White Slavery - The Forgoten Irish

mayotom

In memory of the Irish victims of Slavery
President Jacques Chirac announced, last January, that France will hold a national day of remembrance for the victims of slavery every 10 May,.
The date for the annual holiday was chosen as it marks the day in 2001 when France passed a law recognising slavery as a crime against humanity. He said children should be taught about slavery at primary and secondary school as part of the national curriculum. "Slavery fed racism," he said. "When people tried to justify the unjustifiable, that was when the first racist theories were elaborated."

Given that tens of thousands of Irish people were shipped into slavery, isnt it strange that Ireland has no day remembering them? I dont know of a single monument to the victims of slavery in Ireland. Perhaps someone can let me know if they know of one. As far as I know, even the Republican Movement fails to commemorate the tens of thousands of innocents sold into slavery from Ireland. Many of the women and children into sex slavery.

The following extract gives an idea of the colossal scale of the slave trade from Ireland. No doubt this post will be met by the usual chorus of deniers wishing we could keep quite about this - but lets just ignore them. I think some remembrance should be made of these unfortunate people. The event could be linked with the fight against slavery in the world today. Does anyone have suggestions?

The reign of Elizabeth I, English privateers captured 300 African Negroes, sold them as slaves, and initiated the English slave trade. Slavery was, of course, an old established commerce dating back into earliest history. Julius Caesar brought over a million slaves from defeated armies back to Rome. By the 16th century, the Arabs were the most active, generally capturing native peoples, not just Africans, marching them to a seaport and selling them to ship owners. Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish ships were originally the most active, supplying slaves to the Spanish colonies in America. It was not a big business in the beginning, but a very profitable one, and ship owners were primarily interested only in profits. The morality of selling human beings was never a factor to them.

After the Battle of Kinsale at the beginning of the 17th century, the English were faced with a problem of some 30,000 military prisoners, which they solved by creating an official policy of banishment. Other Irish leaders had voluntarily exiled to the continent, in fact, the Battle of Kinsale marked the beginning of the so-called “Wild Geese”, those Irish banished from their homeland. Banishment, however, did not solve the problem entirely, so James II encouraged selling the Irish as slaves to planters and settlers in the New World colonies. The first Irish slaves were sold to a settlement on the Amazon River In South America in 1612. It would probably be more accurate to say that the first “recorded” sale of Irish slaves was in 1612, because the English, who were noted for their meticulous record keeping, simply did not keep track of things Irish, whether it be goods or people, unless such was being shipped to England. The disappearance of a few hundred or a few thousand Irish was not a cause for alarm, but rather for rejoicing. Who cared what their names were anyway, they were gone.

Almost as soon as settlers landed in America, English privateers showed up with a good load of slaves to sell. The first load of African slaves brought to Virginia arrived at Jamestown in 1619. English shippers, with royal encouragement, partnered with the Dutch to try and corner the slave market to the exclusion of the Spanish and Portuguese. The demand was greatest in the Spanish occupied areas of Central and South America, but the settlement of North America moved steadily ahead, and the demand for slave labour grew.

The Proclamation of 1625 ordered that Irish political prisoners be transported overseas and sold as laborers to English planters, who were settling the islands of the West Indies, officially establishing a policy that was to continue for two centuries. In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

Although African Negroes were better suited to work in the semi-tropical climates of the Caribbean, they had to be purchased, while the Irish were free for the catching, so to speak. It is not surprising that Ireland became the biggest source of livestock for the English slave trade.

The Confederation War broke out in Kilkenny in 1641, as the Irish attempted to throw out the English yet again, something that seem to happen at least once every generation. Sir Morgan Cavanaugh of Clonmullen, one of the leaders, was killed during a battle in 1646, and his two sons, Daniel and Charles (later Colonel Charles) continued with the struggle until the uprising was crushed by Cromwell in 1649. It is recorded that Daniel and other Carlow Kavanaghs exiled themselves to Spain, where their descendants are still found today, concentrated in the northwestern corner of that country. Young Charles, who married Mary Kavanagh, daughter of Brian Kavanagh of Borris, was either exiled to Nantes, France, or transported to Barbados… or both. Although we haven’t found a record of him in a military life in France, it is known that the crown of Leinster and other regal paraphernalia associated with the Kingship of Leinster was brought to France, where it was on display in Bordeaux, just south of Nantes, until the French Revolution in 1794. As Daniel and Charles were the heirs to the Leinster kingship, one of them undoubtedly brought these royal artifacts to Bordeaux.

