Raising a toast to the Protestants of New York…
About the time of the 150th anniversary of the onset of the Famine I spent about 6 or 7 hours in the newspaper archive of the Central Library in Belfast digging into contemporary accounts of the famine. Although there had been a Nationalist paper called the Vindicator, only copies of the Newsletter were to be found in the library’s collection. I kept mostly to reading the spirited editorials, and what emerged was a spirited battle going on between the Belfast paper and the Times of London, in which the former consistently fought the corner for the dignity and humanity of “its fellow countrymen in the South and West”. Only when the short lived rebellion of the Young Irishmen in 1848 did its defence weaken. Peter Duffy in the Wall Street Journal notes that the Famine called out similar compassionate responses in contemporary New York.
Garibaldy
There is a very balanced account written by one of the leading historians of the famine here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml
This is certainly a balanced account, but I’m sorry, the English still do not come well out of it. The economic switch was certainly a big factor in compounding the problems; but it cannot be viewed in isolation and the author does not attempt to.
This set of ethnic prejudices, which have now been abundantly documented, had the general effect of prompting British ministers, civil servants, and politicians to view and to treat the Catholic Irish as something less than fully human.
This really is not England’s finest hour, whatever way you spin it.
Kensei,
I have no doubt that it was not England’s finest hour, and I have never attemtped to suggest otherwise. What I have attempted to suggest was that there is no one size fits all genocidal explanation, especially given the relief effort. And I interpret Donnelly as saying that it was a fine effort by the Peel government, and a disgraceful one by Russell’s. I don’t think he sees a single English response.
I suspect that if you looked at Victorian commentary on the poor (or the undeserving poor, beggars and the criminal classes as they might have called them) then you would see a whole lot of similarities between that an attitudes to the Irish.
Racism had its part to play. But it seems to me not as much as the traditional nationalist myths would have it. Which of course ignore the Irish role. In every famine, there are those who profiteer from the suffering of their own people.
“As I read the piece by Donnelly (in all I think it’s 8 parts), he praises the early relief efforts under Peel, who was pursuing an old-fashioned Tory paternalism, which meant that he believed that the aristocracy and government had a duty to look after the poor. [b]Russell’s government didn’t.[/b] It was Peel’s government that set up the system of relief, [b]and Russell’s that callously destroyed it.[/b]”
Garibaldy, don’t forget that Russel would be the only person in europe to offer the Pope sanctuary.
….and there’s more curiosity between Lord Russel’s appointment to Prime minister given the sudden step down of Robert Peel after his attempted assination by Daniel M’Naghten who claimed Vatican involvement, but was surprisingly found not guilty by Reason of Insanity.
Both the election of Lord John Russell and Pope Pius IX took place in the space of 14 days under shadowy circumstances and both the elected were to further a relationship that would have cause for concern.
Ulsters my homeland – what is your point?
Ulsters my homeland – what is your point?
Would it be- the Pope wears red socks?
Garibaldy
I have no doubt that it was not England’s finest hour, and I have never attemtped to suggest otherwise. What I have attempted to suggest was that there is no one size fits all genocidal explanation, especially given the relief effort. And I interpret Donnelly as saying that it was a fine effort by the Peel government, and a disgraceful one by Russell’s. I don’t think he sees a single English response.
I’m not convinced that this isn’t a straw man argument. The Famine throws up a lot of anger, but I think that most people could be talked round to the position that England is not a uniform block rather easily. The fact that good actions were initially followed does not mitigate against the disastrous ones that followed any more than my previously helping someone will mitigate when I knife them in the chest.
I suspect that if you looked at Victorian commentary on the poor (or the undeserving poor, beggars and the criminal classes as they might have called them) then you would see a whole lot of similarities between that an attitudes to the Irish.
Which is instructive on how the Victorian English viewed the Irish, and to me that seems to undermine your point. But it also merely flags up that Victorian attitudes to the lower social order was also deplorable, which is no defense of anything.
