The last English dictator did have a following
and was a very effective leader, IMO.
and was a very effective leader, IMO.
You do know there were and are Protestant Irish?Sapper Redux said:
I wouldn't say that around the Irish.
The Scots were an Irish tribe that invaded the Islands and highlands about the time the Roman Empire fell apart.TheGreatEscape said:
There has always been a close connection of Northern Ireland and Scotland. Remember that Robert the Bruce fled into Northern Ireland by boat for a period of time because he was a threat to the English as the first (well arguably) future King of Scotland.
Rongagin71 said:You do know there were and are Protestant Irish?Sapper Redux said:
I wouldn't say that around the Irish.
Including this thing called Ulster, which used to be larger by several counties.
TheGreatEscape said:
And OP, Cromwell wasn't exactly a dictator. He reestablished Parliament (English bicameral congress) and aided in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 which established free speech for us to copy here in our own constitution.
The Puritans forever limited the power of the monarchy for the UK for future generations.
TheGreatEscape said:
How many Protestants did the Roman Catholics slaughter to start the fight? Well…more than Hamas killed Israelis recently. And Israel may be killing more in return than Cromwell did in also a just war.
"Expulsions and killings of Protestant civilians became widespread in late months of 1641. Perhaps 4,000 were killed directly and as many as 12,000 may have died in total of cold and disease after being driven from their homes. The Portadown massacre in late 1641 in which several hundred Protestants were killed."
TheGreatEscape said:
Until the English Bill of Rights were added in 1689.
We had to remove the Loyalists (wherever we could) in the American Revolution from power as well as confiscating loyalist property?
The British called the American Revolution the Presbyterian War.
Sapper Redux said:TheGreatEscape said:
Until the English Bill of Rights were added in 1689.
We had to remove the Loyalists (wherever we could) in the American Revolution from power as well as confiscating loyalist property?
The British called the American Revolution the Presbyterian War.
They called it the American War. There is no "English Bill of Rights," it was a law that provided rights to Parliament, and 1689 was after two kings from the Stuart line who were invited back by Parliament because they were so done with Cromwell's Protectorate. What 1689 did do was provide the philosophical groundwork for liberalism.
There is lots of Catholic Irish music but this seems like the place for a Protestant Irish tune.Rongagin71 said:You do know there were and are Protestant Irish?Sapper Redux said:
I wouldn't say that around the Irish.
Including this thing called Ulster, which used to be larger by several counties.
TheGreatEscape said:
"American Presbyterians are today well aware that the only active minister to sign the Declaration of Independence was John Witherspoon, president of the College of New Jersey, a Presbyterian school. And people also point to the Mecklenburg Declaration from May of 1775 where a group of local citizens of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, who were all Scots-Irish Presbyterians (one account) passed a resolution declaring independence."
"As such, one loyalist, Rev. William Jones (an advisor to the King), told the British government in 1776 that the revolution was instigated by Presbyterians who were "Calvinists by profession, and Republicans in their politics" and that "this has been a Presbyterian war from the beginning." Another loyalist in New York wrote in 1774 about the Presbyterians, "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary American proceedings upon them. Believe me, the Presbyterians have been the chief and principle instruments in all these flaming measures."
American Founder John Adams later in 1821 reflected on and affirmed the influence of Reformed Christian political thought on the American Founding, writing in a letter,
I love and revere the memories of Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and all other reformers, how much so ever I may differ from them all in many theological, metaphysical, & philosophical points. As you justly observe, without their great exertions & severe sufferings, the USA had never existed.
Whether rightly or wrongly applied, the political principles of the American Revolution were, as Gary T. Amos observes in his Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence, "an inheritance left to colonial Americans by earlier generations of Christian writers." These principles included the people's right of resistance, natural rights, and popular sovereignty as opposed to the Divine Right of Kings and absolute rule. This heritage of Western political thought had developed over centuries and laid the groundwork for the American Revolution and the founding of the new nation of the United States."
https://americanheritage.org/the-influence-of-the-bible-on-the-founding-era-the-presbyterian-rebellion/#:~:text=William%20Jones%2C%20told%20the%20British,Presbyterians%2C%20"I%20fix%20all%20the
TheGreatEscape said:
Some loyalists referred to the revolution as a "Presbyterian Rebellion" after the Presbyterian church movement that came out of the Protestant Reformation. (The Presbyterians, as it were, governed their churches by a group of equal, elected leaders and representative courts.) While patriot colonists in the thirteen colonies comprised many different religious sects, some loyalists referred to the war as Presbyterian with a focus on the Presbyterian churches in New England where the Boston Tea Party occurred. The New England Presbyterians, along with many other religious groups in America, espoused the ideas of political resistance and popular sovereignty, of European religious and political reformers. Many such colonists, for example, favored the people's right of resistance and religious tolerance, and they opposed the Divine Right of Kings and absolute rule.
https://americanheritage.org/the-influence-of-the-bible-on-the-founding-era-the-presbyterian-rebellion/
Jabin said:
My mom wrote her master's thesis on the dress of the early Puritans. What she discovered was that, contrary to most depictions, their dress in the first few generations was very colorful, not simply black and white.
Sapper Redux said:TheGreatEscape said:
Some loyalists referred to the revolution as a "Presbyterian Rebellion" after the Presbyterian church movement that came out of the Protestant Reformation. (The Presbyterians, as it were, governed their churches by a group of equal, elected leaders and representative courts.) While patriot colonists in the thirteen colonies comprised many different religious sects, some loyalists referred to the war as Presbyterian with a focus on the Presbyterian churches in New England where the Boston Tea Party occurred. The New England Presbyterians, along with many other religious groups in America, espoused the ideas of political resistance and popular sovereignty, of European religious and political reformers. Many such colonists, for example, favored the people's right of resistance and religious tolerance, and they opposed the Divine Right of Kings and absolute rule.
https://americanheritage.org/the-influence-of-the-bible-on-the-founding-era-the-presbyterian-rebellion/
****. Not this partisan bull**** "history" again. The Boston Tea Party was organized and started at the Old South Church. A Congregational church (Puritan). Presbyterians we're not in any way a large group in Boston during the Revolution. There were at most 12 ministers in eastern Massachusetts. The only significant population of Presbyterians in New England was in New Hampshire after the Ulster Scots got kicked out of Massachusetts in part because their Presbyterian faith didn't mesh well with the Congregationalists. Citing two sources does not show any widespread support for calling the war the "Presbyterian Revolution."
Hey, I like that bit of info.Sapper Redux said:Jabin said:
My mom wrote her master's thesis on the dress of the early Puritans. What she discovered was that, contrary to most depictions, their dress in the first few generations was very colorful, not simply black and white.
Black was an expensive color and typically reserved for ministers. They still expected modesty, but yeah, colors were perfectly fine and expected.
Sapper Redux said:
Presbyterians and Congregationalists were two separate entities. There were not "Presbyterian Puritans." Such a phrase should almost be enough have the ghost of Increase Mather rise from the grave and strangle you. Yes, they were theologically close, though not identical, but the difference in governance was not some minor issue papered over in the 17th and 18th century. It was enough to create huge divisions between English and Scottish Calvinists in Britain and in the colonies. The Dutch Reformed, by the way, who also founded Queens College (Rutgers), would be similarly disgusted to be lumped into Presbyterianism. Lumping denominations is something we do today that was anathema to Christians of that era.