Sunday, August 31, 2025

Limited Monarchy - the Whigs and Whiggamores: "the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution"

One of the most acclaimed books about the ideas which fuelled American independence is Trevor Colbourn's The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution, first published in 1965. Colbourn had an MA from the College of William and Mary in Virginia, so maybe his interest is no big surprise. The book title was taken from Patrick Henry's historic speech of 1775 at the Second Virginia Convention at St John's Church in Richmond, Virginia. But who were the Whigs?

Every society has a ruling class, no matter whether it's a monarchy or a republic, or something else. Why do supposedly socialist dictators live in luxury with palaces just like kings? Power, and human nature. Colbourn quotes Charles Carroll, saying “power is apt to pervert the best of natures.”

Even a change of nationality will not solve the problem, because the need is liberty

As the 'Scots-Irishman' poet of Pennsylvania, David Bruce, wrote in 1801,  a change of nationality may do nothing other than change the rope that tethers the horse. Or a different flag, but attached to the same old chains - or attached to something even worse.


..............

The system isn't really the core point. The real issue is how much power the ruling class claims, and how much liberty the ordinary person possesses. And the ideas on how each of those operate are what truly shapes the nation. Colbourn's intro says:

One of John Adams’s favorite questions was, “What do we mean by the revolution? The War?” No. “That was no part of the revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it.” As he told Hezekiah Niles, “the real American Revolution” was the “radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people.” Effected between 1760 and 1775, this took place “before a drop of blood was shed.”

Colbourn points out, over 300 pages, that the ideas of the 1688 Glorious Revolution, and previous eras such as Magna Carta, were rediscovered with fresh relevance in 1760s & 1770s America. The same patterns were seen, the same outcomes anticipated. And many of the writers of the Glorious Revolution era – like John Locke - were republished in America. Locke and others of his time and mindset had been known as Whigs

Where does that term come from? The Presbyterian Covenanters of south west Scotland.

..............

In September 1648, ten years after Scotland's National Covenant had been signed by almost the entire adult population (and by many communities in Ulster), a rising of particularly militant Covenanters began in the west of Scotland, led by Archibald Campbell, the 1st Marquis of Argyll and Alexander Montgomerie, the 6th Earl of Eglinton in Ayrshire (he was a cousin of 'our own' Sir Hugh Montgomery of the Great Ardes). Their purpose was to stop their opponents, known as the 'Engagers', coming to any potential compromise with King Charles I.

Montgomerie mustered his men at the Ayrshire village of Mauchline. Mostly rural peasant farmers, they were known as Whigamores or Whiggamores, from the Scots word 'whiggam' which they called out when driving cattle and horses. The combined force of 6000 of them marched on Edinburgh and took control of the historic Castle. On 12 September there  was a skirmish at Stirling Castle.

However on 15 September 1648, the Whiggamores and the Engagers negotiated a settlement. The King's ambitions had been stopped. As this website says:

The “Whigamore Raid” was less a military conquest than a political coup, accomplished by a mass movement whose very ordinariness—farmers on workhorses, tradesmen in mismatched armor—symbolized the Kirk party’s claim to represent “the godly” common people against aristocratic Royalist scheming.

 ..............

• the entry for Whiggamore in the Dictionary of the Scots Language website

• the full text of The Lamp of Experience is online here.

• Wikipedia entry on the Whiggmore Raid is online here.

• A recent article by Bradley J Birzer on the importance of Trevor Colbourn's book is online here.


 




Saturday, August 30, 2025

December 1775 - the Grand Union Flag, and the response of the Second Continental Congress - two massive statements from the "United Colonies"


Here in Northern Ireland, flags have been a source of strife and identity for a very long time. They are now becoming so in England too, where there is now much talk about the Ulsterisation of politics there (see this article on Unherd). They are powerful emotive emblems. Customising (I think the vexillogical term is 'defacing') an existing flag by overlaying new meaning onto it is a big statement, and that's what the British Colonists in America did, repeatedly, with the classic Red Ensign.

After the Sons of Liberty had raised their 'Liberty and Union' flag in Taunton, Massachusetts on 21 October 1774, and John Proctor created his 'Don't Tread on Me' at Hanna's Town in Pennsylvania on 16 May 1775, it was the Scottish-born naval officer John Paul Jones who raised what became known as the Grand Union Flag or the Continental Union Flag on 3 December 1775 - a Red Ensign with six white stripes sewn over the red field, making 13 stripes in total. That's it in the painting above, by artist William Nowland Van Powell.

Most flag historians have regarded it as yet another dual statement - of both loyalty to the Crown, and yet also defiance of Parliament in demanding the restoration of full British liberty to the American Colonies.



................

This is also exactly the content of the Second Continental Congress' response to King George III's Proclamation (see previous post here) of 23 August 1775. Correspondence could have taken over a month to cross the Atlantic. Here's the full text published on 6 December 1775, just three days after Jones had displayed the new flag:


The Report of the Committee on Proclamations

We, the Delegates of the thirteen United Colonies in North America, have taken into our most serious consideration, a Proclamation issued from the Court of St. James’s on the Twenty-Third day of August last. The name of Majesty is used to give it a sanction and influence; and, on that account, it becomes a matter of importance to wipe off, in the name of the people of these United Colonies, the aspersions which it is calculated to throw upon our cause; and to prevent, as far as possible, the undeserved punishments, which it is designed to prepare, for our friends.

