Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

1641 Rebellion based on hearsay.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Post it up!

    We'd be here for a while!!! :D

    If someone wants to ask me a specific question about it - go ahead. I have written about 20,000 words on the subject.


  • Options
    #33
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    T runner wrote: »
    Thanks but i will take the scholarly study by the University of Aberdeen to be more definitive than anything you can provide. Unless you yourself also have access to these 19,000 deposits and can attest that it is not hearsay?

    Well there's the Depositions

    And there's Temple's dissection of the Depositions.

    Neither of which are great sources - you're right. However, that's nothing earth-shattering in any of that.

    Actually Temple is more important than the Depositions themselves because he was the main publicist and editor of them in the immediate aftermath.

    However if you are looking for historical merit you should be discerning - but the Depositions at least exist, which is more than can be said for a lot of history of the time where no sources exist at all.

    However, I feel that all this will be discussed without taking circumstances in England and Dublin into account.


  • Options
    #34
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    junder wrote: »
    Unless you were physically there and witnessed things first hand then it's an interpretation since you are relying on secondary accounts
    So what are you doing on a history forum. Indeed if that was the case a person couldn't comment on say on politics or sport or whatever if they weren't " physically there and witnessed things first hand " :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #35
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Cromwell came to Ireland because the Irish confederate and loyalists were believed to be planning an invasion of England to restore the monarchy.

    Cromwell wad asked by parliament to come to Ireland to prevent an invasion. He had no plans for Ireland, he just wanted to prevent Any further uprisings.1641 had very little to do with it other than justifying his brutal tactics.

    Most if those killed in 1641 would probably have been Presbytarians and they were affected by the penal laws as much, if not more than Catholics. The penal laws were not there to opress the Irish, they were there to reduce Catholic influence in England and therefore the risk of further civil war. It is a mere coincidence that so many Irish were catholic and therefore oppressed.
    Since 80 - 85% of the population were Catholic, therefore they effected Irish society much more severally than Britain.

    Also, Ireland's economy was under the control of Westminster and English economic interests and suffered as a result. The various Wool Acts of the seventeenth and eighteen centuries seriously curtailed the production of Irish wool and the Cattle Acts did the same. These Acts were passed for the precise purpose of protecting English economic interests - at the expense of Ireland. There were laws put in place that prevented Ireland from exporting and thereby possibly posing fair competition to English goods in foreign markets.

    We suffered political and economic oppresion for the benefit of the British economy. Our political, religious and economic wishes were always a subservient consideration.


  • Options
    #36
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    We'd be here for a while!!! :D

    If someone wants to ask me a specific question about it - go ahead. I have written about 20,000 words on the subject.
    So really your just talking bollox and have no answers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Since 80 - 85% of the population were Catholic, therefore they effected Irish society much more severally than Britain.

    Also, Ireland's economy was under the control of Westminster and English economic interests and suffered as a result. The various Wool Acts of the seventeenth and eighteen centuries seriously curtailed the production of Irish wool and the Cattle Acts did the same. These Acts were passed for the precise purpose of protecting English economic interests - at the expense of Ireland. There were laws put in place that prevented Ireland from exporting and thereby possibly posing fair competition to English goods in foreign markets.

    We suffered political and economic oppresion for the benefit of the British economy. Our political, religious and economic wishes were always a subservient consideration.

    Absolutely, but the 1641 rebellion and the penal laws were unrelated. The Penal laws were not brought in to oppress the Irish, they were brought in mainly because the power struggle between the established church and the RC church was causing havoc.


  • Options
    #38
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Absolutely, but the 1641 rebellion and the penal laws were unrelated. The Penal laws were not brought in to oppress the Irish, they were brought in mainly because the power struggle between the established church and the RC church was causing havoc.
    Agreed. Where Jewish people labeled as "dissenters" and affected also by the Penal Laws anyone ?


  • Options
    #39
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    How the hell do you get that from the article?

    In fact, how do you get that the massacre was hearsay, the article merely mentions the atrocities that took place, not the overall massacre.

    The report only identifies one atrocity the drowning of 100 protestants. No other massacres of note. All of the other atrocities/ mass killings (massacres) are based on second or third person accounts. i.e they probably didnt occur.

    Your weak attempt to pretend a massacre is somehow not counted as an atrocity in this comrehensive report is a little lacking in integrity.

    You are twisting the facts to suit your argument. Perhaps it doesnt suiot your worldview that teh british might have deliberately lied and exagerrated to cause sectarian tensions and allow for the complete subjugation of the Catholic population. Naw!!! The British would never do taht would they???


  • Options
    #40
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Take a chill pill people, if this can't be discussed in a civil manner then it won't be discussed at all.


  • Options
    #41
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    junder wrote: »
    Unless you were physically there and witnessed things first hand then it's an interpretation since you are relying on secondary accounts

    And taht is what shows the depositions to be lies. There are little first hand accounts, it was all, "Johnny heard that a load of protestant women were slaughtered, and the catholics spat on them and cut the babies out of their pregnant bellies etc stc."

    The vast majority was nonsense and lies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    T runner wrote: »
    And taht is what shows the depositions to be lies. There are little first hand accounts, it was all, "Johnny heard that a load of protestant women were slaughtered, and the catholics spat on them and cut the babies out of their pregnant bellies etc stc."

    The vast majority was nonsense and lies.
    The whole thing was a fabrication. For example the so called Portadown massacre when allegedly 100+ Protestants where force marched to the river and were drowned had supposedly only one surviving witness, a guy called William Clark.


  • Options
    #43
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    T runner wrote: »
    The report only identifies one atrocity the drowning of 100 protestants. No other massacres of note. All of the other atrocities/ mass killings (massacres) are based on second or third person accounts. i.e they probably didnt occur.

    Your weak attempt to pretend a massacre is somehow not counted as an atrocity in this comrehensive report is a little lacking in integrity.

    You are twisting the facts to suit your argument. Perhaps it doesnt suiot your worldview that teh british might have deliberately lied and exagerrated to cause sectarian tensions and allow for the complete subjugation of the Catholic population. Naw!!! The British would never do taht would they???

    it doesn't say that at all. For starters it says "some of the atrocities, such as.......".

    The report does not say the massacre did not happen, only that a lot of the individual acts were second hand accounts.

    And again, the penal laws and cromwell coming to Ireland had nothing to do with the 1641 rebellion.


Advertisement