memories he stood out as something exceptionally cruel and savage" which sounds like accepting their contemporaries saying that the Catholics massacred 100,000 protestants(which I infer is a figure you'd dispute?)

If its your mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter that was killed (whether as a 'normal' act of war or not) must feel cruel and savage. Does the death of a close relative seem more or less cruel and savage if it's an isolated incident or part of genocide?