We are accused of “forgetting the allegiance which we owe to the power that has protected and sustained us.” Why all this ambiguity and obscurity in what ought to be so plain and obvious, as that he who runs may read it? What allegiance is it that we forget? Allegiance to Parliament? We never owed–we never owned it. Allegiance to our King? Our words have ever avowed it,–our conduct has ever been consistent with it. We condemn, and with arms in our hands,–a resource which Freemen will never part with,–we oppose the claim and exercise of unconstitutional powers, to which neither the Crown nor Parliament were ever entitled. By the British Constitution, our best inheritance, rights, as well as duties, descend upon us: We cannot violate the latter by defending the former: We should act in diametrical opposition to both, if we permitted the claims of the British Parliament to be established, and the measures pursued in consequence of those claims to be carried into execution among us. Our sagacious ancestors provided mounds against the inundation of tyranny and lawless power on one side, as well as against that of faction and licentiousness on the other. On which side has the breach been made? Is it objected against us by the most inveterate and the most uncandid of our enemies, that we have opposed any of the just prerogatives of the Crown, or any legal exertion of those prerogatives? Why then are we accused of forgetting our allegiance? We have performed our duty: We have resisted in those cases, in which the right to resist is stipulated as expressly on our part, as the right to govern is, in other cases, stipulated on the part of the Crown. The breach of allegiance is removed from our resistance as far as tyranny is removed from legal government. It is alleged, that “we have proceeded to an open and avowed rebellion.” In what does this rebellion consist. It is thus described—“Arraying ourselves in hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering, and levying war against the King.” We know of no laws binding upon us, but such as have been transmitted to us by our ancestors, and such as have been consented to by ourselves, or our representatives elected for that purpose. What laws, stamped with these characters, have we withstood? We have indeed defended them; and we will risk everything, do everything, and suffer everything in their defense. To support our laws, and our liberties established by our laws, we have prepared, ordered, and levied war: But is this traitorously, or against the King? We view him as the Constitution represents him. That tells us he can do no wrong. The cruel and illegal attacks, which we oppose, have no foundation in the royal authority. We will not, on our part, lose the distinction between the King and his Ministers: happy would it have been for some former Princes, had it been always preserved on that part of the Crown.

Besides all this, we observe, on this part of the proclamation, that “rebellion” is a term undefined and unknown in the law; it might have been expected that a proclamation, which by the British constitution has no other operation than merely that of enforcing what is already law, would have had a known legal basis to have rested upon. A correspondence between the inhabitants of Great Britain and their brethren in America, produced, in better times, much satisfaction to individuals, and much advantage to the public. By what criterion shall one, who is unwilling to break off this correspondence, and is, at the same time, anxious not to expose himself to the dreadful consequences threatened in this proclamation–by what criterion shall he regulate his conduct? He is admonished not to carry on correspondence with the persons now in rebellion in the colonies. How shall he ascertain who are in rebellion, and who are not? He consults the law to learn the nature of the supposed crime: the law is silent upon the subject. This, in a country where it has been often said, and formerly with justice, that the government is by law, and not by men, might render him perfectly easy. But proclamations have been sometimes dangerous engines in the hands of those in power; Information is commanded to be given to one of the Secretaries of states, of all persons “who shall be found carrying on correspondence with the persons in rebellion, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, or abettors, of such dangerous designs.” Let us suppose, for a moment, that some persons in the colonies are in rebellion, and that those who carry on correspondence with them, might learn by some rule, which Britons are bound to know, how to discriminate them; Does it follow that all correspondence with them deserves to be punished? It might have been intended to apprize them of their danger, and to reclaim them from their crimes. By what law does a correspondence with a criminal transfer or communicate his guilt? We know that those who aid and adhere to the King’s enemies, and those who correspond with them in order to enable them to carry their designs into effect, are criminal in the eye of the law. But the law goes no farther. Can proclamations, according to the principles of reason and justice, and the constitution, go farther than the law?

But, perhaps the principles of reason and justice, and the constitution will not prevail: Experience suggests to us the doubt: If they should not, we must resort to arguments drawn from very different source. We, therefore, in the name of the people of these United Colonies, and by authority, according to the purest maxims of representation, derived from them, declare, that whatever punishment shall be inflicted upon any persons in the power of our enemies for favoring, aiding, or abetting the cause of American liberty, shall be retaliated in the same kind, and the same degree upon those in our power, who have favored, aided, or abetted, or shall favor, aid, or abet the system of ministerial oppression. The essential difference between our cause, and that of our enemies, might justify a severer punishment: The law of retaliation will unquestionably warrant one equally severe.

We mean not, however, by this declaration, to occasion or to multiply punishments; Our sole view is to prevent them. In this unhappy and unnatural controversy, in which Britons fight against Britons, and the descendants of Britons, let the calamities immediately incident to a civil war suffice. We hope additions will not from wantonness be made to them on one side: We shall regret the necessity, if laid under the necessity, of making them on the other.

...........

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

"The Scotch-Irish settlers in the Valley of Virginia" - the Massacres of Kerr's Creek - Bolivar Christian, 1860

To help understand the experience of the early Ulster-Scots in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, this is a remarkable source - online here. There had been a number of massacres at Carr's Creek / Kerr's Creek, in 1759, 1763 and 1764. The writer says this:

"... When the captive survivors of the Carr's Creek massacre, in this (Rockbridge) county, reached the Shawnee towns on the banks of the Muskingum (Ohio), the Indians in cruel sport called on them to sing. 

Unappalled by the bloody scenes they had already witnessed, and the fearful tortures awaiting them, within that dark wilderness of forest where all hope of rescue seemed forbidden, undaunted by the fiendish revellings of their savage captors, they sang aloud with the most pious fervour from the 137th Psalm, as they oft had done in more hopeful days within the sacred walls of old "Timber Ridge Church":

"On Babel's streams we sat and wept when Zion we thought on,
In midst thereof we hanged our harps the willow trees among,
For then a song required they who did us captive bring,
Our spoilers called for mirth and said, a song of Zion sing."...

• Further information here on HistoricRockbridge.org

The Annals of Augusta County (online here) has detailed descriptions of the massacres including the names of the many victims.

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

Thomas Jefferson on "Parliamentary tyranny" - and why could the King not intervene?

"Since the establishment however of the British constitution at the glorious Revolution on it’s free and ancient principles, neither his majesty nor his ancestors have exercised such a power of dissolution in the island of Great Britain; and when his majesty was petitioned by the united voice of his people there to dissolve the present parliament, who had become obnoxious to them, his ministers were heard to declare in open parliament that his majesty possessed no such power by the constitution..."

- Thomas Jefferson, in A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774 - text online here)

Saturday, August 23, 2025

250 years ago – 23 August 1775: Liberty Denied “A Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition”.


250 years ago on 23 August 1775, King George III published a statement which the government had prepared - rejecting all of the approaches which had been sent by the American colonists for reconciliation, including the 'Olive Branch Petition', and refusing to restore to them their full British rights - the “Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition”. 

The irony was that those very rights, and the legal charters for the colonies, had been written into law in the William and Mary Revolution of 1688/9 - the very same revolution in which William and Mary had disempowered the monarchy forever, handing all power to Parliament.

Therefore, appealing to the King had been a useless endeavour - he was little more than a figurehead, obliged to endorse whatever the government chose to do to its own citizens on both sides of the Atlantic.

“… Parliament was now more absolute than a king had ever quite been under common law…”

...............

NB: Almost 40% of MPs in Parliament (known as Rockingham Whigs) supported the American colonists. If the government and King had restored full British rights to the colonists, the whole issue would have been over and the colonists would have happily remained as British subjects.

This was not a question of nationality. This was about liberty.

The colonists' responses, made public in December 1775, would yet again express that...







Friday, August 22, 2025

Presbyterians and Baptists in 1778: Common Liberty before Privileged Power

Often what happens in our era is that those in power accumulate preference and privilege to themselves. This is especially the case in quasi-theocratic states, and Integralism. This was not so in post-Revolution America, where the Presbyterians and Baptists rejected such concepts –

"... After the commencement of the war of the Revolution a strong prejudice was roused against the Established clergy, as the great majority of them were ardent Loyalists, or ''Tories"; the Presbyterians and Baptists were even more ardently "Whigs" — their ministers preached with great zeal the doctrine of resistance to tyrants... 

Accordingly the Presbytery of Hanover* came forward with another of their well-reasoned memorials (1778); and after courteously thanking the Assembly for what they had done in repealing some of the offensive and illiberal laws ... 

... they argued that the only proper object of civil government was to promote the happiness of the people by protecting them as citizens in their rights; to restrain the vicious by wholesome laws and encourage the virtuous by the same means; that the obligations which men owe their Creator are not a proper subject of human legislation, and the worship of God according to the dictates of conscience was an inalienable right.

"Neither does the Church of Christ stand in need of a general assessment for its support; and most certain we are persuaded that it would be no advantage, but an injury to the society to which we belong; and we believe that Christ has ordained a complete system of laws for the government of His kingdom, so we are persuaded that by His providence, He will support its final consummation."

This memorial was also seconded by the urgent protests of the Baptists; the result was that the following year the proposed plan of general assessment was abandoned for the time being. We, today, take for granted the principles here enunciated, they having been so thoroughly discussed, while experience has as clearly proved their soundness and utility.

These Christian men were fully convinced that the effect of the union of Church and State was, for many reasons, injurious to spiritual religion. Many of these legislators, though they talked so learnedly, were unable to appreciate the question in its spiritual bearings, and for this reason alone, the authors of these memorials never urged to much extent the arguments derived from this phase of the subject, but judiciously waived them, although they were so convincing to themselves, and to the Church members whom they represented..."

- from The triumph of the Presbytery of Hanover; or, Separation of church and state in Virginia. With a concise history of the Presbyterian Church in the United States from 1705 to 1888, by Jacob Harris Patton (1887); online here.

* the Presbytery of Hanover was founded in Virginia in 1755: online here.

Sunday, August 17, 2025

250 Years Ago: August 1775 - the "Olive Branch Petition" in one hand, the precedent of the Glorious Revolution in the other

250 years ago in August 1775 most of the British subjects in the 13 Colonies of America were astonished that their own 'Mother Parliament' in London had turned on them. For decades many of them had worked for the government, as lawyers, administrators, land surveyors and of course as soldiers. For the government to turn their own army against them was too much to contemplate.

So, still not desiring to be independent, the Second Continental Congress issued their "Olive Branch Petition" on 5th July - a final plea to King George III for "a happy and permanent reconciliation".

Written by John Dickinson (a pupil of Donegal Presbyterian tutor Francis Alison), it was carried from Philadelphia and arrived in England at Bristol on 13 August 1775. Here's the Wikipedia entry. Dickinson's serialised Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, written nearly a decade before, had prepared the colonists for the potential of resistance and revolution - and within them he referred a number of times to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

• The text of the Olive Branch Petition is online here.

...............



However the very next day, another Dickinson document was published – the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Wikipedia here).  It's tremendous stuff, accusing "the legislature of Great Britain" of reprobating "the very constitution of that kingdom" –

"Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labour, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and unhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike barbarians. -- Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin...

Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them..."

It was signed off by Ulster-born Charles Thomson in his role as Secretary of the Continental Congress. 

• Full text is online here

...............

And on the 8th July, a further Petition was issued, this time not to the King, but from The Twelve United Colonies, by their Delegates in Congress, to the Inhabitants of Great Britain - yet again denying any interest in independence. Here's an extract –

"Remembrances of former friendships, pride in the glorious achievements of our common ancestors, and affection for the heirs of their virtues, have hitherto preserved our mutual connection... 
... Yet conclude not from this that we propose to surrender our Property into the Hands of your Ministry, or vest your Parliament with a Power which may terminate in our Destruction. The great Bulwarks of our Constitution we have desired to maintain by every temperate, by every peaceable Means; but your Ministers (equal Foes to British and American freedom) have added to their former Oppressions an Attempt to reduce us by the Sword to a base and abject submission. On the Sword, therefore, we are compelled to rely for Protection. 
Should Victory declare in your Favour, yet Men trained to Arms from their Infancy, and animated by the Love of Liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy Conquest. 
Of this at least we are assured, that our Struggle will be glorious, our Success certain; since even in Death we shall find that Freedom which in Life you forbid us to enjoy..."

Full text is online here

...............

There was of course a cultural community in America who watched these escalations and saw their ancestral history repeating itself - the Ulster-Scots.

One of the Ulster-born Presbyterian community leaders living in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia was William Preston. He had been born in Limavady and subsequent family tradition is that three of his ancestors had died at the Siege of Derry in 1689 (see page 130 here). More about him in a future post.

In 1775 Preston wrote to Edmund Pendleton (one of the Virginia delegates to the Congress) about the community's collective folk memory of the Glorious Revolution and the tyranny of King James II, and that they were prepared for another revolution –

"Many of them are descended from those brave men who so nobly defended their religion & liberty in Ireland in a late inglorious & despotick reign, & were so instrumental in supporting the Revolution in that kingdom.

Those transactions almost every descendant from the Protestant Irish is well acquainted with either by history or tradition.

Therefore they cannot bear the thought of degenerating from their worthy forefathers, whose memory ought to be held very dear to them.”

...............








Sunday, August 10, 2025

1688 and 1776 again: Mayor of London John Wilkes in the House of Commons , Wednesday 8 February 1775 (he was just a year ahead of history)


(Image from this website)

................................

Yet again, another seminal contemporary quote which connects the 1688 Glorious Revolution with the 1776 American Revolution.

John Wilkes was a notorious character, of Presbyterian parents, who had served time in prison for maligning King George III in print, and to whom there is a statue in Fetter Lane in London. In a famous speech in the House of Commons, Wilkes predicted that American independence would happen during the year in which he spoke - 1775 - but it eventually happened the year after.

“… This I know; a successful resistance is a revolution, not a rebellion. Rebellion indeed appears on the back of a flying enemy ; but revolution flames on the breast-plate of the victorious warrior.

Who can tell … whether in a few years the independent Americans may not celebrate the glorious era of the Revolution of 1775, as we do that of 1688?

The generous efforts of our forefathers for freedom, Heaven crowned with success – or their noble blood (would have) dyed our scaffolds … and the period of our history which does us the most honour, would have been deemed a rebellion against the lawful authority of the Prince – not a resistance authorised by all the laws of God and man, and the expulsion of a Tyrant…”

– John Wilkes, Mayor of London and MP for Aylesbury and later Middlesex. Speech in the House of Commons, Wednesday, February 8, 1775.

He also said this –

"... I call the war with our brethren in America an unjust, felonious war, because the primary cause and confessed origin of it is to attempt to take their money from them without their consent, contrary to the common rights of all mankind, and those great fundamental principles of the English constitution for which (John) Hampden bled ..."




Saturday, August 09, 2025

"Address of the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the County of Botetourt", 22 February 1775


(Image above from this website)

................

This is another of the critically important community documents which predate the Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776. Ideas of liberty were not born in Philadelphia that summer, but had been carried across the Atlantic for generations before. 

Botetourt County is in the mountains of Virginia, south of Staunton, in the Shenandoah Valley - nearby was an area named the Irish Tract due to the overwhelmingly Ulster-Scots / Scotch-Irish settlement of the region. Among them were Limavady-born William Preston, and Donegal-born James Patton and William Thompson. Lots more about them in this article from the Journal of Backcountry Studies.

Like every other set of similar Resolutions in 1774 & 1775, these express loyalty to the King, assert the entitled liberties of being subjects of the Crown, and mobilise absolute opposition to the actions of the London Parliament which had eroded, withdrawn and threatened those same liberties.

Usually, these events are presented to us as merely being competing nationalities. That's primary school thinking. The true value of nationality is as a mechanism for liberty.

................

To the Honourable PEYTON RANDOLPH, RICHARD BLAND, EDMUND PENDLETON, RICHARD HENRY LEE, PATRICK HENRY, GEORGE WASHINGTON, and BENJAMIN HARRISON, Esquires, Delegates from Virginia to the late General Congress.

The Address of the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the County of BOTETOURT.

We, the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the County of Botetourt, assembled at the Court House, taking into our consideration the unhappy disputes which at present subsist between Great Britain and America, and being greatly alarmed at the dangerous and unconstitutional measures adopted by Administration, with respect to the Colonies, beg leave now to address you as the guardians of our rights and privileges.

Please, therefore, to accept our most sincere and grateful acknowledgments for your steady and patriotick conduct in the support of American Liberty, at the late General Congress. And we assure you, that although the alarming situation of our frontiers, for some time past, hath prevented our co-operating with our fellow-subjects, in their laudable efforts to obtain redress of our common grievances, we highly approve of the plan you have adopted for that purpose, and shall most cheerfully abide by your resolutions.

As you have so fully and clearly ascertained the Rights and Liberties of American subjects, we have nothing to add on that head. We are happy to find our sentiments entirely correspond with yours; because, in these sentiments, we are determined to live and die. We are too sensible of the inestimable privileges enjoyed by subjects under the British Constitution, even to wish for a change, while the free enjoyments of those blessings can be secured to us; but, on the contrary, can justly boast of our loyalty and affection to our most gracious Sovereign, and of our readiness in risking our lives, whenever it has been found necessary, for the defence of his person and Government.

But should a wicked and tyrannical Ministry, under the sanction of a venal and corrupt Parliament, persist in acts of injustice and violence towards us, they only must be answerable for the consequences. Liberty is so strongly impressed on our hearts, that we cannot think of parting with it but with our lives.

Our duty to God, our country, ourselves, and our posterity, all forbid it. We therefore stand prepared for every contingency.

