Atrocities in Ireland

slowburner

paky wrote: »

it disappoints me that the mods changed the name of the thread. its scary to think that people can just airbrush these events from history because they don't suit the current british political agenda. theres a name for people like that and they're called holocaust deniers.

Removing 'British' from the thread title does not preclude a discussion of British atrocities.
Nothing has been airbrushed away, the scope of the thread has simply been broadened.

ejmaztec

The original title air-brushed any atrocities not carried out by the English/British.

MyKeyG

Whether people think it's changed for the better or not is immaterial imo. Going off topic is a no no on boards so surely using mod privileges to change the topic should be similarly be frowned upon.

I think think the narrow minded have been pandered to on this thread and so I for one am leaving!

Seanchai

I look forward to the thread 'Nazi atrocities in Poland' being renamed 'Atrocities in Poland'. After all we can't offend the nice invader and must, for the sake of balance you see, not imply that the occupier was less justified in his violence than were the natives who responded with violence. :rolleyes:

So much for historical debate and freedom of expression when a mod is changing a thread title following a predictable whinge by the British poster Fratton Fred, one of the greatest apologists for British imperialism on Boards.ie.

Any chance that this newfound concern could see an editing of the 'Positive Legacy of British rule' thread to something like the 'Positive Legacy of Law and Order'? Or is it OK to praise the British legacy but not to condemn it? The double standard and censorship here is fairly astounding.

CDfm

Seanchai wrote: »

'Positive Legacy of Law and Order'?

Well there was the 1916 Referendum

OhYesItIs

I'd say that we are currently living one of the most atrocious acts committed by Ireland on it's own, and for generations to come.

paky wrote: »

what were the worst atrocities carried out by the british/english in ireland? i was thinking cromwells campaign must of been the worst since it almost claimed half the population of ireland.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think this post is possibly the biggest justification for changing the title.

If you read the very interesting posts you will see nothing is being airbrushed, simply relayed in an impartial and very informative manner.

Holocaust denial, ffs.

Paky has a point about the " british political agenda" and this is very evident when I looked up the real history behind the dererters pardons campaign.

An opportunity missed to look at the Historiography and what defined British & Irish in the context.

jonniebgood1

MyKeyG wrote: »

Whether people think it's changed for the better or not is immaterial imo. Going off topic is a no no on boards so surely using mod privileges to change the topic should be similarly be frowned upon.

I think think the narrow minded have been pandered to on this thread and so I for one am leaving!

The title was changed (as suggested by several users) to broaden the discussion and you say that is narrow minded.... you are being ironic.
This forum is for discussing history, not for battles between users from different backgrounds. In any case the OP question still stands unaltered so there is no change unless being overly sensitive to the thread title.

Seanchai wrote: »

So much for historical debate and freedom of expression when a mod is changing a thread title following a predictable whinge by the British poster Fratton Fred, one of the greatest apologists for British imperialism on Boards.ie.

This forum is for discussing history, not for battles between users from different backgrounds. Infraction for personalising your post. Please move on from this now.

Please return to topic. Any possibility of discussing atrocities in Ireland is being ruined by posts such as those quoted. Whether the discussion is British atrocities or atrocities in general, this type of subject seems to attract people who are unable to properly discuss the subject at hand. Future posts such as those quoted will be dealt with, whoever they are from, in the hope that it will allow others to discuss the subject.

Moderator.

Fratton Fred

I presume Richard Bingham was an ancestor of George Charles Bingham who gained notoriety for his ruthless actions during the famine and also the ill fated charge of the light brigade.

Then there is of course the 7th Earl of Lucan, another Richard Bingham who currently has no known abode.

Nice family.

dubhthach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I presume Richard Bingham was an ancestor of George Charles Bingham who gained notoriety for his ruthless actions during the famine and also the ill fated charge of the light brigade.

Then there is of course the 7th Earl of Lucan, another Richard Bingham who currently has no known abode.

Nice family.

They are descended from his nephew Sir Henry Bingham, 1st Baronet of Castlebar. So yeah same overall family though in this case not a direct descendent.

Jacknory

mattjack wrote: »

http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/23479-cromwell-revised-separating-myths-historical-reality.html


Cromwell Revised, Separating myths and Historical Reality


No one disputes Cromwell's forces committed atrocities and by commission Cromwell was responsible for those atrocities, but the reality is Cromwell forces massacred less then 1,000 civilians in Ireland, who were put to the sword.. Cromwell's forces actually killed more civilians in Bolton then Drogheda and nor did Cromwell authorise such atrocities.

"In September 1649, he justified his sacking of Drogheda as revenge for the massacres of Protestant settlers in Ulster in 1641, calling the massacre "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood." However, Drogheda had never been held by the rebels in 1641—many of its garrison were in fact English royalists. On the other hand, the worst atrocities committed in Ireland, such as mass evictions, killings and deportation of over 50,000 men, women and children as slavesto Bermuda and Barbados, were carried out under the command of other generals after Cromwell had left for England".

His generals might have been a party to what happened but ultimately Cromwell has to be the one held responsible. Quoting that "less then 1,000 civilians in Ireland" at his hands is simply not true. General Henry Ireton, adopted a deliberate policy of crop burning and starvation, which was responsible for the majority of an estimated 600,000 deaths out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000. Ireton was a general of Cromwell so the blood spilt by Ireton was the same as Cromwell carrying this out himself whatever way you want to look at it.

Fratton Fred

dubhthach wrote: »

They are descended from his nephew Sir Henry Bingham, 1st Baronet of Castlebar. So yeah same overall family though in this case not a direct descendent.

Even so, I'm not sure I'd be overly pleased if one dated my daughter!

jonniebgood1

Off topic posts have been deleted.

The reason for this is to try and keep the thread both in line with OP and also to be consistent with my previous post.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Please return to topic. Any possibility of discussing atrocities in Ireland is being ruined by posts such as those quoted. Whether the discussion is British atrocities or atrocities in general, this type of subject seems to attract people who are unable to properly discuss the subject at hand. Future posts such as those quoted will be dealt with, whoever they are from, in the hope that it will allow others to discuss the subject.

If anyone has an issue with this or wishes to discuss it further please PM or use the feedback forum.

Moderator.

mattjack

Jacknory wrote: »

"In September 1649, he justified his sacking of Drogheda as revenge for the massacres of Protestant settlers in Ulster in 1641, calling the massacre "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood." However, Drogheda had never been held by the rebels in 1641—many of its garrison were in fact English royalists. On the other hand, the worst atrocities committed in Ireland, such as mass evictions, killings and deportation of over 50,000 men, women and children as slavesto Bermuda and Barbados, were carried out under the command of other generals after Cromwell had left for England".

His generals might have been a party to what happened but ultimately Cromwell has to be the one held responsible. Quoting that "less then 1,000 civilians in Ireland" at his hands is simply not true. General Henry Ireton, adopted a deliberate policy of crop burning and starvation, which was responsible for the majority of an estimated 600,000 deaths out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000. Ireton was a general of Cromwell so the blood spilt by Ireton was the same as Cromwell carrying this out himself whatever way you want to look at it.

Good point , I looked at Cromwell alone , you looked at the entire event. You looked at Wikipedia ..I looked elsewhere.

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

They are descended from his nephew Sir Henry Bingham, 1st Baronet of Castlebar. So yeah same overall family though in this case not a direct descendent.

Henry Bingham was the son of John Bingham - Richard's brother. There was another brother George who was Sheriff of Sligo - plus a nephew also named George Bingham and a brother-in-law whose name, if memory serves, was Thomas Higham.

Richard had no sons, only a daughter. For the life of me I can't remember if George had children, but I do know the Castlebar/Lucan line descended from John.

How John got his hands on Castlebar was also tied in to the events of 1586 and the introduction of an alleged 'new' taxation method called The Second Composition of Connacht. There was a First Composition back in the 1570s but it was never fully enforced and contained so many exceptions as to be unworkable.