In the 12 year period during and following the Confederation revolt, from 1641 to 1652, over 550,000 Irish were killed by the English and 300,000 were sold as slaves, as the Irish population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000. Banished soldiers were not allowed to take their wives and children with them, and naturally, the same for those sold as slaves. The result was a growing population of homeless women and children, who being a public nuisance, were likewise rounded up and sold. But the worse was yet to come.

In 1649, Cromwell landed in Ireland and attacked Drogheda, slaughtering some 30,000 Irish living in the city. Cromwell reported: “I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados.” A few months later, in 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in St. Kitt. During the 1650s decade of Cromwell’s Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas!

But all did not go smoothly with Cromwell’s extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in Barbados in 1649. They were hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads were put on pikes, prominently displayed around Bridgetown as a warning to others. Cromwell then fought two quick wars against the Dutch in 1651, and thereafter monopolized the slave trade. Four years later he seized Jamaica from Spain, which then became the center of the English slave trade in the Caribbean.

On 14 August 1652, Cromwell began his Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland, ordering that the Irish were to be transported overseas, starting with 12,000 Irish prisoners sold to Barbados. The infamous “Connaught or Hell” proclamation was issued on 1 May 1654, where all Irish were ordered to be removed from their lands and relocated west of the Shannon or be transported to the West Indies. Those who have been to County Clare, a land of barren rock will understand what an impossible position such an order placed the Irish. A local sheep owner claimed that Clare had the tallest sheep in the world, standing some 7 feet at the withers, because in order to live, there was so little food, they had to graze at 40 miles per hour. With no place to go and stay alive, the Irish were slow to respond. This was an embarrassing problem as Cromwell had financed his Irish expeditions through business investors, who were promised Irish estates as dividends, and his soldiers were promised freehold land in exchange for their services. To speed up the relocation process, a reinforcing law was passed on 26 June 1657 stating: “Those who fail to transplant themselves into Connaught or Co. Clare within six months… Shall be attained of high treason… are to be sent into America or some other parts beyond the seas… those banished who return are to suffer the pains of death as felons by virtue of this act, without benefit of Clergy.”

Although it was not a crime to kill any Irish, and soldiers were encouraged to do so, the slave trade proved too profitable to kill off the source of the product. Privateers and chartered shippers sent gangs out with quotas to fill, and in their zest as they scoured the countryside, they inadvertently kidnapped a number of English too. On March 25, 1659, a petition of 72 Englishmen was received in London, claiming they were illegally “now in slavery in the Barbados”' . The petition also claimed that "7,000-8,000 Scots taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester in 1651 were sold to the British plantations in the New World,” and that “200 Frenchmen had been kidnapped, concealed and sold in Barbados for 900 pounds of cotton each."

Subsequently some 52,000 Irish, mostly women and sturdy boys and girls, were sold to Barbados and Virginia alone. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were taken prisoners and ordered transported and sold as slaves. In 1656, Cromwell’s Council of State ordered that 1000 Irish girls and 1000 Irish boys be rounded up and taken to Jamaica to be sold as slaves to English planters. As horrendous as these numbers sound, it only reflects a small part of the evil program, as most of the slaving activity was not recorded. There were no tears shed amongst the Irish when Cromwell died in 1660.

The Irish welcomed the restoration of the monarchy, with Charles II duly crowned, but it was a hollow expectation. After reviewing the profitability of the slave trade, Charles II chartered the Company of Royal Adventurers in 1662, which later became the Royal African Company. The Royal Family, including Charles II, the Queen Dowager and the Duke of York, then contracted to supply at least 3000 slaves annually to their chartered company. They far exceeded their quotas.

There are records of Irish sold as slaves in 1664 to the French on St. Bartholomew, and English ships which made a stop in Ireland en route to the Americas, typically had a cargo of Irish to sell on into the 18th century. Few people today realize that from 1600 to 1699, far more Irish were sold as slaves than Africans.

Slaves or Indentured Servants

There has been a lot of whitewashing of the Irish slave trade, partly by not mentioning it, and partly by labelling slaves as indentured servants. There were indeed indentureds, including English, French, Spanish and even a few Irish. But there is a great difference between the two. Indentures bind two or more parties in mutual obligations. Servant indentures were agreements between an individual and a shipper in which the individual agreed to sell his services for a period of time in exchange for passage, and during his service, he would receive proper housing, food, clothing, and usually a piece of land at the end of the term of service. It is believed that some of the Irish that went to the Amazon settlement after the Battle of Kinsale and up to 1612 were exiled military who went voluntarily, probably as indentureds to Spanish or Portuguese shippers.

