Opinion of Oliver Cromwell

[© tweed]

I found a cool article.  Trotsky on Cromwell

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Ayatollah to the Stuarts' Shah Pahlavi.

Obviously both are thoroughgoing HPs; that Cromwell turned out to be even worse should not be taken as any sort of endorsement of his predecessors.

This is probably the best summary of the situation.

[tpfkaw]

It's a false choice, given that Charles I was actively moving away from the de facto tolerance of Elizabeth I's reign and even his father's in attempting a more uniform and less varied church and in trying to extend that church's reach to Scotland, where it had never held sway before.  I don't see how you can interpret the monarchy's moves in the 1630s as anything other than a move against religious tolerance and diversity of tolerated opinion within the three kingdoms.

EDIT: You do remember that Charles called Parliament into session in order to vote him the money he needed to forcibly convert Scotland at gunpoint, right?

EDIT 2: I really don't get how anyone could look at the career of Charles I and go "Here's a friend of religious diversity."  Right from the beginning he was plotting with Bishop Laud to harmonize every Anglican Church and crush the regional diversity within it as an institution and to extend its hegemony north of the border into Scotland where it had never held sway before.  That's, like, the opposite of tolerance of religious diversity.

Fostering religious "diversity" and religious freedom are not the same thing. If the United States were to, starting tomorrow, mandate that Protestants have to pay double payroll taxes, while practicing Muslims and Hindus are exempted from paying payroll taxes, there will no doubt be an increase in religious diversity, but there will not be an increase in religious freedom.

When the high-church Anglicans were in charge, they were willing to allow the Catholics and Dissenters to live, more or less, in peace, although they created certain legal privileges for their own religion.

When the Dissenters were in charge, they made everyone convert or die, and forced everyone to follow their own, numerous and onerous, religious strictures.

Nobody was proposing a modern conception of religious freedom, although the high-church Anglicans came closer than anyone else in the world at the time, and the Dissenters were further away than almost anyone else in the world.

Anything that strengthened the high-church Anglicans and weakened the Dissenters brought England/Scotland closer to a state of religious freedom. Even if it made the kingdoms more uniformly Anglican, and therefore less religiously diverse, it still increased the level of religious freedom, because hostility to religious freedom was the central tenet of the Dissenter religious/political/ideological worldview.

The Dissenters had absolutely no right to complain about a lack of religious freedom, since they allowed no religious freedom to others themselves, and because the Catholics, who stayed loyal, were treated far worse than the Dissenters ever were by Charles I, even at his most "Papist."

[patrick1]

The Ayatollah to the Stuarts' Shah Pahlavi.

Obviously both are thoroughgoing HPs; that Cromwell turned out to be even worse should not be taken as any sort of endorsement of his predecessors.

This is probably the best summary of the situation.

I usually don't like historical comparisons but I like this one.

Re: Ireland- It is generally known about the destruction wrought by Cromwell and an impact that lasted centuries. However, it is worth noting that Tudor and Stuart ; pre and post, Irish policy was abysmal as well.  Mass deportations of Irish "indentured servants" to the West Indies started with the James II.  The Plantations, land confiscation and horrible religious persecution earlier under the Tudors

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Not a fan of Puritan genocidal dictators.

[BaconBacon96]

Genocidal maniac (sane, normal, blah blah).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

Attempting to impose the Book of Common Prayer on Scotland was a "limited measure of religious freedom?" 

Yes, because unlike the Dissenters the Anglicans were not (or at least not nearly as much) in favor of running the country as a hellish theocracy where any deviationist religious views, or anything fun for that matter, was met by being tortured to death, as evidenced by their views on such matters as "we don't like your book, so let's go kill 300,000 people." If the Dissenters had their way we wouldn't have had Shakespeare.

I'm seriously drawing a blank at how imposing episcopacy and Anglican prayers on a deeply Calvinist Presbyterian Scotland to which those things were deeply hateful is an act of religious toleration and liberty.  I fail to see how William Laud's scheme to impose the Church of England upon a Scotland that was not at all ready to receive it, to the point of having Charles invade his own kingdom of Scotland at gunpoint to enforce this situation, has anything to do with toleration.

"All churches that receive government funding have to share certain doctrinal similarities with our denomination, although they don't necessarily have to be part of our denomination per se. Government funding for churches comes from a tithe, which everyone has to pay, even if they don't belong to a government-funded church. Nobody can hold public office who doesn't belong to a government-funded church. If you disagree with this state of affairs, bummer."

"Anyone who deviates in even the slightest way from our Taliban-esque sect will be tortured to death. No drinking, no music, no sex, no theatre, no colorful clothing, no luxuries, no non-work or religion-related activities whatsoever. If you disagree with this state of affairs, you'll be tortured to death."

Which of these seems to you to be closer to a state of religious freedom?

I don't think the Puritans' main concern under Charles I was getting government funding. They were glad if they were able to preach their seditious doctrines and keep their ears at the same time.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Cromwell was without question, one of the most militarily successful rulers England has had. For a time.

But in the end he merely enacted a regime that repeated and heightened the worst elements of Charles I's reign

[Cassius]

Well, this is awkward, since I, apparently, am vaguely descended from him on my father's side. I'd actually go with mixed, since despite his anti-Catholicism he was hardly the raving republican anti-papist puritan that he is often portrayed as having been. He was actually, in a lot of respects, a fairly pragmatic man (he was initially opposed to executing the King and disestablishing the monarchy, and he actually allowed for tolerance of Catholicism in the colonies), and, of course, he did well in cracking down upon the deranged fifth monarchists and levellers, as well as the variety of other bizarre groups that were floating about England at that point. For some, Ireland is a sticking point, but, as has been pointed out previously in this thread, both his predecessors and successors pursued (in fits and starts) occasionally brutal policies in Ireland, so he was hardly unusual in that regard.

Of course, I would have supported the Royalists in the civil war, being reasonably well disposed to Charles I's (well, Laud's) religious reforms, and fearful of some of the more radical factions on the Parliamentary side. But as the Parliamentarians went, Cromwell wasn't too bad.

[Mechaman]

It's a false choice, given that Charles I was actively moving away from the de facto tolerance of Elizabeth I's reign and even his father's in attempting a more uniform and less varied church and in trying to extend that church's reach to Scotland, where it had never held sway before.  I don't see how you can interpret the monarchy's moves in the 1630s as anything other than a move against religious tolerance and diversity of tolerated opinion within the three kingdoms.

EDIT: You do remember that Charles called Parliament into session in order to vote him the money he needed to forcibly convert Scotland at gunpoint, right?

EDIT 2: I really don't get how anyone could look at the career of Charles I and go "Here's a friend of religious diversity."  Right from the beginning he was plotting with Bishop Laud to harmonize every Anglican Church and crush the regional diversity within it as an institution and to extend its hegemony north of the border into Scotland where it had never held sway before.  That's, like, the opposite of tolerance of religious diversity.

Fostering religious "diversity" and religious freedom are not the same thing. If the United States were to, starting tomorrow, mandate that Protestants have to pay double payroll taxes, while practicing Muslims and Hindus are exempted from paying payroll taxes, there will no doubt be an increase in religious diversity, but there will not be an increase in religious freedom.

When the high-church Anglicans were in charge, they were willing to allow the Catholics and Dissenters to live, more or less, in peace, although they created certain legal privileges for their own religion.

When the Dissenters were in charge, they made everyone convert or die, and forced everyone to follow their own, numerous and onerous, religious strictures.

Nobody was proposing a modern conception of religious freedom, although the high-church Anglicans came closer than anyone else in the world at the time, and the Dissenters were further away than almost anyone else in the world.

Anything that strengthened the high-church Anglicans and weakened the Dissenters brought England/Scotland closer to a state of religious freedom. Even if it made the kingdoms more uniformly Anglican, and therefore less religiously diverse, it still increased the level of religious freedom, because hostility to religious freedom was the central tenet of the Dissenter religious/political/ideological worldview.

The Dissenters had absolutely no right to complain about a lack of religious freedom, since they allowed no religious freedom to others themselves, and because the Catholics, who stayed loyal, were treated far worse than the Dissenters ever were by Charles I, even at his most "Papist."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are Irish right?

If so, why the finks are you defending the idea of British monarchy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not everyone has an emotional attachment to a place their ancestors lived centuries ago that they've never been to.

[tpfkaw]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are Irish right?

If so, why the finks are you defending the idea of British monarchy?

J'ai du sang français ; je n'ai pas beaucoup de sang irlandais. Qui pensez-vous financé les révoltes jacobites?

Compared to the literally genocidal alternative, the Stuarts weren't anywhere remotely as bad for Ireland; that's why the Irish were on their side to (and after) the end. Most all of the truly nasty treatment of Ireland (as in being murderous and oppressive for the sake of being murderous and oppressive) can be attributed to the Puritans/Dissenters/Presbyterians, or their influence.

[patrick1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are Irish right?

If so, why the finks are you defending the idea of British monarchy?

J'ai du sang français ; je n'ai pas beaucoup de sang irlandais. Qui pensez-vous financé les révoltes jacobites?

Compared to the literally genocidal alternative, the Stuarts weren't anywhere remotely as bad for Ireland; that's why the Irish were on their side to (and after) the end. Most all of the truly nasty treatment of Ireland (as in being murderous and oppressive for the sake of being murderous and oppressive) can be attributed to the Puritans/Dissenters/Presbyterians, or their influence.

The (re)conquest of Ireland started under Henry VIII. Until then Hiberno-Norman Lords and old Gaelic order had a lot of autonomy.  A trigger point was the reformation and Henry's own drive for power and asserting dominance.  Henry started the execution of clergy members who didnt fall in line, and confiscation of church property and the holding of the Irish Lords (see: surrender and regrant.)  Important to note that it was under the Catholic monarch, Queen Mary, land confiscation and plantations really began in earnest, so it isnt a wholly sectarian matter.

The beginning of the Stuart monarchy was no blessing for the Irish.  After the failure of the various Spanish intrigues and Rebellions of Red Hugh O'Donnell and Hugh O'Neill during the reign of Bess, the Stuarts continued the policies. Once the Gaelic Lords pulled up stakes for the Continent, James I started giving away land to mostly Scots Lords in huge tracts. These things ripple down for centuries to even the present. For instance,  the Dukes of Abercorn (Hamilton's) were granted land in 1612 and they are still one of the largest landowners in NI or that somehow the Earls of Shaftesbury own Lough Neagh, the largest body of freshwater in the British Isles. The private plantations were even more successful and attracted many people to settle.

Side note: It was also James I who started the Irish slave trade to the Caribbean.

Now as a reaction to those conditions, the native Irish were more than willing to take advantage of the unrest in Britain and set out to exact their revenge against the new arrivals. In the Irish rebellions of 1641,  massacres of Protestant civilian planters took place in good numbers, even if the early press of the time sensationalized the extent.  This was what Cromwell in turn used as justification for his bloody campaign in Ireland. He saw himself as an avenging angel.  The Tudors and Stuarts set the stage for Cromwell.

To be continued on how Charles II and James II were also terrible.

[Bigby]

He banned Christmas.

HP.

[Maistre]

He banned Christmas.

HP.

That is sort of a myth.

[The Mikado]

With regards to Ireland, it's pretty reasonable to say that the Protectorate was simply following the path that their predecessors had blazed out and their successors would continue. 

[politicus]

With regards to Ireland, it's pretty reasonable to say that the Protectorate was simply following the path that their predecessors had blazed out and their successors would continue.  

They may have followed the same path laid out since the beginning of the Tudor reconquest, but there are still a couple of massacres to take into account.

Also, in evaluating whether Cromwell was a HP, it is not relevant whether he was following an established HP (horrible path, to use Atlas lingo). Something doesn't become less evil because it is normal or established practice. Its like saying slavery wasn't a horrible practice in all the societies in which it was a well established practice. If you use a non-relativistic scale such as FF/HP then the norms of the past become irrelevant.

You can use another scale and ask "was Cromwell a better ruler than the Stuarts?" and come to a different result, and a historian would always evaluate a ruler compared to his time, but that isn't really the purpose of FF/HP polls.