................

Friday, August 08, 2025

The Poem of Percy Kirke - John Pomfret's "Cruelty and Lust, an Epistolary Essay" (1699) /// "proud rebellions would unhinge a state, and wild disorders in a land create"

John Pomfret (1667-1702) was a minister's son, and a poet of some repute in his day. He graduated from Cambridge in 1688, succeeded his father as rector of Maulden in Bedfordshire in 1695 (John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress, was also the Baptist pastor in Maulden during Pomfret's life), and Pomfret's poems were published in 1699.

This poem is an imagined narrative of the evil and brutality of Percy Kirke and his Tangiers regiment known as the "Lambs", during the Monmouth Rebellion of south west England in 1685, their six week lawless rampage in July and August of that summer, and then their actions during the subsequent Bloody Assizes.

The horrific tale of the poem is based upon one well attested in history, of Kirke's personal sexual exploitation of a young woman who came to him to beg the life of her beloved who had been arrested for taking part in the rebellion. I've posted about the story here a few times here before.

Pomfret gives the young woman the name Caelia and Charion (Charon) is the name given to her husband. Kirke is Neronior (ie Nero-like), described also as a son of Moloch who was of course a Biblical demon god to whom children were sacrificed; Asmodai is the king of demons in Jewish lore. The Duke of Monmouth who led the failed rebellion is referred to as 'the unhappy man'. 

The full text is online here, and is pasted below. I have coloured Kirke's words in red for ease of reference.

................

Cruelty and Lust, an Epistolary Essay

Where can the wretched'st of all creatures fly,

To tell the story of her misery?

Where, but to faithful Caelia, in whose mind

A manly bravery's with soft pity join'd.

I fear, these lines will scarce be understood,

Blur'd with incessant tears, and writ in blood;

But if you can the mournful pages read,

The sad relation shows you such a deed,

As all the annals of the' infernal reign

Shall strive to equal or exceed in vain.


Neronior's fame, no doubt, has reach'd your ears,

Whose cruelty has caus'd a sea of tears;

Fill'd each lamenting town with funeral sighs,

Deploring widows' shrieks, and orphans' cries.

At every health the horrid monster quaff'd,

Ten wretches died, and as they died, he laugh'd:

Till, tir'd with acting devil, he was led,

Drunk with excess of blood and wine, to bed.

O, cursed place! — I can no more command

My pen: shame and confusion shake my hand:

But I must on, and let my Caelia know

How barbarous are my wrongs, how vast my woe.


Among the crowds of western youths who ran

To meet the brave, betray'd, unhappy man

My husband, fatally uniting, went

Unus'd to arms, and thoughtless of the event.

But when the battle was by treachery won,

The chief, and all but his false friend, undone;

Though, in the tumult of that desperate night,

He scap'd the dreadful slaughter of the fight

Yet the sagacious bloodhounds skill'd too well

In all the murdering qualities of hell,

Each secret place so regularly beat,

They soon discover'd his unsafe retreat.

As hungry wolves triumphing o'er their prey

To sure destruction hurry them away;

So the purveyors of fierce Moloch's son

With Charion to the common butchery run;

Where proud Neronior by his gibbet stood,

To glut himself with fresh supplies of blood.

Our friends, by powerful intercession, gain'd

A short reprieve, but for three days obtain'd,

To try all ways might to compassion move

The savage general; but in vain they strove.

When I perceiv'd that all addresses fail'd,

And nothing o'er his stubborn soul prevail'd ;

Distracted almost, to his tent I flew,

To make the last effort what tears could do.

Low on my knees I fell ; then thus began:


"Great genius of success, thou more than man!

Whose arms to every clime have terror hurl'd,

And carried conquest round the trembling world!

Still may the brightest glories Fame can lend,

Your sword, your conduct, and your cause, attend.

Here now the arbiter of fate you sit,

While suppliant slaves their rebel heads submit.

Oh, pity the unfortunate! and give

But this one thing: Oh, let but Charion live!

And take the little all that we possess

I'll bear the meagre anguish of distress

Content, nay, pleas'd to beg or earn my bread;

Let Charion live, no matter how I'm fed.

The fall of such a youth no lustre brings

To him whose sword performs such wondrous things

As saving kingdoms, and supporting kings.

That triumph only with true grandeur shines,

Where godlike courage, godlike pity joins.

Caesar, the eldest favourite of war,

Took not more pleasure to submit, than spare:

And since in battle you can greater be,

That over, ben't less merciful than he.

Ignoble spirits by revenge are known,

And cruel actions spoil the conqueror's crown;

In future histories fill each mournful page

With tales of blood, and monuments of rage:

And, while his annals are with horror read,

Men curse him living, and detest him dead.

Oh! do not sully with a sanguine dye

(The foulest stain) so fair a memory!

Then, as you'll live the glory of our isle,

And Fate on all your expeditions smile :

So when a noble course you've bravely ran,

Die the best soldier, and the happiest man.

None can the turns of Providence foresee,

Or what their own catastrophe may be;

Therefore, to persons labouring under woe,

That mercy they may want, should always show,

For in the chance of war, the slightest thing

May lose the battle, or the victory bring.

And how would you that general's honour prize,

Should in cool blood his captive sacrifice?


"He that with rebel arms to fight is led,

To justice forfeits his opprobrious head:

But 'tis unhappy Charion's first offence,

Seduc'd by some too plausible pretence,

To take the injuring side by error brought

He had no malice, though he has the fault.

Let the old tempters find a shameful grave,

But the half innocent, the tempted, save;

Vengeance divine, though for the greatest crime,

But rarely strikes the first or second time;

And he best follows the Almighty's will.

Who spares the guilty he has power to kill.

When proud rebellions would unhinge a state,

And wild disorders in a land create,

'Tis requisite the first promoters should

Put out the flames they kindled with their blood:

But sure 'tis a degree of murder, all

That draw their swords should undistinguish'd fall.

And since a mercy must to some be shown,

Let Charion 'mongst the happy few be one:

For as none guilty has less guilt than he,

So none for pardon has a fairer plea.


"When David's general had won the field,

And Absalom, the lov'd ungrateful, kill'd,

The trumpets sounding made all slaughter cease,

And misled Israelites return'd in peace.

The action past, where so much blood was spilt,

We hear of none arraign'd for that day's guilt;

But all concludes with the desir'd event,

The monarch pardons, and the Jews repent.


"As great example your great courage warms,

And to illustrious deeds excites your arms;

So when you instances of mercy view,

They should inspire you with compassion too

For he that emulates the truly brave,

Would always conquer, and should always save."


Here, interrupting, stern Neronior cried,

(Swell'd with success, and blubber'd up with pride)

"Madam, his life depends upon my will,

For every rebel I can spare or kill.

I'll think of what you've said: this night return

At ten, perhaps you'll have no cause to mourn.

Go, see your husband, bid him not despair ;

His crime is great, but you are wondrous fair."


When anxious miseries the soul amaze,

And dire confusion in the spirits raise,

Upon the least appearance of relief,

Our hopes revive, and mitigate our grief;

Impatience makes our wishes earnest grow,

Which through false optics our deliverance show,

For while we fancy danger does appear

Most at a distance, it is oft too near,

And many times, secure from obvious foes,

We fall into an ambuscade of woes.


Pleas'd with the false Neronior's dark reply,

I thought the end of all my sorrows nigh,

And to the main-guard hasten'd, where the prey

Of this blood-thirsty fiend in durance lay.

When Charion saw me, from his turfy bed

With eagerness he rais'd his drooping head:

"Oh ! fly, my dear, this guilty place, (he cried)

And in some distant clime thy virtue hide

Here nothing but the foulest demons dwell,

The refuge of the damn'd, and mob of hell;

The air they breathe is every atom curs'd;

There's no degree of ills, for all are worst.

In rapes and murders they alone delight,

And villanies of less importance slight:

Act them indeed, but scorn they should be nam'd,

For all their glory's to be more than damn'd.

Neronior's chief of this infernal crew,

And seems to merit that high station too:

Nothing but rage and lust inspire his breast,

By Asmodai and Moloch both possess'd.

When told you went to intercede tor me,

It threw my soul into an agony;

Not that I would not for my freedom give

What's requisite, or do not wish to live;

But for my safety I can ne'er be base,

Or buy a few short years with long disgrace;

Nor would I have your yet unspotted fame

For me expos'd to an eternal shame.

With ignominy to preserve my breath

Is worse, by infinite degrees, than death.

But if I can't my life with honour save

With honour I'll descend into the grave.

For though revenge and malice both combine

(As both to fix my ruin seem to join)

Yet, maugre all their violence and skill,

I can die just, and I'm resolv'd I will.


"But what is death we so unwisely fear?

An end of all our busy tumults here

The equal lot of poverty and state,

Which all partake of, by a certain fate.

Whoe'er the prospect of mankind surveys,

At divers ages, and by divers ways,

Will find them from this noisy scene retire:

Some the first minute that they breathe, expire;

Others, perhaps, survive to talk, and go;

But die, before they good or evil know.

Here one to puberty arrives; and then

Returns lamented to the dust again:

Another there maintains a longer strife

With all the powerful enemies of life;

Till, with vexation tir'd, and threescore years,

He drops into the dark, and disappears.

I'm young, indeed, and might expect to see

Times future, long and late posterity

'Tis what with reason I could wish to do,

If to be old, were to be happy too.

But since substantial grief so soon destroys

The gust of all imaginary joys,

Who would be too importunate to live,

Or more for life, than it can merit, give!


"Beyond the grave stupendous regions lie,

The boundless realms of vast eternity ;

Where minds, remov'd from earthly bodies, dwell

But who their government or laws can tell?

What's their employment till the final doom

And time's eternal period shall come?

Thus much the sacred oracles declare,

That all are bless'd or miserable there

Though, if there's such variety of fate,

None good expire too soon, nor bad too late.

For my own part, with resignation still

I can submit to my Creator's will

Let him recal the breath from him I drew,

When he thinks fit, and when he pleases too.

The way of dying is my least concern

That will give no disturbance to my urn.

If to the seats of happiness I go,

There end all possible returns of woe

And when to those bless'd mansions I arrive,

With pity I'll behold those that survive.

Once more I beg, you'd from these tents retreat,

And leave me to inv innocence and fate.'


"Charion, (said I) Oh, do not urge my flight!

I'll see the' event of this important night:

Some strange presages in my soul forebode,

The worst of miseries, or the greatest good.

Few hours will show the utmost of my doom

A joyful safety, or a peaceful tomb.

If you miscarry, I'm resolv'd to try

If gracious Heav'n will suffer me to die:

For, when you are to endless raptures gone,

If I survive, 'tis but to be undone.

Who will support an injur'd widow's right,

From sly injustice, or oppressive might?

Protect her person, or her cause defend?

She rarely wants a foe, or finds a friend.

I've no distrust of Providence; but still

'Tis best to go beyond the reach of ill

And those can have no reason to repent,

Who, though they die betimes, die innocent.

But to a world of everlasting bliss

Why would you go, and leave me here in this?

'Tis a dark passage; but our foes shall view,

I'll die as calm, though not so brave, as you:

That my behaviour to the last may prove

Your courage is not greater than my love."


The hour approach'd; as to Neronior's tent,

With trembling, but impatient steps, I went,

A thousand horrors throng'd into my breast,

By sad ideas and strong fears possess'd:

Where'er I pass'd, the glaring lights would show

Fresh objects of despair, and scenes of woe.


Here, in a crowd of drunken soldiers, stood

A wretched, poor, old man, besmear'd with blood

And at his feet, just through the body run,

Struggling for life, was laid his only son;

By whose hard labour he was daily fed,

Dividing still, with pious care, his bread:

And while he mourn'd, with floods of aged tears,

The sole support of his decrepit years,

The barbarous mob, whose rage no limit knows,

With blasphemous derision mock'd his woes.


There, under a wide oak, disconsolate,

And drown'd in tears, a mournful widow sate.

High in the boughs the murder'd father hung

Beneath, the children round the mother clung:

They cried for food, but 'twas without relief:

For all they had to live upon, was grief.

A sorrow so intense, such deep despair,

No creature, merely human, long could bear.

First in her arms her weeping babes she took,

And, with a groan, did to her husband look

Then lean'd her head on theirs, and, signing, cried,

'Pity me, Saviour of the world!' and died.


From this sad spectacle my eyes I turn'd,

Where sons their fathers, maids their lovers, mourn'd

Friends for their friends, sisters for brothers, wept,

Prisoners of war, in chains, for slaughter kept

Each every hour did the black message dread,

Which should declare the person lov'd was dead.

Then I beheld, with brutal shouts of mirth,

A comely youth, and of no common birth,

To execution led ; who hardly bore

The wounds in battle he receiv'd before:

And, as he pass'd, I heard him bravely cry,

"I neither wish to live, nor fear to die."


At the curs'd tent arriv'd, without delay,

They did me to the General convey

Who thus began –––


"Madam! by fresh intelligence, I find,

That Charion's treason's of the blackest kind;

And my commission is express to spare

None that so deeply in rebellion are

New measures therefore 'tis in vain to try;

No pardon can be granted: he must die!

Must, or I hazard all: which yet I'd do

To be oblig'd in one request by you

And, maugre all the dangers I foresee,

Be mine this night, I'll set your husband free.

Soldiers are rough, and cannot hope success

By supple flattery, and by soft address

The pert, gay coxcomb, by these little arts,

Gains an ascendant o'er the ladies hearts.

But I can no such whining methods use

Consent, he lives; he dies, if you refuse.'


Amaz'd at this demand ; said I, "The brave,

Upon ignoble terms, disdain to save:

They let their captives still with honour live,

No more require, than what themselves would give;

For, generous victors, as they scorn to do

Dishonest things, scorn to propose them too.

Mercy, the brightest virtue of the mind,

Should with no devious appetite bejoin'd:

For if, when exercis'd, a crime it cost,

The' intrinsic lustre of the deed is lost.

Great men their actions of a piece should have;

Heroic all, and each entirely brave

From the nice rules of honour none should swerve

Done, because good, without a mean reserve.


"The crimes new charg'd upon the' unhappy youth,

May have revenge, and malice, but no truth.

Suppose the accusation justly brought,

And clearly prov'd to the minutest thought;

Yet mercies next to infinite abate

Offences next to infinitely great

And 'tis the glory of a noble mind,

In full forgiveness not to be confin'd.

Your prince's frowns if you have cause to fear.

This act will more illustrious appear

Though his excuse can never be withstood,

Who disobeys, but only to be good.

Perhaps the hazard's more than you express;

The glory would be, were the danger less.

For he that, to his prejudice, will do

A noble action, and a generous too,

Deserves to wear a more resplendent crown

Than he that has a thousand battles won.

Do not invert divine compassion so,

As to be cruel, and no mercy show

Of what renown can such an action be,

Which saves my husband's life, but ruins me?

Though, if you finally resolve to stand

Upon so vile, inglorious a demand,

He must submit ; if 'tis my fate to mourn

His death, I'll bathe with virtuous tears his urn".


"Well, madam, (haughtily, Neronior cried)

Your courage and your virtue shall be tried.

But to prevent all prospect of a flight,

Some of my lambs shall be your guard to-night

By them, no doubt, you'll tenderly be us'd;

They seldom ask a favour that's refus'd :

Perhaps you'll find them so genteely bred,

They'll leave you but few virtuous tears to shed.

Surrounded with so innocent a throng,

The night must pass delightfully along:

And in the morning, since you will not give

What I require, to let your husband live,

You shall behold him sigh his latest breath,

And gently swing into the arms of death.

His fate he merits, as to rebels due

And yours will be as much deserv'd by you.'


Oh, Caelia, think! so far as thought can show,

What pangs of grief, what agonies of woe,

At this dire resolution, seiz'd my breast,

By all things sad and terrible possess'd.

In vain I wept, and 'twas in vain I pray'd,

For all my prayers were to a tiger made

A tiger! worse; for, 'tis beyond dispute,

No fiend's so cruel as a reasoning brute.

Encompass'd thus, and hopeless of relief,

With all the squadrons of despair and grief,

Ruin ––– it was not possible to shun

What could I do? Oh! what would you have done?


The hours that pass'd, till the black morn return'd,

With tears of blood should be for ever mourn'd.

When, to involve me with consummate grief,

Beyond expression, and above belief,

"Madam, (the monster cried) that you may find

I can be grateful to the fair that's kind;

Step to the door, I'll show you such a sight,

Shall overwhelm your spirits with delight.

Does not that wretch, who would dethrone his king,

Become the gibbet, and adorn the string?

You need not now an injur'd husband dread

Living he might, he'll not upbraid you dead.

'Twas for your sake I seiz'd upon his life

He would perhaps have scorn'd so chaste a wife.

And, madam, you'll excuse the zeal I show,

To keep that secret none alive should know.'


"Curs'd of all creatures! for, compar'd with thee,

The devils (said I) are dull in cruelty.

