Puritan Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of Great Britain from
1642 to 1659, is one of the more controversial figures in history. However, research suggests that whatever dictatorial powers he may have had were largely forced upon him. In fact, English government under Cromwell became more based on the rule of law than it had ever been in either medieval or modern times.
Recognized individual rights were immediately enforced. There was more freedom of religion than even with Queen Elizabeth, an Anglican who persecuted Catholics.
A blueprint was begun for a Parliament with authority derived solely from the people, as opposed to grants from monarchs. Unfortunately, these plans were never quite executed.
Freedom of trade became popular, and international commerce prospered.
Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of Great Britain possibly accomplished the first modern government under a written constitution other than that of Connecticut Colony.
On the whole, the Commonwealth republic seemingly consisted a great boon to the English tradition of free government and common law. Although objections to this idea exist, such as an alleged massacre of Irish Catholics by the English army, or the government censorship of certain publications opposed to their ideals, the fact remains that Cromwell was a hero in his day, and overall English freedom flourished.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
3 comments:
I'm sure all the Irish Catholics removed to the wastelands of Ireland or deported to Barbados and Bermuda will agree with you.
I don't disagree that he did accomplish some things that are worthwhile. But to call his rule one of religious freedom and that of a kinda good guy are stretching it I think.
For example, he is quoted as saying all of the following:
"the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood".
"I meddle not with any man's conscience, but if by liberty of conscience you mean the liberty to exercise the Mass... where the Parliament of England has authority, that will not be allowed of."
"you are part of the Anti-Christ and before long you must have, all of you, blood to drink."
These statements were made to the Catholic Irish because they were Catholic, no other reason than his disagreement with their religious views.
I would say not very tolerant.
While it is true that he ordered goods and services to be paid for in his invasion of Ireland, and he forbade the killing of civilians (at least in principle), he was the man in charge and must be held accountable for what went on under his watch.
He always claimed he was not responsible for the brutality personally, that it was carried out by his subordinates, but still--shame on him.
The fact is that over 600,000 Irish were sent off as slaves by his administration.
Religious tolerance extends to all religions not just the ones we like.
blipey
Thanks blipey. The point is that *overall,* he contributed a good deal to the British tradition of liberty. We of course agree that invading a country based solely on the perceived untruth of its religion is not correct.
I can appreciate that he added value to certain aspects of British rule. And I think we do agree that he could have handled his Irish policy better.
I still think it is a bad idea to ignore the motivations of why a person does something. I think by using phrases such as an alleged massacre of Irish Catholics you gloss over the very real attrocities that did, in fact, happen.
Was the Irish campaign a genocidal massacre? Not literally, perhap not in literal intent, but the forced deportation and enslavement of hundreds of thousands of people can hardly be poo-pooed as an alleged anything.
Similarly more freedom of religion and government censorship are issues that I believe your post misrepresents. These things happened.
There were plenty of people who hated him in his day, also: Irish and english. He may have been seen as a hero by some in his day, but that does not make him heroic. Plenty of evil people are local heroes. Is it not more important to be Heroic than to be seen as a hero?
blipey
Post a Comment