Replies

Your ingenious and twisted revisionist history of the Huguenots reads like the National Socialist propaganda which demonized the Jews. In both cases, a persecuted minority is depicted as having somehow provoked its own demise.

I can't dignify your rant by refuting every point, but here are a few facts: 1) Religious minorities often seek assistance from co-religionists in foreign powers. The English Catholics looked to Spain. That's one reason they were persecuted under Elizabeth in England, because England was fighting for its life against His Catholic Majesty Philip of Spain. 2) There isn't a single religious or ethnic group which has not persecuted, massacred, or enslaved members of another group. To portray the Huguenots as some uniquely evil tribe which caused trouble everywhere they went is absurd. Because of the Protestant stress on self-control, literacy, thrift, and honesty, Huguenots and other Protestants tended to progress economically more than Catholics. The Industrial Revolution was largely the work of Protestants. The original American Republic was largely founded by and populated by British-American Protestants, building on historical developments in Protestant Britain. The expulsion of the educated, progressive Huguenots was a major reason why France was unable to establish a limited Republican govt. 3) The Irish Catholics have concocted a self-pitying hype about alleged persecution in America. Irish immigrants had a hard time, but largely because they were uneducated, unskilled peasants. There was little available for such people in a largely agricultural 19th century American society but brutal, exhausting, unsafe toil. The stories of signs reading "Irish need not apply" have been shown to be mythical.

The article in the OP is obviously written to push the cause of "tolerance" toward illegal Hispanic immigration. If not stopped, that trend will destroy what little is left of limited republican govt. in America.

A persecuted minority? like the Moslems in Bradford and France today, the Huguenots were the same

If you want to check history, check the facts for yourself. If you don't, here they are:

In france, under Francis I, France was tolerant of all religious views
however, what did the Huguenots do? In the affair of the placards they posted placards all over Paris and even on the bedchamber door of the king (a security breach that angered him and made him change his tolerance position) -- these placards were attacks on Catholics. --> note, this is in the 1500s, and the King is tolerant of them, quite rare in the 1500s until the 1800s or 1900s in fact, but what do the Huguenots do? They post a placard right outside his door, cocking their noses at him so to speak
instead of discussing, the Huguenots went to attack the Catholic majority who until then were content to let them live and debate and discuss and debate.
In the French wars of Religion, the Huguenots conspired against the King. The people who became Huguenots were primarily the urban elite, like our present-day New Yorkers who take a fad and they saw that this was a means to oppose the King, so Huguenotism became a political tool
Huguenots in 1560 attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties in Rouen and La Rochelle -- thus the FIRST salvo was lobbed by the Huguenots. -- the Catholics retailiated with mobs at seeing their places of worship attacked and defiled by Huguenots
Next, in 1562-70, we have the wars -- now political-religious, so no, it was not a simple case of "persecution" --> The Huguenots were one side of a civil war, which they lost
let's come to the juicy part, the St. Bart's day massacre -- this occured in 1572, 40 years after the first provocations by the Huguenots and 12 years after they started destroying Catholic Churchs (just like the Moslems in America they were quiet until their numbers grew)

now, King Charles XI was openly in favor of the Huguenots -- so a political moment. Hence the attacks on the opposing side
So, let's see in conclusion -- Huguenots first start their provocations in 1534, then in 1560 start attacking Catholic Churchs (with no provocation), then start their political support against the conservatives and start a civil war. After 12 years their side loses the civil war and yet they are still allowed to live and practise their faith (note this is the 1500s, not a nice time, yet they get this tolerance) -- but they still play political intrigues. So, one faction starts to attack and massacre the other faction

o, stop the entire "poor persecuted Huguenots" -- they brought it on themselves.

1. hellb Religious minorities often seek assistance from co-religionists in foreign powers. The English Catholics looked to Spain. That's one reason they were persecuted under Elizabeth in England, because England was fighting for its life against His Catholic Majesty Philip of Spain. --> true, and there were massacres of Catholics in Anglican England, in Lutheran Germanic states and in Calvinist Netherlands etc. St. Barts was not unusual as you point out

2. hellb: There isn't a single religious or ethnic group which has not persecuted, massacred, or enslaved members of another group -- true again. The Huguenots did that to Catholics in areas of France where they were the majority and repeated doing the same in Prussia, South Africa, the Netherlands, England etc.

3. hellb: To portray the Huguenots as some uniquely evil tribe which caused trouble everywhere they went is absurd. -- I apologize if that is the image conveyed, it is not what I meant, I point out, just as you that they persecuted and were persecuted and to point out the historical reasons for St. Barts which show this to be more

what happened in those days and
socio-political to a large extent

Let's be sure to add to the total the fact that people of Irish "Irish" descent were a substantial part of the American population at the time of the Revolution, and continued to be so throughout the following centuries.

Today about half the Irish ancestry in this country is through people here BEFORE the Revolution and about half the Irish ancestry is through people who came DURING the Famine period.

Irish history is bifurcated.

The other day I watched another kinsman (all Murphy family members are kinsmen) receive the Medal of Honor ~ Michael P. Murphy follows in a long line of great American warriors bearing the name Murphy ~ Audie Murphy, Timothy Murphy, and hundreds of thousands of others.

