Talk:Irish Rebellion of 1798

message: 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)
thread_title: United Irishmen, Presbyterians, Unionists

message: 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)
thread_title:  Round of Applause! - but Sources needed  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was Tone that important? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. 
which was signed by 50+ men, one on behalf of 500 more.--81.129.142.136 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why is this article written so heavily in terms of "Catholic" and "Protestant"?

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. One Night In Hackney303 10:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preference of search 

message: 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)
thread_title: Patriot Party

message: 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)
thread_title: More articles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Hesse-Homburg as belligerent??

message: 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. 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
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)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Battle of Duncairn 

message: 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)
thread_title:  State Terrorism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Numbers of UI?

message: "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)
replies: text: Not even remotely technically!  Well spotted: I have now corrected it.  Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Correction? 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you click on the flag it links to Kingdom of Ireland. Maybe the text should too. JonChappleTalk 06:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belligerants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Atrocities again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wexford Bridge 

message: 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. <B>☺</B> Dick Kimball (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poynings' Law 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent deletion 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1798 in Connacht 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strengths 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation problems 

message: this article uses short form references, see the documentation for  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.<Br>
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)
replies: text: Thanks so much. I’ll try to correct this~~ 2A00:23C7:848C:FA01:E1EC:82E3:1E89:5765 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of the Sources section