Talk:Irish Rebellion of 1798

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Irish Rebellion of 1798 article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] United Irishmen, Presbyterians, Unionists

At these times many Scottish and Scotch-Irish emmigrated to the USA. Come 1798 people had had enough and the Presbyterians were instrumental in leading the United Irishmen rebellion, which ultimately failed. Henry Joy McCracken the famous United Irishman, relatives founded the Belfast News Letter in 1737 which is still published to this day and is a staunchly Unionist newspaper. Shortly after the United Irishmen rebellion in 1798 the act of Union between Great Britian and Ireland occured.

Samuel Neilson, a Scots-Irish contemporary of Thompson and a founding father of the United Irishmen, remarked just prior to the Act of Union, "I see a union is determined on between Great Britain and Ireland. I am glad of it." Neilson accepted the Act of Union without shedding his sense of Irishness. He, like many other members of the Society of United Irishmen, became Irish Unionists because they saw in the union an end to the corrupt Ascendancy-based Dublin Government. Indeed this was the position of Sir Edward Carson, who was at heart an Irish Unionist. It is significant that at that time the Orange Order (which I think only accepted Anglican at that time) and the Anglo-Irish Protestant Ascendancy were bitterly anti-unionist.

Samuel Thompson, the Bard of Carngranny, expressed the position of eighteenth century Irish Presbyterians in the following verse: - "I love my native land, no doubt, Attach'd to her thro' thick and thin Yet tho' I'm Irish all without I'm every item Scotch within.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aughavey (talk • contribs) (16:44 7 July 2005)

Samuel Neilson was a prisoner of the British Government until 1802 and made such a quote for two reasons;
1. To increase his chances of release from Fort George in Scotland
and
2. The quote is in the context of accepting the lesser of two evils, i.e direct rule from London as opposed to the brutish corrupt and incompetent misrule of the Anglo-Irish Protestant elite
When released in 1802, Neilson emigrated to the USA so he did not; "like many other members of the Society of United Irishmen, became Irish Unionists". To survive the vicious repression following the rebellion, many United Irishmen tried to conceal their real politics to avoid imprisonment or worse. The fact that Presbyterians became reconciled to the Union (at the expense of the majority Catholic population) only goes to prove that the sectarian model introduced to divide Ireland was successful in maintaining British dominance over the island of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.205.109 (talk • contribs) (12:41 14 July 2005)
[C]onsidering the majority of the United Irishmen were Presbyterians that fact is quite significant and does indeed constitute "many members". Secondly the UI non-sectarian ideal became undermined with the merger with "The Defenders" whose pro-Catholic stance and oath swore them to "quell the nation of heresy". Aughavey 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "[T]he majority of the United Irishmen were Presbyterians"

The Presbyterians in Ireland were (and are) a minority of a minority so this is completely untrue. The United Irishmen encompassed the island of Ireland as a whole and not just Antrim and Down. The original leadership was Protestant if that is what you are referring to but you have offered zero proof for your belief that post 1801 many United Irishmen became Unionist, the example of Samuel Neilson is simply not credible for reasons already given. As stated before members such as Jemmy Hope, Thomas Russell, Robert Emmet etc were all United Irishmen in 1798 and were all United Irishmen post Union until their deaths. Who exactly were the United Irishmen who became pro -British rule, if you can give any examples I'd be interested to hear?

The Defenders were formed as a semi-secret society whose opposition to the sectarian penal laws which fell heaviest on Catholics obviously meant that there were mainly Catholics in it's ranks, the Defenders "oath" was one of many lies fabricated by loyalist and Orangemen to forment sectarian division. There have been many instances of the British fabricating such oaths to wade knee deep in Protestant blood etc, they also fabricated the "no quarter" order at Culloden in 1746. How exactly was the UI non-sectarian ideal undermined by the alliance with the Defenders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnbutter (talk • contribs) (10:02 22 July 2005)

Its quite simple. 99% of Presbyterians are now Unionist. A significant amount of Presbyterians supported the 1798 rebellion. They did not just disappear and I don`t think they all converted to Catholicism. They became Unionists.
with regards to the Defender oath - i am thinking the trial of John Tuite. The simple fact is that the 1798 rebellion was an Alliance with many stresses and strains and the Defender oath about "quelling the nation of heresy" would be quite a big one in a non-sectarian organisation I would think. 84.45.131.142 20:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
"the Defenders "oath" was one of many lies fabricated by loyalist and Orangemen to forment sectarian division" the Orangemen were anti-Unionist, supporting the dublin based government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.131.142 (talk • contribs) (20:55 31 July 2005)
"99% of Presbyterians are now Unionist."
I doubt that the scientific data exists to prove this, it is a high percentage perhaps even 90%, but include Presbyterians resident in the Republic and unaffiliated and the proportion reduces sto the 80-90% mark.
The Presbyterian Irish tradition did survive into the 19th and 20th centuries, for example, in 1912 400 Presbyterians gathered in Ballymooney, Co. Antrim to sign a Home Rule Covenant in repudiation of Carsons Loyalist one. (For more see James G. Patterson, "Continued Presbyterian Resistance in the Aftermath of the Rebellion of 1798 in Antrim and Down" (Eighteenth-Century Life - Volume 22, Number 3, November 1998, pp. 45-61))
Orangemen were Anti-Unionist only in the sense that they wanted their own power undiluted within Britain i.e loyalty directly to the crown coupled with independence from London interference for the Protestant Ascendancy. The best of both worlds so to speak and the Orangemen were defending narrow sectarian interests in 1798 but did not want to sever the connection with England, much as in the 1970's Unionists were pro-Stormont and against the powersharing Sunningdale Executive. --Damnbutter 10:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Well yes, they (the republican Presbyterians of 1798) did disappear. They died! The unionist Presybterians of 2005 are not the same individuals as the republican Presbyterians of 1798. Demiurge 10:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Apparently many Presbyterian preachers were bribed by the British government to make the case for the Union in the 19th century. That may well have played a role in converting them to Unionism too. (Brian Boru) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.32.20 (talk • contribs) (10:49 10 March 2006)

[edit] Round of Applause! - but Sources needed

Round of applause for User:Damnbutter and his efforts to improve this article. My only quibble with the most recent batch of edits is the deletion of the line about Holt's background, which I thought was interesting.

The article needs only major thing one thing now in my view - Sources. I have set the ball rolling. Jdorney 18:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

To ask for sources in relation to damnbutter's articles is like asking for the ingredients for scrambled eggs - if you don’t know it then you shouldn’t ask!--Wallywing 15:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And when have you asked for any sources - they're all there anyway (hint see section titled "Sources" on article page). Your grasp of history seems to be confused judging by your user page entry.

--Damnbutter 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Tone that important?

Tone was out of Ireland while the Rebellion was being planned and when he finally contributed he landed with the French in the wrong part of Ireland and when caught committed suicide. I would argue that he appeals to our, the Irish, love of a martyr, rather than him being a serious contributer to the events of the '98. --Crd612 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Just for the folks that are keeping an eye on this page...it seems to me that someone inserted some stuff about Spartans and the movie the 300 in for fun. Cotemaltayle 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cotemaltayle. Have now fixed this.--A bit iffy 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article written so heavily in terms of "Catholic" and "Protestant"?

Wasn't this rebellion a political one, not a religious one? Granted, the British cultivated sectarianism as a tool for repression, but the "voice" of this article gives a very religious overtone to an essentially political series of events.Shoreranger 14:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The politics of Ireland at the time were explicitly religious. Full citizenship was available only to those who recognised the Chruch of Ireland as state religion. The initial aim of the United Irishmen was to extend the franshise to Catholics and full rights of holding office to Presbyterians. On top of that, the Catholic majority identified themselves as the true natives of the country and felt that their ancestors had been unjustly stripped of their lands 100 years before. It was impossible for radicals at the time to avoid dealing with this problem and it is also impossible for anyone writing about it to avoid it. 213.202.183.150 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preference of search

Why is it that the search "Irish rebellion" leads to the irish rebellion of 1641? Surely it should lead to a disambiguation of the rebellions? Or at least a mention below the title? No link is to be found on the page Irish Rebellion regarding the possibility of said searcher's desire to see this page. Maybe this should be changed -- Will James 10:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. One Night In Hackney303 10:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patriot Party

This article needs to make more reference to the Irish Patriots, led by Grattan. They had made some strides towards breaking the power of the Protestant Ascendency in Ireland - they were the forerunners of the Irish Home Rulers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Like Tone and the United Irishman, they had a large number of liberal protestants, but unlike them they wanted to have these liberal reforms within the British Empire not outside. The rebellion was a disaster for them, as they were widely blamed, despite their opposition to it. Their credibillity was harmed, and they were unable to prevent the Act of Union a few years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McLintock 71 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More articles

I think this page needs more on it. I also think seperate articles should be created for the Irish Patriot Party, Grattan's Parliament and the near invasion of 1796, all of which could be linked into this article. I will try and gather some resources to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McLintock 71 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)