PDA

View Full Version : the Irish slave trade.


robertemmett
02-27-2008, 07:51 PM
an article on the Irish slave trade. i have drawn alot on other sources but i have not cited them. but there is an increasing volume of material on this topic.


2007 marks the 200th anniversary of the Act that ended the Slave trade in the British Empire. To mark this occasion the Northern Ireland office has published a booklet that gives information on Irish involvement in the disgusting trade and those Irish figures involved in the campaign to end the slave trade.

The booklet has been posted to each school for use in citizenship or History classes to raise awareness of the trade and how the trade in humans continues today. This has been a worthwhile venture by the NIO, however there are some fundamental flaws in the publication in that it is rather selective in the information that it uses.

The booklet highlights the role some Irish people played in the continuation of the trade. In particular some Irish families who benefited directly from the trade as well as the role played by Irish sailors and captains who operated British owed ships out of English ports. In doing so the agenda of the booklet is one in which the Irish nation are expected to share in the collective guilt felt by the British in 2007. The booklet exaggerates the involvement of Ireland in the Slave trade and as Daniel O Connell claimed at the time, “no slave ship ever left an Irish port”.

What this publication simply ignores is the fact that slaves were taken from Ireland and sold in the West Indies and the Caribbean. This human trafficking preceded the slave trade from Africa. Indeed it is a chapter in Irish History that is often overlooked.

Whilst European states were involved in the slave trade, it was British merchants that came dominate the industry. The trade involved ships leaving ports such as Liverpool or Bristol arriving on the east coast of Africa, to pick up slaves. These slaves were traded for pots, kettles or simple manufactured goods. The slave ships would then sail to the Caribbean where the captured slaves were sold for huge profit to the plantations owners. The traders would then buy goods such as coffee, sugar, rum and sail back to England to sell these luxury items. This triangular pattern was repeated year after year and brought pure profit for traders. Many English towns grew extremely wealthy on the proceeds of human misery. Some of today’s banks, such as Barclays, were founded to house this money.

But before the capitalists of England arrived on the shores of Africa, they already had experience of sending Irish people into slavery. After the Battle of Kinsale in 1601, up to 30,000 Irish were banished to the continent, including the leaders of the revolt, a period often referred to as the “Flight of the Wild Geese”. However the official policy of banishment did not solve the English’s problems in Ireland. King James II encouraged the rebellious Irish to be sold to plantations in the New World. The first recorded sale of Irish prisoners is in 1612 on the river Amazon. The first recorded sale of African prisoners is in 1619.

A proclamation in 1625 allowed Irish political prisoners to be transported and sold as labourers in the West Indies. This was to be a tool of English law and order in Ireland for the next two hundred years. By 1632 the Irish were the main group of slaves on the islands of Antigua and Montserrat. By 1637, 69% of the population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

The Irish rebellion of 1641 saw a huge rise in the numbers of people taken abroad. The population of Ireland before the rebellion stood at 1.46 million, by 1652 this had been reduced to 616,000. It is estimated that half a million were killed and 300,000 taken as slaves.

There can be no doubt that the arrival of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland in 1649 helped boost these figures. The town of Drogheda had a population of 30,000 before his arrival. Cromwell himself summed up his achievement ““I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados.” The ten years of Cromwell’s Reign of Terror seen the implementation of the now famous “to hell or Connaught” policy. In practice this meant that those Irish that failed to remove themselves to County Clare were guilty of high treason and were open to transporting to the Americas. One shocking figure during this period is the 100,000 Irish children (aged 10-14) that were sent.

So eager were the authorities in Ireland to avail of this business opportunity that they mistakenly captured and transported 72 Englishmen from Ireland in March 1659. The Irish slave trade continued after the death of Cromwell, and King Charles II proved no better than Cromwell. In the years 1600-1699 more slaves were taken from Ireland than from Africa.

Life for the Slave.

