Posted on 11/14/2006 8:32:32 AM PST by xzins
Massacre of Drogheda under Oliver Cromwell.
the Staff or associates of Christian History Institute.
After the massacre, Oliver Cromwell declared to the English Parliament, "I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion [shedding] of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret."
Oliver Cromwell, responsible for a massacre. Just what happened at Drogheda, Ireland on this day, September 11, 1649 is hard to pin down with certainty. Two groups stood to gain by issuing propaganda against Cromwell. The Irish hoped to inflame patriotic fervor by magnifying the event and certain Englishmen hoped to discredit Cromwell because they feared his growing power.
Parliament had sent the Protestant Cromwell into Catholic Ireland to subdue it and prevent Prince Charles from landing and preparing an invasion from the nearby Island (he used Scotland as his launch pad instead). Aware that previous armies had bogged down in Ireland, usually because of insufficient financing, Cromwell insisted on having the necessary money in hand before he sailed. That way he could pay for supplies as he needed them and not make enemies by robbing the common folk. Once in Ireland, he moved quickly, knowing that a drawn-out war favored the inhabitants, not the invaders.
The situation in Ireland was complex. The Irish were badly divided and several betrayed their own towns. They offered little effective resistance to Cromwell. In fact, he reduced opposition across most of the island within eight months, although subordinates required another decade to complete the work he had begun.
Drogheda was one of the first cities Cromwell faced. He offered fair terms and gave his men strict instructions against excessive violence. However, the situation fluctuated a good deal. As Drogheda's fortunes waned or waxed, the garrison alternately negotiated or stalled. Cromwell's troops broke through the wall before negotiations were complete (possibly with inside help) and rushed through the town, killing virtually everyone in the city. They set fire to St. Mary's church, burning alive those who had taken refuge in it and then butchered women hiding in the vaults below. Some accounts say they used Irish children as human shields and killed every priest, treating them like combatants, because they had encouraged the defenders. According to those tales, only thirty defenders survived and they were sold as slaves to Barbados. At least one of the English soldiers claimed that Cromwell himself ordered the slaughter.
Defenders of Cromwell say that not only did he not order the slaughter but that the massacre of the women never happened. Cromwell himself insisted (even before he left Ireland) that no one in arms was massacred, destroyed or banished. His statement fell short of denying that civilians were slaughtered. Tales of civilian massacres increased at the time of the restoration of the English throne when it was both politically correct and safe to say the worst things one could about the man who cut off the head of King Charles I.
Whatever the truth, Cromwell surely is to blame for not attempting to stop the massacre. By the brutal standards of the time, killing a defiant garrison was acceptable, but butchering civilians was not. By his own statement, it is clear Cromwell hoped that the events at Drogheda (and at Wexford a few days later) would shorten the war. At Wexford, his troops committed another massacre, although apparently without his approval. A priest writing over a century later claimed 300 women were slaughtered beside a cross at which they had taken refuge and seven friars were killed in the performance of their duty. Whether this is true or not, Cromwell considered the victory an unexpected providence and said he prayed that God would have all the glory.
The present religious troubles in Ireland were aggravated by the events at Drogheda and Wexford. British soldiers, for example, are called "Cromwell's lads." However, it would be unjust to leave the impression that Cromwell's campaign was the beginning of the Irish religious troubles. Eight years before Cromwell's invasion, for instance, Catholics slaughtered hundreds of Protestant civilians in Ulster.
Resources:
Allen, John. One Hundred Great Lives. New York: Journal of Living, 1944.
Coonan, Thomas L. The Irish Catholic Confederacy and the Puritan Revolution. New York: Columbia University, 1954.
Copeland, Lewis. World's Greatest Speeches. New York: Book League of America, p. 147ff.
"Cromwell." A History of the Irish Race.
(www.ireland.org/irl_hist/hist31.htm) "Cromwell, Oliver." Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. London: Oxford University Press, 1921 - 1996.
"Cromwell and the Drogheda Massacre." (www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/ makhist7_prog5c.shtml)
"Cromwell Devastates Ireland." www.doyle.com.au/cromwell.htm).
( Drinkwater, John. Oliver Cromwell. New York: George H. Doran, 1927.
Hill, Christopher. God's Englishman; Oliver Cromwell and the English revolution. Harper and Row, 1970. Russell, Bertrand. Wisdom of the West. New York: Fawcett, 1964; p. 252.
Smellie, Alexander. Men of the Covenant. Revell, 1903. Source of the image.
'There was continual violence and threat of violence, and the government was constantly enforcing various Coercion Acts and suspending habeas corpus. Confrontations with violent mobs and attempted uprisings (such as the Fenian risings) occurred with regularity.'
And did not garner the support of the masses and were thus put down just as quickly.
Not so fast...had to get rid of the Catholic Stuarts first.
And Cromwell's "reign" probably had a lot to do with that.
'Not so fast...had to get rid of the Catholic Stuarts first.'
Indeed, but the back of the catholic problem was largely broken many years before. Once the catholics were taken out of the equation Britains domination of the world could begin in earnest and of course from that point on, all the catholic nations of europe were less successful than protestant Britain.
That said, JohnBarlycorn Must Die is one of rock's great sounds. :>)
I agree about tactic's importance, however, I find the religious mixtures, information warfare, and hard feelings to be close parallels.
When such historical messes become too much, it's far easier and more accurate to blame the devil and remain brothers in Christ.
If I'm slaughtered for having Faith in what was once a piece a bread but now the Presence of Christ, then it would be safest for my soul to garble, "Forgive them Lord, for they know no what they do."
When would you say that was?
You are simply wrong in your assessment of the nature of Ireland during this period.
For example, in the case of the Fenians, British authorities estimated that as many as 150,000 Irishmen had been recruited to the cause, and a massive uprising was averted at the last minute only by an anonymous tip that led to the preemptive arrests of hundreds of leaders on the eve of the planned event.
Ireland was practically ungovernable. Here are the words of one Lord Lieutenant in the latter half of the 19th century: "Ireland is an infernal country to manage...The only way to govern is the old plan (which I will not attempt) of taking up violently one faction or the other, putting them like fighting-cocks, and then backing one. I wish you would send me to India. Ireland is the grave of every reputation."
Your understanding of Irish history seems to be based on popular conceptions in England as opposed to an actual study of the history.
"Once more into the breach boys"
In order for Cromwell to take a city he had to make a breach in the city walls, then the troops would storm thru the breach. The first thru met almost certain death, going thru the breach was the last thing anyone wanted to do. Cities that forced Cromwell army to go thru the breach were not treated well by the surviving troops. And thier general did let them take thier revenge once the city was taken.
Hey, he didn't make this stuff up. I speak as one who grew up in the middle of Scotch-Irish country (York County, SC). That's just what this ethnic group calls itself.
Btw, if I ever really want to insult a Scotsman, I won't call him "Scotch." I can do a lot better than that.
Yep, I agree.
I support my president, and I voted for him, and he gets to decide those things.
What's instructive about the Ireland/Cromwell thing is that the British stayed and the religious difference remained and was even magnified.
There is a limited time to go in, break things, and depart with the threat that you'll do it again if they don't straighten up.
The ended up using a partioning of the Irish Island to give some kind of peace.
"Scotch" is a kind of whiskey. Scots are correctly referred to as Scots (or Scottish).
Very true.
I gather you are a Briton?
There are no lessons of import for Iraq in that event.
Good think you've come along and saved me all this thought.
See #51
(And I promise never to non-theologize Cromwell again.:>)
I should tell you, I got a ping last week from BJClinton, and I think Ronaldus Magnus is around here somewhere...though I suspect that's not REALLY who he is.
=]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.