Atrocities in Ireland

P. Breathnach

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...

Agreed.

All of those conditions, except for a strongly doctrinaire laissez-faire government, were present before 1845, and were not directly "done" to Ireland by England (or even by the UK).

P. Breathnach

CDfm wrote: »

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

I am sure that some were. Others were probably descended from the Normans or "old English". And, of course, others were descended from more recent arrivals, from Tudor or Stuart or Cromwellian times. Many of these people saw themselves as Irish, albeit as being quite different from their impoverished tenants. They distinguished themselves on social class, not on nationality. They identified more readily with the wealthy denizens of England or Scotland or Wales than with the peasants of Ireland.

Bannasidhe

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Agreed.

All of those conditions, except for a strongly doctrinaire laissez-faire government, were present before 1845, and were not directly "done" to Ireland by England (or even by the UK).

No more or less then they were 'done' to Scotland.

Plus, a lot of the pre-conditions existed even before the Act of Union and Westminster did make some efforts with municipal reforms, free infirmaries and dispensaries, and the workhouses. They were drop in the ocean stuff however and little was done about conditions for rural tenants and small holders.

If anyone interested in the subject of the conditions in the decades before the famine I would recommend an essay by R.B. McDowell 'Ireland on the Eve of the Famine' in Dudley Edwards and Desmond Williams (Eds) The Great Famine. Studies in Irish History 1845-52 (Lilliput 1994) - it's a real eye opener!

CDfm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

They distinguished themselves on social class, not on nationality. They identified more readily with the wealthy denizens of England or Scotland or Wales than with the peasants of Ireland.

A very important point even today.

In a country like Ireland the control of food & shelter was the power of life and death.

jonniebgood1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No more or less then they were 'done' to Scotland.

Plus, a lot of the pre-conditions existed even before the Act of Union and Westminster did make some efforts with municipal reforms, free infirmaries and dispensaries, and the workhouses. They were drop in the ocean stuff however and little was done about conditions for rural tenants and small holders.

If anyone interested in the subject of the conditions in the decades before the famine I would recommend an essay by R.B. McDowell 'Ireland on the Eve of the Famine' in Dudley Edwards and Desmond Williams (Eds) The Great Famine. Studies in Irish History 1845-52 (Lilliput 1994) - it's a real eye opener!

So can it be called an atrocity?
The pre-conditions may have existed elsewhere but the highland potatoe famine did not have the same impact as in Ireland. The pre-conditions can be blamed for the initial severity of the Irish famine but what of the following years. And what of Trevelyan?
Atrocity or natural disaster?

P. Breathnach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

So can it be called an atrocity?
The pre-conditions may have existed elsewhere but the highland potatoe famine did not have the same impact as in Ireland. The pre-conditions can be blamed for the initial severity of the Irish famine but what of the following years. And what of Trevelyan?
Atrocity or natural disaster?

In my lexicon, an atrocity involves positive action designed to bring about harm. A failure to act can be reprehensible, but it is not an atrocity.

And what of Trevelyan?

Bannasidhe

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

So can it be called an atrocity?
The pre-conditions may have existed elsewhere but the highland potatoe famine did not have the same impact as in Ireland. The pre-conditions can be blamed for the initial severity of the Irish famine but what of the following years. And what of Trevelyan?
Atrocity or natural disaster?

Well, the population of Scotland was reduced by 1.7 m people through death and emigration and talking to Scottish friends it certainly has had an impact on the national psyche. Perhaps the Scots have been less forthcoming about publicising their national traumas. This may change when they hold a referendum on separation.

Whether it was an atrocity or a failure by the authorities to deal with a natural disaster is a good question and not one I am sure I can answer.

Certainly there was an element within the establishment (in the UK and Ireland) that sought to use the tragedy -landlords like Inchquin were quick to dispatch people off on coffin ships so they could implement agricultural 'improvements' - sheep were more profitable then tenant farmers. So evictions were common. If people did not have the fare to emigrate - or the strength to do so - they were left to die.


Trevelyan was one of those who suggested that it was natures way of dealing with the population problem and that by adopting a stance of non-interference with a natural event (crop failure) and allowing nature to take its course, government policy would work 'to stimulate the industry of the people, to augment the productive powers of the soil, and to promote the establishment of new industrial occupations so as to cause the land once more to support its population, and to substitute a higher standard of subsistence, and a higher tone of popular character'. (Great Famine p 258)

On one hand, by the end of 1848 £7,918,400 had been spent on Famine relief by the government (Great Famine p 177). So steps were being taken.

