Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Oliver Cromwell - founder of the British empire - the greatest ever Englishman?
The Daily Mail UK ^ | 1st January 2011 | Dominic Sandbrook

Posted on 12/31/2010 10:16:57 PM PST by Alex Murphy

In many ways, though, what drove Cromwell was his burning religious passion.

Around 1630, when his financial woes were at their worst, he went through a dramatic religious conversion, becoming convinced that God had marked him out for eternal salvation.

‘Oh, have I lived in and loved darkness and hated the light,’ he wrote a few years later. ‘I was a chief, the chief of sinners . . . I hated godliness; yet God had mercy upon me. O the riches of His mercy!’

But Cromwell was not merely exceptionally religious. He belonged to a particular religious group — the Puritans — who believed that the frivolous Charles I, with his stubborn faith in the Divine Right of Kings and his fondness for elaborate Catholic-style church ceremonies, was betraying the Protestant Reformation.

A century earlier, Henry VIII’s tumultuous break with Roman Catholicism had given rise to a new sense of English identity, rooted in Protestant independence, localism and individualism, and fiercely antagonistic to Continental European influence. But to England’s Protestant middle classes, the return of Papal rule remained a genuine and terrifying threat.

Given his wild mood swings between jubilation and gloom, some biographers have suggested that he suffered from manic depression. That might explain why he laughed ‘as if he had been drunk’ after the Battle of Dunbar. To men like Cromwell, the sinister armies of international Catholicism were always poised to strike across the Channel and extinguish English Protestantism for ever.

And to those who remembered the Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot, and who were horrified by news of the Thirty Years War, the gigantic conflict that tore much of central Europe apart as Spain, France, Sweden and Holland battled for supremacy at the cost of some ten million lives, their fears seemed all too realistic.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Mainline Protestant; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: dominicsandbrook; serialmurderer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-116 next last
To: RegulatorCountry
I see him as ... a flawed if occasionally brilliant man who fervently believed what he believed.

Oh, please. Cromwell's disgusting career demonstrated that he only cared about himself. He revolted against his king for simply not having called upon Parliament (of which he was a member) but later, as dictator, he went so far as to actually dissolve a Parliament in session because it didn't give him what he wanted ("It's good to be the king" but 'it's better to be the dictator'). He killed his king for supposed treason against the kingdom while being, himself, the leader of the revolution which initially deposed him. He came to power championing the 'Levelers' and rallying them to his cause, but later, much like Hitler did the SA, he eliminated them after they had served his purpose. He established a psuedo-republic for the declared purpose of instituting rule-of-law, but then proceeded to run the country like a modern third world generalissimo. He destroyed the ancient vestiges of English monarchy in an attempt to end forever the inherited title but, in the fashion of the North Korean Kims, he established his son as his successor. Finally, he killed MANY people, all in the name of Christ, and all of them where Christian.

Cromwell was, truly, the PERFECT Puritan.

51 posted on 01/01/2011 1:37:07 AM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
They took the gold off the walls and put it into their bank accounts while the poor remained poor.
52 posted on 01/01/2011 1:46:09 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper (Stupid Obama still lacks the experience needed to be President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Cromwell was one of the predecessors of our American founding fathers for religious freedom.

Those Founders from Virginia, which colony contributed the most in numbers and significance, would heartily disagree. Virginia's status as "The Old Dominion" rests upon the fact that Cromwell's Puritan Revolution never to root in the colony and it remained loyal to royals. Neither would Marylanders agree with you, as their colony had been established to protect Catholics from Puritan persecution. The Carolinians, North and South, would likely have remembered the namesake king of their eponymous colonies. Maybe your idea of "religious freedom" is of the Massachusetts variety.

53 posted on 01/01/2011 2:05:41 AM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Brass Lamp
Puritan Revolution never to root in the colony

"to" = 'took'.

Happy New Year!

54 posted on 01/01/2011 2:15:16 AM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Cromwell murdered Charles I. When Charles II finally resumed the throne of England, he had Cromwell executed and Cromwell’s body was left hanging in public for a very long time.


55 posted on 01/01/2011 2:32:29 AM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority (What this country needs is an enema.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Sir Douglas Bader would get my vote.