However, from 1625 onward the Irish were sold, pure and simple as slaves. There were no indenture agreements, no protection, no choice. They were captured and originally turned over to shippers to be sold for their profit. Because the profits were so great, generally 900 pounds of cotton for a slave, the Irish slave trade became an industry in which everyone involved (except the Irish) had a share of the profits.

Treatment

Although the Africans and Irish were housed together and were the property of the planter owners, the Africans received much better treatment, food and housing. In the British West Indies the planters routinely tortured white slaves for any infraction. Owners would hang Irish slaves by their hands and set their hands or feet afire as a means of punishment. To end this barbarity, Colonel William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of Negro slaves on the grounds that, "as the planters would have to pay much more for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was wanting in the case of (Irish)...." many of whom, he charged, were killed by overwork and cruel treatment. African Negroes cost generally about 20 to 50 pounds Sterling, compared to 900 pounds of cotton (about 5 pounds Sterling) for an Irish. They were also more durable in the hot climate, and caused fewer problems. The biggest bonus with the Africans though, was they were NOT Catholic, and any heathen pagan was better than an Irish Papist. Irish prisoners were commonly sentenced to a term of service, so theoretically they would eventually be free. In practice, many of the slavers sold the Irish on the same terms as prisoners for servitude of 7 to 10 years.

There was no racial consideration or discrimination, you were either a freeman or a slave, but there was aggressive religious discrimination, with the Pope considered by all English Protestants to be the enemy of God and civilization, and all Catholics heathens and hated. Irish Catholics were not considered to be Christians. On the other hand, the Irish were literate, usually more so than the plantation owners, and thus were used as house servants, account keepers, scribes and teachers. But any infraction was dealt with the same severity, whether African or Irish, field worker or domestic servant. Floggings were common, and if a planter beat an Irish slave to death, it was not a crime, only a financial loss, and a lesser loss than killing a more expensive African. Parliament passed the Act to Regulate Slaves on British Plantations in 1667, designating authorized punishments to include whippings and brandings for slave offenses against a Christian. Irish Catholics were not considered Christians, even if they were freemen.

The planters quickly began breeding the comely Irish women, not just because they were attractive, but because it was profitable,,, as well as pleasurable. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, and although an Irish woman may become free, her children were not. Naturally, most Irish mothers remained with their children after earning their freedom. Planters then began to breed Irish women with African men to produce more slaves who had lighter skin and brought a higher price. The practice became so widespread that in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” This legislation was not the result of any moral or racial consideration, but rather because the practice was interfering with the profits of the Royal African Company! It is interesting to note that from 1680 to 1688, the Royal African Company sent 249 shiploads of slaves to the Indies and American Colonies, with a cargo of 60,000 Irish and Africans. More than 14,000 died during passage.

See: http://www.kavanaghfamily.com/articles/2003/20030618jfc.htm

994

Must we have retribution for every historical wrong? What about the thousands of Irish people who were enslaved by Gaelic lords as cumail, senchléithe, mug, etc.?

mayotom

994 wrote: »

Must we have retribution for every historical wrong? What about the thousands of Irish people who were enslaved by Gaelic lords as cumail, senchléithe, mug, etc.?

you're missing the point, Retribution is not the issue, its the fact that its long forgotten that is wrong, every country remembers their dead in some way, with national days etc,

the times of Irish Slavery is never talked about as if its taboo or something.

the question I ask is WHY forget our people.

also what I find interesting is how the Irish have influenced the above countries for Centuries, and that is still quiet evident in those countries through religion, traditions and culture,

just look at places like Tazmania

Snickers Man

mayotom wrote:

In 1649, Cromwell landed in Ireland and attacked Drogheda, slaughtering some 30,000 Irish living in the city

I'm certainly not from the "Cromwell was a nice guy" revisionist school but that figure is way out. More like 3,000 and most of them would have been combatants.

donaghs

The Irish slavery issue is perhaps overlooked in public debate, but there's lots to read about it.

mayotom wrote: »

were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters.

Whilst that's awful, its interesting that the Irish of Montserrat later became cruel slave-owners themselves.

mayotom wrote: »

The Confederation War broke out in Kilkenny in 1641, as the Irish attempted to throw out the English yet again, something that seem to happen at least once every generation.In 1649, Cromwell landed in Ireland and attacked Drogheda, slaughtering some 30,000 Irish living in the city.