On the other hand - much of the available relief was controlled by a small group of people who made a lot of money out of it - kickbacks, sale of food on blackmarket, ratcheting up prices for even basic foodstuffs.

The Poor Laws also encouraged evictions - landlord were responsible to pay full rates for occupied plots valued at less the £4 - they paid nothing for unoccupied plots.


In keeping with laissez faire style economics - In 1850 all of the debts - relief, drainage schemes, public works etc - were consolidated into one (£8,111,941) - £500,000 had already been repaid and a further £3,722,255 was to be repaid from rates and cess over a 40 year period - at a paltry 3 1/2 % interest. :eek: This led to rate riots as people simply couldn't pay.



In 1847 6,058 deaths were attributed to starvation. Between 1846 and 1851 21,770 are recorded as dying of hunger. Hundred of thousands died to related factors such as fever, dysentery and other famine related conditions.

The population in 1851 was two million less then the estimated population in 1846.

It cannot be disputed that the resources of the British Empire were not employed to ease conditions - for various reasons.


I think perhaps that the famine itself was caused by a variety of pre-existing factors combined with a natural disaster, - it was a catastrophe waiting to happen - but I also think the attitude adopted by the government, so adverse to the idea of welfare, in insisting that a people already starving and unable to afford food should pay back the cost of relief via rates even as that disaster was continuing plus a Poor Law system that encouraged evictions further compounding the problem could well be called an atrocity.

jonniebgood1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In my lexicon, an atrocity involves positive action designed to bring about harm. A failure to act can be reprehensible, but it is not an atrocity.

And what of Trevelyan?

We looked at Trevelyan before and there was harm caused by his actions as well as his inactions.

He was against railway construction as a form of relief and successfully opposed Russell’s scheme for the distribution of some £50,000 worth of seed to tenants. The failure of government relief schemes finally became clear to Trevelyan and early in 1847 soup kitchens were organised under a high-level government commission. It worked badly.

In the autumn of 1847, Trevelyan ended government-sponsored aid to the distressed Poor Law districts although there was an outbreak of cholera. He declared that the Famine was over, and that from now on Irish landlords were to be responsible for financing relief works. He gained a well-deserved reputation as a cold-hearted and uncompassionate administrator. On 27 April 1848 he was given a knighthood for his services to Ireland. The Irish Crisis published in 1848 contains his unsympathetic views on the Famine and its victims. http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Charles_Edward_Trevelyan

His intentions could be queried also along with his actions:

A Trevelyan letter to Edward Twisleton, Chief Poor Law Commissioner in Ireland, contains the censorious, "We must not complain of what we really want to obtain. If small farmers go, and their landlords are reduced to sell portions of their estates to persons who will invest capital we shall at last arrive at something like a satisfactory settlement of the country". http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/historical-notes-god-and-england-made-the-irish-famine-1188828.html

P. Breathnach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

We looked at Trevelyan before and there was harm caused by his actions as well as his inactions.

His intentions could be queried also along with his actions:

I have no doubt that Trevelyan embodied much of the spirit of laissez faire. I suspect that there were other people near the centre of power who even more committed to the doctrine and who would have opposed any government intervention, even the paltry efforts that were made.

I am not attempting to excuse Trevelyan. My concern is that by focusing attention on him, people might be distracted from a wider consideration of what was involved.

In similar vein, there is a tendency to blame landlords for the disaster. They did not all behave in the same way, so it is wrong to tar them all with the one brush.

dubhthach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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



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

Not forgetting Murchadh na dTóiteán Ó Briain (Murrough of the burnings) 6th Baron Inchiquin (1st Earl of Inchiquin as well) and responsible for the Sack of Cashel while fighting on the Parlimentarian side in 1647 (2 years before Cromwell even arrived)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murrough_O%27Brien,_1st_Earl_of_Inchiquin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Cashel

Among those killed was Theobald Stapleton a priest who is very important figure when it comes to the Irish language. He had translated the catchecism into Early-Modern Irish in Flanders in 1639 and had proposed a spelling reform which simplified the written language. Many of those suggestion didn't become standard in Irish until the government adopted "An Caighdeán Oifigiúil" (The official standard) in the 1950's

(The Standardization of Irish Spelling: an Overview. [Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society, J22, 1997/2 pp19-23] -- http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j22/irish.php )

eire4

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I blame the famine on phytopthora infestans.

That was what attacked the potato certainly. But it was the actions of the English before, during and after the blight struck that resulted in the atrocity that the famine became.

CDfm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In similar vein, there is a tendency to blame landlords for the disaster. They did not all behave in the same way, so it is wrong to tar them all with the one brush.

The famine is a bit off topic in this and having a look at Jane Austens nieces I came accross this on the husband with different perspectives.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~donegal/chapter_two.htm

and this

http://www.libraryireland.com/Jaunting-Car/Gweedore-Glenties.php

and this

http://webir.tcd.ie/bitstream/2262/39635/1/Sin%20Sheep%20and%20Scotsmen%20%20John%20George%20Adair%20and%20the%20Derryveagh%20evictions%201861%20-%20Vaughan.pdf

Some were "benevolent" and others were land speculators seeking to maximize return on an asset.

The land holding system was complex and maybe that " non military" type issue deserves another thread.

Bannasidhe

eire4 wrote: »

That was what attacked the potato certainly. But it was the actions of the English before, during and after the blight struck that resulted in the atrocity that the famine became.

The conditions which led to the famine were in place before the Act of Union when Ireland had it's own parliament in Dublin - therefore how can conditions be blamed on the 'English' - Parliament was composed of Irish and Anglo-Irish, elected by Irish voters. What they had in common was they were all Anglicans and very, very rich.

Are you suggesting that all the members of the Irish parliament which 'ruled' - with complete legislative independence from Westminster from 1782 -1800 - while these appalling conditions were coming into existence were 'English'?

Including the likes of :

Sir Edward O'Brien, 4th Bt.
M, b. 17 April 1773, d. 13 March 1837

Sir Edward O'Brien, 4th Bt. was born on 17 April 1773.2 He was the son of Rt. Hon. Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Bt. and Anne ffrench.1 He married Charlotte Smith, daughter of William Smith, on 12 November 1799. He died on 13 March 1837 at age 63.3
He was Member of Parliament (M.P.) –1800 and County Clare 1802–26 Ennis 1795. He gained the title of 4th Baronet O'Brien.

Rt. Hon. Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Bt.1
M, #38353, b. 2 September 1731, d. 15 January 1795

Rt. Hon. Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Bt. was born on 2 September 1731.

He was the son of Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Bt. and Mary Hickman.2 He married Anne ffrench, daughter of Robert ffrench and Nichola Acheson, on 26 May 1768.3 He died on 15 January 1795 at age 63.3

He was Member of Parliament (M.P.) –68 and 1790–96, County Clare 1768–83 and Tuam 1783–90, Clerk Crown and Hanaper 1788–95, Fellow, Royal Society (F.R.S.) Ennis 1761.
He held the office of Member of Parliament (M.P.). He was Privy Counsellor (P.C.). He gained the title of 3rd Baronet O'Brien. He was invested as a Fellow, Royal Society (F.R.S.).4

http://thepeerage.com/p3836.htm

By what stretch of the imagination can an O'Brien of Clare be called English?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Land in 19th century Ireland' perhaps? Broad enough to include Landlords, tenants, managers, sub-tenants and various policies - agricultural improvement, clearances, evictions etc.

or we could just call it 'The Field' and have a very broad discussion of Irish relationship with land across the ages...

Thread started - we kick off with Captain Boycott.

slowburner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://thepeerage.com/p3836.htm

By what stretch of the imagination can an O'Brien of Clare be called English?

Wondering if we should question the usefulness of attributing nationality to surnames and following the O'Brien genealogy back as far as we can through the peerage link we get this:

Donnell More, King of Thomond

M, #102848, d. 1194

Last Edited=19 Aug 2008 Donnell More, King of Thomond was the son of Turlough, King of Thomond. He died in 1194.
He gained the title of King Donnell of Thomond.

So you would probably have to admit that he was of Irish descent

My own surname sits comfortably in both Irish and English.
One branch is said to have come from Somerset and another from Longford.
Using surnames as an indicator of nationality in the Anglo-Irish context, is probably a bit risky.

Bannasidhe

slowburner wrote: »

Wondering if we should question the usefulness of attributing nationality to surnames and following the O'Brien genealogy back as far as we can through the peerage link we get this:
So you would probably have to admit that he was of Irish descent

My own surname sits comfortably in both Irish and English.
One branch is said to have come from Somerset and another from Longford.
Using surnames as an indicator of nationality in the Anglo-Irish context, is probably a bit risky.

I think that as the surname O'Brien indicates direct descent from Boru and all of the O'Briens I referenced as MPs etc were from Clare (Thomond)- and at least one was born in Dromoland Castle - we can safely assume in this instance they were Irish. Just very Anglicised.

William Smith O'Brien - a member of that branch of the O'Briens, born at Dromoland and leader of the 1848 rebellion - very much considered himself Irish and boasted of his descent from Boru. http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/people/smithob.htm

In the case of Gaelic Ireland - that was exactly what one's surname did - identify your 'people' i.e. 'race'. So to them, anyone with a surname like Fitzgerald was Old English - simple as.
I would hesitate to call Jim Callaghan, Gus O'Donnell, Ronald Regan or Jason Donovan Irish however - despite their surnames.;)

dubhthach

Indeed the O'Brien's have unbroken lineage back to Brian Boru. Of course the wider genealogy attached to the Dál gCais is falsified. eg. that Cormac Cas (Dál gCais = seed of Cas) was brother of Eoghain Mór (ancestor of Eoghanacht) with earliest mention of such a connection in the 9th century.

CDfm

dubhthach wrote: »

Indeed the O'Brien's have unbroken lineage back to Brian Boru. Of course the wider genealogy attached to the Dál gCais is falsified. eg. that Cormac Cas (Dál gCais = seed of Cas) was brother of Eoghain Mór (ancestor of Eoghanacht) with earliest mention of such a connection in the 9th century.

I think the O'Briens may need a thread of their own.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

I think the O'Briens may need a thread of their own.

Are you trying to get me killed? :eek:

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you trying to get me killed? :eek:

That would be an atrocity & they got good at that when the started hanging out with the you know who :pac:

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

That would be an atrocity & they got good at that when the started hanging out with the you know who :pac:

Some people would say the rot set in when Mór Ní Bhrian married William Concur de Burgh back in 1185.

Others might claim, it may have begun before that - sure wasn't Mór's daddy, Domhnall Mor Ua Brien married to Urlachen Mac Mhurchada - daughter of Diarmait na-nGall Mac Murchada and step-sister of Aoife Mac Mhurchada a.k.a Mrs Strongbow.

http://www.celtic-casimir.com/webtree/7/24910.htm

jonniebgood1

OK so I know people have views on the thread title. It probably does'nt help to vary the content more but I thought that seeing as atrocities in Ireland is obviously focused on British actions that this article was relevant. Controlling an empire required the same type of control no matter where it was and several names are dropped in here with some decent book references:

So we have briefly looked at the famine. In Ireland during the famine years large amounts of grain were still being exported while Irish poor died of hunger. Was this a once off occurance?

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Niño drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way". The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.

As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought". The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, like Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died.

And how about in the last century?

Three recent books - Britain's Gulag by Caroline Elkins, Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis - show how white settlers and British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s. Thrown off their best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organise - some of them violently - against colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps. Most of the remainder - more than a million - were held in "enclosed villages". Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes". British soldiers used a "metal castrating instrument" to cut off testicles and fingers. "By the time I cut his balls off," one settler boasted, "he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket." The soldiers were told they could shoot anyone they liked "provided they were black". Elkins's evidence suggests that more than 100,000 Kikuyu were either killed or died of disease and starvation in the camps. David Anderson documents the hanging of 1,090 suspected rebels: far more than the French executed in Algeria. Thousands more were summarily executed by soldiers, who claimed they had "failed to halt" when challenged.

The article is from 2005 and can be read in full here
It challenges the view of some and I came across it last year when looking at the Armenien Genocide. Its relevence here is in relation to the discussion on the Irish famine. If a situation of negligence repeats itself enough times I would class it as atrocious.

eire4

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The conditions which led to the famine were in place before the Act of Union when Ireland had it's own parliament in Dublin - therefore how can conditions be blamed on the 'English' - Parliament was composed of Irish and Anglo-Irish, elected by Irish voters. What they had in common was they were all Anglicans and very, very rich.

Are you suggesting that all the members of the Irish parliament which 'ruled' - with complete legislative independence from Westminster from 1782 -1800 - while these appalling conditions were coming into existence were 'English'?

Including the likes of :


Rt. Hon. Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Bt.1
M, #38353, b. 2 September 1731, d. 15 January 1795



http://thepeerage.com/p3836.htm

By what stretch of the imagination can an O'Brien of Clare be called English?

I stand by my statement that the famine was an atrocity which was caused by English actions before during and after the actual event. Facts are the English conquered Ireland more or less fully after the Battle of Kinsale at which point they set about the extermination of the Irish people and their old way of life with a gusto. These policies lead to an Irish population which by the mid 1800's was poverty stricken, living in virtual servitude and totally dependant on the potato for physical survival. When the blight struck the consequences as we all know were horrific and left an indelible and deep scar on the Irish for generations to come.

Fratton Fred

So what about the ones not living on farms, you know, the people living in Cork, Dublin and Belfast?

Bannasidhe

eire4 wrote: »

I stand by my statement that the famine was an atrocity which was caused by English actions before during and after the actual event. Facts are the English conquered Ireland more or less fully after the Battle of Kinsale at which point they set about the extermination of the Irish people and their old way of life with a gusto. These policies lead to an Irish population which by the mid 1800's was poverty stricken, living in virtual servitude and totally dependant on the potato for physical survival. When the blight struck the consequences as we all know were horrific and left an indelible and deep scar on the Irish for generations to come.

If their aim was to exterminate the Irish people they were appallingly inept at it given the population of Ireland just before the famine was over 8 million.

By 1841, the population had reached 8.2 million (according to the census, but the actual figure may be nearer 8.5 million). The population would probably have levelled off at a value of 9 million had it not been for the famine that began in 1845.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/famine/demographics_pre.html

I am not saying the conquest of Ireland did not set in motion the events that led to the famine. What I am questioning is your assumption that everything that happened is the fault of the English and only the English when there were more then enough Irish willing to put the boot into their own people - or do we ignore that as it does conform to your particular stance?

Perhaps you could explain to me where Daniel O'Connell's family got their money from - what with them being Irish Catholics...

ejmaztec

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If their aim was to exterminate the Irish people they were appallingly inept at it given the population of Ireland just before the famine was over 8 million.

I think that the following is some of the proof that there was no intention of exterminating the Irish population. The authorities would never have allowed any Irish person to set foot in England, Scotland or wales.

It should be noticed that the Irish population of Liverpool, always large, was enormously increased by the inrush of immigrants after the Potato Famine of 1845–6; over 90,000 entered the town in the first three months of 1846, and nearly 300,000 in the twelve months following July 1847. Most of these subsequently emigrated to America, but many thousands, unable to find the passage money, remained to swell the misery of the Liverpool slums.
From: 'Liverpool: Trade, population and geographical growth', A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4 (1911), pp. 37-38. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41371 Date accessed: 25 January 2012.

LordSutch

eire4 wrote: »

I stand by my statement that the famine was an atrocity which was caused by English actions before during and after the actual event. Facts are the English conquered Ireland more or less fully after the Battle of Kinsale at which point they set about the extermination of the Irish people and their old way of life with a gusto. These policies lead to an Irish population which by the mid 1800's was poverty stricken, living in virtual servitude and totally dependant on the potato for physical survival. When the blight struck the consequences as we all know were horrific and left an indelible and deep scar on the Irish for generations to come.

Jezuz that's a pretty hard hitting statement, specially the bit . . .

"the English conquered Ireland more or less fully after the Battle of Kinsale at which point they set about the extermination of the Irish people"

I mean is that really true? or is that an opinion, or what? I don't have the knowledge of that period of Irish history.

dubhthach

LordSutch wrote: »

Jezuz that's a pretty hard hitting statement, specially the bit . . .

"the English conquered Ireland more or less fully after the Battle of Kinsale at which point they set about the extermination of the Irish people"

I mean is that really true? or is that an opinion, or what? I don't have the knowledge of that period of Irish history.

One thing it does is ignore the fact that Gaelic Irish and Gaelicized "Old English" fought also on the English side (Dublin Castle admin) during the nine year war. Life is never Black or White, but multiple shades of grey.

CDfm

LordSutch wrote: »

Jezuz that's a pretty hard hitting statement, specially the bit . . .

"the English conquered Ireland more or less fully after the Battle of Kinsale at which point they set about the extermination of the Irish people"

I mean is that really true? or is that an opinion, or what? I don't have the knowledge of that period of Irish history.

They took a real interest in Ireland and the welfare of its people improving houses , farming techniques & education.

Elisabeth I is particularly fondly remembered and the phrase "a chicken in every pot" is believed to have originated with her. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

They took a real interest in Ireland and the welfare of its people improving houses , farming techniques & education.

Elisabeth I is particularly fondly remembered and the phrase "a chicken in every pot" is believed to have originated with her. :rolleyes:

I thought she said 'Let them smoke pot'...