Talk:Irish Rebellion of 1798

United Irishmen, Presbyterians, Unionists

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

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

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

Samuel Neilson was a prisoner of the British Government until 1802 and made such a quote for two reasons;

1. To increase his chances of release from Fort George in Scotland

and

2. The quote is in the context of accepting the lesser of two evils, i.e direct rule from London as opposed to the brutish corrupt and incompetent misrule of the Anglo-Irish Protestant elite

When released in 1802, Neilson emigrated to the USA so he did not; "like many other members of the Society of United Irishmen, became Irish Unionists". To survive the vicious repression following the rebellion, many United Irishmen tried to conceal their real politics to avoid imprisonment or worse. The fact that Presbyterians became reconciled to the Union (at the expense of the majority Catholic population) only goes to prove that the sectarian model introduced to divide Ireland was successful in maintaining British dominance over the island of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.205.109 (talk • contribs) (12:41 14 July 2005)

[C]onsidering the majority of the United Irishmen were Presbyterians that fact is quite significant and does indeed constitute "many members". Secondly the UI non-sectarian ideal became undermined with the merger with "The Defenders" whose pro-Catholic stance and oath swore them to "quell the nation of heresy". Aughavey 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Its quite simple. 99% of Presbyterians are now Unionist. A significant amount of Presbyterians supported the 1798 rebellion. They did not just disappear and I don`t think they all converted to Catholicism. They became Unionists.

with regards to the Defender oath - i am thinking the trial of John Tuite. The simple fact is that the 1798 rebellion was an Alliance with many stresses and strains and the Defender oath about "quelling the nation of heresy" would be quite a big one in a non-sectarian organisation I would think. 84.45.131.142 20:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"the Defenders "oath" was one of many lies fabricated by loyalist and Orangemen to forment sectarian division" the Orangemen were anti-Unionist, supporting the dublin based government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.131.142 (talk • contribs) (20:55 31 July 2005)

"99% of Presbyterians are now Unionist."

I doubt that the scientific data exists to prove this, it is a high percentage perhaps even 90%, but include Presbyterians resident in the Republic and unaffiliated and the proportion reduces sto the 80-90% mark.

The Presbyterian Irish tradition did survive into the 19th and 20th centuries, for example, in 1912 400 Presbyterians gathered in Ballymooney, Co. Antrim to sign a Home Rule Covenant in repudiation of Carsons Loyalist one. (For more see James G. Patterson, "Continued Presbyterian Resistance in the Aftermath of the Rebellion of 1798 in Antrim and Down" (Eighteenth-Century Life - Volume 22, Number 3, November 1998, pp. 45-61))

Orangemen were Anti-Unionist only in the sense that they wanted their own power undiluted within Britain i.e loyalty directly to the crown coupled with independence from London interference for the Protestant Ascendancy. The best of both worlds so to speak and the Orangemen were defending narrow sectarian interests in 1798 but did not want to sever the connection with England, much as in the 1970's Unionists were pro-Stormont and against the powersharing Sunningdale Executive. --Damnbutter 10:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, they (the republican Presbyterians of 1798) did disappear. They died! The unionist Presybterians of 2005 are not the same individuals as the republican Presbyterians of 1798. Demiurge 10:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently many Presbyterian preachers were bribed by the British government to make the case for the Union in the 19th century. That may well have played a role in converting them to Unionism too. (Brian Boru) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.32.20 (talk • contribs) (10:49 10 March 2006)

Round of Applause! - but Sources needed

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

Was Tone that important?

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

Tones role was regarded as you say until the 20th century when French records show the extent and influence of his organisational skills and access to French power. Without Tone there would probably not have been the concerted rebellion but a series of unconnected uprisings. There were plenty of martyrs in 1798, Tones fame has little to do with his death.

--Ponox (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

Surely religion was the 'veil', another layer of difference to justify the British conquest of Ireland? We were white, so religion served as a justification for dispossession instead of colour. It is no coincidence that religion became more important following the overthrow of our secular leadership in the 17th century: we went from being the 'wild Irish' to being the 'Catholic Irish', the intent was the same: dehumanise as a means to make dispossession/conquest easier. Of course, framing this in religious terms also implies it is a religious problem, and cannot be solved with political means. All of which is very convenient for the British when the real problem is their colonial occupation of this country, their theft of this country, their subjugation of us for centuries. Why do people want to dress this up as 'religious'? But then again a political/colonial interpretation would imply a political solution, and who would lose there? So, yes, defining this as 'religious' rather than political/colonial is a call to maintain the British-imposed status quo and not to overthrow those colonial interlopers from their dominance in our country. As if a middle class 18th century native Irishman would be happy with religious liberty without being able to own his own land or rule his own territory. A 'religious' conflict? Ahistorical self-serving nonsense.193.203.139.45 (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious identification was a key part of Irish politics of the time, and still is. What was unusual in the 1798 rebellion was that both the United Irishmen and their opponents drew from all parts of Irish society. Take this newspaper advertisement:

Omagh 14th June 1798. We, the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the town of Omagh and its vicinity anxious at this awful period to step forward with the utmost zewal and loyalty in support of our beloved Sovereign and glorious constitution do offer our services with our lives and properties to His Exellency, the Lord Lieutenant, to assist to our utmost in stemming the progress of Rebellion which is now spreading through this once happy Kingdom; we are willing to enrol ourselves as Volunteers or Supplementary Yeomanry to be officered by Protestantes or in any other manner most acceptable to the Government.[1]

which was signed by 50+ men, one on behalf of 500 more.--81.129.142.136 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, the active opposition of the Roman Catholic bishops to the United Irishmen is hardly ever mentioned, and is the reason why most of the country stayed at home. The occupation of Rome in early 1798 by the French had a lot to do with it!78.17.1.125 (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Preference of search

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

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

Patriot Party

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

More articles

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

Hesse-Homburg as belligerent??

Plees, I am lookink at Hesse-Homburg and not seeingk how it vos fighting anyvun in zis 1798 irish conflict.86.44.158.207 (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hessian troops were brought in to support the Irish government. It allowed more British troops to stay in southern England, guarding against a feared French invasion. Hence the Hesians inclusion in the info-box. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Hessian soldiers were paid to fight in the conflict, but that does not mean Hesse-Homburg was a belligerent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.177.19 (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a complex question, but generally on other articles states that supply troops are considered beligerents. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source specifing which hessian state the auxiliaries came from? There were several states called hesse in 1798.XavierGreen (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the Hessian states existing in 1798 supplied units to the British in Ireland. Two mercenary units largely recruited in Germany were used. These were later called "Hessians" to emphasise their savagery in action, so the criticism stands —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howey1924 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More on Belligerents

The main belligerent on the government side was the Kingdom of Ireland, not the British Army. The militia and yeomanry forces on the table underneath were forces of the Irish Crown, not part of the British army §

The "Irish" Crown was the same as that dominating English, Scottish and Welsh people, and troops from all over "Britain" fought during 1798 against the rebels so the difference is neglible.

Flags

I'm re-adding the green and gold flag to the infobox, as it was the main flag flown by the United Irishmen during the rebellion.

Here are some published sources (including websites quoting published sources) that note its use during the rebellion.

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

That's aside from the many paintings and songs that mention its use.
I'm sure there are plenty more, but I haven't the time to look at the moment.
~Asarlaí 01:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Duncairn

Someone, for reasons best known to themselves, keeps inserting references to an article about this so-called battle. It never happened and is a complete fabrication. --Ponox (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

State Terrorism

The reference to "state terrorism", and having "violently suppressed" the newspaper of the United Irishmen, suggests a bias and strong POV. The article needs to be more balanced.124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The military actually physically destroyed the offices of the Northern Star, how exactly is that not violent suppression? Check the facts before alleging bias or POV --217.226.67.199 (--Ponox (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Numbers of UI?

How could the 100,000 United Irish members in 1797 have become much less in action in 1798? One of the main reasons for their failure was obviously that they had much less support than they thought they had, raising the question of whether they represented "the Irish People" or just themselves. Any expert on this?86.42.202.249 (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dublin Castle actually gave a return of 279,896 members of the U.I in February 1798 from returns provided by their informers so it is beyond doubt that they had massive support amongst the Irish people. Repression and intimidation caused severe attrition to their ranks in the months before the rebellion which explains why many areas did not rise in the Summer. The repression also forced the remaining leaders to rush the date of the rebellion before they were completely crushed. It's failure was down to a mixture of mistiming, prevarication, the structural vulnerability to informers and of course military inferiority in terms of armaments and training. Remember amongst the "Irish people" there was a significant minority (10-20%) of loyalists and probably an equivalent number of "loyal" Catholics as well.--Ponox (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Far less than 300,000 took part in the rebellion, in part because the entire Roman Catholic hierarchy knew about the Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution and the French occupation of Rome in 1798, and were completely opposed to a republic. For whatever reason, these facts don't make it into most history books.78.16.26.209 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor Correction?

"A peer of the realm, Sir Edward Crosbie,"

I think I'm right that Sir Edward, as a baronet, was not quite technically a peer of the realm. Baronetcies are not part of the peerage of the United Kingdom and Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.125.104 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not even remotely technically! Well spotted: I have now corrected it. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

Belligerants

Ireland was then technically an independent country, so this should be mentioned in the belligerents section instead of Irish loyalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.216.163 (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the flag it links to Kingdom of Ireland. Maybe the text should too. JonChapple^Talk 06:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ireland was not even nominally independent. --67.52.221.226 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Atrocities

Problems with repetitively re-added pov language.

As per WP:BOLD. Following are pov lines, each followed by what I have changed about them:

• "the massacre of captured and wounded rebels" and then "Executions of loyalist prisoners".

You cannot have massacre for one side and execution for the other. Consistency dictates the same for both.- Changed massacre to execution.

• "In addition countless non-combatant civilians were murdered by the military"

The actual source that is given for the rebel and civilian deaths states "no more than 10,000 for the entire island", this is not 'countless'. Sticking to the sources used. - changed to omit the word 'countless'.

• "who also practised gang rape, particularly in County Wexford."

The British army did not have a 'gang rape' policy, though this is what the edit suggests. I have looked at the source for this and it does not back the statement "practised gang rape" nor mention 'gang rape', it actually says that -Quote-: "on the issue of rape, the United Irish Army occupied the moral high ground". -changed to "and numerous accounts of rapes were reported, particularly in County Wexford"

• "aggressive local Yeomanry militia units before, during and after the rebellion as their local knowledge led them to attack :suspected rebels."... 'Local' means 'Irish' Yeomanry. An important distinction, these were local Irish Yeomanry in British service. -added the word Irish.

• "particularly in County Wexford"

Wexford was the centre of the Rebellion, an important point to note for this section. British atrocities were heavily centred on this area. Changed to "particularly in the rebel stronghold of County Wexford".

• "Apart from small scale atrocities near Saintfield, County Down and at Rathangan in County Kildare almost all rebel :atrocities during the rebellion were confined to County Wexford."... The wording of this downplays rebel atrocities without reason. "Small scale" -Changed to a neutral: "Atrocities were perpetrated near Saintfield, County Down and at Rathangan in County Kildare but excluding these incidents almost all rebel atrocities during the rebellion were confined to County Wexford."

Please discuss any problems had with these changes, do not simply revert. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re last item, there were only two atrocites carried out by rebels outside the Wexford theatre, this is not downplaying it is a fact. And the number slain in both were in sinlge digits, atrocity yes but not large in the scheme of things, hence "small scale" - how else would you put it? If we were to list the number of small scale atrocities by the Crown forces, we would need a seperate article. Your edit is is borderline POV as the unqualified use of the word "atrocity" does tend to suggest large numbers IMHO. Ponox (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLD doesn't mean keep edit warring to your sock's version.....you also don't get to edit war and demand people don't revert your POV edits.

Taking each point relevant to your actual edits in turn:

• Easily fixed by changing a single word. Since no due process appears to have been followed, the use of "executed" is rubbish.

• You appear to be very, very, mistaken, or deliberately lying about what sources say. You claim "it actually says that -Quote-: "on the issue of rape, the United Irish Army occupied the moral high ground". -changed to "and numerous accounts of rapes were reported, particularly in County Wexford"". This is total rubbish. The cited sources (you know, the ones at the end of the sentence) is "p. 28, "The Mighty Wave: The 1798 Rebellion in Wexford" (Four Courts Press 1996) Daire Keogh (Editor), Nicholas Furlong (Editor) ISBN 1-85182-254-2" and "Moore, Sir John The Diary of Sir John Moore p.295 ed. J.F Maurice (London 1904)". Neither book contains the text you claim. The first does however state "There is no parallel on the rebel side to the routine rape inflicted by the loyalists - as, for example, the sickening multiple rapes of camp followers at Vinegar Hill, perpetrated by the Dumbartonshire regiment"

Game, set and match. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Excuse me?

• "doesn't mean keep edit warring to your sock's version"

You are calling me a sock? Really? And then you revert yet again without any discussion?

My edits have been carefully thought through to remove POV, not to add it. Do not put a warning on my page without any reason. I could do the same to you but then I'm not attempting to force a pov edit on everyone.

• "Game set and match?"

This is not a game and you don't get extra points for being ignorant and forcing a pov edit.

• "Taking each point relevant to your actual edits in turn:"

You have not done this. I did not see that rape quote when I searched the book reference or I would not have brought it up, All I found was the quote I have added that is why I have asked for a discussion. I note it says 'loyalists' rather than British army, this is worth noting. Your pig ignorant remark is completely unnecessary. You have not attempted at all to discuss the other points.

• You seem to be utterly incapable of common courtesy and incapable of normal discussion.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you denying 87.113.168.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is you? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am denying practising sockery as accused by the above. I made the last 5 edits on that ip without logging in. I routinely use C-Cleaner to remove junk in my pc and this logs me out of all sites. I forget to log in on wiki from time to time, sue me.

After reading the newest version of the article, it appears that the editor above you has accepted the other changes I made. The rape issue is covered by the source so there is no dispute from me there. When I book searched the source for 'rape' or 'gang rape' the only result was "on the issue of rape, the United Irish Army occupied the moral high ground", as noted above. This could have been discussed without the ignorant language.

The one above editor would do well to not always assume the worst of people, common courtesy costs nothing. It is this sort of reaction to edits that drives would be new wiki editors away. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you admit that the IP was indeed you as I originally stated. So exactly what are you bitching about? Since you did not restore any of the other material you talk about I assumed the points you made were somewhat moot, but since you want to discuss them I will get round to it tomorrow. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Bitching" eh? I see you have a long history of pig ignorance on your talk page. Don't bother your little head chuckles. I will only talk with adults.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Atrocities again

I reverted a revert dealing with the atrocities because 1) it removed a valid reference and 2) it did not agree with the reference provided. The cited book is by Lydon. As regards the number killed at Scullabogue, he states: "...the rebels burned perhaps as many as 200 Loyalists (and a few Catholics)" (page 274, my emphasis). BTW, other sources, such as Thomas Cloney, who was present at this event, have placed the number at 100 killed. Lydon does not state that the rebels sacked Ballitore (page 274), and all the other sources I have consulted, such as Mary Leadbeater, state that the soldiers sacked it. The reference to the "human shields" is also unclear. Lydon states simply that "locals were rounded up as prisoners..." He does not state that they were in fact used as human shields, and Mary Leadbeater and other do not mention that this was done. Hohenloh ⁺ 01:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The references given cover what is stated. Pg 274 of Lydon states, after telling of rebels burning houses and committing atrocities that: "locals rounded up as prisoners, to be used in front of the rebels as protection against the shot of the army". On the same page is stated "70 prisoners stripped naked, tied to bridge, piked and thrown in river". Your edit removed sourced material and changed the context of the rebel atrocity section.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that there's been quite an argument on 'Atrocities' and, as I am neither knowledgeable of nor have any British/Irish position on this one, I am not going to debate the specifics. But I would ask whoever (re)-writes that ssection to balance the active and passive sentences, and tone down/remove some of the more emotive language. At the minute, the British forces actively did things, while things just mysteriously happened whenever United Irish forces are involved:

eg

"The British were responsible for particularly gruesome massacres at Gibbet Rath, New Ross and Enniscorthy, burning rebels alive in the latter two..."

"After the defeat of a rebel attack at New Ross, between 100[17] and 200 prisoners [18] were killed, some by gunshot but the majority were burned alive at Scullabogue when the barn in which they were being held captive was set alight."

As a POV/clarity issue, the latter should be rewritten. If both sentences are active, than that is fair. Good luck sorting out what apppears to be a passionate debate! Jnorthdur (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wexford Bridge

The reference to the stripping naked of loyalist captives before death is obstensibly backed by the referenced from historian James Lydon (see here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Ireland-Ancient-Present-History/dp/041501347X#reader_041501347X). However no contemporary accounts that I am aware of have alleged this - from either side. Note Lydon provides no references but seems to have plucked quote out of thin air. I am inclined to delete on this basis i.e the number of sources making no mention of supposed stripping outnumber Lydons sole unreferenced claim, unless anyone can provide other sources? Ponox (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

James Francis Lydon of Trinity College Dublin was one of the world's foremost historians of Ireland, and his works are broadly considered to be authoritative. Whether or not he provides inline citations for his factual assertions, they may be trusted as coming from a "reliable source". SteveStrummer (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So we are now taking things on "trust" as opposed to creditable references. As I said there is no reference anywhere else from other historians or contemporary accounts to this supposed incident. You may put your trust in who you like for yourself, whether they went to Trinners or not, that is hardly credible ground for historical facts and Lydon btw was hardly an expert on this period, he was mainly interested in the medieval period. --Ponox (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Poynings' Law

In the Background section, Poynings' Law should be spelled with a capital L, it should have an internal link to the Poynings' Law page, and while the law was first proposed in 1794 it was enacted in 1795 and is known as Poynings' Law of 1795 on the referenced page. While I believe that the possessive form of nouns ending in S that are not plural should be formed with apostrophe S (e.g. Mr. Jones's) rather than just apostrophe (Mr. Jones'), if the law's name is customarily written as shown it should not be corrected, or if I'm citing a rule that only applies to American English (like spelled versus spelt) please just ignore this point. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly the most concentrated outbreak of violence in Irish history

The article currently claims that:

"The 1798 rebellion was possibly the most concentrated outbreak of violence in Irish history, and resulted in thousands of deaths over the course of three months."

That is a very big claim to make for an island with such a bloody history, and with no sources to back it up. Just as two examples from that history are:

• Irish rebellion of 1641,
• Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in 1649

The number of dead in Ireland during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms is estimated at about 600,000 deaths out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000. Of these most are thought to have died during the Cromwellian pacification. In which case that would be at least 300,000 in three years or about 100,000 a year. Which means that during the other seven years "only" about 43,000 a year died. As those numbers which are averages and will have peeks and troughs in them, they look as bad as those of the 1798 rebellion.

"Faced with the prospect of an Irish alliance with Charles II, Cromwell carried out a series of massacres to subdue the Irish. Then, once Cromwell had returned to England, the English Commissary, General Henry Ireton, adopted a deliberate policy of crop burning and starvation, which was responsible for the majority of an estimated 600,000 deaths out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000." (Frances Stewart (2000). War and Underdevelopment: Economic and Social Consequences of Conflict v. 1 (Queen Elizabeth House Series in Development Studies), Oxford University Press. p. 51.)

-- PBS (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

During the period when the New Model Army was operating in this manner in Ireland it was quite common behaviour on Continental Europe, one only has to read what happened during the near contemporary Thirty Years War to see similar behaviour. 50 years later when Marlborough let his troops of the leash in Bavaria—in a deliberate policy of havoc that harked back to a chevauchée—in the months before Blenheim, in a large part due to the public backlash against the excesses of the previous century (and campaigns such as Sun King's in the Netherlands), enlightened opinion in Europe was disproving. -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that claim currently in the article is a massive over-exaggeration. 1641 and Cromwell's conquest are hard to top, even the Nine Years War saw plenty of carnage in Ulster, de-populating the province.Mabuska ^(talk) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've zapped it – I don't think it added anything to the article anyway. Scolaire (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree, if you read the statement again and break it down :"The 1798 rebellion was possibly the most concentrated outbreak of violence in Irish history, and resulted in thousands of deaths over the course of three months."

The key words here are "possibly" and "concentrated". If 30,000 people died in three months (I have taken the median estimate which is by no means the highest) this equates proportionately to a figure of 120,000 in a year, i.e possibly more concentrated deaths than in an equivalent period of the Cromwellian attempted genocide. I am aware that Louis Cullen's "cohort depletion model" (?) has been widely quoted in recent times to downplay casualty figures to the 10,000 mark but this estimate is qualified as entirely conjectural even by those in agreement. (see Tom Dunne Rebellions: Memoir, Memory and 1798)

--Ponox (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that say it was "possibly" the most "concentrated" outbreak of violence in Irish history, then it can go back in, although I still don't see what it adds to the article. I've never been a fan of the "hierarchy of violence" approach to Irish history. Scolaire (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and "attempted genocide" is a highly debatable and contentious remark on the Cromwellian period. It would need sourcing. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent deletion

The paragraph deleted here and then restored is, on closer examination, actually original research. Looking back through the revision history of the article, I found that the paragraph has been in the article in some form for nearly ten years. Initially it was totally unsourced; then, on two separate occasions, "citations" were added. These were to two books, one written in 1801 by a Protestant propagandist and the other in 1888 by a Catholic priest. No page numbers are given, so we were presumably expected to conclude from reading through the two books that the "facts" stated in the paragraph concerning the historiography of the rebellion were accurate. In the absence of any modern history supporting these "facts", I am deleting the paragraph again. Scolaire (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is true that the initial histories of the rising did downplay the United Irishmen and later ones exagerated the role of the Catholic Church. The former to address/stoke Ascendancy fears about Catholic Emancipation and the latter to defuse claims of the Fenian Brotherhood to be inheritors of the United Irishmen. It is not original research, it is in published articles by 1798 scholars and of interest as it conveys some of the differing historical interpretations put on the rebellion. It could do with rewriting but I do not think deleting en masse is constructive. I will have a look and redo. --Ponox (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If it is in published articles by 1798 scholars, then all that is needed is to cite those articles. As it was, it only cited primary sources and drew conclusions from them (or more accurately, stated personal opinions and then added primary sources to supposedly cite them), which is original research. Scolaire (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The main reason why the rebellion failed was the Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution; the Catholic church hierarchy was opposed. Yet, because the first loyalist accounts by Musgrave etc. said it was mostly a sectarian Catholic rebellion, it came to be seen as that, and later on even by Catholic historians. But the opposition in the 1790s between the church and anyone linked with the French republic is why so very few of the United Irishmen's 300,000 members actually went out to fight.78.16.77.109 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish Rebellion of 1798. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204035344/http://www.ulsterhistory.co.uk/henryjoymccracken.htm to http://www.ulsterhistory.co.uk/henryjoymccracken.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

1798 in Connacht

A more detailed account of the 1798 Rising in Connacht ican be foundin 'The French Invasion of Ireland, 1798' By Thomas J Dowds, with appendix on Tireragh by Conor MacHale, published by IHR, Dublin, 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.179.116 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Strengths

There are figures for regular, Yeomanry and militia however there do not appear to be figures for Fencibles. The First Fencibles cavalry, Roxburgh Fencible dragoons, and Reay's, Northampton, Prince of Wales's Fencible regiments of infantry are credited in a letter in the Newcastle Courant - Saturday 22 September 1798 page 2 'Ireland'. If their numbers are included as part of the militia and Yeomanry figures perhaps the terms Fencibles could be added for greater accuracy? Fenlandier (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Undue Weight Tag

I can entirely understand why this tag has been added by Cordless Larry. However, in my opinion, Asgill's absence from this page was quite extraordinary, since he was the General Officer commanding a District. The Irish Uprising saw the worst kind of attrocities perpetrated, and not only by the British. It was a repeat of the American Revolution which saw appalling attrocities perpetrated between patriots and loyalists, and the same happened in Ireland. If Wikipedia is to be balanced, then some information of a 'good news' nature (depending on your view point, of course) needs to be incorporated. The tenor of this article is weighted on the side of the rebels and needed some balance prior to my Asgill edit. As in America, even after fighting ceased (in the main), terrible vengeance was taken on the loyalists. Their lives weren't worth living. I believe my edit brought some balance into this article.Anne (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Asgill may well deserve a mention in the article, but I doubt that the balance of coverage in secondary sources would justify more than half of a section on the legacy of the Irish Rebellion of 1798 being dedicated to him. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC?

Shall I just remove it all, or just the bit about Sophia? Or I could just put "General Asgill was in charge of the Clonmel District, and leave it at that? Anne (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Decided to remove all reference to Sophia Asgill's good deeds, in the hope that the correct balance of weight is now restored. Anne (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Trying to save men's lives is a legacy, and if anyone wants to add the following, go for it, but I am not allowed to edit again for now.

"...the singular and eccentric, but not unamiable wife of General Asgill..." persuaded her husband to save the lives of rebels, William Farrell and also brothers, William and James Maher. Anne (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

References

I can see how it might be regarded as part of Asgill's legacy, but is it a legacy of the Rebellion? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

In America, Asgill went to the aid of an enemy officer wounded in battle. He didn't have to do that since it was not a wounded brother officer, nor one of his men, all of whom he would have helped. In Ireland his wife persuaded him to save enemy prisoners of war. I'm sure there would have been more such occasions than the three incidents that I have found. He didn't have to save the enemy, and many of his fellow officers, such as Lieutenant Colonel Charles Belson, and certainly Colonel Tarleton, would not have dreamed of helping the enemy. Asgill, and his wife, were both compassionate people. When they saw suffering, they helped. Asgill had a conscience, and that is precisely why he did not write to thank Washington for "saving his life". The French saved Asgill, not Washington. His conscience would not allow him to do something that did not sit well with his conscience. Is that not a legacy to be proud of? Anne (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I've not commented on whether it's a legacy to be proud of; what I questioned was whether this was a personal legacy, best covered in the article about Asgill, or a legacy of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, which is the subject of this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I think William Farrell, an Irish rebel, who lived to tell his tale, might think his life was a legacy. The Mayher brothers, both rebels, would probably have felt the same had they not died of a fever first. Anyway, all this arose because one of the Commanders in Ireland had not even been mentioned in the article, and I was astonished. But I cannot say I care enough to continue arguing about it.Anne (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say that that sounds more like a legacy of Asgill's actions than of the Rebellion per se. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's leave it there then. I'm a person who likes the off-piste stories which make the dry bones of history so much more interesting, so I think we have different viewpoints. I have no wish to pursue this. Got too much else on my plate right now. Anne (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to deduce from the undue weight tag still being in place? Does this mean you want me to remove what is left Cordless Larry? Asgill did have a legacy amongst the Loyalists, who showed their appreciation. He commanded the district of Clonmel, so presumably he is justifiably mentioned on the article now? Anne (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping to attract further input, Anne. WP:UNDUE states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". I'm not sure how much attention sources on the legacy of the 1798 rebellion give to Asgill, but would welcome others' views. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The trouble is, it depends entirely on what viewpoint you hold - the Irish song Sliabh na mBan remembers Asgill from a rebel point of view (mournful that the uprising was unsuccessful, because of people like Asgill; and it is still played today), whereas the gifts were from the grateful loyalists. I think the loyalist viewpoint should be reflected on this article, shouldn't it? For balance? And I thought Asgill belonged on the page, having been a district commander at the time. What do you suggest I do to conform with your wishes, since surely by now anyone else with a view would have expressed it? Anne (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has only been going for a day; sometimes it takes a while for others to contribute. The question isn't whether Asgill should be mentioned so much as how much of the section should be focused on him. One third seems disproportionate to me, but I'm not a subject expert. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the transcription of the inscription in order to make the entry less noticeable. Has this helped? Of course, nobody will have a clue what the inscription says now. Could it be inserted in the image information box? Anne (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Asgill isn't a particularly important figure in the events of 1798 from the broader perspective, as was pointed out he is just a local military commander for three counties (and not even the most heavily involved counties!). Pakenham (who is the 'classic' account of 1798, albeit a bit dated as he mainly uses government sources) only mentions him a few times in the context of Queens and Kilkenny.

I have been starting to update this article a bit, but have only got as far as the period immediately before the rising itself hence why the actual rising is a rather short section in comparison to the background. Perhaps when it's been expanded we can look a bit at Asgill in context but otherwise I'd suggest that sort of detail is most appropriate in his own biographical article? Svejk74 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Svejk74. The issue is not about whether the anecdote is good history, just whether it is in good context here, and it is not. Shoreranger (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC

The 'anecdote' was removed yesterday. We are talking now about Asgill's service during the rebellion. I've just checked my copy of the Packenham book, and he is on seven pages. His service records state: "Appointed to the Staff of Ireland, was very actively employed against the Rebels during the Rebellion in 1798 and received the repeated thanks of the Commander of the Forces and the Government for my Conduct and Service." So, do I understand that this has no place on the article then? In total Asgill spent 15 years stationed in Ireland. He is very much part of the fabric of the Irish story. So is his wife. She found herself being the model for an Irish writer. Anne (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, please allow me to be more specific: Including text on gifts given in appreciation for services rendered during the conflict does nothing to expand the readers understanding of the legacy of the subject of the article, which is the section this information is included - "Legacy". It is not a denial of his "place in the fabric of the Irish story", it is merely to say that in this particular article culling out the specific honors this one man received for his participation does not effectively illuminate the greater topic for the reader, which is the point of an encyclopedia entry. Conversely, the same content is perfectly appropriate in an article about the man himself, and possible others. Shoreranger (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's hope the right pocket can be found for, perhaps, a quote from his service records? I was at a loss to know how or where to incorporate mention of a man who played a very active role in supressing the uprising. The fact that the "loyalists" were grateful to him seemed to me to reflect the "other side of the coin". But clearly I am wrong. I thought that saving the lives of some rebels might be valid as well. This all reminds me so much of trying to get some "unbiased facts" onto the Washington page! That was a losing battle too. Anne (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry All mention of Asgill has now been removed from the article. I can see the lie of the land here and, should you wish for balance, I'll leave it to you to hack your way through. I am no longer in the least bit interested. This is now off my watchlist.Anne (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll remove the tag then, Arbil44. To reiterate though, this isn't about bias or balance, but rather the placement of this material in a section about the legacy of the rebellion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

To the comment above I would add this has nothing to do with 'bias' (as the phrase "unbiased history" would seem to be implying). From this and a couple of other comments you seem to be suggesting that Asgill, and his actions to protect various people, is being regarded as unimportant as he was on the government 'side', rather than the United Irish 'side'. This isn't true; it's more a case that we need to operate at a very broad level here because, as others have said, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a local history study or biographical article. Asgill probably isn't appropriate to highlight as a commander for the same reason that a large section on Maj-Gen Henry Johnson, the commander, at New Ross isn't appropriate; their importance was local, rather than the overall significance to the rebellion of someone like Lake.

As for "the tenor of this article is weighted on the side of the rebels"; I can't see anything in the Background section which is weighted either way, and I hope that when I get to the actual Rebellion section we can put something neutral together. History has moved a long way past Richard Musgrave on the one hand and Kavanagh and the late 19th century "faith and fatherland" stuff on the other.

Also, while I'm here, on "balance"; having checked my copy of Pakenham (an author now often accused of being insufficiently sympathetic to the United Irish viewpoint) I note he describes Asgill as "careless and negligent", and adds that Asgill described his local subordinate at Mountmellick as "too lenient" after he'd hanged 12 people and flogged a good many more in a parish where no actual rising took place, leading to a complaint to the government. I think the point is once you get down to this level then you have to start taking things with a very generous pinch of salt Svejk74 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you think any of that from Pakenham is worth including at Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet#Irish Rebellion of 1798, Svejk74? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Possibly - he does mention Asgill being commended for 'humanity' but does so in a very specific way, to make a point about the government response and the reaction to it - perhaps best illustrated by quoting the relevant passage, which follows a description of several summary executions of rebel leaders:

"The redeeming feature of these ghastly episodes is that in many areas there were officers and gentlemen who did not accept the need for severity. General John Moore avoided holding any courts martial at all. General Dundas in Kildare remitted most of the death sentences to transportation. At Birr, Sir Laurence Parsons wrote to protest against the flogging to death of a man by two magistrates. And in a large part of Connaught the gentry, according to Lord Altamont, “disapproved of the measure entirely and having any one opinion upon it will not cooperate in the execution of it”. Yet for every loyalist in the threatened areas of Carlow, Kilkenny and Queen’s County who disapproved of severity, there were a hundred who felt that the policy was lenient to a fault. “This country would have been in the same situation with Wexford,” declared one loyalist, but for Sir Charles Asgill’s “activity and exertion”. It was proposed to present him with a ceremonial sword. He was “humanity personified”.

Again, to clarify, Pakenham is now regarded as often being too reliant on pro-government sources. I think his point here is that Asgill's perceived "humanity" was ultimately a matter of protecting one element of the community (Wexford, mentioned in the quote above, was the one area where there were some large-scale killings of civilian loyalists) - and might look quite different from another perspective.Svejk74 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually most interested in the "careless and negligent" point, as it feels to me that the section in the Asgill article is a bit uncritical! Cordless Larry (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation problems

The article has some harvard citations that don't resolve to any books. Would regular editors please resolve?

• Elliott (2012). (Could this be https://www.worldcat.org/title/773430577 ?)
• Pakenham (1997). Probably https://www.worldcat.org/title/38819585 ?
• Pittock (2006). Worldcat has no obvious candidate
• Aston (2002). Possibly https://www.worldcat.org/title/1000628696 ?

Anyone? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I found Aston and Pittock at Irish Republic (1798) and fixed them here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@JMF: I've asked the editor who introduced Elliott 2012 and Pakenham 1997 to fix them. The page numbers look way out for Pakenham's The Year of Liberty. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Update - Google Books has been less-than-usually unhelpful and allowed to to see just enough to confirm that "Elliott 2012" is the 2012 edition of Elliott's Wolfe Tone. Will fix article accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the Pakenham probably is the 1997 abridged edition of The Year of Liberty but the page numbers are completely wrong. Hopefully the editor responsible will respond. DuncanHill (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the undefined Pakenhams with references to the 1992 Orion Books edition which is available on Archive.org DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the Sources section

ManfredHugh this article uses short form references, see the documentation for {{Sfn}} templates. These short forms appear in the reflist in the form "Stewart 1995, p. 20" (this is currently ref#29). The short form templates just create a hyperlink, the "Stewart 1995" bit in blue), to a full cite elsewhere in the article (the Sources section).
If you just remove the Sources section as you have been doing it causes an error message that is logged in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. You may not be able to see the errors as they are off by default, the lead of the category has instructions on how to turn them on.
Before you can remove the Sources section each of the short form refs will need to be converted into inline cites. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I’ll try to correct this~~ 2A00:23C7:848C:FA01:E1EC:82E3:1E89:5765 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have any questions or anything I can help you with please just ask on my talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)