Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

New historical research suggests that Cromwell did not slaughter thousands of innocent men women and children at Drogheda but rather was pilloried decades later by post-Restoration Royalist historians eager to blacken the name of the late Lord Protector.

Cromwell after all committed regicide and forced many leading Royalists into exile and later as Charles II and his brother James II struggled against Parliament during their reigns, it made sense to produce black propaganda against him.

During the reign of William III and Mary II, Queen Anne and later the House of Hanover, Cromwell's usurpation of royal power made him a bogeyman as infamous as Guy Fawkes. It was only in the 19th century when Parliament finally came into its own and Victoria and her heirs became figure heads that Cromwell was rehabilitated as a great Briton.

The crisis that lead to the rise of parliamentarianism as a real force in British history was of course the failure of Charles I to defeat the Scottish Covenanters in 1639-1640 which set in motion the events that led to his execution and the emergence of the obscure country gentleman Cromwell. The leading regicides were elderly men who remembered the Catholic plots against England in the reign of Elizabeth I and James I. James and his retinue were young men who could have outlived their enemies and made a reactionary elderly Puritan parliament a memory. The core reason behind the English Civil War was taxation and overweening Royal power - the same reasons for the American Revolution over a century later. The subsequent monarchs of England all tried to restore an Absolute Monarchy. The memory of Cromwell put a spanner in the works.

You still around Azwaldo55? Just wondered why you started this post. Did my article pique your interest in the possibility that the verdict of history might be wrong about Cromwell at Drogheda and Wexford, or did it irk you like it has done other contributors to this forum? Like Pedro, you seem to have a handle on this period of history. Surely you can see that it's possible that Cromwell is innocent of committing wholesale civilian atrocities in 1649 - and that the wars that devastated the country during that period are a different ball game, kettle of sharks, altogether.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I started the thread because as Henry Ford said history is bunk.
The popular image of the heroic Cromwell in England survives from propaganda of the English anti-royalist republicanism of the late 19th century and the popular image of Cromwell in Ireland as the blackest of villains comes from Irish republican propaganda. Irish Catholics in the 18th century backed the Stuart pretenders which is why the Catholics were persecuted by penal laws. There was talk in some Irish nationalist circles in the early 20th century of inviting a German prince of the Stuart line to become King of Ireland.
However Irish republicans were hated by the Catholic Church who until well into the 20th century were sympathetic to absolute monarchs and later the 20th century dictators and hostile to modern democracy, socialism, the welfare state and secularism. Cromwell who had Charles I beheaded was therefore a hate figure and mutated out of all recognition from the real man of history who was hostile to the suffocating power of Catholic Church and Absolute Monarchs sentiments which should make him a figure Irish republicans might actually sympathize with.
Cromwell was a religious fanatic and the invasion of Ireland in 1649 proved to be a disaster for the Old English and what remained of Gaelic Irish civilization but he must be judged by facts and what can be proven rather than prevailing myths.

I don't believe I can take issue with any of the above. However, just one thing - Cromwell being a religious fanatic. There were far more members of the Long Parliament who were more anti-Catholic than Cromwell, Pymm and Prynne for instance. And get this (although I suspect you might know this already) - historians including Prof John Morrill now believe that there is evidence that Cromwell was not in favour of the Act of Settlement and the subsequent Act of Explanation, both of which were to morph into the Cromwellian Plantation of Ireland. Furthermore, Cromwell appears to have left the 'running' of Ireland largely to others when he became Protector. As John Morrill has recently said, 'By blaming Cromwell for the much more lasting horrors of the Comonwealth period in Ireland, we let those really responsible off the hook'.

Now that's gonna put the cat among the pigeons.

Me? I'm just talking about deliberate civilian atrocities at Drogheda and Wexford. The rest of this stuff is for historians to discuss. And I ain't a historian.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Referring to your book is not how the forum works. Please refer to your source material.

As per forum charter "If you cannot provide a source or reason for holding a controversial opinion then it may be better to keep it to yourself as this could be seen as trolling (i.e. controversial opinions are fine but they must be based on a source of some kind)."

In general future posts by all users need to be conducted in a more conciliatory manner.

Note- Off topic posts have been deleted where possible.

Regards
Moderator

Don't know if I'm going to be barred here, but what the heck. I am simply asking the poster to elaborate on his allegations. As I said, I fully intend to outline my arguments here with primary source material. As you have seen he/she has alleged that Cromwell, Hewson and a contemporary newsbook in some way contradicts my argument - which is pretty well known. He very obviously opted out of the discussion.

I'm surprised that you have intervened already. But that's your prerogative.

Now, when the poster defends, and elaborates on, his allegations, I will defend my position. And my position depends on his/hers. I'm not precious about my source material and am happy to present it here.

Is that not fair?

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You have made assertions that fly in the face of 350 years of historical writing and research by hundreds of historians, amateur and professional. It is your role to put forward some proof. Despite repeated request you have singularly failed to do so and have resorted to name calling. I’m out of here.

Okay here goes nothing. That Moderator is a lovely chap. I don't know what the problem is...


Let’s deal with specifics, shall we. My focus is very narrow. I've seen other posts since I starting writing this one and hopefully, I will get to them anon. Did Cromwell deliberately massacre any civilians in Drogheda and Wexford in 1649? That is the question. The only question. The nub. The issue. The thing that makes people annoyed with me.

So Number 1. The ‘Cromwell ‘ allegation from Pedroeibar:

Many observers have claimed that Cromwell himself admitted to killing ‘many inhabitants’ at Drogheda. This is because of a list of the slain that is attached to a letter (battle report) that he wrote to parliament on 27 September 1649 that is reproduced in the official parliamentary pamphlet - Letters from Ireland, relating the Several great successes it hath pleased God to give unto the Parliaments Forces there in the taking of Drogheda, Trym, Dundalk, Carlingford, and the Nury. Together with a list of the chief commanders, and the number of the officers and soldiers slain in Drogheda. . . . (1649) Wing (2nd ed.) / L1778, reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575) [7].

The original letter does not survive. In my book I have proved that this list was written on 22 September FIVE days before Cromwell wrote his letter. This is evident by John Dillingham’s (author of The Moderate Intelligencer) correspondent in Ireland who reported the same list to Dillingham on that date. (John Dillingham, The Moderate Intelligencer Number 237, Thursday September 27 to Thursday October 4, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [10], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575, [10]). Furthermore. I have shown that the list is quite clearly separate from the letter with a clear black demarcation line separating the list from the letter. Spelling differences also prevail indicating that several hands were at work and not just Cromwell’s.

(I could post the offending page of the pamphlet here if I could post images, but apparently it’s too early in my Boards.ie career here to do that. Hey Moderator! What you reckon?)

I have also proved that seven newsbooks print the same list (with differences in some names) in the early weeks of October 1649. Five of those newsbooks leave out the words ‘and many inhabitants’ and two print them. Here are the seven references:

Bernard Alsop, The Perfect Weekly Account . . . Wednesday, September 26 to Wednesday, 3 October, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [8], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [8] 10.

The Kingdomes Faithfull and impartial Scout, Number 36, Friday, 28 September to Saturday, 5 October, 1649 Thomason / E.533 [16], reel position: Thomason / 83:E.533 [16]

Robert Ibbitson, Severall Proceedings in Parliament. . . Number 1, Tuesday 25, September to Tuesday, 9 October, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [14], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [14]

The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, Number 331, Tuesday, September 25 to Tuesday, October 2, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [5], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [5]

Samuel Pecke, A Perfect Diurnall of Some Passages in Parliament Number 322, Monday September 24 to Monday October 1, 1649 Thomason / E.533 [13], reel position: Thomason / 83:E.533 [13]

Samuel Pecke, A Perfect Diurnall of Some passages in Parliament Number 323, Monday October 1 to Monday October 8, 1649 Thomason / E.533 [17], reel position: Thomason / 83:E.533 [17]

John Dillingham, The Moderate Intelligencer Number 237, Thursday September 27 to Thursday October 4, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [10], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [10]

In God’s Executioner, historian Micheál Ó’Siochrú misses two of these newsbooks. I have also proved that NONE of the newsbook writers attribute the list to Cromwell. I
Of course the crucial caveat here is that these ‘inhabitants’ might well have been armed. Because I have also discovered that Dillingham reports that some of the civilians of Drogheda got involved in the battle. The Moderate Intelligencer (30 August – 6 September) provides the evidence. Dillingham’s correspondent writes that Ormond “furnished it [Drogheda]well with all necessities, every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms, is in posture of war.”

Ormond cleared the town of all superfluous and suspected people. This is a seminal piece of evidence not usually quoted in the context of Cromwell at Drogheda. And yet it could easily be interpreted to imply that all ‘superfluous’ people, including men – not inclined to take up arms - and women and children were cleared from the town. Indeed it also implies that some inhabitants may well have taken up arms since every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms was in a posture of war. Unlike The Man in the Moon and Mercurius Elencticus, The Moderate Intelligencer was considered to be the one of the most reliable and respected broadsheets of its day. Dillingham, its author, who was renowned for his excellent contacts with both parliamentary officials and army leaders, seemed to portray an open mind and an impartial perspective on contemporary events to the point where his publication is often called The Times of its day. So if we don’t ignore Dillingham’s army contact’s evidence then we must assume that the ‘superfluous’ people in Drogheda were removed from the town.
So regarding this particular piece of evidence it is absolutely the case that we cannot be sure that Cromwell wrote ‘and many inhabitants’. And what’s more, if inhabitants did die, there is now evidence to suggest that anyone who was inclined to took up arms against parliament.

In that same issue of The Moderate Intelligencer Dillingham also provides evidence that proves most of the population were not even in Drogheda at the time when he writes:
“Ormond ‘lies between Tredagh and Trim, intending if he can to be a spectator at the siege of the first, if not of both, which by the advantage of the river, he hopes to do rather than by the valour of his men; he hath cleared Tredagh of all superfluous and suspected persons”.

Why does everybody assume that the local inhabitants stayed in the town? Granted, we do not know a lot about the movements of the inhabitants but there are some facts that are quite clear. Firstly, there was a five-month long siege of the town just eight years earlier that had dire consequences on the food and supply levels of the civilian population. Is it sensible to assume that those same inhabitants would simply stay put when they could easily flee? They had ample time to do so with the Ironsides camped outside the town for a week before hostilities began.

Secondly, we know that Aston was prepared for a long siege and that they had stocked up on supplies that would last for months. (The Kingdom’s Faithfull and Impartial Scout reported on the 5 October 1649 that there were victuals stocked up in the town to last nine months.) Thirdly, it would seem to make sense that with a population of 3,000 people and a garrison of 3,000 soldiers that a reduction in the number of mouths to feed would be an obvious military decision to make.

But that’s not the only evidence we have for civilians being dispatched from the town. We already know that Dean Nicholas Bernard’s wife and children are documented as being ‘sent out of the town’. And just to copper-fasten the suggestion that this action was desirable in order to conduct a long siege, which was exactly the plan, Ormond does exactly the same thing at Wexford. In a letter to the mayor of Wexford on 9 October, 1649, two days before the Parliamentarian army managed to force their way into the town, and still hoping for a long siege there, still outside the walls of Wexford, Ormond explains why:

"Wee are come hither to countenance the maintenance and to relieve the necessities of the towne, and doe find upon examination of the conditions thereof that provision of victuals wilbe the greatest want in all probability to draw any distresse thereon, and withal finde the Country here soe exhausted that it wilbe difficult to supply the Towne with provision for all sortes of people there. And therefore pray and require you after examination of each Inhabitants provision that you send out the unnecessary people, as ould men, women and children with that expedition that whilst wee are here, we may send them whither they propose to go themselves most safely."