Oh, may that tongue eternal vipers breed,

And, wasteless, their eternal hunger feed;

In fires too hot for salamanders dwell,

The burning earnest of a hotter hell;

May that vile lump of execrable lust

Corrupt alive, and rot into the dust

May'st thou, despairing at the point of death,

With oaths and blasphemies resign thy breath;

And the worst torments that the damn'd should share,

In thine own person all united bear!'


"Oh, Caelia! oh, my friend! what age can show

Sorrows like mine, so exquisite a woe?

Indeed it does not infinite appear,

Because it can't be everlasting here

But it's so vast, that it can ne'er increase;

And so confirm'd, it never can be less.






Wednesday, August 06, 2025

General Andrew Moore (1752-1851) – from the Siege of Derry to Williamsburg, to the Battle of Saratoga, to US Congressman and Senator



Here's a glimpse into another epic family story which ticks all of the classic Ulster-Scots-American boxes. The Moores connect the defeat of King James II's army at the Siege of Derry (perhaps the key to the 1688/9 Glorious Revolution) and the defeat of King George III's army at the Battle of Saratoga (the most pivotal battle in the winning of the American Revolution). Sallie Alexander Moore, the granddaughter of the General that this post is about, wrote a short family history in 1920 (online here).

"Andrew Moore was of the Scotch-Irish race ... his grandfather was one of a family of brothers who emigrated from the North of Ireland and settled in the Valley, and in some of the Southern States. His father, David, took up his abode on a farm in the lower part of Rockbridge (then Augusta), now called "Cannicello".

The most remote ancestor of David whom he could remember was a lady whose maiden name was Bante (other sources give her name as Isabel Baxter, and that she was his grandmother), who in her old age came over to this country, and who used to relate that, when a girl, she had been driven to take refuge under the walls of Londonderry, had seen many Protestants lying dead from starvation with tufts of grass in their mouths, and had herself barely escaped alive from the havoc of that terrible scene.

In 1752, at the homestead of "Cannicello," Andrew was born, and was there brought up, availing himself of the advantages of instruction within his reach so effectually as, before manhood, to become a teacher in a school of his own. He determined to study law, and attended, about 1772, a course of lectures under Wythe, at William and Mary...

The Revolution was now in progress, the Declaration of Independence was promulgated, and Virginia had erecte'd a form of government of her own, and appealed to her citizens to maintain it in the field. Andrew Moore hearkened to the call..."

• from The History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788 (online here)

................

“In 1776 he entered the army as lieutenant, in Morgan's Riflemen, and was engaged in those battles which resulted in the capture of Burgoyne's army, and at the surrender of the British forces at the Battle of Saratoga. For courage and gallantry in battle he was promoted to a captaincy.

Having served three years with Morgan, he returned home and took his seat as a member of the Virginia legislature, taking such an active and distinguished part in the deliberations of that body that he was elected to Congress, and as a member of the first House of Representatives was distinguished for his services to such a degree that he was re-elected at each succeeding election until 1797, when he declined further service in that body, but accepted a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates.

He was again elected to Congress in 1804, but in the first year of his service he was elected to the United States Senate, in which body he served with distinguished ability until 1809, when he retired. He was then appointed United States Marshal for the District of Virginia, which office he held until his death, April 14, 1821. ”

• from Edward Alexander Moore, “The Story of a Cannoneer Under Stonewall Jackson / In Which is Told the Part Taken by the Rockbridge Artillery in the Army of Northern Virginia.” 



................

This biography is from the National Archives Founders Online:

"... Andrew Moore (1752–1821), born near Staunton, Virginia, of Scotch-Irish parents, read law under George Wythe at William and Mary, and was admitted to the bar in 1774. During the Revolutionary War, Moore raised a company of riflemen from Augusta County, which became a part of Daniel Morgan’s select corp known as Morgan’s Rangers. Promoted to captain, Moore fought with his company at Saratoga in the fall of 1777. After the war he rose to the rank of major general in the Virginia militia. In 1780, Moore began serving as a delegate from Rock-bridge County in the Virginia General Assembly, allying himself with Madison. He voted for ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 and served in Congress from 1789 to 1797, where he opposed Hamilton’s policies. Moore briefly retired from politics to rebuild his law practice but again entered the Virginia assembly in 1799 to help secure passage of Madison’s Virginia Resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Moore was elected to the Eighth Congress but served only a few months before being appointed to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate, where he served as a Jeffersonian Republican until 1809. Upon his retirement from the Senate, he accepted an appointment as U.S. marshal of Virginia, a position he held until shortly before his death..." 

................

PS: one of Andrew Moore's sons was Samuel McDowell Moore (1796-1875; sometimes just given as Samuel McD. Moore). He was a prominent Whig, a Congressman, and opposed to slavery. He had  probably been named for Captain Samuel McDowell, who was one of the signatories of the Staunton Instructions aka the Augusta Resolves of 22 February 1775, which was one of the many community documents which predated the eventual Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776. It included this "no surrender" statement –

"... you many consider the people of Augusta as impressed with just sentiments of loyalty to his Majesty King George, whose title to the imperial crown of Great Britain rests on no other foundation than the liberty, and whose glory is inseparable from the happiness, of all his subjects. We have also respect for the parent State, which respect is founded on religion, on law, and on the genuine principles of the constitution. On these principles do we earnestly desire to see harmony and good understanding restored between Great Britain and America.

Many of us and our forefathers left our native land and explored this once-savage wilderness to enjoy the free exercise of the rights of conscience and of human nature. These rights we are fully resolved with our lives and fortunes inviolably to preserve; nor will we surrender such inestimable blessings, the purchase of toil and danger, to any Ministry, to any Parliament, or any body of men upon earth, by whom we are not represented, and in whose decisions, therefore, we have no voice..."





General Andrew Moore gravestone pics from Findagrave.com

Tuesday, August 05, 2025

"Everything is Fine" - acclaimed new advert from Coinbase


This ad, by agency Mother London, is tapping in to the current zeitgeist...