jmg@houxk.UUCP (J.MCGHEE) (12/21/83)
In th year 1169 the first Anglo-Norman invaders came to Ireland and took possession of lands around Dublin since this was closest to their established beachhead on the east coast. Over a period of generations these Anglo-Norman invaders were gradually absorbed into the native culture and became as Irish as anyone else so that when king Henry VIII wanted to extend his rule in Ireland he encountered resistance from these Anglo-Normans who had originally invaded the country for England. Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I, by means of very carefully laid-out plans succeeded in extending her rule over Ireland by means of the "plantation", carefully planned communities of English colonists who grouped themselves closely together for mutual protection in fort-like walled towns. At the same time a very vigorous campaign of military conquest was carried out by the Earl of Essex and Lord Mountjoy so that the country came completely under English domination. Some decades later under Charles I, England experienced the Puritan revolution which sought to overthrow Charles. The last remaing elements of English troops loyal to Charles were in Ireland. Under these circumstances Parliament passed an act on December 8, 1641 stating: "It is resolved, that it is fit his Lordship do endeavour, with his Majesty's forces (sic), to slay and destroy all the said rebels (sic), and there adherents and relievers, by all the ways and means he may; and burn, destroy, spoil, waste, consume, and demolish all the places, towns, and houses where the said rebels are or have been relieved and harboured, and all the hay and corn there, and kill and destroy all the men there inhabiting able to bear arms". On October 24, 1644 another measure passed by Parliament stated: "that no quarter shall be given, to any Irishman, or to any papist born in Ireland". A Puritan political pamphlet of the period stated: "I beg upon my hands and knees that the expedition against them may be undertaken whilst the hearts and hands of our soldiery are hot, to whom I will be bold to say, briefly: `happy is he that shall reward them as they have served us; and cursed is he that shall do the work of the Lord negligently. Cursed be he that holdeth back his sword from blood; yea, cursed be he that maketh not his sword stark drunk with Irish blood - that maketh them not heaps, upon heaps, and their country a dwelling-place for dragons, an astonishment to nations. Let not the eye look for pity, nor the hand be spared that pities or spares them; and let him be accursed that curseth them not bitterly'". The pro-English historian Borlase stated: "the orders of Parliament were excellently well executed". Pro-English historians Leland and Warner refer to the letters of the Lords Justices themselves for the fact that the soldiers "slew all persons promiscuously, not sparing even the women". And Dr. Nalson another pro-English historian, appeals to the testimony of officers who served in the Parliamentary army, "that no manner of compassion or discrimination was shown either to age or sex". Lord Ossory, too, himself a bitter enemy of the Irish, in a letter to the Earl of Ormond, informs him how the Puritan Lord President of Munster "caused innocent and guilty alike to be executed". One of their officers, named Tichburne, who commanded in Dundalk in 1642, was able to boast that in his district "there was neither man nor beast to be found in sixteen miles between the two towns of Drogheda and Dundalk, nor on the other side of Dundalk, in the county of Monaghan, nearer than Carrickmacross". A English clergyman, Dean Bernard, describing the same scene, wrote: "By the death of so many men about us, having their houses and all their provisions either burnt or drawn hither, the dogs only surviving are found usually feeding upon their masters, which taste of man's flesh made it very dangerous for the passengers in the roads, who have been often set upon by these mastiffs, till we were careful to kill them also". When in May 1642, the Earl of Clanrickard induced the citizens of Galway to submit, and took them under the king's (sic) protection, he received a reprimand from the Lords Justices, declaring that he should have persecuted them "with fire and sword". Moreover, to prevent like clemency for the future, "they issued a general order to the commanders of all garrisons, not to presume to hold any correspondence or treaty with any of the Irish papists dwelling or residing in any place near or about their garrisons, or to give protection, immunity, or dispensation from spoil, burning, or other prosecution of war to any of them, but to persecute all such rebels with fire and sword, according to former commands and proclamations in that behalf". It totally confounds logic to see the Puritan revolutionaries who had overthrown the rightful (according to English law) king of England calling themselves "the king's forces" and persecuting the Irish who nominally supported Charles' lawful claim to be king as "rebels". This demonstrates that no matter what the circumstances involved the English mind knows only one equation with respect to the Irish: "Irish = rebels" and "rebels = Irish".
ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (12/25/83)
Houxk!jmg's explanation of the atrocities committed against the
Irish by Cromwell's army is, "no matter what the circumstances
involved the English mind knows only one equation with respect to
the Irish: 'Irish = rebels' and 'rebels = Irish'." This is at
best incomplete because it overlooks one important fact:
Cromwell (and the majority of the English) were Protestants while
Ireland was Catholic.
In order to understand the view of the English towards Catholi-
cism, let's look at the hundred years preceding Cromwell's rule.
In 1560 we find Queen Elizabeth, a protestant, ascending the
thrown. Philip II of Spain, the self appointed champion of
Catholicism, assists the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots in her at-
tempts to grab the English crown. The Pope makes his feelings
clear by excommunicating Elizabeth. While most Catholics are
loyal to their queen, agitators are telling Catholics that they
have a religious obligation to oppose Elizabeth. In 1588, Philip
declares war against England. Although he is defeated, it is
easy to see why the English begin to see Catholicism as a secular
threat. The clincher comes in 1605, when a group of English
Catholics attempt to blow up the House of Parliament. Ignoring
the fact that the plot was stopped by Catholics who betrayed it,
many English people formed the equation "Catholic = disloyal".
Although it may be hard to find justifications for committing
atrocities in the New Testament, in practice Christians have
throughout most of their history believed that they were permit-
ted, and in fact commanded, to commit atrocities against unbeli-
evers and heretics. That theory was beginning to crumble in
Cromwell's day, but it was still strong. (This is half a century
before the Age of Enlightenment.) If a list of the sins commit-
ted in the name of Christianity were to be made, Cromwell's ac-
tions in Ireland would be pretty far down on the list. Cromwell
gained power near the end of the Thirty Years' War, which was
(primarily) a Catholic/Protestant conflict. At the end of that
war one third of the population of Germany had been killed. That
is comparable to the ravages of the Black Death.
Houxk!jmg dwells at length on the idea that Charles was the
rightful king of England. This is based upon a misunderstanding
of English law. It is correct that, barring an act of parlia-
ment, Charles would have become king of England when his father
was executed. However, the the English parliament has the power
to alter the order of succession. For example, Henry VII had no
hereditary right to the thrown even after he had killed Richard
III, so parliament passed a bill making him king. Before execut-
ing Charles's father, Charles I, parliament abolished the monar-
chy, so that nobody would become king after Charles I. There be-
ing no king, they then made Cromewell lord protector. (The role
of lord protector is to rule the kingdom when the king is unable
to.) This action may have been unprecedented, but it is hard to
see what is wrong with it. If parliament had the power to make
Cromwell king, it's hard to see why they couldn't make him lord
protector instead.
Having covered the background, we can now look at the invasion
itself. Warfare is by its very nature brutal. However,
Cromwell's forces dealt much more harshly with the Irish than
with the Scots. The difference must be accounted for. As my
previous paragraphs have indicated, I believe that the difference
in treatment was due to the fact that the Irish were Catholic
while the Scots were Protestant. Cromwell believed in religious
toleration, but this did not extend to Catholics who, as I said,
were presumed to be disloyal. Furthermore, Cromwell's belief in
religious toleration was not shared by all his compatriots. Thus
while Cromwell was not interested in fighting religious cursades,
it does not follow that his army would avoid treating the Irish
as religious enemies once he was at war with them.
The alternative, that Cromwell viewed the Irish as hopelessly re-
bellious, has some support, since the Irish had often opposed
British rule. Indeed, when Henry VI ordered the Irish to arrest
Richard Duke of York, they executed the messengers (Which shows
that Christianity is not the only reason for slaughtering inno-
cent people.), and announced that acts of the English king would
not become effective unless ratified by the Irish Parliament.
But the very fact that the Scots were in rebellion made it clear
that they were rebellious too, so I think that religion must have
at least been a major factor. Recall the Puritain pamphlet quot-
ed by jmg:
...cursed is he that shall do the work of the Lord negli-
gently.... Let not the eye look for pity, nor the hand
be spared that pities or spares them; and let him be ac-
cursed that curseth them not bitterly.
I thank houxk!jmg for quoting this because it provides such a
clear statement of Christian beliefs during the period. But the
point is that the writer of this pamphlet saw the invasion of
Ireland in religious terms. He is calling for cruelty not in the
name of the state, but in the name of God.
Kenneth Almquisttjt@kobold.UUCP (T.J.Teixeira) (12/30/83)
This article (despite any alleged inaccuracies which I'm not qualified
to judge) does a reasonably good job of explaining how the
England-Ireland mess was started.
Curiously enough, it even explains much of the current situation, even
though the events in the article all happened several hundred years
ago: The Irish and the English each established stereotypes for the
other, and acted on them. At the time, there may have been some
element of merit in these stereotypes, but it was all long ago.
Hundreds of years later, some Irishmen and some Englishmen are all too
willing to persists in these stereotypes and decide that the @#$% pigs
are only fit to be slaughtered. Hence the ongoing atrocities in
England and Ireland.
* * * * * * * * * *
Rather than continuing to wallow in the muck and mire that caused this
situation, why doesn't Mr. McGhee propose a *constructive* solution to
the problem.
P.S. I don't consider "if the English don't leave Ireland we'll blow
them all up" constructive.
--
Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Westford MA
...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax,ucbcad,tektronix}!masscomp!tjt (617) 692-6200