56 posted on 01/01/2011 2:45:58 AM PST by onona (dbada)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Maybe “Erase” was too strong of a word. But he had no love for Catholics or the Irish. The seige of Drogheda, where he killed 3,500 civilians, including Priests and Nuns and of Wexford where 1500 civilians where put to the sword are examples{ I excluded military casualites because they were under arms, or maybe they werent. But still I didnt add them because they can be justifed}
Of course these figure may be inflated because the Irish hated Cromwell so much they blew up the numbers for propaganda purposes.
But we are looking at these thing from our viewpoint. Mass killing were pretty much the rule durning that time. And when you add religion to this, it got ugly. The irish probily would have done the same if the roles were switched. Religion tends to bring out the ugly in some people.
I am German Catholic so I have no dog in this fight. But the Irish still use his name as a curse. That doesnt happen for no reason.
As for Sherman, There is no evidnace that he committed any type of mass killings. He may have burnt every thing in sight and committed other what we would call “War Crimes” but there was no such things as war crimes in either Cromwell or Shermans time.
I am capable of looking at the two sides of every story. In between the truth is in there. But there is no denying that Cromwell was a cast iron basterd.


57 posted on 01/01/2011 4:10:47 AM PST by Yorlik803 (better to die on your feet than live on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: calex59

I agree.


58 posted on 01/01/2011 4:14:06 AM PST by sauropod (The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

The most famous of Brits.

James Bond 007,
British, secret agent, of Scottish & Swiss parentage.

Mrs. Emma Peel(The Avengers)
British, dilettante secret agent, partner to John Steed

John Steed(The Avengers)
British, secret agent

The Prisoner
British, former British secret agent?

Sherlock Holmes
British, pioneering consulting detective

Mr. Lee(Enter the Dragon)
Chinese, Hong Kong, British subject, Kung Fu master

Mrs. Emma Peel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Peel
James Bond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond
Mr. Steed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Steed
Simon Templar aka: The Saint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Templar


59 posted on 01/01/2011 4:28:30 AM PST by Mandingo Conservative (Satan was like the first "community organizer", just ask Eve, the first liberal useful idiot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mandingo Conservative

I prefer Basil Fawlty myself.


60 posted on 01/01/2011 4:46:22 AM PST by sauropod (The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: mmercier
...I think Arthur is the most famous Britisher, specifically because his existence is in question. Oliver Cromwell... No one today knows or cares about him...

LOL. Hungover, or still drunk?

61 posted on 01/01/2011 4:55:25 AM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (Michelle Obama, The Early Years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYGxBlFOSU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
...when Charles II finally resumed the throne of England, he had Cromwell executed...

What?

62 posted on 01/01/2011 4:58:29 AM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (Michelle Obama, The Early Years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYGxBlFOSU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority

After the execution of King Charles I in 1649, Cromwell dominated the short-lived Commonwealth of England, conquered Ireland and Scotland, and ruled as Lord Protector from 1653 until his death from a combination of malarial fever and septicaemia in 1658.

from wikepedia and other sites...


63 posted on 01/01/2011 5:02:58 AM PST by nikos1121 (Praying for the big -24 today and -27 by the end of the month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
..should Cromwell have been offed much sooner than he was? Absolutely, for being in the same class of mass murderer as Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot...

Cromwell wasn't 'offed.' Cromwell wasn't a 'mass murderer.' I'm guessing you were born too late for No Child Left Behind?

64 posted on 01/01/2011 5:12:10 AM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (Michelle Obama, The Early Years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYGxBlFOSU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

That would be the ONLY Englishman the English themselves granted the sobriquet “Greast” to: Alfred the Great, the man who kept England from going down completely to the Danes.


65 posted on 01/01/2011 5:42:25 AM PST by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie

Thank you;)

It does help to read the article in full - and to remember that for 400 years, history has been written by Royalists and the Vatican.

Irish Catholics were given Cromwell as a boogy-man while the Monarchs and Popes continued to control and oppress (taxes & tythes).


66 posted on 01/01/2011 5:46:03 AM PST by sodpoodle (Despair; man's surrender. Laughter; God 's redemption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957
I don't know if you would consider him the greatest, but William's little excursion in 1066 is most profound event in Anglo history.

That imposed a French aristocracy on England for about three centuries, but the underlying English culture was little changed.

Now Hengst's little excursion six centuries earlier, that was a game changer.

67 posted on 01/01/2011 6:03:17 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid

Words that would be apropos to the most recent session of the US congress.


68 posted on 01/01/2011 6:04:01 AM PST by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
The information I posted was obtained from Conservapedia

The religious history of the Reformation is a lot more complicated than the simple minded "Calvanists versus Catholics" view of Conservapedia,

e.g. why, after 1650, was the Presbyterian church supporting Charles II against Cromwell?

69 posted on 01/01/2011 6:10:40 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

You are wasting your time, although I admire the effort. I don’t think I have ever seen such an historically illiterate set of posts on FR. The “grudge” was manufactured by centuries of Stuart and Catholic historiography. This thread resembles nothing so much as Orwell’s three minute hate.

If you want to read a contemporary account of Cromwell and his life, Lady Antonia Frazier’s biography is detailed and quite good.


70 posted on 01/01/2011 6:19:01 AM PST by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mmercier

Elizabeth I


71 posted on 01/01/2011 6:20:57 AM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Cromwell was the devil personified.


72 posted on 01/01/2011 6:35:36 AM PST by frithguild (The Democrat Party Brand - Big Government protecting Entrenched Interests from Competition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Well, in the spirit of historical comparison, Cromwell is to Irish Catholics what William Tecumseh Sherman is to southerners.

Worse. It might be similar if Sherman took ownership the land for good.

73 posted on 01/01/2011 6:39:53 AM PST by frithguild (The Democrat Party Brand - Big Government protecting Entrenched Interests from Competition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Cromwell was one of the predecessors of our American founding fathers for religious freedom.

Um, no. Cromwell was a tyrant in matters of religion as in other matters, who imposed by force of arms his own Calvinist views on the Church of England. If he was for religious freedom, it was religious freedom for me, but not for thee. The same as his fellow Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The real champions of religious freedom were the Quakers and the "recusants" (as persistent Latins in England were called), and the same when it came to this side of the Atlantic: William Penn and Lord Baltimore established colonies with religious freedom. Puritan Congregationalism was established in Massachusetts, and Anglicanism in Virginia.

74 posted on 01/01/2011 6:44:24 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Cromwell was one of the predecessors of our American founding fathers for religious freedom.

Yeah, right. The kind where you can got to Hell or to Connacht.

75 posted on 01/01/2011 6:58:02 AM PST by frithguild (The Democrat Party Brand - Big Government protecting Entrenched Interests from Competition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority

“When Charles II finally resumed the throne of England, he had Cromwell executed and Cromwell’s body was left hanging in public for a very long time.”

Cromwell died of illness, and was later “posthumously executed” - and then his body was left hanging.

During time of the English Civil War, it would be difficult to end up universally appreciated. One can surmise that that a “posthumous execution” could be an indicator of a lack of universal appreciation.

Cromwell was a great leader at a time England needed one. Those that would judge him by standards of today change very little, most especially their own ignorance - just as those who “executed” him changed little, from a practical standpoint.

I suspect neither England nor America would be the same without him - for better or worse.


76 posted on 01/01/2011 7:01:51 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Brass Lamp

Excellent and succinct post.


77 posted on 01/01/2011 7:06:57 AM PST by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism - "Who-whom?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

“I don’t think I have ever seen such an historically illiterate set of posts on FR.”

Bravo. You can’t fix this sort of willful, trained ignorance, so you may as well laugh at it.


78 posted on 01/01/2011 7:08:08 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Brass Lamp; familyop

Some of the Williams who settled Rhode Island and later Connecticut were supposedly related to Cromwell.


79 posted on 01/01/2011 7:17:49 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I’m just a lonely boy
Lonely and blue
I’m all alone
With nothin’ to do

I’ve got everything
You could think of
But all I want
Is someone to love

Someone, yes, someone to love
Someone to kiss
Someone to hold
At a moment like this

I’d like to hear
Somebody say
I’ll give you my love
Each night and day

I’m just a lonely boy
Lonely and blue
I’m all alone
With nothin’ to do

I’ve got everything
You could think of
But all I want
Is someone to love

Somebody, somebody
Somebody, please
Send her to me
I’ll make her happy
Just wait and see

I prayed so hard
To the heavens above
That I might find
Someone to love

I’m just a lonely boy
lonely and blue
I’m all alone
With nothin’ to do

I’ve got everything
You could think of
But all I want
Is someone to love


80 posted on 01/01/2011 7:38:52 AM PST by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Reference bump


81 posted on 01/01/2011 7:40:12 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just reload)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Cromwell was a murdering POS who invaded Ireland and killed the priests and burned all the Catholic churches. Banned the Mass on pain of death. With any luck he is still burning in Hell where he belongs.


82 posted on 01/01/2011 7:40:58 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: abigail2

Thanks for the ping! The movie with Richard Harris is outstanding and I recommend renting or buying it. I do not buy the author’s idea that Cromwell was manic. I think it is just that, the authors dark idea from his own darkside. Someday, when the true living Americans that are left here are pushed far enough with all of the unborn murder and excessive taxation and theft from our companies through business taxes...someday we will be pushed to the point that Cromwell was and we will once again fight to push off the barbarians from our necks! And then there will be 1000 years of real freedom and zero communistic income tax! With a ruler of light and real justice who came down once again , this time as the lion to finish off the evil possessed forces of our enemies.


83 posted on 01/01/2011 8:21:13 AM PST by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Yorlik803
The seige of Drogheda, where he killed 3,500 civilians, including Priests and Nuns

The death toll at Drogheda was largely English Royalist and Irish Confederate military garrisoned there, about 3,000 men in all. There were civilian deaths due to priests, nuns and laymen taking shelter at Drogheda, which is/was something of a fortification, could even be described as a castle and frequently is described as a castle in modern day Ireland.

This was not at all unusual under the siege warfare methods of that time. It makes Cromwell no more monstrous than any other military figure of the era who had ever mounted a siege of opposing forces garrisoned in a fortification.

84 posted on 01/01/2011 8:25:09 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
"The information I posted was obtained from Conservapedia and is not my personal opinion."

That is not what the Conservapedia says. Carles I was an Anglican in good standing. The events you are referring to are known as the Bishops Wars in which the central issue had to do with the authority and powers of the crown. Charles I sought to impose an episcopalian system of church government for Scotland (with bishops), and the Scottish Puritans desired a presbyterian system of governance (without bishops).

The charges that Charles I was "too close to the Catholics" was a charge against his royalist activities. The crowned heads of Europe were largely Catholic and Charles sought to more closely identify with them. Charles married a Catholic (Henrietta Maria of France whom he had never actually met) over the objections of parliament giving ammunition to his political opponents. He further fueled this claim failed to militarily intervene to protect the French Huguenots, who were themselves were the political equivalent of the English anti-Royalists.

85 posted on 01/01/2011 9:12:19 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

Indeed - three of the “Regicides” of Charles I took refuge in RI and Conn around New Haven. Roger Williams (the true founder of religious freedom in America) was related to Cromwell thru his wife Mary Bernard.


86 posted on 01/01/2011 9:12:38 AM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: familyop

“Cromwell was one of the predecessors of our American founding fathers for religious freedom”

I think it’s a point worth increased study. Three of the Regicides that signed Charles I’s death warrant ended up in RI and CT - as did many other Cromwell followers. Many of these same families started the American Revolution.

Roger Williams (the founder of religious freedom in America) was loosely related to Cromwell thru his wife Mary Bernard Williams.


87 posted on 01/01/2011 9:19:47 AM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Unlike other commanders, he refused to promote men on the basis of birth and breeding. His officers, sneered one fellow commander, the Earl of ­Manchester, were ‘common men, poor and of mean parentage’.

But Cromwell was unrepentant: as he famously wrote in 1643, ‘I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.’

His officers were middle-class ­yeomen, not simpering aristocrats.

My kind of guy!

Thanks Alex, well worth the read at the link.

88 posted on 01/01/2011 9:49:26 AM PST by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

John Hawkins, Francis Drake. Without them there would have been no Churchill.


89 posted on 01/01/2011 10:26:13 AM PST by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
. . . Cromwell died of illness, and was later “posthumously executed” - and then his body was left hanging... . ..

And then:

His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn. Finally, his disinterred body was thrown into a pit,
while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685.
Ironically the Cromwell vault was then used as a burial place for Charles II’s
illegitimate descendants. Afterwards the head changed hands several times,
including the sale in 1814 to a man named Josiah Henry Wilkinson, before
eventually being buried in the grounds of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in 1960.

This is the kind of stuff that can make a boy interested in history!

90 posted on 01/01/2011 11:09:19 AM PST by skeptoid (The road to serfdom is being paved by RINOs, and Lisa Murkowski is their mascot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“That is not what the Conservapedia says.”

My quote was a direct lift. It is exactly what Conservapedia says.


91 posted on 01/01/2011 11:16:22 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

I am not sure why Conservapedia is a “ROFL.”

I am no expert on English history or Cromwell. I do know that Cromwell was a duly sanctioned leader of the troops, authorized by Parliament to basically lead their side in a civil war. Which he is credited with winning. I am sure the losing side was quite bitter about it. There were probably atrocities on both sides. How much any individual leader is responsible for those atrocities is a matter of debate.

I repeat, I do not defend war crimes by any party. I would just like to point out that in war, innocent people are killed. That is not ok with me. It is just the way it is. To blame Cromwell exclusively for that fact is not reasonable. Again, he did not start this war. He just finished it.


92 posted on 01/01/2011 11:20:05 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
"My quote was a direct lift."

No it wasn't. The following is the "direct lift" from the Conservapedia. (Nowhere does it say he was imposing Catholicism on the Scottish Puritans as you claimed):

Charles I (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649) was King of England, King of Scotland and King of Ireland from 27 March 1625 until his execution.

Charles struggled for power with the Parliament of England. He firmly believed in the Divine Right of Kings, and many in England feared that he was attempting to gain absolute power.

Religious conflicts were a notable feature of Charles' reign. He married a Catholic princess, Henrietta Maria of France, over the objections of Parliament and public opinion. Many of Charles' subjects felt that he brought the Church of England too close to Roman Catholicism. Charles' later attempts to force religious reforms upon Scotland led to the Bishops' Wars that weakened England's government and led to his downfall.

His last years were marked by the English Civil War, in which he was opposed by the forces of Parliament and by Puritans, who were hostile to his religious policies and Catholic sympathy. Charles was defeated in the first Civil War (1642 - 1645), after which Parliament expected him to accept demands for a constitutional monarchy. He instead remained defiant by attempting to forge an alliance with Scotland and escaping to the Isle of Man. This provoked a second Civil War (1648 - 1649) and a second defeat for Charles, who was tried and then executed for high treason. The monarchy was then abolished and a republic called the Commonwealth of England was declared. Charles's son, Charles II, became King after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

King Charles I was canonized by the Anglican Communion as Saint King Charles, the Martyr, his Feast Day is 30 January.

93 posted on 01/01/2011 11:24:42 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Not only do you see only what you want to see, you see things that aren't there. I have no more personal feelings about Cromwell than I do about the Civil War threads that send Neo Confederates here on FR off their meds. That's why my comment to you in post 22:

"I read the article at the link. It was interesting."

But I also know the motivation of the poster. It isn't 'mind reading', either, but an observation of the posting history from the poster. That has been my only comment on the thread. Know Nothings choose to post anything negative they can find on the web about Christ's Church and what he chose to highlight from an otherwise interesting article was the evidence.

It was also what I posted to you as to what I perceived to be the evidence. You don't see it? Not my problem. I don't believe you want to see it.
94 posted on 01/01/2011 11:46:51 AM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“‘In 1630-42, when he governed without calling a parliament, King Charles I multiplied his enemies by imposing irritating financial exactions upon various classes of the community, using prerogative powers exercised by the king in centuries past. He demanded “ship money” from the towns, fined country gentlemen (including Cromwell) for refusing to accept knighthood, raised “forced loans,” and increased customs duties. He did all this because he had no right to levy fresh taxes without the consent of Parliament; indeed, his broad aim was to secure the financial independence of the monarchy, and to fasten uniformity upon the Church. Thus the king antagonized the Puritan reformers as well as many of the country gentry and townspeople. In 1638 he became involved in a war against his Scottish subjects (he was hereditary king of Scotland as well as of England) when he tried to force upon them a prayer book similar to that in use in the English Church. They rebelled, and he was compelled to call a parliament at Westminster to ask for money to pursue the war. The accumulation of grievances against the king over eleven years made the leaders of the House of Commons aggressive and uncooperative. Cromwell at once showed himself to be a staunch Puritan, and as such gave steady support to the critics of church and government.’”

DIRECT LIFT.


95 posted on 01/01/2011 11:48:20 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
"DIRECT LIFT."