Bernie Cunningham has published on the 2nd Composition ( http://www.jstor.org/pss/30008023 - for those who can access JSTOR - it's also in IHS vol XXIV #93) But, I am of the opinion that as her focus was on Clanricard and Thomond (both Loyalist) she extrapolated from her research there and has presented an inaccurate picture of the situation in non-Loyalist regions such as Mayo.

The terms and conditions of the 2nd Composition called for the absolute end to all aspects of Gaelic life. It covered everyone - whether they signed up or not and declared any objections to be treason.

It was also a work of social engineering as the Clans lost collective ownership of their lands, which was now assigned to individuals. Naturally, those who supported this enforced Anglicisation received the greatest rewards in terms of land allocation - and more importantly- tax free demesnes.

Richard MacOliverus Bourke signed the Composition as MacUillam Íochtair - agreeing that the title would die with him. He also got the lions share of the lands that went with the title - around 8,000 acres. His immediate family also did well - all receiving generous allocations.

Richard MacO kicked the bucket shortly after signing.

The seniors of the other septs did not fair so well as the Tirawley crowd - of Sliocht Ullig only The Blind Abbot received land - the majority of Burrishoole, Achill and Erris was granted to Black Tom Butler, earl of Ormond based on his alleged connection to a Thomas Botlier who'd held a grant in the region in the 13th century but whose line had died out. (it's good to be related to the Queen )

2 members of Sliocht Walter of Kilmaine received allocations, and only the senior of Slioct Edmond of Castlebar did.

This was a man named Edmond Bourke (Eamonn á Búrc) of Castlebar (he was the official Tanaiste to MacOliverus so should have become MacUilliam)- his sons objected to the terms of the Composition while it was still in the negotiation state so Edmond was declared traitor and publicly hanged under Martial Law (he was an elderly man, estimated to be in his mid 90s and he had to be carried to the gallows and held up to have the noose put around his neck) - the Bingham's held the commission of Martial law (the records are unclear whether it was Richard or John) but John did apply - to his brother- to be granted Castlebar Castle. Poor John was thwarted at the last minute when brother Richard was outranked by the 'new' Lord Deputy - William Fitzwilliam -who granted Castlebar to his own brother, Bryan Fitzwilliam. Eventually John bought the lease.

John Bingham was also responsible for the death of Eoghan Ua Flaithbhertaigh - eldest son of Gráinne Ní Mháille and son-in-law of Edmond of Castlebar.

From the Annals of Loch Cé http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100010B/index.html:

LC1586.17

The governor, and the Earl of Clann-Rickard, and the Earl of Tuadh-Mumha, accompanied by large armies, established a camp in the Tochar, and in Baile-in-Rodba; and they hanged three children in Ross-mor, whom they themselves had in their hands for a long time before that, viz., the son of the Blind Abbot, and the son of Meiler, son of Walter Fada, and the son of John Burk: and that was a pitiful deed—the hanging of the innocent children. And they killed Eoghan, the son of Domhnall-an-chogaidh O'Flaithbhertaigh, per dolum, and killed and hanged several of his people. And the army that committed those deeds brought three thousand cows with them, and entirely plundered Ciarraidhe.

Eoghan was arrested for treason - he was accused of giving aid to her Majesties enemies by allowing those in rebellion to keep their cattle on his lands - those 3,000 cattle mentioned in Loch Cé. He was arrested by John Bingham - after Eoghan's followers had been hanged - but while on route back to Athlone, Eoghan died from multiple stab wounds - according to Richard Bingham's accounts while trying to escape - 'and in pursuit was slain'. The man who killed him was Captain Grene O'Molloy - and Irishman in Bingham's army.

John then arrested Eoghan's Mother - Gráinne Ní Mháille, who had been summoned under license of safe passage to Athlone by Richard. He also ordered her to bring all of her portable goods. Her goods were seized by the Bingham's and she was sentenced to hang under Martial Law. This was where Bingham made a tactical error. Gráinne's son in law - Risteard MacDemann an Corrain of Erris (referred to in the State Papers as Devil's Hook - but he was in fact the son of Devil's Hook) offered himself as hostage to secure Gráinne's release. MacDemann was a bit Michael Collins in that the English had no idea what he looked like as neither he nor his father before him ever agreed to a meeting with any Tudor official.