We also know that within the town of Drogheda there was a civilian conspiracy to betray the place to Cromwell. The scheme of Lady Wilmot (Sir Arthur Aston’s grandmother) and her several espionage associates was exposed when her messenger, a young boy, was caught with letters in his possession that were destined for Parliamentarian hands. One of her co-conspirators was a Lady Blayney whose letter (signed A.B.) to Lieutenant-Colonel Foulkes (Colonel John Ffolk became Governor of Drogheda in 1650 according to the Corporation of Drogheda records.) opened with the line

‘Sir, The hearing of your coming this way is a great joy to me, but it has driven all the lords away, and my Ladie Moore.’

This is further evidence that non-military personnel had departed the scene. With the conspiracy exposed, Aston banished the undercover agents to the monastery at nearby Mellifont, where (it would make sense that) the town’s civilians might have been also seeking refuge.

That’s just Cromwell. Jeez, this is fricken time consuming…

Seem to have posted this twice. No idea what I'm doing...

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not annoyed with you, just repeatedly asking for sources should not have been necessary.
Much of what you have written has little bearing on what you claim. What you call ‘evidence’ is not that, it is conjecture and assumption. The ‘civilian conspiracies’ to betray Drogheda you mention are a red herring.


So what? Pick seven newspapers today and read the same story – how many will be identical? The ‘facts’ will be similar but the detail will be quite at variance. How many Iraqis were killed on mountain? Guerrillas killed –vs- government troops elsewhere? At best all that means is that there is a question mark over the date of Cromwell’s letter or if he did / did not write the list or revise it - so what? It does not disprove the consensus that civilians were killed. It’s also quite common for a politician (or his minders) to cover ass or afterwards want something seen differently. Lists usually are annexures and easily changed post event. No big deal to have them separate to the main document. O'Siochru quotes 5, is that not enough?



How can you call that evidence of clearing a town? Just because a few people left, or Ormonde wanted a reduction in numbers is no indication that any town – including Drogheda - was ‘cleared’. In fact, contrary to your assertions, they most like were not cleared. Can you imagine how clearing a town would be achieved – (“Excuse me Sir, but ASAP would you mind leaving your house, home, goods, and the safety of this walled town and get thyself with thy family off into the countryside full of marauding soldiers.”) That would really work! Were the defenders to achieve it at sword-point? Really motivating for the soldiers to see their families kicked out by colleagues! You say that the experiences of the First Siege of Drogheda would have led to an exodus – that is a very unreasonable assumption, when you should know that at the First Siege the defenders withstood repeated attacks – and held out and were rescued. All the more reason for citizens to remain inside the walls. As you state yourself, there was a huge amount of food stored at Drogheda and the cavalry was ranged to prevent people from leaving.



That is not any ‘seminal piece of evidence’ - it's a few people and it is conjecture and extrapolating data to suit your argument, so it is highly specious. Furthermore, it was a military tactic of the besiegers to prevent citizens from leaving, as it caused hassle to the defending commanders, drained resources and more importantly put pressure on food, living conditions/disease and morale. Of course any defending general would want civilians out of the way, just as much as the attackers would prevent them leaving. For example, Limerick fell as a direct result of a few new civic leaders (elected during the siege) persuading a few of Hugh Dubh’s soldiers to seize St John’s Gate and its cannon. They then threatened to turn the guns on the defenders if he did not surrender. Before that happened attempts had been made to expel some of the citizens from the City but Ireton did not allow it, and on the next attempt killed them before the walls


That’s evidence of a few people, not a population. Mellifont? Are you asserting that Cromwell would have obeyed the sanctity’ of a Catholic monastery?

I have no issues with revising the numbers of those killed, these inevitably are exaggerated, like for e.g. the numbers used in the Depositions. We see that on a daily basis in conflicts around the world.
I cannot see what your claim adds to our understanding, far too many assumptions, conjecture and lack of evidence (just because a letter is written does not mean its contents will be obeyed).

Many of your arguments can be stood on their collective heads and used against you. Rather than convincing me, the paucity of real evidence (not your surmise, conjecture or assumptions) actually strengthens my belief that the book has little merit. And as you say,

agreed, it also is very tiresome.

Oops. We crossed over there. Thanks for taking the time to respond at length. Why don't you simply read the book, dismiss it, and then we'll all be happy.

And I don't mean that in an aggressive or negative way. You have a vested interest. But your arguments are weak IMO. Tiresome is absolutely right. I completely disagree with you in all of your responses. You have to take ALL of the evidence into account. Especially Cromwell's declaration at Youghal.

I'm not copping out. I just feel you should read everything I've written.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Lets agree to disagree; no need to apologise, no hard feelings. I'll wait for the reviews and if a professional gives it a rave review I'll buy it.:)

Cool. That's a deal. Appreciate that. If a professional gives it a rave review, I'll be amazed.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Probably the only way you would have got a publisher to print the book was not to give yourself a profit. Besides loads of people publish books not looking for profit, and articles in magazines etc. Doesn't mean to say they are somehow more correct in their assertions than someone who makes a profit from a widely purchased book.

Good holy lantern Jaysus.

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

Tom Reilly, contrary to your own opinion of yourself you are not good, and I hardly think god thinks so either! Neither have you proved your case. You are selective in the use of primary sources and you seem to have an obvious anti-Nationalist, anti-Catholic bias.

Your argument collapses in the face of the phrase 'and many inhabitants'. Parliament controlled the press through the Council of State and published only its own edited and sanctioned version of the news of the day. There were other clandestine news media in circulation but these words came at the end of parliament's own published report of events at Drogheda. Parliament clearly endorsed the notion that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda perished at the hands of Cromwell's New Model Army during the siege of September 1649. This fact was not a slur on Cromwell's memory by Restoration royalists or an Irish Nationalist invention.

PS - Your manner of expression on this forum is wholly inappropriate, being facetious, emotive and confrontational with the intent, no doubt, of raising peoples' hackles and generating some publicity for yourself. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it simply and to the point. Your 'street cred' manner of expression and penchant for playing to the gallery has no relevance here.

Oh, hi Ozymandiaz. How are you? Nice to meet you. Even if it is on a forum. Me? I'm great thanks. I'm sure you're a lovely person really. Isn't this the kind of response you'd expect from me? I remember my mother telling me something very significant years ago. You might be interested to know it. "People," she said. "Never get involved with people."

You're right of course, my argument collapses in the light of your dismissal as outlined above. But you neglected to mention one thing. That's just your opinion. Others might disagree. Indeed, I do believe I disagree myself. Unfortunately I haven't got the stomach to respond here. I've realised that no matter what I say it won't make a jot of a difference. It was a mistake coing on here. But hey, God knows, I've made plenty of mistakes in the past. As for my 'street cred'. It's called 'personality' where I come from. That's who I am.

Anyway, it was nice to meet you. Maybe if we meet under different circumstances we can have a civilised conversation about it. But I'm not going to rise to you here. Sorry man. Or woman. I quit.

Tom Reilly wrote: »

do you think that the publishing of three the words 'and many inhabitants' by parliament is irrefutable proof that large numbers of grannies, granddads, uncles, aunties, teenagers, toddlers and babies were killed indiscriminately (or discriminately even) at Drogheda by Cromwell's troops?

Quite obviously, it is proof that many inhabitants, i.e. many of the people who normally lived in the town of Drogheda , were killed by Cromwell's troops.

For anybody else reading this post it should be pointed out that on Tuesday, 2 October, 1649, nearly three weeks after the storming of Drogheda, parliament voted the full text of all of Cromwell's correspondence to the Speaker of the House to be published in its official news media - "Ordered, That the several Letters from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, together with so much of Colonel Venables' Letter as concerns the Successes in Ireland, be forthwith printed and published." [House of Commons Journal, Tuesday, 2 October, 1649.] The following day Henry Scobell, Clerk of Parliament, had the full text printed for sale on the streets of London under the title 'Letters from Ireland'. On page 6 of this eight page publication, having named and listed the numbers of military killed, it clearly stated that 'many inhabitants' were also killed.

So parliament itself claimed and admitted that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda were killed. Parliament never subsequently attempted to amend that statement in any way, and neither did Cromwell himself. It was never alleged at the time by anybody that the phrase 'and many inhabitants' should not have been in the official record sanctioned by parliament or that it in any way was a mistake or misrepresentation of the facts. Without recourse to any other primary evidence the conclusion is obvious; many of the people of Drogheda died in the storming of the town following the siege.

Also, quite obviously, it cannot be any opinion of mine that 'many inhabitants' were killed by Cromwell's troops. It is an established fact based upon the authority of the records of the Westminster parliament and the newspaper it published under its own imprimatur.

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

Quite obviously, it is proof that many inhabitants, i.e. many of the people who normally lived in the town of Drogheda , were killed by Cromwell's troops.

For anybody else reading this post it should be pointed out that on Tuesday, 2 October, 1649, nearly three weeks after the storming of Drogheda, parliament voted the full text of all of Cromwell's correspondence to the Speaker of the House to be published in its official news media - "Ordered, That the several Letters from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, together with so much of Colonel Venables' Letter as concerns the Successes in Ireland, be forthwith printed and published." [House of Commons Journal, Tuesday, 2 October, 1649.] The following day Henry Scobell, Clerk of Parliament, had the full text printed for sale on the streets of London under the title 'Letters from Ireland'. On page 6 of this eight page publication, having named and listed the numbers of military killed, it clearly stated that 'many inhabitants' were also killed.

So parliament itself claimed and admitted that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda were killed. Parliament never subsequently attempted to amend that statement in any way, and neither did Cromwell himself. It was never alleged at the time by anybody that the phrase 'and many inhabitants' should not have been in the official record sanctioned by parliament or that it in any way was a mistake or misrepresentation of the facts. Without recourse to any other primary evidence the conclusion is obvious; many of the people of Drogheda died in the storming of the town following the siege.

Also, quite obviously, it cannot be any opinion of mine that 'many inhabitants' were killed by Cromwell's troops. It is an established fact based upon the authority of the records of the Westminster parliament and the newspaper it published under its own imprimatur.

Sorry Ozymandiaz, maybe you're busy and unable to post at the moment, so I just thought I'd make it easier for you. You're barking up the wrong tree with the 'and many inhabitants' angle. The inhabitants mentioned might easily have been armed. It's a question of interpretation. Historians John Morrill, Micheál Ó'Siochrú and Jason McElligott all believe as you do and I have taken all three to task over this in a very lengthy chapter in my latest work.

Just for your information, although you may already know this, 'Severall Proceedings in Parliament' was also an official parliament publication that was scripted by Scobell and the following week on Tuesday 9 October parliament printed the same list of the slain in the inaugural issue but this time the three incriminating words (and many inhabitants) are missing. (Robert Ibbitson, Severall Proceedings in Parliament. . . Number 1, Tuesday 25, September to Tuesday, 9 October, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [14], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [14]).

Just saying.

I would like you to be very clear about why you feel my argument 'collapses' based on the 'and many inhabitants' scenario. Naturally, I disagree vehemently and I have solid grounds on which to do so.

And I say again - I am talking about the unarmed blacksmiths, innkeepers, tailors, carpenters, servants, washerwomen, teenage girls, teenage boys, children, toddlers and babies of Drogheda. Those 'many inhabitants' referred to could have been armed. But you seem to dismiss that. After all, an armed civilian is no longer a civilian.

I would be interested in your (or anybody's) response to this.