Some revisionist historians have tried to lessen the impact of this English policy by referring to the Irish slaves as “indentured servants”. This was a contract between a person and a shipper or plantation owner and usually involved a person working for a period of years as servant in return for ships passage, food and board or perhaps a small piece of land at the end of the agreed period. However indenturing was a free contract. This was not the experience of the vast majority of Irish that were sent. It is generally accepted those taken after the Battle of Kinsale were indentured servants. It is clear that after 1625 that the Irish were pure and simple slaves.

The African slaves fetched a better price in the New World than the Irish. An African slave could fetch between £20 -£50, whereas the Irish would fetch 900lbs of cotton or £5. The reason for the distinction between the two is clear. The Irish where not suited to working in the tropical climates of the Caribbean and caused far more problems for the plantation owners. The Africans also had the added advantage of not being Catholics, the plantations preferring the “godless pagan” African over the “papist” Irish.

The plantation owners also engaged in the breeding of Irish women with African men, the offspring having light brown skin and so fetching a higher price. The practice had become so widespread that in 1681, the British government introduce legislation “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale”. This was not introduced for any moral or humanitarian reason, rather that the practice was having a negative impact on the profits of the Royal African Company, whose business was the transport of slaves from Africa.

Curiously, of all the Irish shipped out as slaves, not one is known to have returned to Ireland to tell their tales. Many, if not most, died on the ships transporting them or from overwork and abusive treatment on the plantations. The Irish that did obtain their freedom, frequently emigrated on to the American mainland, while others moved to adjoining islands. On Montserrat, seven of every 10 whites were Irish. Comparable 1678 census figures for the other Leeward Islands were: 26 per cent Irish on Antigua; 22 per cent on Nevis; and 10 per cent on St Christopher. Even today, a trawl through the pages of the telephone books in the West Indies one can the see the sheer number of Irish surnames.

Indeed, until 1900 Gaelic was widely spoken on these islands. Indeed in one incident in 1768, a ship crewed with men from Cork landed in Montserrat and were surprised to find themselves chatting in Irish to Black Montserratans who referred to Cork as “Corcaigh na gCuan" (Cork of the Harbors), a name not used since the destruction of the Irish social system in the 17th century.
It is also said that the Black Montserratans joked with the Cork men “Tá sé sin ait, ní fheictear mar Gaeil sibh" “That's funny, you guys don't look Irish."


Rebellions.

The spirit of the Irish remained alive even after their enslavement in the New World. There is some evidence that in 1649, the Irish rose in rebellion in Montserrat and accounts relate how they were executed and their heads placed on spikes at fence of the local town. In 1741 there was widespread panic in New York after a series of house fires were linked to a “Negro” conspiracy. 31 black and 5 white slaves were executed. It is believed that the white slaves were Irish. The official account included the line; "The 5 whites were Irish indentured servants of the Teague sort”. A name for the Irish Catholic that remains till today.

Looking at official reports on slave risings it can be see that from Newfoundland to Barbados British felt they could always trust a “Teague” to be at the bottom of any political trouble.

Jerry_Corneilus
02-27-2008, 08:07 PM
This is bull****, most killed at Drogheda were English, many send off as indentured servants from drogheda were also English.

The figure killed was around 2,000. not 30,000 and the Wild Geese were mostly old English/ Norman Catholic Royalists,not Irish, they were simply fighting for a Catholic King, not independence.

How did Cromwell have 10 years terror in Ireland, when he there for less then two years ?

Further, it was Catholic landowners who supported the Royalist cause who were banished not ordinary Catholics.

Further, it was not just Irish sent off as indentured servants, another lie. English Royalists were also banished as indentured servants and subjected to the later penal laws.


"Oliver Cromwell landed in Ireland in August 1649, to re-conquer the country on behalf of the English Parliament. Drogheda was by this time garrisoned by an English Royalist regiment under Arthur Aston and Irish Confederate troops – a total strength of about 3100 (roughly half of them English the other half Irish)".