Some are Catholic, some are Protestant, some are nothing, but America has been very, very good to them, and they have reciprocated.

Because of the...

Actually it doesn't seem quite that way. That's a very interesting question on whether scientific breakthrough was purely or even lead by "Protestants"

Let's check through this

Let's set the historical background first -- Europe in 1500. Population estimates taken from Internet Medieval Source book

Country	Population (millions)	Position as a nation-state
British Isles	3	Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king. When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans.
France & low countries	12	See above. France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas. The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600. These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce. Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic. In 1830 it fights and gets independence.
Germany & Scandanavia	7.3	No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union. The strongest nation-state is Denmark. Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s. Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies. This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!). Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s
Italy	7.3	No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states. This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc. Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s.
Spain/Portugal	7	Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors. Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural. However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France
Greece/Balkans	4.5	Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule. Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe. Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria are devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains. Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes. Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives.
Russia	6	Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great. It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems. Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe.
Poland/Lithuania	2	Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews. This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era.
Hungary	1.5	Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar). However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants. The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs. The state is one of war
Bohemia	1	Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity. It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary.

The net effect is that before the reformation you essentially have only 5 viable "nation"-states. In orders of strenght of national identity:

England
Denmark
France
Spain
Portugal

The financial positions of these countries do NOT change as part of the reformation. They remain more or less the same until the mid-1700s. In fact, the economic position of Germany declines due to the 30 years war and even worse, the Peace of Westphalia

1683, Battle of Vienna and 1701-1714 there is the War of Spanish succession -- THAT changes everything in Europe.. At the end of this, Spain and Portugal are in decline, France is the most powerful state and will remain so until 1812. the Ottoman Turks are in precipituous decline, Russia is expanding south and east rapidly and modernizing fast from an Asian monarchy to a more European-style feudal state. Germany gets consolidated into 4 majory states: Austria, Bavaria, Brandenburg-Prussia and Hesse-Hanover. The Swedes are now extremely powerful and in 50 years invade Poland and Russia (the Deluge) -- this destroys the commonwealth and even though it reforms it is never the same under the Swedish Vasa kings of Poland nor the Saxon kings of Poland. THe commonwealth is irrevocably headed for 1791 when Poland is carved up by Prussia, Russia and Austria.

======================================================================================================================================================

Next, urbanization in Europe in 1800

As you can see, the heaviest urbanization has been in the triangle formed by London, Paris and Amsterdam

======================================================================================================================================================

Scientific innovation --> I couldn't find an online map for this, but there are books available and there should be something online. however, I need to figure out the right google-words!

Anyway, scientific innovations leading the industrial revolution are exclusively found in these 2 countries:

France (mostly in the north)

England is Anglican, France is Catholic. Germany is Lutheran and Catholic (60-40) and the Dutch republic is reformed. The latter two have their scientific developments but in sheer quantity they lag behind England and France. Scandanavia is Lutheran and has fewer scientific developments and mostly in Sweden or Denmark i.e. in the populated states). Eastern Europe and southern Europe are in the throes of war or recovering from their declines as powerful entites, so the developments are least over here.

So, the scientific developments are not exclusively any type of Protestant -- if anything, the industrial revolution is led by High-Church Anglican Britain and Catholic France.

======================================================================================================================================================
But does religion have a role to play in this?
======================================================================================================================================================

I would argue yes in the case of Anglicanism -- it is far less rigid in it's structure than either the CAtholic countries OR the Lutheran/Reformed state countries. While all the countries had state religions, Anglicanism was the most "flexible" -- you had near Catholics in the High-Church Anglicans and reformed in the "Low Church Anglicans", so religion did play a factor because Anglicanism was flexible compared to Catholicism, Calvinism or Lutheranism -- but what were the other factors?

The other factors are:

Population -- by the late 1700s, France is the most populous country in all of Europe and the richest and it has the second strongest sense of "self"
England is heavily populated -- by the late 1700s it has to import foodgrains as it can no longer feed itself. It is rich and getting richer due to it's gains in north america and India (1756 Battle of Plassey where it threw out the French to get exclusive trading rights -- note, the british Indian Empire had still not formed, but the Brits controlled Indian trade). England has a STRONG sense of who is it, a very strong 'nation-state' identity that other states envy and has built up a mythology about itself which is important in building a sense of self
Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. have stable, lower populations that resemble the populations of 1500, so no growth due to war etc. the Netherlands had a growing population but then they lost the Anglo-Dutch wars (how we got the disparaging terms in English like "go Dutch" etc) and lost a lost of national self-confidence

Which brings me to the second fact -- war and peace. England and France mostly fight on the periphery or on overseas territories. They are not fighting like Spain or Eastern Europe or Germany on their homelands. This means that the home populations have the peace to focus on science and economy.

Finally, the last factor -- success breeds success. By the Victorian era, the momentum of scientific discovery in England and France meant that smart people were encouraged to come to these countries as they knew they'd get opportunities. It's the same reason why silicon valley is the centre of IT research -- as we reach a critical mass of smart folks, this mass expands itself, absorbing smart people from elsewhere --> on a side note, check how many American nobel laureates were born outside the US and see how the key factor affecting our scientific growth is that we no longer have the super-critical mass of smart folks we once had