The figures have been argued about. But more importantly, the Confederates were an attempt by the Irish (Gaelic & Anglo-Irish) Catholic nobility the regain control of the government of Ireland - it was not a National Liberation Movement. They claimed to loyal to King Charles I of England, and they later sided with the Royalists in the English Civil War (this war is vital to understanding the events in Ireland and Scotland during this time).

mayotom wrote: »

Cromwell reported: “I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados.” A few months later, in 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in St. Kitt. During the 1650s decade of Cromwell’s Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas. But all did not go smoothly with Cromwell’s extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in Barbados in 1649.

Cromwell's main aim in Ireland wasn't to exterminate Irish Catholics. He wanted to end the Irish rebellion facet of the English Civil War. And as a consequence of this he certainly was a cruel b*stard.

mayotom wrote: »

There were no tears shed amongst the Irish when Cromwell died in 1660.

He died in 1658. In 1661 the English dug up his body, and postumously executed him. His body was then hung in chains, then thrown in a pit, with his head spiked on a pole.

Fratton Fred

Why just remember Irish slaves, why not remember all slaves as the French are doing?

It would be nice to read something different about this as well, every article on the web appears to be a word for word copy of theone above.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why just remember Irish slaves, why not remember all slaves as the French are doing?

It would be nice to read something different about this as well, every article on the web appears to be a word for word copy of theone above.

nice one fred-it would be interesting to see the port records of the lkes of liverpool and bristol both of the built on the slave trade and maybe because of their closeness to ireland

Hookey

getz wrote: »

nice one fred-it would be interesting to see the port records of the lkes of liverpool and bristol both of the built on the slave trade and maybe because of their closeness to ireland

Ah, what a Hibernocentric viewpoint. Liverpool and Bristol grew because of their proximity to the Americas, not Ireland. If there had been a mass trade of Irish slaves why on earth would slavers ship them from Ireland to England first? Black slaves weren't shipped via the UK, why would Irish?

NB. Although its true that Bristol and Liverpool grew off the back of the slave trade; relatively few slaves actually arrived in either port.

getz

Hookey wrote: »

Ah, what a Hibernocentric viewpoint. Liverpool and Bristol grew because of their proximity to the Americas, not Ireland. If there had been a mass trade of Irish slaves why on earth would slavers ship them from Ireland to England first? Black slaves weren't shipped via the UK, why would Irish?

NB. Although its true that Bristol and Liverpool grew off the back of the slave trade; relatively few slaves actually arrived in either port.

liverpool has a slave museum--between 1730-1783 liverpool was a big slave trader -75%of all european slaving ships left from liverpool- liverpool ships carried half of the 3 million africans accross the atlantic not my words just the history of liverpools slave trade the reason from sailing from liverpool was its transitlantic shipping to america

bullpost

A documentary has been made about Irish ex-slaves in the Caribbean - the so-called "Red Legs". It is supposed to be aired soon on Tg4 (may already have been?).

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/travel/2009/0117/1232059655355.html

getz

Hookey wrote: »

Ah, what a Hibernocentric viewpoint. Liverpool and Bristol grew because of their proximity to the Americas, not Ireland. If there had been a mass trade of Irish slaves why on earth would slavers ship them from Ireland to England first? Black slaves weren't shipped via the UK, why would Irish?

NB. Although its true that Bristol and Liverpool grew off the back of the slave trade; relatively few slaves actually arrived in either port.

after doing a little more checking -it seams that both liverpool and bristol was used for the slave trade because liverpool itself was in need for large amounts of cotton for the mills of lancashire and bristol for the import of molasses and other goods from the west indies , and plantation products so it would make more sense to have a cargo both ways -you know this is a very interesting subject i think i am going to do more research on it if i can come up with anything else i will put on this thread

Hookey

getz wrote: »

liverpool has a slave museum--between 1730-1783 liverpool was a big slave trader -75%of all european slaving ships left from liverpool- liverpool ships carried half of the 3 million africans accross the atlantic not my words just the history of liverpools slave trade the reason from sailing from liverpool was its transitlantic shipping to america

Liverpool ships yes, but not slaves via Liverpool; they sailed to Africa with manufactured goods, sold them, picked up the slaves, took them to the Americas, loaded up with cotton or sugar, sailed back to Liverpool. The slaves funded part of the exercise, but few of them actually ended up in Britain.

getz

Hookey wrote: »

Liverpool ships yes, but not slaves via Liverpool; they sailed to Africa with manufactured goods, sold them, picked up the slaves, took them to the Americas, loaded up with cotton or sugar, sailed back to Liverpool. The slaves funded part of the exercise, but few of them actually ended up in Britain.

yes what you are saying seems to be true then i found a interesting web site---www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2007/08/17/ was it a cover up ?