Whatever the reason - MacDemann was not properly secured and rode out of Athlone with his newly freed, and considerably poorer, mother-in-law.

Now, the question is - does the implementation of such a biased piece of legislation and it's enforcement via the State sanctioned killing of those who may possibly object an act of Atrocity?

- Eoghan Ua Flaithbhertaigh had signed and been allocated land in Galway, but it was possible he may act to support his father-in-law.
Gráinne as a woman would not expect to be granted land but her son Tibbóid na Long and son-in-law MacDemann would certainly have expected to - instead they all found themselves tenants of Ormond.
Plus she was unlikely to take what she saw as the murder of her son lying down. It was one of the main issues she complained to Elizabeth about in 1593 - working from memory but I think it's 63/170/63 in the State Papers.

Hundreds were executed by the Bingham brother in 1586/7 - the heaviest losses were incurred by the Gaelicised Sliocht Ullig. I have researched the identities of the non-Sliocht Ullig victims and in each case have been able to demonstrate a connection to Gráinne Ní Mháille (all 3 children hanged were related to her by marriage- e.g. the Blind Abbot was her brother-in-law) and via her back to Sliocht Ullig - no wonder R Bingham called her 'the nurse to all rebellions'.

The evidence clearly shows Richard Bingham and his immediate family targeted, executed and seized the property of one particular extended family - that of Gráinne.

Is that not also an atrocity?

CDfm

So in this context it was "legal" for the English to commit atrocities against those who did not surrender ?

Also, certain Chiefs did surrender and claim clan lands ?

Do we know what proportion and who did so ?

dubhthach

One thing that strikes me about the whole "surrender of clan lands" is it reminds me of the US Dawes Act of 1887 which set out to divide tribal land which was held in "commonage" into allotments for individual Indians.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

So in this context it was "legal" for the English to commit atrocities against those who did not surrender ?

Also, certain Chiefs did surrender and claim clan lands ?

Do we know what proportion and who did so ?

Absolutely.

Not just against those who did not surrender - but also against those who voiced any objection to the terms.

The premise was simple -the legislation stated that all inhabitants of Connacht were bound by the terms of the Composition but only a chosen few were members of the commission that drew up those terms. If I remember correctly it had about 10 members- Tudor officials, interested earls, local Anglican Bishops plus who ever was the 'Lord'/'Chieftain' of the extended Clan- for example all of the Bourkes of Mayo were represented by Ricard MacOliverus as MacUilliam - as if that title equated to an English earl giving him the right to negotiate for all. A right Gaelic law certainly didn't give him. In that regard it was a re-hash of the old Surrender and Regrant -One Lord to rule them all - one lord to bind them. One Lord to grab the land and it the future grind them .

The Anglican church had 2 bishops on the commission (bishop of Tuam did rather well out it it actually), there were a few Tudor officials such as Dillon the tax collector (guess what - he got land!), the Brownes of The Neal (now of Westport Hse ), Nick White - master of the Rolls,must not forget the soon to be major landowner in the region- Tom Butler earl of Ormond and of course, Richard Bingham.

So people summoned to sign were presented with a fait acompli - sign here to agree to what we have told you you are getting or be guilty of treason. Sentence of death.

The Bingham's preferred to use Martial Law as it granted the holder of the Commission of ML a share of the...shall we say accused's... property (what proportion is stated in the Edward's article I quoted in previous post) but if found guilty under Common Law - their property reverted to the State. Plus Martial Law avoided all of that messing about with Sessions and due process...and records...evidence etc etc.


Indeed, the already dictatorial (and financially rewarding) powers available to Bingham under Martial Law were extended in 1588 by Wm Fitzwilliam [it's a document called the Fitzwilliam book of Instructions -( I think July) 1588, it's in the State Papers Ireland] - little gems like 'if you think they are lying - torture them until they stop lying' and 'if you suspect they may possibly be considering rebellion - execute them'.

Anyone who voiced any objection was automatically deemed guilty of treason - the most serious crime in the Tudor Big Big Big Book of Laws - and Bingham was given carte blanch to deal with them as he saw fit - as long as it didn't cost the Exchequer any money of course.
He boasted in letters to London that he was forcing people to declare their true hatred of the Queen by squeezing them - he would arrest and execute relatives, seize their goods, take their children hostage to be raised as 'civilised' men (Gráinne's son Tibbóid na Long was 'raised' by George Bingham - he was the only one of 14 such children placed with GB not to be hanged - no idea how he managed that.) He was allowed away with it - despite charges being brought against him at least twice and damaging evidence against him from the like of Dillon and White - because the project paid for itself. Zero cost to Elizabeth - her wet dream.

Of the major landholders (or eventual landholders) obviously the members of the Commission all signed including the earls of Clanricard, Thomond and Ormond.

In Galway, Morrough Na Tuath - the Uí Flaithbhertaigh also singed getting a large chunk of Moycullen but kicked off when he found out his 'heartland' of Gnobeg was given to an Anglicised cousin.

In Ballinhinch Eoghan and Morrough Na Moar Ua Flaithbhertaigh (two of Grainne's sons) signed and got Bunowen - but much of what 'should' have been 'theirs' was given to Morrough na Tuath's son Teige.

It's hard to ascertain who did and did not actually sign in Mayo - apart from R MacOliverus - as opposition to it there had kicked off even before the commissioners met.

Essentially, a few of the lads and lasses plus their children from Sliocht Walter, Sliocht Edmond and Sliocht Ullig got together, 'occupied' 2 tower houses (under Irish law these tower houses did 'belong' to one of them - under English law - who the hell knew who owned what any more!) and refused to fill in the forms in 1585 - with the exception of Risteard Mac Demann, his wife Mairead Ní Fhlaithbhertaigh and son Daithaí, - the occupiers had all been ececuted by 1586.

I've really only examined Mayo in depth - and it would be a days works to post who got what and how they were connected, or not, to who decided who got what - the whole thing was published in 1936: Freeman (ed), Compossicion Booke of Conought - it is in early modern English.

Plus - just because it was agreed - doesn't mean one actually got - to work out who actually got requires a trawl through a series of volumes which are called the Fiants
[
The Irish Fiants of the Tudor Sovereigns During the Reigns of Henry VIII,
Edward VI, Philip & Mary, and Elizabeth I.]

Lastly, in the case of Mayo - once it all really kicked off in 1585 - it didn't end until after Kinsale...but that's another story...;)

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

One thing that strikes me about the whole "surrender of clan lands" is it reminds me of the US Dawes Act of 1887 which set out to divide tribal land which was held in "commonage" into allotments for individual Indians.

Exactly!;)

MarchDub

Many decades ago I had to take an exam which - among other US Fed bills - involved the Dawes Act. So going from memory here - I will try and find references - the Act was partly the result of pressure from American Indian groups who wanted assimilation into Federal law and full US citizenship. It didn't quite work out as planned but was not seen at the time as an 'imposition' of the law on their former land 'rights'.

In fact the whole of the 'Indian Nation' did not get full assimilation into US citizenship until the early 1920s.

But - are we now including 'the world' atrocities in this thread? I only ask...:)

Bannasidhe

MarchDub wrote: »

Many decades ago I had to take an exam which - among other US Fed bills - involved the Dawes Act. So going from memory here - I will try and find references - the Act was partly the result of pressure from American Indian groups who wanted assimilation into Federal law and full US citizenship. It didn't quite work out as planned but was not seen at the time as an 'imposition' of the law on their former land 'rights'.

In fact the whole of the 'Indian Nation' did not get full assimilation into US citizenship until the early 1920s.

But - are we now including 'the world' atrocities in this thread? I only ask...:)

People who wanted assimilation like the earl of Thomond perhaps?

Weeeeellll we could change it to 'dodgy do-ings that anyone who had any connection to Ireland whatsoever may,or may not, have been involved in'

Helloooo General Phillip Sheridan who introduced scorched earth tactics to the 'Indian' Wars in the US - mammy and daddy from Cavan and Acting Brigadier-General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer who gave the order to open fire at Amritsar, Punjab, India. Son of an Irishman and alum of Midleton College, Cork :pac:

MarchDub

Bannasidhe wrote: »

People who wanted assimilation like the earl of Thomond perhaps?

Well they likely share a similarity with both being cockamamie notions :pac:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Weeeeellll we could change it to 'dodgy do-ings that anyone who had any connection to Ireland whatsoever may,or may not, have been involved in'

Sound idea - no point in having any boundaries whatsoever I say.

Bannasidhe

MarchDub wrote: »

no point in having any boundaries whatsoever I say.

Apart from the boundaries imposed by the evidence of course.

eire4

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is a broad question.

I think a clear case could be made to put forward the 1840's famine as an answer to this question. I guess it depends on how you define 'atrocities'.

I was just thinking of the famine myself. I would certainly class that as one of the worst atrocities the English inflicted on Ireland.

eire4

owenc wrote: »

Exactly. Irish people can't say anything nice about the british people. And my thoughts are proven when i look at the after hours forum and find a disgusting thread about the british flag.

A very broad sweeping generalisation which is totally untrue. Why the Irish Taoiseach was recently in London saying many positive things.

P. Breathnach

eire4 wrote: »

I was just thinking of the famine myself. I would certainly class that as one of the worst atrocities the English inflicted on Ireland.

I blame the famine on phytopthora infestans.

MarchDub

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I blame the famine on phytopthora infestans.

That was the name of the potato blight - the Famine that resulted was caused by human actions.

Bannasidhe

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I blame the famine on phytopthora infestans.

Combined with Laissez Faire government, over population, constant division of already small landholdings to ensure every son got an equal share, disinclination by most landlords to improve conditions, corruption - esp at local level, lack of education, medical care, welfare...

Scotland also suffered a famine in the 1840s due to potato blight -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Potato_Famine. It had similar socio-economic conditions as Ireland.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Combined with Laissez Faire government, over population, constant division of already small landholdings to ensure every son got an equal share, disinclination by most landlords to improve conditions, corruption - esp at local level, lack of education, medical care, welfare...

.

Mmmmmm, were some descended from Irish Chieftains ?????

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Mmmmmm, were some descended from Irish Chieftains ?????

Admiral James McEdward O'Brien, 3rd Marquess of Thomond, GCH (1769–1855), styled Lord James O'Brien from 1809 to 1846, was a British naval officer.

O'Brien, born in 1769, was third son of Edward Dominic O'Brien, captain in the army (d. 1801). His mother was Mary Carrick, and his uncle, Murrough O'Brien, was first Marquess of Thomond. He inherited his title on the death of his brother William O'Brien, 2nd Marquess of Thomond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Brien,_3rd_Marquess_of_Thomond

Lucius (McEdward) O'Brien, 13th Baron Inchiquin (5 December 1800 – 22 March 1872), known as Sir Lucius O'Brien, 5th Baronet from 1837 to 1855, was an Irish politician and nobleman.
[edit]Biography

He was born at Dromoland Castle in 1800, the eldest son of Sir Edward O'Brien, 4th Baronet and Charlotte Smith. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, graduating B.A. in 1825.[1] In 1826, he replaced his father as Tory Member of Parliament for Clare, but was unseated in 1830 by the Whig candidates. He unsuccessfully contested the county again in 1835, but was appointed High Sheriff of Clare for that year instead. Upon the death of his father in 1837, he succeeded to the baronetcy, and he was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Clare in 1843.
He again contested Clare in 1847, topping the poll and ousting Cornelius O'Brien. In 1848, he published a book, Ireland in 1848: the late famine and the Poor Laws. During the same year, his brother William Smith O'Brien, a Liberal, led an abortive rebellion and narrowly escaped hanging. O'Brien did not contest Clare in 1852.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_O%27Brien,_13th_Baron_Inchiquin