After breaking into the town, the New Model soldiers pursued the defenders through the streets, killing them as they ran. A group of defenders had barricaded themselves in Millmount Fort, overlooking the town's eastern gate held out while the rest of the town was being sacked. They negotiated a surrender, but were then disarmed and killed. Another group of soldiers in St Peters church (at the northern end of Drogheda) were burned to death when the Parliamentarian soldiers set fire to the Church. Arthur Aston, the Royalist commander, was, reportedly, beaten to death with his own wooden leg, which the New Model Army soldiers thought had gold hidden in it. Richard Talbot, the future Jacobite Duke of Tyrconnell was one of the few members of the garrison to survive the sack. Only 150 Parliamentarians were killed in the attack. The few Royalists who survived were deported to Barbados. Cromwell wrote: "I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados." Though Colonel John Hewson wrote "those in the towers being about 200, did yield to the Generals mercy, where most of them have their lives and be sent to Barbados.” The 200 taken prisoner tallies with Royalist estimates. It is alleged in some accounts that as few as 700 civilians died in the chaotic aftermath of the fall of Drogheda, though other accounts put this figure



.........................Infact my figure of 2,000 civilans killed is too high, the article below says 700 mostly families and brigands of English royalist forces who in those days travelled with them.




On Monday 10th September Cromwell had a letter delivered to the governor, the English Royalist, Sir Arthur Aston which read:

Sir, having brought the army of the Parliament of England before this place, to reduce it to obedience, I thought fit to summon you to deliver the same into my hands to their use. If this be refused, you will have no cause to blame me. I expect your answer and remain your servant, O. Cromwell

The contemporary laws of war were clear that if surrender was refused and a garrison was taken by an assault, then the lives of its defenders would be forfeit, as Cromwell's letter strongly implies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Drogheda


Deporting some to the west Indies and sparing them was an act of mercy.


Cromwell was an honorable enemy who's reputation has been historically lied about.

Eilish
02-27-2008, 08:52 PM
Thanks for posting this Robert It makes for hideously sad but essential reading... It is great that booklet was made for schools... not surprised it is 'rather selective in the information it uses'... No-one wts to think their people played a role in the denigration & evil of slavery but the truth has to be told for change & for the millions who had no voice. It is a sickening reality slavery is a thriving trade in some countries... the rattle & clank of chains into the 21st century....

(it could be well argued that Britain has continued slavery/subjugation into the 21st century in Eire through more subtle but equally devastating strategies....)

The following site is a goodie. You probably know it but have put it up for anyone interested.

http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/jamtwo.html

Eilish
02-27-2008, 08:57 PM
This is bull****, most killed at Drogheda were English, many send off as indentured servants from drogheda were also English.

The figure killed was around 2,000. not 30,000 and the Wild Geese were mostly old English/ Norman Catholic Royalists,not Irish, they were simply fighting for a Catholic King, not independence.

How did Cromwell have 10 years terror in Ireland, when he there for less then two years ?

Further, it was Catholic landowners who supported the Royalist cause who were banished not ordinary Catholics.

Further, it was not just Irish sent off as indentured servants, another lie. English Royalists were also banished as indentured servants and subjected to the later penal laws.


"Oliver Cromwell landed in Ireland in August 1649, to re-conquer the country on behalf of the English Parliament. Drogheda was by this time garrisoned by an English Royalist regiment under Arthur Aston and Irish Confederate troops – a total strength of about 3100 (roughly half of them English the other half Irish)".