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

yes what you are saying seems to be true then i found a interesting web site---www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2007/08/17/ was it a cover up ?

In a sense, yes.

We discussed British involvement in slavery on the British Empire thread back in Oct 08. I have done some first hand research on the subject and posted info there. Among black historians it is a well known certitude that the British in the sixteenth century originated much of the slave trade. Original documents support this. The English needed slaves for their sugar plantations in Barbados. As early as 1562 John Hawkins - one of the chief architects of the British Navy - began the salve trade between West Africa and the Caribbean. That slavery also became an important part of the British economy and the building up of some English ports is also historic fact.

Many Irish were shipped out as slaves during the time of Cromwell. Cromwell actually refers to this in some of his letters so it is well sourced.

McArmalite

MarchDub wrote: »

In a sense, yes.

We discussed British involvement in slavery on the British Empire thread back in Oct 08. I have done some first hand research on the subject and posted info there. Among black historians it is a well known certitude that the British in the sixteenth century originated much of the slave trade. Original documents support this. The English needed slaves for their sugar plantations in Barbados. As early as 1562 John Hawkins - one of the chief architects of the British Navy - began the salve trade between West Africa and the Caribbean. That slavery also became an important part of the British economy and the building up of some English ports is also historic fact.

Many Irish were shipped out as slaves during the time of Cromwell. Cromwell actually refers to this in some of his letters so it is well sourced.

Here are the links to MarchDub's postings on teh slave trade. Well worth a read.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57425302&postcount=374

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57441188&postcount=380

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57460843&postcount=385

I'm not having a go at this thread, but slavery is often spoke of as if a thing of the past, when in fact thousands the world over are still kept in conditions of slavery, prostitution, child labour etc. See the modern anti slavery link.

http://www.antislavery.org/

mayotom

McArmalite wrote: »

I'm not having a go at this thread, but slavery is often spoke of as if a thing of the past, when in fact thousands the world over are still kept in conditions of slavery, prostitution, child labour etc. See the modern anti slavery link.

http://www.antislavery.org/

yes I think Panorama is showing a program this week about the Miss Treatment of Laborous in Dubai, I see it here all the time, it might as well be slavery, the Dark side of Dubai is in one of the Brit papers this week.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Why just remember Irish slaves, why not remember all slaves as the French are doing?

It would be nice to read something different about this as well, every article on the web appears to be a word for word copy of theone above.

Certainly we should remember all, what's more concerning is that the French commemorate the Irish slaves, but the Irish Don't

Hookey wrote:

Ah, what a Hibernocentric viewpoint. Liverpool and Bristol grew because of their proximity to the Americas, not Ireland. If there had been a mass trade of Irish slaves why on earth would slavers ship them from Ireland to England first? Black slaves weren't shipped via the UK, why would Irish?

NB. Although its true that Bristol and Liverpool grew off the back of the slave trade; relatively few slaves actually arrived in either port.

Its all in the logistics,, Irish Slaves were traded through England, African Slaves were traded through the likes of Cape Verde, Canaries and Azores. It made sense to use Liverpool

getz

mayotom wrote: »

yes I think Panorama is showing a program this week about the Miss Treatment of Laborous in Dubai, I see it here all the time, it might as well be slavery, the Dark side of Dubai is in one of the Brit papers this week.



Certainly we should remember all, what's more concerning is that the French commemorate the Irish slaves, but the Irish Don't




Its all in the logistics,, Irish Slaves were traded through England, African Slaves were traded through the likes of Cape Verde, Canaries and Azores. It made sense to use Liverpool

there is documentary evidence of irish white slaves sailing from liverpool to barbados----some numbers for all--- white slaves living in barbados-1629-1800=97%-1643-37,200=86%-1684-23,624-34%1724-18,292=25%-1786-16,167 =21%----the%is of the number of slaves that are white-most of them irish but not all

cherrypicker555

donaghs wrote: »

The Irish slavery issue is perhaps overlooked in public debate, but there's lots to read about it.


Whilst that's awful, its interesting that the Irish of Montserrat later became cruel slave-owners themselves.


The figures have been argued about. But more importantly, the Confederates were an attempt by the Irish (Gaelic & Anglo-Irish) Catholic nobility the regain control of the government of Ireland - it was not a National Liberation Movement. They claimed to loyal to King Charles I of England, and they later sided with the Royalists in the English Civil War (this war is vital to understanding the events in Ireland and Scotland during this time).



Cromwell's main aim in Ireland wasn't to exterminate Irish Catholics. He wanted to end the Irish rebellion facet of the English Civil War. And as a consequence of this he certainly was a cruel b*stard.


He died in 1658. In 1661 the English dug up his body, and postumously executed him. His body was then hung in chains, then thrown in a pit, with his head spiked on a pole.

Where did Cromwell exterminate Irish ? Place ? time ?

At Drogheda and wexford most killed were English settlers or those connected to the royalist army, most were Protestant.

But dont let reality stand in the way.

As for slaves, not unique to Ireland, they were from all over Britain.

Without press ganging there would have been no Royal Navy.

MarchDub

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Where did Cromwell exterminate Irish ? Place ? time ?

At Drogheda and wexford most killed were English settlers or those connected to the royalist army, most were Protestant.

But dont let reality stand in the way.

As for slaves, not unique to Ireland, they were from all over Britain.

Without press ganging there would have been no Royal Navy.

You obviously have not read the original documents from the period - there are army dispatches describing slaughter. In Cromwell's own writing we can see him boasting of killing Catholic priests "promiscuously" as he calls it. He also boasts of killing "papists". He does this both in his own correspondence and then makes similar comments in his address to parliament after the events. There is ample documentary evidence both from the New Model Army sources and from the Irish side to make it all very real.

As for slaves - you fall into your own pit. Not being unique to Ireland makes slavery OK or vicissitudes it? On what moral playing field are you operating on?

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

You obviously have not read the original documents from the period - there are army dispatches describing slaughter. In Cromwell's own writing we can see him boasting of killing Catholic priests "promiscuously" as he calls it. He also boasts of killing "papists". He does this both in his own correspondence and then makes similar comments in his address to parliament after the events. There is ample documentary evidence both from the New Model Army sources and from the Irish side to make it all very real.

As for slaves - you fall into your own pit. Not being unique to Ireland makes slavery OK or vicissitudes it? On what moral playing field are you operating on?

as a englishman there is no excuse for the passed ,except i was not around when this went on ,slavery at that time went on in most every country in the world .but that was well in the passed,as for slavery to date ,ireland itself has a lot to answer for take this as starters--did the catholic church imprison wayward girls ?-this was up to 1996-teenage girls in ireland who got pregnant or raped went into prison like asylums run by the catholic church ,nuns oversaw day to day operations, the girls were forced to work in laundries from dawn to dusk 364 days a year,and were fed only gruel, the asylums were surrounded by high walls topped with broken glass and had locked gates and bars on the windows, nuns stood guard at night ,these girls were imprisoned for life, 30,000 woman were locked up in these asylums over the years; slavery is alive here and now in ireland

cherrypicker555

MarchDub wrote: »

You obviously have not read the original documents from the period - there are army dispatches describing slaughter. In Cromwell's own writing we can see him boasting of killing Catholic priests "promiscuously" as he calls it. He also boasts of killing "papists". He does this both in his own correspondence and then makes similar comments in his address to parliament after the events. There is ample documentary evidence both from the New Model Army sources and from the Irish side to make it all very real.

As for slaves - you fall into your own pit. Not being unique to Ireland makes slavery OK or vicissitudes it? On what moral playing field are you operating on?

Drogheda and wexford were English setter towns, most of Ashtons Royalist army were protestant although some catholic. Mainly English cavelry, the ancestors of the modern British armies life guards regiment.

A few priests were also killed because they were agents of Rome, ie spies, remember Rome and spain were funding the royalists.

There is no evidence cromwell went out of his way to exterminate catholics on mass, those killed were in a battle zone and killed by cannon, fire , sword many drowned escaping wexford.