DIRECT FAIL! Nowhere does it say anything about forcing Catholicism on the Scottish Puritans. Charles I is an Anglican saint, not a Catholic saint. He was a Royalist and believed that kings ruled by Divine Right. He attempted to impose an Anglican style church on the Scottish Puritans, in which the crown would approve the appointment of the Bishops as opposed to the presbytery of the Puritans. The opposition to this was called the Bishop Wars. Too often Protestants believe that there was peace and harmony between all children of the Reformation, but this was never the case, particularly where there were Calvinists involved. Historically, Calvinists get along with other denominations only slightly better than Muslims.

As I stated earlier you are entitled to your own religion and your own opinion, but your apparent hatred of the Catholic Church doesn't allow you to change history to fit your preconceived notions.

96 posted on 01/01/2011 12:25:52 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: familyop; Brass Lamp; The_Reader_David; frithguild; headsonpikes; ladyjane

“Cromwell was one of the predecessors of our American founding fathers for religious freedom.”

Good point considering the personal connection between Cromwell & Roger Williams:

1) Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English military and political leader best known in England for his involvement in turning England into a republican Commonwealth and for his later role as Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland. Events that occurred during his reign and his politics are a cause of long lasting animosity between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

He was one of the commanders of the New Model Army which defeated the royalists in the English Civil War. After the execution of King Charles I in 1649, Cromwell dominated the short-lived Commonwealth of England, conquered Ireland and Scotland, and ruled as Lord Protector from 1653 until his death from a combination of malarial fever and septicemia in 1658.

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

2) Roger Williams (circa 1603 – between January and March 1683) was an American Protestant theologian, and the first American proponent of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In 1636, he began the colony of Providence Plantation. which provided a refuge for religious minorities. Williams started the first Baptist church in America, the First Baptist Church of Providence, before leaving to become a Seeker. He was a student of Native American languages and an advocate for fair dealings with Native Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)

3) “As family chaplain, Williams lets his heart go out to one of his employer’s relatives, Jane Whalley, and his early writings concern her. Lady Joan Barrington, her aunt — and also that of Oliver Cromwell — will not tolerate Williams’s thoughts of love and marriage for her niece. In the spring of 1629, Lady Joan ends the whole matter abruptly.

On realizing that he and Jane will never be married, Williams writes, “We hope to live together in the heavens, though ye Lord have denied that union on earth.” By year’s end, he finds another love, Mary Barnard. They marry, and within a year they have set sail on the Lyon for the Massachusetts Bay Colony. On Feb. 5, 1631, Gov. John Winthrop greets the Lyon in Nantasket, south of Boston, after a 57-day voyage. Winthrop’s greeting is mostly for the cargo of salt pork and salt beef. Still, he notes in his journal that among the 20 passengers there are “a godly minister” and his wife. Roger was 27; Mary, 21.”

http://www.rootcellar.us/wightman/9misc.html

4) “At the return of Charles II, regicides who had had the good fortune to die in peace during the Commonwealth were condemned posthumously, their bodies exhumed and abused, and their heirs’ property confiscated. Of the living, twenty-four vanished into royal dungeons or were executed with the cruelty reserved for traitors: a mere dozen escaped abroad. The three who fled to the American colonies have written a dramatic page in our history.
Among those who dared to kill a king on that fateful day in 1649 were Edward Whalley, William Goffe, and John Dixwell. “

“Whalley, Oliver Cromwell’s cousin [& brother of Roger Williams’ one time romance Jane Whalley], had thrown himself into the civil war at the first rattle of sabers”

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1964/1/1964_1_26.shtml


97 posted on 01/01/2011 1:34:24 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Natural Law,

I went to Conservapedia. I searched “Cromwell.” I read the article. I copied and pasted the quoted section.

I don’t know what else I can tell you. Anyone can go do the same thing and see for themselves.


98 posted on 01/01/2011 1:44:04 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
"I went to Conservapedia..."

All of the wiki based sources are only as accurate as their contributors and are often wrong or seriously simplistic and incomplete. It would be a good idea to do some additional fact checking before relying on or portraying any wiki based source as authoritative.

99 posted on 01/01/2011 1:57:59 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776; ladyjane

Thank you for the information in regards to Roger Williams and descendants. ...another little fact. At the time of the American Revolution, Catholics comprised about 1.6% of the population in the thirteen colonies.


100 posted on 01/01/2011 5:11:16 PM PST by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson