Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!ka
From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.nlang.celts
Subject: Re: Irish Genocide: Lesson 3: First Blood
Message-ID: <155@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Dec-83 20:12:51 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.155
Posted: Sat Dec 24 20:12:51 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Dec-83 01:07:36 EST
References: <180@houxk.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 90

Houxk!jmg's explanation of the atrocities committed against the
Irish by Cromwell's army is, "no matter what the circumstances
involved the English mind knows only one equation with respect to
the Irish: 'Irish = rebels' and 'rebels = Irish'."  This is at
best incomplete because it overlooks one important fact:
Cromwell (and the majority of the English) were Protestants while
Ireland was Catholic.

In order to understand the view of the English towards Catholi-
cism, let's look at the hundred years preceding Cromwell's rule.
In 1560 we find Queen Elizabeth, a protestant, ascending the
thrown.  Philip II of Spain, the self appointed champion of
Catholicism, assists the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots in her at-
tempts to grab the English crown.  The Pope makes his feelings
clear by excommunicating Elizabeth.  While most Catholics are
loyal to their queen, agitators are telling Catholics that they
have a religious obligation to oppose Elizabeth.  In 1588, Philip
declares war against England.  Although he is defeated, it is
easy to see why the English begin to see Catholicism as a secular
threat.  The clincher comes in 1605, when a group of English
Catholics attempt to blow up the House of Parliament.  Ignoring
the fact that the plot was stopped by Catholics who betrayed it,
many English people formed the equation "Catholic = disloyal".

Although it may be hard to find justifications for committing
atrocities in the New Testament, in practice Christians have
throughout most of their history believed that they were permit-
ted, and in fact commanded, to commit atrocities against unbeli-
evers and heretics.  That theory was beginning to crumble in
Cromwell's day, but it was still strong.  (This is half a century
before the Age of Enlightenment.)  If a list of the sins commit-
ted in the name of Christianity were to be made, Cromwell's ac-
tions in Ireland would be pretty far down on the list.  Cromwell
gained power near the end of the Thirty Years' War, which was
(primarily) a Catholic/Protestant conflict.  At the end of that
war one third of the population of Germany had been killed.  That
is comparable to the ravages of the Black Death.

Houxk!jmg dwells at length on the idea that Charles was the
rightful king of England.  This is based upon a misunderstanding
of English law.  It is correct that, barring an act of parlia-
ment, Charles would have become king of England when his father
was executed.  However, the the English parliament has the power
to alter the order of succession.  For example, Henry VII had no
hereditary right to the thrown even after he had killed Richard
III, so parliament passed a bill making him king.  Before execut-
ing Charles's father, Charles I, parliament abolished the monar-
chy, so that nobody would become king after Charles I.  There be-
ing no king, they then made Cromewell lord protector.  (The role
of lord protector is to rule the kingdom when the king is unable
to.)  This action may have been unprecedented, but it is hard to
see what is wrong with it.  If parliament had the power to make
Cromwell king, it's hard to see why they couldn't make him lord
protector instead.

Having covered the background, we can now look at the invasion
itself.  Warfare is by its very nature brutal.  However,
Cromwell's forces dealt much more harshly with the Irish than
with the Scots.  The difference must be accounted for.  As my
previous paragraphs have indicated, I believe that the difference
in treatment was due to the fact that the Irish were Catholic
while the Scots were Protestant.  Cromwell believed in religious
toleration, but this did not extend to Catholics who, as I said,
were presumed to be disloyal.  Furthermore, Cromwell's belief in
religious toleration was not shared by all his compatriots.  Thus
while Cromwell was not interested in fighting religious cursades,
it does not follow that his army would avoid treating the Irish
as religious enemies once he was at war with them.

The alternative, that Cromwell viewed the Irish as hopelessly re-
bellious, has some support, since the Irish had often opposed
British rule.  Indeed, when Henry VI ordered the Irish to arrest
Richard Duke of York, they executed the messengers (Which shows
that Christianity is not the only reason for slaughtering inno-
cent people.), and announced that acts of the English king would
not become effective unless ratified by the Irish Parliament.
But the very fact that the Scots were in rebellion made it clear
that they were rebellious too, so I think that religion must have
at least been a major factor.  Recall the Puritain pamphlet quot-
ed by jmg:
        ...cursed is he that shall do the work of the Lord negli-
        gently....  Let not the eye look for pity, nor the hand
        be spared that pities or spares them; and let him be ac-
        cursed that curseth them not bitterly.
I thank houxk!jmg for quoting this because it provides such a
clear statement of Christian beliefs during the period.  But the
point is that the writer of this pamphlet saw the invasion of
Ireland in religious terms.  He is calling for cruelty not in the
name of the state, but in the name of God.
				Kenneth Almquist