Balmed Out

Some very wrong figures and opinions floating around here.
First of all the number of Irish sold into slavery during the period of cromwell aswell as a bit before and after with charles 1 and 2 was most likely aroud the 55,000 mark. The vast majority were sent to barbadose (for much of the period known simply as the tobacco island) and later to jamaica.
They comprised of mainly but not only catholics and included people of every social tier. Some upperclass members of the ascendency who became destitute after the civil war were victims too. The civil war did include many Irish catholic victims and the idea that it was only planters that died is total bull. About 40 percent of the population died, two thirds of whom were catholic. The parliamentart army was overwhemingly prodestant and purtitan whilst the royalist forces in Ireland were an uneasy alliance between the catholic confederacy and the regular royalist supporters.
Most of the trade in Irish slaves was via Bristol and some Irish slaves were indeed shipped there first. Conditions on the ships were comparable to what the african slaves endured. There were also slaves sent from Britain especially scotland. Most of the slaves were either just abducted, especially children and teenagers, "barbadoed" as punishment for being tories (members of guerilla groups after the war) or they were the families of soldiers who died during the war or fled to other countries after it.
Many of the women sent were used as mistresses for plantations or spent their lives being sold through different classes of brothel as they lost their looks. Some plantation owners were known to be paedophiles who bought up children too.
The Irish were known to revolt regularly often with their black comrades and some who managed to escape made there way to work in monseratt or became pirates etc. None are known to have made it home.

In addition there is plenty of evidence that cromwell did indeed set out to exterminate catholics in mass. He brought with him not just his new model army but thousands of scythes to destroy crops. He purposefully caused mass starvation. He then confiscated all the land belonging to catholics in ulster, leinster and munster and much of the more fertile land in connaught. The land in connaught was then redistibuted giving everyone 10 or 20 % ( cant remember which) of what they had before. Those that refused were sold to slavery or became guerilla fighters (tories). The only reason these counties werent complethy ethnically cleansed is the planters wanted others to do their labour but this labour wasnt even allowed to live in a garissoned town.
As an aside as well as slaves there were many more indentured servants who signed their lifes over for 2 to 20 years (typically 7) in exchange for transport to the islands. In that time they were often treated worse then slaves. Why give a slave who you own for life a particularly dangerous job ?
Sorry if this was a bit longwinded.

McArmalite

getz wrote: »

as a englishman there is no excuse for the passed ,except i was not around when this went on ,slavery at that time went on in most every country in the world .but that was well in the passed,as for slavery to date ,ireland itself has a lot to answer for take this as starters--did the catholic church imprison wayward girls ?-this was up to 1996-teenage girls in ireland who got pregnant or raped went into prison like asylums run by the catholic church ,nuns oversaw day to day operations, the girls were forced to work in laundries from dawn to dusk 364 days a year,and were fed only gruel, the asylums were surrounded by high walls topped with broken glass and had locked gates and bars on the windows, nuns stood guard at night ,these girls were imprisoned for life, 30,000 woman were locked up in these asylums over the years; slavery is alive here and now in ireland

" prison like asylum "....were forced to work in laundries from dawn to dusk 364 days a year,and were fed only gruel, "...." slavery is alive here and now " Sounds like the way you'd treat your missus

O'Coonassa

Snickers Man wrote: »

I'm certainly not from the "Cromwell was a nice guy" revisionist school but that figure is way out. More like 3,000 and most of them would have been combatants.

Yeah and most of them English Royalist Protestants at that. Cromwell was a twat but when you see who he was up against it's hardly surprising.

As for slavery people were sent from all over these islands as Royalist POW's. When the monarchy was restored and Cromwell had been dug up and hung the POW's were released.

Look at the history of Montserrat. There were Irish of all traditions at every level of society from the 1630's onwards. They weren't slaves but there were alot of slave-owners amongst them. People (mostly Yanks) try to make out that indentured service was like slavery but it actually wasn't in the slightest.

O'Coonassa

There seem to be alot of people thinking that we were slaves. Can they perhaps come up with a contempory bill of sale or ownership? Shipping manifests? Any actual evidence at all?

Balmed Out

sir william petty who carried out the down survey of ireland said in his book the political anatomy of ireland "the widows and orphans, the deserted wives and families of the swordsmen were kidnapped and transported by the slave merchants of bristol which their previous experience enabled them to organise with advantage to themselves"

There are lots of other contemporary reports like that. i know the ships the jane, the susan and mary, the elizabeth and the two brothers were meant to be used

T-Square

mayotom wrote: »

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies.

Who the hell wants to be reminded of the fact that while the Irish were slaves, they were slaves within a 2 tier slave system.

The English
The Irish (tier 1)
The Blacks (tier 2)

and the Irish were the most savage/evil slave masters in the world.

Nothing to be proud of.

While vacationing in Antigua, I was surprised by the number of people bearing my surname in the Antiguan phone book.

O'Coonassa

Balmed Out wrote: »

sir william petty who carried out the down survey of ireland said in his book the political anatomy of ireland "the widows and orphans, the deserted wives and families of the swordsmen were kidnapped and transported by the slave merchants of bristol which their previous experience enabled them to organise with advantage to themselves"

There are lots of other contemporary reports like that. i know the ships the jane, the susan and mary, the elizabeth and the two brothers were meant to be used

People were 'Barbadoed' from all over Europe by privateers but they were indentured under contract and not slaves. Contracts changed hands for money but 'white' people and their offspring were never sold in the manner of African slaves.

getz

McArmalite wrote: »

" prison like asylum "....were forced to work in laundries from dawn to dusk 364 days a year,and were fed only gruel, "...." slavery is alive here and now " Sounds like the way you'd treat your missus

you may very well think its funny for a young irish girl to be locked up for not comitting any crime at the age of 16, and not being allowed out even at times at the age of 39 until some nun decides, and this was backed by the irish republic who even gave money to help run these asylums- but as the ferns report said in 2005,over the sexual abuse of children the the goverment and the church tried to cover it all up-lets all pretend it dident happen

mayotom

McArmalite wrote: »

" prison like asylum "....were forced to work in laundries from dawn to dusk 364 days a year,and were fed only gruel, "...." slavery is alive here and now " Sounds like the way you'd treat your missus

Which day did they get off???

lazybhoy

Balmed Out wrote: »

Some very wrong figures and opinions floating around here.
First of all the number of Irish sold into slavery during the period of cromwell aswell as a bit before and after with charles 1 and 2 was most likely aroud the 55,000 mark. The vast majority were sent to barbadose (for much of the period known simply as the tobacco island) and later to jamaica.
They comprised of mainly but not only catholics and included people of every social tier. Some upperclass members of the ascendency who became destitute after the civil war were victims too. The civil war did include many Irish catholic victims and the idea that it was only planters that died is total bull. About 40 percent of the population died, two thirds of whom were catholic. The parliamentart army was overwhemingly prodestant and purtitan whilst the royalist forces in Ireland were an uneasy alliance between the catholic confederacy and the regular royalist supporters.
Most of the trade in Irish slaves was via Bristol and some Irish slaves were indeed shipped there first. Conditions on the ships were comparable to what the african slaves endured. There were also slaves sent from Britain especially scotland. Most of the slaves were either just abducted, especially children and teenagers, "barbadoed" as punishment for being tories (members of guerilla groups after the war) or they were the families of soldiers who died during the war or fled to other countries after it.
Many of the women sent were used as mistresses for plantations or spent their lives being sold through different classes of brothel as they lost their looks. Some plantation owners were known to be paedophiles who bought up children too.
The Irish were known to revolt regularly often with their black comrades and some who managed to escape made there way to work in monseratt or became pirates etc. None are known to have made it home.

In addition there is plenty of evidence that cromwell did indeed set out to exterminate catholics in mass. He brought with him not just his new model army but thousands of scythes to destroy crops. He purposefully caused mass starvation. He then confiscated all the land belonging to catholics in ulster, leinster and munster and much of the more fertile land in connaught. The land in connaught was then redistibuted giving everyone 10 or 20 % ( cant remember which) of what they had before. Those that refused were sold to slavery or became guerilla fighters (tories). The only reason these counties werent complethy ethnically cleansed is the planters wanted others to do their labour but this labour wasnt even allowed to live in a garissoned town.
As an aside as well as slaves there were many more indentured servants who signed their lifes over for 2 to 20 years (typically 7) in exchange for transport to the islands. In that time they were often treated worse then slaves. Why give a slave who you own for life a particularly dangerous job ?
Sorry if this was a bit longwinded.

Yer, you stick with your Irish nationalist narnia version.

There is no record of Cromwell exterminating Irish Catholics on mass, but there are records of him hanging troops who did not pay for produce, there are also records where he stated produce was to be paid for and locals not involved treated civilly. Nor any record of your claims he tried to starve the Irish, famine and pestilence were the side affects of civil wars raging across Europe at that time.

Once again, the explusion of catholics west of the shannon is a total lie.

Catholics did have land seized, but this belonged to the Gaelic and Norman aristocracy, Irish peasants were surfs and did not own land. They remained as workers not surfs for the new land owners, Cromwell abolished feudalism in these islands.

As for your claims Irish indentured servants had it worse then African slaves, what is that based upon ?

Most "slaves", (actually indentured servants) were not abducted, rather guilty of minor crimes like vagrancy or orphans, or those so poor they volunteered or political prisoners.

As for paedophile plantation owners, it was the norm in those days for girls to be sexually active and sometimes married at 14, all across Europe, your trying to distort and bend history to suit your agenda, which is what has happened to much history in Ireland,