Racism had its part to play. But it seems to me not as much as the traditional nationalist myths would have it. Which of course ignore the Irish role. In every famine, there are those who profiteer from the suffering of their own people.
Sure. But the tenets of the Nationalist analysis hold.
1. Does Britain bear a large degree of the responsibility for the famine, and the resultant 1 million deaths?
It is inarguable that it does. Ireland was under British rule. Britain was the richest state in the world at the time. The famine, or certainly its worst affects, could have been prevented with decisive action – the initial actions of the government clearly demonstrate that and serve merely to lengthen the rope.
Moreover, it did not learn its lessons. Britain went on to preside over similar catastrophes in India years later.
2. Did English attitudes to the Irish exacerbate the problems?
Both you and Mr Donnelly have indicated as such.
3. Is the anger against the British justified.
If one and two are true, then hyperbole aside it is also inarguable.
4. Would an indigenous Republican government have acted in a better capacity.
We are into the realms of speculation, but I suggest it is very difficult to see how things could be otherwise. There would undoubtedly have been laissez-faire ideas floating in Ireland if a Republican Government had have somehow been formed in 1798. But it’s almost impossible to see how even a vote that only extended to white adult males would not have registered a desire for famine response given the size of the problem.
The resources in this case may not have been there: but that is a separate question to the moral argument.
Anger gets mixed into the Nationalist argument: that is surely understandable. But the important parts, as always relate to moral authority and sovereignty. You’ll have a hard time convincing most of the population of Ireland that the Famine is illustrative against independence on those counts.
Kensei,
I think you should have a look at some of the comments on this thread to see if it’s a straw man.
The upper and middle classes of the Irish were accepted as the equals of the English counterparts by the British elite – at Oxbridge, in the law courts, in cultural production, in social settings, in administering the Empire and in Parliament. Just look at O’Connell and his alliance with the Liberals – who were of course soon to be responsible for the removal of the relief effort. My point is that the people suffering from the Famine were the poor – that is why I introduced class prejudice in Victorian England. I am arguing that what many people see as anti-Irish racism was in fact mostly the combination of class prejudice and providentialism. I am not saying that all Irish were viewed by the English as like criminals.
You seem to think I am trying to absolve the British government of responsibility. I am not. I am however trying to understand what happened in its fullest context. Rather than fit it into a simple narrative. Capitalism and providentialism are where most of the blame belongs for the withdrawal of the relief efforts. It is capitalism that explains why Irish Catholic merchants – many of them supporters of O’Connell -exported food. Blame belongs with the capitalist elite in Britain and Ireland rather than simply the British.
I agree a native government (even a home rule one as well as an independent one) would have reacted better. Although whether this would have been altruism not fear I have my doubts. Hence my comments oin the Hampshire scenario.
I don’t see how what I’ve been saying can be construed in any way as opposed to an independent Ireland. What I am opposed to, as I’ve said already in this comment I think twice, is the idea that all the blame belongs unthinkingly on England, or on racism.
Garibaldy
think Occam’s Razor
Everything is more complicated then it appears
To start your car could involve a long explanation involving pistons, fuel injectors and spark plugs or it could be when ypu turn the key to the left it starts. Both are correct one cuts to the quick
Don’t buy it Steve. Don’t think the simple explanation here concurs with the historical evidence.
Garibaldy I admire your attempts at defusing some the wilder theories and myths surrounding the Famine but I’m afraid you’re ploughing a rather lonely furrow (pardon the pun).
There is simply far too much emotional baggage from the Famine for most people to be able to listen to logic and reason.
First and foremost what turned the Great Famine into such a calamitous event as opposed to the previous lesser famines which occurred with unerring regularity in Ireland and which have not been endowed with dark genocidal motives is the horrific chain of coincidences which led to the “perfect storm” of 1847.
The previous two years’ crop failures had, just about, been managed and perhaps the failure of 1847 could have been mitigated had it not been for the election of Russell’s free trade government. Now it is important to realise that for most progressives the defeat of the protectionist, aristocratic Tories and the election of the Liberals is usually regarded as a great achievement however in Ireland the law of unintended consequences came into play with a ghastly vengeance.
Previously the Tories had dogmatically defended agricultural protectionism in the shape of the Corn Laws to maintain the privileged position of the English (and Irish let us not forget) landed classes. It did not matter that the English working men faced starvation because they could not afford the high price of British wheat as long as cheap imports from the Americas were kept out.
However the Liberals successfully destroyed this philosophy and through free trade allowed cheap foreign wheat into Britain, but it was a long and bitter struggle indeed. So when the potato harvest failed in Ireland the Liberals could not bring themselves to suddenly adopt a policy of government intervention in the agricultural market.
Like I say it was an appalling mischance for Ireland that at the very moment when government manipulation of the food market was required a government avowedly opposed to government manipulation of the food market had finally been elected. To adduce racist motives to a government made up of progressives and whose members had earlier battled for years to end slavery is unfair.
As regards the export of food from Ireland, who do you think was doing this? Does anyone believe that the British came over and stole the food? No, the people who were exporting Irish food during the famine were Irish farmers and Irish food exporters who would probably have reacted to being told they couldn’t sell their harvests in the same way you would do if the government insisted that a homeless person be lodged in your spare room.
Until we in the rich first world surrender all our wealth to give to our poor and starving fellow human beings in the rest of the world then it is a bit rich of us to condemn a Kildare beef farmer for not giving his cattle to starving peasants in Leitrim. It is very easy indeed to look with great moral superiority on the stiff necked white men of Victorian England, but I wonder how the descendants of those people starving in Africa today will judge our smug self satisfied lives?
Harry and Garibaldy,
Excellent points.
Harry, a petty quibble but:
“the Liberals successfully ……. allowed cheap foreign wheat into Britain”
I think that it was actually Peel, deeply affected by the situation in Ireland, who repealed the Corn Laws, and, thanks to that little shit Disraeli, brought down his government and condemned the Tories to 3 decades in the political wilderness as a result. This same Disraeli then, in the 1870′s, blithely presided over the destruction of British agriculture due to the cheap imports for which he crucified Peel.
All the best,
Harry:
“Previously the Tories had dogmatically defended agricultural protectionism in the shape of the Corn Laws to maintain the privileged position of the English (and Irish let us not forget) landed classes.”
Less than 5% of Irish land was owned by Irish natives. If you didn’t pay your rent you were out on the road. O’Connell did try to get the ports closed and absentee landlords taxed.
Janey Mac,
You seem to be mistaking Irish native for Catholics. And that may have been true for the end of the eighteenth century (although the issue of collusive discovery where a protestant family friend becomes the nominal owner to protect the land for the Catholic owners and ostensible conversions of Catholic sons complicate the matter). But by the period of the Famine the proportion had begun to climb again. More importantly, ownership of the land did not entail ownership of the produce farmed there. So the fact remains that middle class Catholic Irishmen exported food for profit while their countrymen and co-religionists starved. We need to account for their actions rather than simply say Britain exported food from Ireland.
On the point about what was an Irish native, I guess then that people like Wolfe Tone and Thomas Russell were not Irish natives in the eighteenth century, nor were people like Thomas Davis in this period on account of their religion. Castholicism does not equal Irish. Despite that prick O’Connell’s best efforts.
‘First and foremost what turned the Great Famine into such a calamitous event as opposed to the previous lesser famines which occurred with unerring regularity in Ireland and which have not been endowed with dark genocidal motives is the horrific chain of coincidences which led to the “perfect storm” of 1847.’
How much was coincidence and how much was the inevitable outcome of the particular political and economic relationship which had been established between the offshore island and Westminster since 1700 and more particularly since the Act of Union.
Ireland’s population was 2 million in 1700. By 1800 thanks to the potato it had risen to between 4 and 5 million . By 1840 it was 8.5 million . Outside of a small area around Belfast there had been little ‘industrialisation. Following the 1798 Rebellion and the Act of Union -Ireland became a cheap source of food for England’s fast growing industrial population as well as a prime recruiting ground for the empire’s soldiery. It was a relationship which suited the Empire builders in London and it also suited some local interests in Ireland such as the Catholic Church and the food exporters !
‘I agree a native government (even a home rule one as well as an independent one) would have reacted better. Although whether this would have been altruism not fear I have my doubts.’
In the 1740/41 Famine in which it is estimated 300,000 to 400,000 died there was a native Government which did react to the situation by stopping the export of food and by setting up rural relief centres . Much of the relief was provided by Protestant charities and private protestant citzens and help also came from the USA .The fact that the ‘native’ government was probably 100% Protestant at the time and was moved by fear of social unrest as much as altruism is besides the point . Without the active involvement of the authorities at that time the 1740 famine could have claimed a million lives .
There was another famine in 1816 in which only 65,000 died mostly not from famine but from associated diseases such as cholera , dysentery etc . Oddly enough that ‘famine’ can be attributed to a poor growing season brought about by climate change emanating from the Tambora volcanic explosion in the East Indies in 1815/1816.
The Great Famine arouses great passion but when one looks at the Ireland of 1845 it seems that it was only a matter of time before a disaster would happen . Prior to the Great Famine – O’Connell’s march to Home Rule would have been unstoppable . After the Famine the road was opened to the Young Irelanders such as Davis , Mitchell , James Stephens Fenians , etc etc and their ‘descendants ‘down to the present day . The driving point behind that broad irish republican /nationalist movement was that Ireland would govern itself better outside the Union. And on balance they have been proved right IMO.
‘the English still do not come well out of it.’
Better to use the term British Government or HMG rather than the ‘English’. Millions of English people were also on the knife edge of existence in the 1840′s . They had been driven from their lands during the enclosures and had been ‘dragooned’ into the new industries where 14 hour days, child labour, premature death etc etc awaited them . Many of the starving Irish who made it to England were helped by many who had little enough themselves .
The main result of the famine apart from the depopulation of Ireland which did not begin to reverse itself until the 1960′s was that it changed Ireland from being a land of subsistence tenant farmers into a country of peasant land owners . This was to affect the politics of the emerging nationalist Ireland of the late 19th century and some would say even to this day !
‘but I wonder how the descendants of those people starving in Africa today will judge our smug self satisfied lives?
The people starving in Africa in 2008 are not being ruled directly from Westminster . Many of those who are ‘starving’ in Africa need look no further than their own government i.e the one they ‘voted’ for e.g Zimbabwe .
Ireland too was ruled by it’s ‘own’ Government albeit at Westminster during the Famine era.
‘If you didn’t pay your rent you were out on the road.
In 1845 and in 2008 . And the same goes if you can’t pay your mortgage !
When the people are poor and living peasant lives, it becomes easier to sell them a religion, ask Mother Teresa.
no Greenflag in 2008 you have due process its not a bunch of goons showing up at your door and burning you out
Amazing that they could not acknowledge the suffering in and around Belfast even then!
‘no Greenflag in 2008 you have due process its not a bunch of goons showing up at your door and burning you out ‘
True . The law has become somewhat more humane since thise days . Wonder why ? Could it be that people have votes nowadays even if they don’t always exercise their right to the ballot?
Of course if you lived in parts of Northern Ireland during the last 40 years and like the families of Irish President Mary McAleese ,Ruth Kelly former British Education Minister and famed actor Kenneth Branagh realised that due process is all very well in theory but a house going up around you is how shall I put it a ‘moving’ experience:(
There are always ‘goons’. Just look at that shower of Real IRA eejits in Donegal the other day ! There are retard amoebas with more brains
:
‘When the people are poor and living peasant lives, it becomes easier to sell them a religion, ask Mother Teresa.’
Ah the oul souper myth . While it is true that in earlier famines protestant proseltysers did gain a few souls- overall the COI and other Churches generally refrained from the practice . Quakers and Methodists to their creidt were scrupulous about not proselytising for ‘food’ during the Great Famine..
Strangely enough the most successful proselytising to the Irish poor took place in Irish speaking areas in the west where some converts were made in the period 1800 to 1840 . Many of the saved new ‘protestants ‘ succumbed to the famine or left the country as part of the mass emigration!
“Nine County Ulster”, how dare you use an Irish province in your name you little weasel. Go back to Britain you scum bucket.
This has been a fascinating discussion. Great points by both sides and none of the usual descent into whataboutery.
Wish I could join in but my knowledge of the wider picture is abysmal, though much enlightened by this debate.
I heard the ‘souper’ insult a few times growing up, from my Donegal granpa. Once from a heavily NI accented drunk in a pub… interesting.
‘At the end of the famine the prisons were overcrowded. Kilmainham Gaol in Dublin for example was intended to intern 700 inmates and definitely not the 9000 which were imprisoned in 1849.
The last option to get away from the horrors was emigration.’
The crop failure was natural, the horror that followed was all on the english, lock, stock, and barrel.
Kilmainham Gaol in Dublin for example was intended to intern 700 inmates and definitely not the 9000 which were imprisoned in 1849.
What was the offence or offences resulting in such a shocking statistic, BfB?
[/i]“The crop failure was natural, the horror that followed was all on the english, lock, stock, and barrel.”[/i]
Poppycock. England was only a puppet in the grand sceme of things.
….as for the ‘soupers’, I believe it was the Priests who condemned anybody who took aid from the Quakers and said that they were selling their souls for soup. Rome rules over the poor!
GF’s summary of the facts of the situation is good and fair but it also needs to be set in the context of the time. The role of government was considered to be limited to external and internal defence of the realm. It is absurd to compare expenditure on wars with expenditure on famine relief then with what would be thought appropriate now. Amelioration of hardship was the province of charities, the churches and, most especially, the local community. The herding of English unfortunates into parish workhouses was viewed as a progressive measure by Benthamite reformers. Peel’s response in the early years of the famine was quite exceptional and the later policies of the Russell government were a reversion to the norm. The Liberal party at that time was averse to any public spending – Gladstone was almost pathological in his disinclination towards such expenditure. The charge of racism, inasmuch as this term had any meaning at all at that time, is nonsense. As Garibaldi has pointed out, it is reasonable to talk in terms of class but not in terms of race.
If one ever needed proof that Irish self government is an advance on previous centuries one only has to read Trevelyan’s ‘The Irish Crisis .In his book The Irish Crisis, published in 1848, Trevelyan described the famine as ‘a direct stroke of an all-wise and all-merciful Providence’, one which laid bare ‘the deep and inveterate root of social evil’. The famine, he declared, was ‘the sharp but effectual remedy by which the cure is likely to be effected… God grant that the generation to which this great opportunity has been offered may rightly perform its part…’ This mentality of Trevelyan’s was influential in persuading the government to do nothing to restrain mass evictions – and this had the obvious effect of radically restructuring Irish rural society along the lines of the capitalistic model ardently preferred by British policy-makers.
Finally, we come to ‘moralism’-the notion that the fundamental defects from which the Irish suffered were moral rather than financial. Educated Britons of this era saw serious defects in the Irish ‘national character’-disorder or violence, filth, laziness, and worst of all, a lack of self-reliance. This amounted to a kind of racial or cultural stereotyping.
‘The Irish had to be taught to stand on their own feet and to unlearn their dependence on government.’
Trevelyan’s lesson that the Irish had to be taught to stand on their own feet and unlearn their dependence on government was obviously taken very much to heart by later Irish nationalists and republicans . However when they tried to assert that ‘independent’ spirit Trevelyan’s successors found lots of other excuses to delay/postpone/reconsider/buy off etc the inevitable.
I wonder if there isn’t a Trevelyan clone somewhere in the bowels of Whitehall who looks at Northern Ireland today and wishes he could utter Trevelyan’s moralism’s without bringing a thousand Unionist non spongers down on his head and worse bringing a premature end to his career ?
For a hundred years or more HMG had turned it’s back on Ireland and in particular on the ‘land’ question . As usual they waited (just as in 1969) for the inevitable disaster to blow up in their faces before anything was done . And as usual when it was done it was too little and too late.
The lesson from the Famine and subsequent events is that England is better off not being involved in Ireland’s internal government .
However it must be said that and I know this will raise shrieks from some on here we Irish (both North and South ) and Unionists should be grateful that HMG has kept a lid on the troubles of the past 40 years and steered NI to some semblance of political normality .
For we all know deep down both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland that had Britain withdrawn from NI in 1969 or 1972 there would have been a bloody repartition with another 100,000 to 200,000 dead to add to the millions already stacked up in the long history of British Government rule in Ireland.
In looking over Trevelyan’s moral analysis one can’t help but be reminded of Pat Robertson (former American Republican Presidential candidate) who congratulated God on sending Aids to smite down the ‘evil’ homosexuals who along with the liberals were destroying America etc etc etc.
An idiot of course but since when has that stopped one from being elected USA President or First Minister of NI
Garibaldi:
[i]“You seem to be mistaking Irish native for Catholics.”[/i]
My apologies – how about non-Anglo-Irish owned less than 5% of the land. In my mind, it is coincidental that most of the 5% happened to be catholic.
[i]And that may have been true for the end of the eighteenth century (although the issue of collusive discovery where a protestant family friend becomes the nominal owner to protect the land for the Catholic owners and ostensible conversions of Catholic sons complicate the matter). But by the period of the Famine the proportion had begun to climb again. More importantly, ownership of the land did not entail ownership of the produce farmed there. So the fact remains that middle class Catholic Irishmen exported food for profit while their countrymen and co-religionists starved. [/i]
Less than 5% owned by non-Anglo-Irish (who were more than likely Catholics). Rent had to be paid to a (more than likely) absentee protestant landlord. Whether that was stock, wheat or cash is irrelevant.
[i]We need to account for their actions rather than simply say Britain exported food from Ireland. [/i]
Its pretty strange that British historians haven’t managed to dig up a few tales and deflect some of the ‘blame’.
[i]On the point about what was an Irish native, I guess then that people like Wolfe Tone and Thomas Russell were not Irish natives in the eighteenth century, nor were people like Thomas Davis in this period on account of their religion. Castholicism does not equal Irish. [/i]
Can only agree with you that catholicism does not equal Irish. Has someone told you otherwise!
[i]Despite that prick O’Connell’s best efforts.[/i]
Would I be right in thinking British racism towards Irish people at that make you think O’Connell was a prick?
Compilation of Irish caricatures (including one of O’Connell) from 1800s.
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_2.html
‘Less than 5% owned by non-Anglo-Irish (who were more than likely Catholics). Rent had to be paid to a (more than likely) absentee protestant landlord. Whether that was stock, wheat or cash is irrelevant.’
What was relevant and what made the system so tyrannical and almost impossible to reform was the huge number of ‘middlemen’ who had to be paid off as the ‘Catlick rint’ mades it’s way from the poor sod who dug his acre of potatoes to the ultimate ‘owner’ of the land . The whole system was a multi layered pyramid of sychophants , rentiers , gougers , thugs landlords , conmen and goons all collecting their share of de ‘rint’ . I believe there were up to seven layers of parasites gouging the poor sods at the bottom of the pyramid . They were’nt all protestants either .
Had it not been for O’Connell we might have had Catholic Emancipation perhaps by the beginning of the 20th century .
Some prick eh ?
jC
Many were famine related, such as stealing to feed family, oneself. Other thoughts were that at least in prison, or while being transported you would have a bit to eat. The average age of the prisoners stayed about the same. What got my attention in all this was that my Galway/Mayo ancesters passed down a written ‘log’ of families, marriages, births, deaths, etc. I was puzzled at some families having 16 or more children. When I asked about it, I was told that was the result of taking in the children of people who had starved. Also under the names of some of the men were ‘Clifden workhouse’ and no more entries. Also ‘America’, ‘england’, ‘transport’, was in there to. Basic research made it obvious to me that england was happy to have as many Irish Catholics off the island or in the island. Easy research into ships manifests, newspapers of the day made it quite clear that it was horrible. england was in charge, and whether it was an Irishman or an englander who was turning the spit, the people in power were only to happy to provide the fire. Looking at the transport records it was quite common for 13, 14, 15 YO children to be transported for stealing food. Evil doings, if you ask me. You can pick nits on the volumes of who, what, and where, but the bottom line was an english, concerted effort to eliminate as many Irish Catholics from Ireland as possible. Famine, my (Irish) ass.
JaneyMac,
I think O’Connell was a prick because he sought to link Irish identity to Catholicism. James Connolly thought that too. Unlike him, I was born in Ireland, but my own analysis of O’Connell was influenced by his. Maybe it was British racism on his part.
And I wonder on what grounds you are making the Anglo-Irish not Irish natives? The Irish aristocracy saw themselves as exactly that. Irish.
Any divisions of the people of Ireland for religious or reasons of where they ancestors may have come from are invidious.
“Ah the oul souper myth . While it is true that in earlier famines protestant proseltysers did gain a few souls- overall the COI and other Churches generally refrained from the practice . Quakers and Methodists to their creidt were scrupulous about not proselytising for ‘food’ during the Great Famine.. ”
It was no myth in Achill.
As i said before try not to be
Anachronistic
Perhaps not so much of a myth as I thought – Although, personally, I don’t think religion had much to do with it all despite above. Fermanagh and Armagh 2 of the worse 13 counties effected (Donnelly)
The famine in Belfast Ain’t read that but intro looks fascinating.
Dewi,
Thanks for the links. That Stitt article grossly exaggerates both the death toll and the numbers emigrating if the first paragraph of the article proper.
Given the remark about the religious beliefs of the indigenous population, and the contentious spin put on the comments, I wouldn’t regard it as the most objective account I’ve ever seen on the Famine.
Re Stitt – death toll in Ireland a million, death toll on emigration ships tens of thousands – some historians count maybe half a million unborn in the toll. Second link more interesting – might get that.
Dewi,
Liam Kennedy et al’s Mapping the Great Irish Famine might be of interest.
Why were millions of Irish lives firstly dependant on the success of a foreign crop and next, the parliament of a foreign people ?
(From the perspective of the overwhelming majority of the people).
Hats off to all who helped during the famine.
But the political situation that created the conditions for the dependancy and lack of national government is mainly to blame. IMHO.
Greenflag: was the huge number of ‘middlemen’ who had to be paid off as the ‘Catlick rint’ mades it’s way from the poor sod who dug his acre of potatoes to the ultimate ‘owner’ of the land .
Hold on – surely the ‘Catlick rint’ was the money collected by O’Connell to support his political campaigns? He was condemned for continuing to collect this voluntary political contribution during the famine. Janeymac kindly posted a link to a picture of O’Connell with the moneybags, though the caption writer didn’t seem get the point.
[i]“The Day We Celebrate” by American cartoonist Thomas Nast shows the Irish on St. Patrick’s Day as violent, drunken apes.[/i]
I see nothing has changed since then
‘It was no myth in Achill.’
I did’nt state it was a myth in Achill. The myth was that every protestant minster and charitable institution in the country was out converting ‘souls’ for a meal . The facts state otherwise .
‘Why were millions of Irish lives firstly dependant on the success of a foreign crop ‘
There would not have been almost 9 million people on the island without the ‘foreign’ crop . Without the potato Ireland’s ‘excess’ population assuming the continuing ‘underdevelopment’ of most of the island under British rule would have been ‘shipped’ off to the colonies .
‘and next, the parliament of a foreign people ‘
That would have been due to the Act of Union . King George was very upset at losing his American penal colony Georgia and the American colony . He was not going to lose Ireland as well . The 1798 Rebellion caused great concern and to ensure that HMG would not be outflanked in Ireland by a coalition of Catholics and Presbyterians the Act of Union was passed by all manner of corruption/bribes etc etc .
‘surely the ‘Catlick rint’ was the money collected by O’Connell to support his political campaigns?’
It was and without which O’Connell could not have continued with his Emancipation campaign . Those opposed to O’Connell used every morsel they could to destroy him . He was the first Irish politician in Ireland whom the British establishement of monarchists and their toadies genuinely feared.
Not surprising when he represented 7 million people out of a total of 8.5 million and moreover a people who were discriminated against by their ‘Government’ !
O’Connell was the Liberator . Had it not been for the Famine he probably would have won his Repeal of the Union .
O’Connell’s winning of the 1828 Clare Election was followed very quickly by the Emancipation Act and from then on the power of the established religion in Ireland and it’s political minions was and remains on the decline . Irish political independence became inevitable following later (1912) Unionist resistance to Home Rule.
Greenflag,
Surely the Repeal movement was dead in the water after the Clontarf thing in 1843?
As for the notion that Irish political independence became inevitable after 1912, well, let’s just say that definition of Ireland would look a little strange to O’Connell. Who of course joined the yeomanry to preserve the connection with Britain.
‘But the political situation that created the conditions for the dependancy and lack of national government is mainly to blame. IMHO. ‘
And in 2008 the conditions for ‘dependency’ albeit on a different level are now loudly touted as the ‘solution’ in Northern Ireland . 5 billion pounds of an annual subvention is no small potatoes but in it’s own way is just as effective as famine relief .
‘Surely the Repeal movement was dead in the water after the Clontarf thing in 1843? ‘
Some death . If you look around you you may notice the existence of an Irish Republic . The Repeal movement withered away because of O’Connell’s reluctance to engage the authorities in ‘mass’ violence.
Although O’Connell fought to Repeal the Union he would have been more a Home Rule man than a Republican . The struggle between ‘Home Rule’ Ireland and ‘Republican /Nationalist ‘ Ireland continued after the famine until the Home Rule faction were finally defeated in the 1918 General Election.
Despite the Famine the Home Rule faction could have emerged victorious . The opposition of most Unionists in Northern Ireland to Home Rule enabled victory for the Republican/Nationalist independence movement . Some Liberal Unionists favoured Home Rule probably because they saw that that was the best way of preserving some form of ‘Union’.
At every stage in the political process over the past 2 centuries between Britain and Ireland the British Government regardless of which party has been in power always seems to put it’d foot in it’s mouth and take either the wrong action at the right time or the right action at the wrong time . You might even think that it’s deliberate.
Despite the present cost to the english taxpayer i.e 5 billion a year they still think it’s worth it or at least less expensive than the alternative .
A small portion of the 5 billion will of course be seen in the form of Maundy Thursday ‘purple ‘ purses which Queenie is handing out to her loyal adorees tomorrow . Well it’s better than a sack of potatoes I suppose for some people but personally I’ll take the sack of potatoes anytime !
Greenflag: Well it’s better than a sack of potatoes I suppose for some people but personally I’ll take the sack of potatoes anytime !
Bad Call:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1971-ELIZABETH-II-MAUNDY-SET-UNC_W0QQitemZ330218777130QQihZ014QQcategoryZ58529QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Only the Irish could take money from their own impoverished people and then blame the British for starving them.