After breaking into the town, the New Model soldiers pursued the defenders through the streets, killing them as they ran. A group of defenders had barricaded themselves in Millmount Fort, overlooking the town's eastern gate held out while the rest of the town was being sacked. They negotiated a surrender, but were then disarmed and killed. Another group of soldiers in St Peters church (at the northern end of Drogheda) were burned to death when the Parliamentarian soldiers set fire to the Church. Arthur Aston, the Royalist commander, was, reportedly, beaten to death with his own wooden leg, which the New Model Army soldiers thought had gold hidden in it. Richard Talbot, the future Jacobite Duke of Tyrconnell was one of the few members of the garrison to survive the sack. Only 150 Parliamentarians were killed in the attack. The few Royalists who survived were deported to Barbados. Cromwell wrote: "I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados." Though Colonel John Hewson wrote "those in the towers being about 200, did yield to the Generals mercy, where most of them have their lives and be sent to Barbados.” The 200 taken prisoner tallies with Royalist estimates. It is alleged in some accounts that as few as 700 civilians died in the chaotic aftermath of the fall of Drogheda, though other accounts put this figure



.........................Infact my figure of 2,000 civilans killed is too high, the article below says 700 mostly families and brigands of English royalist forces who in those days travelled with them.




On Monday 10th September Cromwell had a letter delivered to the governor, the English Royalist, Sir Arthur Aston which read:

Sir, having brought the army of the Parliament of England before this place, to reduce it to obedience, I thought fit to summon you to deliver the same into my hands to their use. If this be refused, you will have no cause to blame me. I expect your answer and remain your servant, O. Cromwell

The contemporary laws of war were clear that if surrender was refused and a garrison was taken by an assault, then the lives of its defenders would be forfeit, as Cromwell's letter strongly implies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Drogheda


Deporting some to the west Indies and sparing them was an act of mercy.


Cromwell was an honorable enemy who's reputation has been historically lied about.


Ah yes Jerry Oliver Cromwell 'An honorable enemy' ahaha o please........ He was an evil toerag. Saint Oliver Cromwell - Patron Saint of Genocide... some still worship at his shrine of delusions....:whip:

Jerry_Corneilus
02-27-2008, 09:18 PM
I would rather deal in reality then lies and hysteria. Cromwell was no worse then the Normans or James II, the reason is his vilified more then others is because he was a Protestant, who booted out Rome.

Rome has a had a vested intrest in playing up the Norman old English feudal Catholic rulers in Ireland and over stating the wrongs of the republican Cromwell, for obvious reasons.

Previous to indentured service captured prisoners were all executed.


Cromwells plantations were on lands taken from feudal Norman aristocrats and their Gaelic aristocratic quislings, not the rural Irish as the church has taught. The rural Irish were Norman serfs, the sad fact is they fought for their feudal masters, instead of Cromwells army, who were fighting for one man one vote.

At this time in history Catholicism meant support for monarchy, aristocracy and feudalism.

"The final official plantations took place under Oliver Cromwell’s English Commonwealth during the 1650s, when thousands of Parliamentarian soldiers were settled in Ireland".

"Having come under the influence of London radicals called the Levellers, the troops of the Army proposed a revolutionary new constitution named the Agreement of the People, which called for almost universal male suffrage, reform of electoral boundaries, power to rest with the Parliament which was to be elected every two years (by the people), religious freedom, and an end to imprisonment for debt."

Nijinsky
02-27-2008, 09:22 PM
I would rather deal in reality then lies and hysteria.

That would be a most welcome first from you. Please tell us when you intend to start

robertemmett
02-27-2008, 09:24 PM
I would rather deal in reality then lies and hysteria. Cromwell was no worse then the Normans or James II, the reason is his vilified more then others is because he was a Protestant, who booted out Rome.

Rome has a had a vested intrest in playing up the Norman old English feudal Catholic rulers in Ireland and over stating the wrongs of Cromwell, for obvious reasons.


King James II encouraged the rebellious Irish to be sold to plantations in the New World. The first recorded sale of Irish prisoners is in 1612 on the river Amazon. The first recorded sale of African prisoners is in 1619.

Jerry_Corneilus
02-27-2008, 09:37 PM
King James II encouraged the rebellious Irish to be sold to plantations in the New World. The first recorded sale of Irish prisoners is in 1612 on the river Amazon. The first recorded sale of African prisoners is in 1619.



He also planted Ireland but gets a much better press in Ireland, then Cromwell by the church who have historically controlled the teaching of history in the republic.


The rural Irish fought for the wrong side and religion. They were fighting to keep themselves as serfs, even if they won. Whereas Cromwell army fought for :



"Having come under the influence of London radicals called the Levellers, the troops of the Army proposed a revolutionary new constitution named the Agreement of the People, which called for almost universal male suffrage, reform of electoral boundaries, power to rest with the Parliament which was to be elected every two years (by the people), religious freedom, and an end to imprisonment for debt."


You people have been irrationally programmed to hate the wrongside.

Jerry_Corneilus
02-27-2008, 09:53 PM
That would be a most welcome first from you. Please tell us when you intend to start

I refer you to this book.


'Cromwell - An Honourable Enemy'
by Tom Reilly
'This long overdue evaluation of Cromwell's campaign in Ireland, published on the 350th anniversary of that campaign, challenges all conventional interpretations.

Thousands of defenceless men, women and children are alleged to have lost their lives as a result of the 'scorched earth' policy of Oliver Cromwell, who has long been regarded as the most reviled figure in Irish history and who is still generally regarded there as a genocidal maniac and religious fanatic...

Yet, argues Tom, the traditional viewpoint lacks any solid evidence...


Using only contemporary sources, he examines eye-witness accounts; he also places Cromwell's conduct within the context of the seventeenth century and the rules of war then pertaining...

"With an impressive mastery of detail, he marshals the facts and concludes that Cromwell's appalling reputation appears to be undeserved; also as the first successful English military conqueror of Ireland, his emphatic success was a foregone conclusion so inadequate were the royalist forces in Ireland".

"During Cromwell's Irish mission he proved to be significantly more compassionate than many of his contempories, and he scrupulously adhered to the letter of the law of contemporary warfare while communicating with the various governors of the various garrisons throughout Ireland..!"


http://www.ely.org.uk/heros/lordcrom/CromBook.html



From the Author
This book is ahead of its time
As author of this book, I feel that many historians in Ireland are not ready yet for 'an honourable' Cromwell - nor indeed are the people of Ireland. I thought that I would change the history books and public opinion about this much maligned historical figure by publishing the truth about Cromwell's Irish campaign. The reaction - among the under forties on the whole - was good, but among historians and the over forties it was bad. They can't seem to accept that an amateur could discover such a fundamental flaw in Irish history ie that neither Cromwell or his men ever engaged in the killing of any unarmed civilians throughout his entire nine month campaign. The facts are there for all to see. But God bless Ireland the past is still the present here and we MUST have our English hate figures - despite the truth. How sad is that?

conghaileach
03-20-2008, 09:22 PM
Reilly is an apologist for Cromwell and his revisionist work has been challenged by many scholars. Even a cursory glance at wikipedia mentions a few of these:

It has also recently been argued by Tom Reilly in Cromwell, an Honourable Enemy, Dingle 1999, that what happened at Drogheda and Wexford was not unusually severe by the standards of seventeenth century siege warfare -in which the garrisons of towns taken by storm were routinely killed to discourage resistance in the future. The Journal History Ireland dismissed this view "His [Reilly's] general thesis that Cromwell may well have had no moral right to take the lives at Drogheda or Wexford 'but he certainly had the law firmly on his side' does not stand up to examination." Similarly, John Morrill, Professor of British and Irish History at Cambridge University and a Fellow at Selwyn College, Cambridge, commented "A major attempt at rehabilitation was attempted by Tom Reilly, Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy (London, 1999) but this has been largely rejected by other scholars." Moreover, historians critical of Cromwell point out that even at the time the killings at Drogheda and Wexford were considered atrocities. They cite such sources as Edmund Ludlow, the Parliamentarian commander in Ireland after Ireton's death, who wrote that the tactics used by Cromwell at Drogheda showed "extraordinary severity".

( - Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland))