>Hang the tyrannical king, declare Republic >Become tyrannical king, enact hereditary rule based on himselfWhat 160 IQ game was he playing? Looking at his actions, his goal was to genocide as many irishmen as humanly possible. Everything else is just set dressing to genocide gingers.
He saw Parliament was about to go full retard again and tried to avert it. Either way, England wasn't ready for that level of democracy just yet. It would have to wait until 1688. More importantly, he deserves credit for continuing Elizabeth I's policies toward English expansionism and shipping all those good English men and women off to the colonies to water the seeds of English liberty that had been planted there by Edwin Sandys during James's reign.
Why is kingly history so utterly gay and full of intermarriages and radical transformations when your enemies were at war? It seems so stupid
>>18095156Any standard history of the war should spell out his motivations clearly. Your attempt to "find the real motive" is cringe. Is that what you do when your boss at work gives you orders? Try to figure out what he *really* wants you to do?
>>18095156Literal Jew puppet. Nothing more.
>>18095156Cromwell was only in Ireland for a year and any town that surrendered to him there was no harm done to people or property. There was killings of civilians and soldiers in Drogheda and Wexford just because the towns hadn't surrendered and their walls were breached but not the entire towns population or anything like that and those towns were garrisoned with Irish and English Royalist soldiers. The Irish soldiers were from the east of the country so would have been a lot of them who were of Norman and English stock. When clonmel was besieged it was the Irish Catholic army from Ulster who held it against Cromwell and the defenders killed thousands of Cromwells troops and lost few of their own and when they ran low on ammunition they slipped out of the town and told the mayor to surrender the next morning and he did with Cromwell thinking there was still Irish soldiers in the town who'd be taken prisoner but there wasnt and he was deceived but still no harm was done to the towns population and their property. I've read accounts of Cromwell hanging some of his own men even for killing Irish civilians.Most the deaths in the war were caused by man made famine created by Cromwells subordinates later on in the war during the guerrilla campaign.
>>18095156>What 160 IQ game was he playing?"HAHAHA! I'M IN CHARGE NOW! FUCK YOU!", there you go OP. That was literally Cromwell's entire thought process.
Like all Calvinist swine he served Mammon, not God.
>>18095249>politics involve women
>>18095249>utterly gayProject harder
>>18095235So if Charles in the first place had purged the houses of Parliament harder than henry of Tudor fucked the Catholics, they would have avoided civil war and a literal ban on Christmas? >>18095249Because you're gay and search for representation >>18095269>t. Masonic gay lover of the previous anon >>18095327>t. Jewish gay lover of the previous anons>>18095433Shame, i thought he genocided the countryside for being Catholic and filled it with his veterans. Guess one has to wait until globohomo and Guarda genocide the irish to compare the two. >>18096015He was Godly and a good calvinist, not really a military despot due to his repeated attempts at forcing Parliament to work. Just like Charles >>18096038t. Schemer in the gunpowder plot
>>18095156>>Hang the tyrannical king>>HangThis board is fucking retarded. I hate all of you retards.
>>18096448>So if Charles in the first place had purged the houses of ParliamentHe tried that by making some of the old members sheriff's (disqualifying them from elections) and it resulted in John Pym coming to the forefront after the newer members who replaced the old guard were clueless as to how to conduct business. Pym was first elected to Parliament in 1614, and it was Charlie's retarded "purging" that thrust him into the limelight in 1640. If Charlie actually had the resolve and strength to do what was necessary he would have rid himself of the retarded ministers Parliament had such contempt for and stopped pretending, like his father, that "muh divine right" was still a conscienceable way to rule. Anything less would be to court civil war, exactly as he did. >>18096462First time?
>>18096462I shamefully lower my capotain, I'll use my head next thread>>18096502That's a very humane purge, I personally blame the french, forest fines and the soap monopoly for the civil war. Such humiliation is intolerable for Englishmen. The quality of ministers were lackluster even after the civil war, to the point Cromwell had to rule himself with the state collapsing with him. His army was inadequate in civil matters and his civilian ministers were worthless or literally insane.
>>18096856>I personally blame the frenchBased >The quality of ministers were lackluster even after the civil warTactical trvthnvke alert kekOnly recruiting from a small pool of the landed gentry's hereditary sons never produced the best stock. If the amerimutts weren't playing the same game on easy mode with an over-abundance of land to stifle dissent I'm sure we would have seen a civil war happen by at least 1812. Alas, poor Charlie never really stood a chance unless he had decided to just save his own skin and run off to the Continent to live out his days in exile. Noblest thing he did was face his accusers and demand to know by what right was he on trial.
>>18095156He worshipped the Grinch.
>>18096448The nickname of his primary benefactor was "the Jew". I win again.
>>18098015Browns really do struggle with the concept of banter don't they
>>18098015And Nixon's nickname for his AIPA-I mean, Federally appointed tard wrangler was "my Jew boy". What's your point?
>>18097188>demand to know by what right was he on trial.The commonwealth of England was not a Kingdom, and as such did not require a King
>>18098062kekHe also turned the Army on his own people first, and if a tyrannical King trying to suppress his own subjects because they aren't coughing up enough coin isn't grounds for beheading him I don't know what is. If anything, Parliament let him off easy when they went after his ministers first like Buckingham. They gave him a grace period to wake the fuck up out of his delusional "muh divine right" psychosis.
>>18095156One overlooked fact about him "btfoing the Irish" is they believe the Irish were rising up to form a Republic like they did in recent history. That's not what happened, Cromwell was the Republican and the Irish were the royalists (they wanted to restore a Catholic or at least Anglican king with the help of English Royalists who escaped to Ireland or France or Spain, foreign enemies). Cromwell's Republic would have been pointless if the French just invaded England again and winning the English Civil War would have meant nothing.Parliament decided the Republican experiment wasn't worth the trouble after Cromwell died so they asked for the King to come back from exile anyway, but the Puritans and Protestants carried on with their experiment in other places.
>>18099210>They gave him a grace period to wake the fuck up out of his delusional "muh divine right" psychosis.The bulk of the Parliamentarian leadership were a lot less 'anti-monarchist' than they were 'we really fucking wish the King would be less of a daft cunt, and maybe grant us these particular reforms too'. If Charles had presented less of a ridiculous (though arguably legally sound at the time) defense in court there's a chance he might have been able to negotiate some kind of settlement with more sympathetic groups of the Parliamentarian cause.
>>18099226>Parliament decided the Republican experiment wasn't worth the trouble after Cromwell died so they asked for the King to come back from exile anyway, but the Puritans and Protestants carried on with their experiment in other places.Brazilian retard doesn't realise that the cavaliers were protestants
>>18099253If he had any good sense at all he would have done exactly that. But instead he took his daddy's retarded psyop at face value and went full retard. It's crazy how fast England went from Big 'enry, denier of papists and Queen Liz, the Protestant Queen, to James "if I don't fuck those men's asses, who will?" and his retarded offspring. Sometimes I wonder if Charlie 2.0 was even his legitimate offspring just because the psychosis of "muh divine right" apparently skipped him.
>>18099285nta, what does that have to do with embracing Republican government? No one's disputing the Cavalier's were Protestant you baboon.>the reading comprehension-challenged downy calling other people brown the irony
>>18099285Anglicans are cryptopapists. Just look at the origins of the Scottish Rite, the Southern colonies and how the Know Nothing Movement emerged in the Puritan Northeast of the USA.>“There is no doubt,” writes V.F. Ivanov, “that the seeds of Masonry were sown in Russian by the ‘Jacobites’, supporters of the English King James II, who had been cast out of their country by the revolution and found a hospitable reception at the court of Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich>“Independently of the Masonic propaganda of the Jacobite Masons, the Russians had learned of the existence of the mysterious union of free stonemasons during their journeys abroad. Thus, for example, Boris Petrovich Sheremetev had got to known Masonry during his travels. Sheremetev had been given a most triumphant meeting on Malta. He took part in the great feast of the Maltese order in memory of John the Forerunner, and they had given him a triumphant banquet there. The grand-master had bestowed on him the valuable Maltese cross made of gold and diamonds. On returning to Moscow on February 10, 1699, Sheremetev was presented to the Tsar at a banquet on February 12 at Lefort’s, dressed in German clothes and wearing the Maltese cross. He received ‘great mercy’ from the Tsar, who congratulated him on becoming a Maltese cavalier and gave him permission to wear this cross at all times. Then a decree was issued that Sheremetev should be accorded the title of ‘accredited Maltese cavalier’
>>18099323The modern form of Freemasonry began in France, it was introduced by three Catholic Irish Jacobites Derwentwater, MacLeane and O’Héguerty. The Scottish rite was also developed in France. Despite Freemasonry professing to be against Catholicism and later refusing Catholics altogether it very much is a Jacobite invention. They did this to dupe Protestants back into their Roman imperial cult. It's no surprise that they were involved with the French and American revolutions considering imperialism broke out through Europe like never before.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry_in_France>According to a tradition dating to 1777, the first Masonic lodge in France was founded in 1688 by the Royal Irish Regiment of Foot Guards, (later known as the Regiment of Walsh of the famed Irish Brigade of France) which followed James II of England into exile, under the name "La Parfaite Égalité" of Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Historians believe this to be probable, but it has never been proven conclusively. The same can be said of the first lodge of English origin, "Amitié et Fraternité", founded in 1721 at Dunkirk. The first lodge whose existence is historically certain was founded by some Englishmen in Paris "around the year 1725". It met at the house of the traiteur Huré on rue des Boucheries, "in the manner of English societies", and mainly brought together Irishmen and Jacobite exiles>It is quite probable that it was this lodge that in 1732 received official patents from the Grand Lodge of London under the lodge-name "Saint Thomas", meeting at the sign of the "Louis d'Argent", still on the rue des Boucheries>In 1728, the Freemasons decided to recognise Philip Wharton, 1st Duke of Wharton (1698–1731) as "Grand Master of the Freemasons in France". Wharton lived in Paris and Lyon from 1728 to 1729, and had already been Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of London in 1723
>>18099338>His appointment as French Grand Master, which was before the transformation of the "Grand Lodge of London" into the "Grand Lodge of England in 1738", is considered by some historians to be the point of departure for French Freemasonry and a declaration of its independence from British Freemasonry. Wharton was succeeded as Grand Master of the French Freemasons by the Jacobites James Hector MacLean (1703–1750) and then Charles Radcliffe, Earl of Derwentwater (1693–1746)>Philip Wharton, 1st Duke of Wharton PC (21 December 1698 – 31 May 1731) was an English peer and Jacobite politician who was one of the few people in the history of England, and the first since the 15th century, to have been raised to a dukedom whilst still a minor and not closely related to the monarch>While the existence of a Grand Master in France was attested to as early as 1728, it took another ten years for a true assembly of representatives from all the "English" and "Scottish" lodges to form the first Grande Loge de France on 24 June 1738 and establish Louis de Pardaillan de Gondrin (1707–1743), second Duke of Antin, as "general and perpetual Grand Master in the kingdom of France". It was this Grand Lodge that gave birth to the French Masonic jurisdictions that still exist today
>>18099345>Southern writers in the lead up to the American Civil War built on the idea of a Southern nation by claiming that secession was not based on slavery, but rather on "two separate nations". These writers postulated that Southerners were descended from Norman cavaliers, Huguenots, Jacobites and other supposed "Mediterranean races" linked to the Romans, while Northerners were claimed to be descended from Anglo-Saxon serfs and other Germanic immigrants who had supposed "hereditary hatred" against the Southerners>A distinct Southern identity formed in the years following the American Revolution. Various factors contributed to the cultural and ethnic divergance from the Northern United States, namely African slavery, geography, and immigration patterns. Similar to Britain, the antebellum South was extremely class based, less so than the increasingly industrial North. Several classes of whites existed, with the Poor White being on the bottom of the social scale, the Yeomen in the middle, and the Planter, or Bourbon, class at the top. The original Southern settlers were Cavaliers who arrived in Virginia to establish a colony by the name of Jamestown which would go on to be the first successful English colony in the New World and their descendants would spread out to the rest of the South building up the Southern hiearchy for years to come>The Cavalier-Roundhead English Civil War mythology, prior to modern times, was the foundation of a Southern ethnic identity in the Antebellum South. Southern writers in the years leading up to the Civil War built a Southern identity off the belief that upper class white Southerners (the Bourbons) were descendants of the Norman conquerors (known as Anglo-Normans) and the Yankees were descendants of the Anglo-Saxons. Southern extremists such as the Fire-Eaters even proposed enslaving the "Yankee race" as they believed they were inferior to Southerners, though this proposition was unpopular with most Southerners
>>18099356https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Rite&oldid=1086596916#Legend_of_Jacobite_origins>The seed or the myth of Stuart Jacobite influence on the higher degrees may have been a careless and unsubstantiated remark made by John Noorthouk in the 1784 Book of Constitutions of the Premier Grand Lodge of London. It was stated, without support, that King Charles II (older brother and predecessor to James II) was made a Freemason in the Netherlands during the years of his exile (1649–60). However, there were no documented lodges of Freemasons on the continent during those years. The statement may have been made to flatter the fraternity by claiming membership for a previous monarch. This folly was then embellished by John Robison (1739–1805), a professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, in an anti-Masonic work published in 1797. The lack of scholarship exhibited by Robison in that work caused the Encyclopædia Britannica to denounce it>A German bookseller and Freemason, living in Paris, working under the assumed name of C. Lenning, embellished the story further in a manuscript titled "Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" probably written between 1822 and 1828 at Leipzig. This manuscript was later revised and published by another German Freemason named Friedrich Mossdorf (1757–1830). Lenning stated that King James II of England, after his flight to France in 1688, resided at the Jesuit College of Clermont, where his followers fabricated certain degrees for the purpose of carrying out their political ends>By the mid-19th century, the story had gained currency. The well-known English Masonic writer, Dr. George Oliver (1782–1867), in his Historical Landmarks, 1846, carried the story forward and even claimed that King Charles II was active in his attendance at meetings—an obvious invention, for if it had been true, it would not have escaped the notice of the historians of the time
>>18099314Brazilian doesn't have reading comprehension>but the puritans and the protestants carried on with their experimentThat is implying that the people who wanted the monarchy back were not protestants, which is not the case>>18099323>>18099338>>18099345>>18099356Schizo brazilian spamIgnore
>>18099364>The story was then repeated by the French writers Jean-Baptiste Ragon (1771–1862) and Emmanuel Rebold, in their Masonic histories. Rebold's claim that the high degrees were created and practiced in Lodge Canongate Kilwinning at Edinburgh are entirely false>James II died in 1701 at the Palace of St. Germain en Laye, and was succeeded in his claims to the English, Irish and Scottish thrones by his son, James Francis Edward Stuart (1699–1766), the Chevalier St. George, better known as "the Old Pretender", but recognized as James III & VIII by the French King Louis XIV. He was succeeded in his claim by Charles Edward Stuart ("Bonnie Prince Charles"), also known as "the Young Pretender", whose ultimate defeat at the Battle of Culloden in 1746 effectively put an end to any serious hopes of the Stuarts regaining the British crowns>The natural confusion between the names of the Jesuit College of Clermont, and the short-lived Masonic Chapter of Clermont, a Masonic body that controlled a few high degrees during its brief existence, only served to add fuel to the myth of Stuart Jacobite influence in Freemasonry's high degrees. However, the College and the Chapter had nothing to do with each other. The Jesuit College was located at Clermont, whereas the Masonic Chapter was not. Rather, it was named "Clermont" in honor of the French Grand Master, the Comte de Clermont (Louis de Bourbon, Comte de Clermont) (1709–1771), and not because of any connection with the Jesuit College of
>>18097191kek
>>18095156Been doing some research into 1780s British politics and its interesting how much Cromwell was taken to be like a stock villain character by your average Englishman while a hundred years later he was practically a national hero.
Friendly reminder to our resident brazilian schizo that jacobites had nothing to do with the american revolution and fought against the american whigs>The situation in the colonies in early 1776 also provided a background against which Highlanders could easily be thought of as a threat to the cause of independence. Lowland Scotch and Scotch Irish were in the forefront of the move for independence, but Highlanders probably were more loyal to the Royal cause, and more ready to take up arms against rebellious colonists, than were any other ethnic group. A gentleman of Philadelphia wrote on May 18, 1776, to a friend in England: "Believe me, Sir, these [demands for independence] are the sentiments of all degrees of men in British America, a few tattered Scotch Highlanders excepted, who have lately emigrated, and whose ignorance, feudal notions and attachment to names> keeps them servile and wholly at the beck of their Chiefs. .. . In this Province, English, Scotch, and Irish, are equally engaged in the great cause of liberty. Indeed many of the Scotch have particularly signalized themselves in the cause of freedom.">The British authorities made the most of this local situation. In early 1776 Highlanders were active with the forces of Sir John Johnson in the Mohawk Valley, and some 300 were forced to throw down their arms by General Philip Schuyler.10 In North Carolina Highlanders made up a large part of a Tory force raised by Governor Martin that was defeated by colonial militia at Moore's Creek on February 27, 1776. News of the Highlanders' defeat reached General Washington at Cambridge, and in a letter of April 1, 1776, to Joseph Reed he spoke of "those universal instruments of tyranny, the Scotch."11
>>18099366>that is implyingIt absolutely does not you retard. Did Charles II come back to the throne as a Catholic? No. You're actually retarded and it's no wonder all you can do is screech "brown! brown!" because you lack the IQ necessary to understand basic fucking english. It's pretty apparent who the real "brazillian" is here
>>18099374>When the Declaration of Independence was drafted and debated in the closing days of June and early July, Americans were familiar with the German treaties, and the Hessians were already on the high seas headed for New York, where the British after their evacuation of Boston were preparing an attack. However, no Hessian had set foot on American soil, and no shots had been exchanged between them and the colonials. But with Scotch Highlanders Americans had already come face to face as enemies, and blood had been shed. Early in 1776 some 3,000 Highland troops had set sail from Greenock, most of them headed for Boston. When they arrived, General Howe had already evacuated that hotbed of rebellion. So, early in June four of the transports, with nearly 500 Highlanders, were taken prisoner by the Americans, but only after Major Menzies and seven Highland soldiers had been killed and several Americans wounded. Word of conflict with the Highlanders, and their capture, spread throughout the colonies. The Highlanders were buried to the dirge of bagpipes, and the captured officers were marched up the streets of Boston. The prisoners were widely dispersed. A captured Highland officer wrote to a friend in England: "As it was thought improper for us to remain at a seaport, we were ordered sixty miles up the country .. . on our journey no slaves were ever served as we were; through every village, town, and hamlet that we passed, the women and children, and indeed some men among them, came out and loaded us with the most rascally epithets, calling us "rascally cut-throat dogs, murtherers, blood hounds &. &." But what vexed me most was their continual slandering of our country (Scotland), on which they threw the most infamous invectives; to this abuse they added showers of dirt and filth, with now and then a stone.5"
>>18099378>At about the same time, Scotsman Allan Maclean successfully lobbied King George III for permission to recruit Loyalist Scots throughout North America. In April, he received royal permission to raise a regiment known as the Royal Highland Emigrants by recruiting retired Scottish soldiers living in North America.[7] One battalion was to be recruited in the northern provinces, including New York, Quebec and Nova Scotia, while a second battalion was to be raised in North Carolina and other southern provinces, where a large number of these soldiers had been given land. After receiving his commissions from General Thomas Gage in June, Maclean sent Donald MacLeod and Donald MacDonald, two veterans of the June 17 Battle of Bunker Hill, south to lead the recruitment drive there. These recruiters were also aware that Allan MacDonald, husband of the famous Jacobite heroine Flora MacDonald was already actively recruiting in North Carolina.[8] Their arrival at New Bern was cause for suspicion by members of North Carolina's Committee of Safety, but they were not arrested.[9]>In the pre-dawn mist, a company of Loyalist Gaels approached the bridge. In response to a Patriot call for identification shouted from across the creek, Captain Alexander Mclean identified himself as a friend of the King. He responded with his own challenge in Scottish Gaelic. Hearing no reply, he ordered his company to open fire, beginning an exchange of gunfire with the Patriot sentries. Lieutenant-Colonel MacLeod and Captain John Campbell then led a hand-picked company of swordsmen on a charge across the bridge.[16]>When the Loyalists were within 30 paces of the earthworks, the Patriot militia opened fire, to devastating effect. MacLeod and Campbell both went down in a hail of gunfire; 20 musket balls had struck MacLeod.[16] Armed only with swords and faced with the overwhelming firepower of Patriot muskets and artillery, the Highland Scots retreated.
>>18099366The Puritans are not the only Protestant group inspired by Cromwell, retard. But yeah, the importance of the Puritans from the Mayflower is usually overlooked. I mean, anyone with some knowledge knows about the Masonic background of USA, but I can tell you that almost nobody in Europe knows about the Great Awakenings, the fact that many founding fathers were fervent admirers of Cromwell "The Lord Protector", the many theological currents that arose in North America, or even why they emerged. For example:>Methodists>They emerged in England at the beginning of the 18th century with the Wesley brothers, two young Anglican preachers who practiced evangelical precepts, organizing weekly moments of prayer, fasting, and Bible reading. Their preaching in the first working class neighborhoods of England drew so many followers that they eventually founded their own church. Methodism is a variation of the Anglican Church, with simpler rituals and a strong critique of the elitist character of Anglicanism>Baptists>They originated in England at the beginning of the 17th century as dissenters from Anglicanism. While political and religious power determined the norms that would guide Henry VIII’s new church, Puritan groups were dissatisfied with the lingering Catholic influence within this denomination. One of these groups, the Baptists, opposed infant baptism and the hierarchical structure of the church. They were also pioneers in advocating for separation of Church and State. Many of their members later joined the Ku Klux Klan, claiming a divine purpose in their actions. However, in a contradictory turn, Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist pastorAnd knowing the origins, especially the spiritual origins, of a nation is vital to understanding its current state and how it behaves in the geopolitical sphere. For example, you cannot understand Israel without understanding the mindset of the Jewish people, their faith, and how that faith came to be.
>>18099382>the fact that many founding fathers were fervent admirers of Cromwell "The Lord Protector"Tactical trvthnvke >This was the fate of a race of Kings, bigotted to the greatest degree to the doctrines of slavery and regardless of the natural, inherent, divinely hereditary and indefeasible rights of their subjects.—At the revolution, the British constitution was again restor'd to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterwards pass'd into a law, and stands as a bulwark to the natural rights of subjects. "To vindicate these rights, says Mr. Blackstone, when actually violated or attack'd, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law—next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances—and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”
>>18099338>>18099345>>18099356>>18099364>>18099368The South didn't really have any issues with Catholicism. Jefferson Davis himself was educated by Catholics and considered converting a few times and hated Cromwell though. In fact southerners often accused Northerners of being the descendants of Roundheads.>>18099374And when I said they had something to do with American Independence? I said they had something to do with the Southern colonies through the Cavaliers and the Scottish Rite.
>>18099397>The South didn't really have any issues with Catholicism. Jefferson Davis himself was educated by Catholics and considered converting a few times and hated Cromwell though. In fact southerners often accused Northerners of being the descendants of Roundheads.Yes they did. The only reason why anti catholicism wasn't bigger in the south was because few catholics immigrated there.Catholics were banned from southern government in many states until the 1830s.>And when I said they had something to do with American Independence? I said they had something to do with the Southern colonies through the Cavaliers and the Scottish Rite.They didn't. The "cavaliers" of the 1640s would become supporters of William of Orange in the 1680s>In the 1680s, another William Cavendish, the fourth Earl and first Duke of Devonshire, in the words of a family historian, removed “the politics of his race from a Cavalier to a Whig foundation.”18 The Cavendishes and Russells supported the Revolution of 1688, and became staunch Whigs for a century, until the French Revolution divided them. Late in the eighteenth century, the Cavendish connection stood with Burke, and the Russells went with Fox. But through the eighteenth century, many of the great landed families of England were as staunchly Whiggish as they had been Royalist a century before. Among them were the Berkeley family, who were among the most extreme Royalists in the seventeenth century, and would become decided Whigs in the eighteenth
>>18099307>the psychosis of "muh divine right" apparently skipped him.If you look at what insisting on the 'Divine Right of Kings' had done to his dad it seems pretty reasonable that Charles 2.0 would have learned that lesson as well as he could. >It's crazy how fast England went from Big 'enry, denier of papists and Queen Liz, the Protestant Queen, to James "if I don't fuck those men's asses, who will?" and his retarded offspringIt's almost like the country has been going rapidly downhill since the divinely ordained Kings were deposed in 1066 when England got dragged into the muck of Continental politics and culture. The house of Wessex must be restored, God wills it.
>>18099422>would have learned that lesson as well as he could.Which is why it's so crazy that James 2.0 came along and was actually retarded enough to try it again. >God wills itAccording to whomst
>>18099408>Catholics were banned from southern government in many states until the 1830sOnly North Carolina. Most southern states revoked it between 1776-1800 and the anti-Catholic sentiment only resurfaced in them because of the war with Mexico. In any case, this does not matter for the Civil War in non-bordering states.>Once the American Revolution was underway and independence was at hand, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland passed acts of religious toleration in 1776. George Washington, as commander of the army and as president, was a vigorous promoter of tolerance for all religious denominations. He believed religion was an important support for public order, morality and virtue. He often attended services of different denominations. He suppressed anti-Catholic celebrations in the ArmyBtw Maryland was one of the first states with religious freedom laws of US.>The Maryland Toleration Act, also known as the Act Concerning Religion, was the first law in North America requiring religious tolerance for Christians. It was passed on April 21, 1649, by the assembly of the Colony of Maryland, in St. Mary's City in St. Mary's County, Maryland. It created one of the pioneer statutes passed by the legislative body of an organized colonial government to guarantee any degree of religious liberty. Specifically, the bill, now usually referred to as the Toleration Act, granted freedom of conscience to all Christians. (The colony which became Rhode Island passed a series of laws, the first in 1636, which prohibited religious persecution including against non-Trinitarians; Rhode Island was also the first government to separate church and state.) Historians argue that it helped inspire later legal protections for freedom of religion in the United States
>>18099458>Only North Carolina. Most southern states revoked it between 1776-1800 and the anti-Catholic sentiment only resurfaced in them because of the war with Mexico. In any case, this does not matter for the Civil War in non-bordering states.It doesn't matter what rules the government put in place. The average white southerner of the 18th and 19th centuries was anti catholic. See how they treated PGT beauregard. However this anti catholicism didn't become prominent because there was little catholic migration to the south at that point.>Beauregard in his young adult years had lived and served primarily with Anglo-Americans in the US army (a rarity for Louisiana Creoles).[75] For the bloody years of the Civil War he fought almost exclusively with Anglo-American Confederates; the prevailing attitudes of his Anglo-American peers were anti-Catholic and anti-foreign, and he was rejected by many of them; they often ignored his opinions during the Civil War, such as his emphasis on the defense of New Orleans and his native Louisiana.[76] In the Confederacy, because he was a Creole Frenchman and seemed different, he was the victim of all kinds of rumors.[
>>18099458>The Calvert family, who founded Maryland partly as a refuge for English Catholics, sought enactment of the law to protect Catholic settlers and those of other religions that did not conform to the dominant Anglicanism of Britain and her colonies>The Act allowed freedom of worship for all Trinitarian Christians in Maryland, but sentenced to death anyone who denied the divinity of Jesus. It was revoked in 1654 by William Claiborne, a Virginian who had been appointed as a commissioner by Oliver Cromwell; he was an Anglican, a Puritan sympathizer, and strongly hostile to the Catholic Religion. When the Calverts regained control of Maryland, the Act was reinstated, before being repealed permanently in 1692 following the events of the Glorious Revolution, and the Protestant Revolution in Maryland. As the first law on religious tolerance in British North America, it influenced related laws in other colonies and portions of it were echoed in the writing of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which enshrined religious freedom in American law>The Province of Maryland was founded by Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore in 1634. Like his father George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore, who had originated the efforts that led to the colony's charter, he was Catholic at a time when the Kingdom of England was dominated by the Church of England. The Calverts intended the colony to function both as a haven for English Catholics fleeing religious persecution and as a source of income for themselves and their descendants. Many of Maryland's first settlers were Catholic, including at least two Catholic priests, one of whom became the earliest chronicler of the colony's history. But whatever Calvert's intentions, Maryland was a colony of an Anglican nation. Its charter had been granted by an Anglican king and seems to have assumed that the Church of England would be its official church
>August 11, 1921, Father James Coyle was fatally shot on his rectory porch in Birmingham, Alabama. The shooter was Rev. E. R. Stephenson, a Southern Methodist Episcopal minister.[51] The murder occurred just hours after Coyle had performed a wedding between Stephenson's daughter, Ruth, and Pedro Gussman, an American from Puerto Rico. Several months before the wedding, Ruth had enraged her father by converting to Roman Catholicism. Stephenson was defended by Hugo Black, a future Justice of the Supreme Court.>In Alabama, Hugo Black was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1926 after he had built a political base in part through his delivery of 148 speeches at local Klan gatherings, where his focus was the denunciation of Catholicism.[52] Howard Ball characterizes Black as having "sympathized with the [Klan's] economic, nativist, and anti-Catholic beliefs."
>>18099471>>18099458>le marylandCOPE>In 1642, the English colony of Virginia enacted a law prohibiting the entry of Catholic settlers. Five years later, a similar statute was enacted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1649, the Act of Toleration was passed in the Province of Maryland, where "blasphemy and the calling of opprobrious religious names" became punishable offenses, but it was repealed in 1654 and thus Catholics were outlawed once again. By 1692, formerly Catholic Maryland overthrew its government, established the Church of England by law, and forced Catholics to pay heavy taxes towards it. They were cut off from all participation in politics and additional laws were introduced that outlawed the Mass, the church's sacraments, and Catholic schools.
>>18099408>The "cavaliers" of the 1640s would become supporters of William of Orange in the 1680sAnd the French Masonic lodges founded by the Jacobites became the staging ground for the anti-monarchy and anti-Catholic Jacobins. What's your point?>>18099469>PGT beauregardYou answered your own question. He was from Louisana, a state with a large Catholic population. Southerners had reason to be concerned about this considering there were more Catholic European immigrants in the Union army than the CSA.>>18099473The Second Klan's greatest stronghold wasn't even in the South, brainlet. It was in the Midwest (ironically in states that had fought for the Union during the Civil War) where they had effectively taken over the government of Indiana by 1925. >Hugo BlackThe guy who separated Church and State and banned prayers (Protestant or Catholic) in school, hue.>>18099477Further proof that non-Anglican English Protestants are false moralists when it comes to Muh Persecution.
>>18099504>And the French Masonic lodges founded by the Jacobites became the staging ground for the anti-monarchy and anti-Catholic Jacobins. What's your point?There's no proof for this aside from your schizo wall of text posts>You answered your own question. He was from Louisana, a state with a large Catholic population. Southerners had reason to be concerned about this considering there were more Catholic European immigrants in the Union army than the CSA.Yeah, the average southerner didn't like catholics>The Second Klan's greatest stronghold wasn't even in the South, brainlet. It was in the Midwest (ironically in states that had fought for the Union during the Civil War) where they had effectively taken over the government of Indiana by 1925.I literally linked something that happened in alabama you retard>The guy who separated Church and State and banned prayers (Protestant or Catholic) in school, hue.The Klan were for seperating church and state, midwit.>Further proof that non-Anglican English Protestants are false moralists when it comes to Muh Persecution.Your "based catholic stuart cavaliers" literally banned catholicism in the 1640s LMAO
>>18097191an originally p*gan festival with dancing, singing, getting drunk and having s*x on the birth of your lord and savior, tell me how this isn't demonic
>>18099516>There's no proof for this aside from your schizo wall of text posts>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry_in_FranceKys.>Dachez, Roger (2003). Histoire de la franc-maçonnerie française. Que sais-je?. PUF. ISBN 2-13-053539-9 (Dachez 2003, p. 44)>Dachez, Roger (2003). Histoire de la franc-maçonnerie française. Que sais-je?. PUF. ISBN 2-13-053539-9 (Naudon 1981, p. 66)>Mémoire historique sur la maçonnerie, supplement to the Encyclopédie, 1773>sous la direction de Daniel Ligou. (2000). Histoire des Francs-Maçons en France. Vol. 1. private publisher. ISBN 2-7089-6838-6. (Daniel Ligou et al. 2000, pp. 40–41)>Naudon, Paul (1981). Histoire générale de la franc-maçonnerie. PUF. ISBN 2-13-037281-3. (Naudon 1981, p. 72) Also:https://hedgemason.blogspot.com/2013/05/irish-freemasonry-in-18th-century-france.html?m=1>Irish Freemasonry in 18th Century France>There is great need for further and more accurate research on 18th Century Freemasonry. Nowhere is this need more apparent than for 18th Century France. That is not to say that good research is lacking. It is simply that so much material exists which has not yet been studied>Those who have taken a cursory look at the archives returned to France from Russia recently have noted that only a small percentage of the material has been examined. With that in mind, the influence of Scotland and Ireland in the development of Freemasonry and especially the higher degrees in 18th Century France is a topic which deserves greater respect than it has been given in Anglophone circles>Freemasonry was unquestionably brought to France by Scottish and Irish Jacobites who were garrisoned there. Whether or not they were the first to do so, is still being debated by some. That they had a great impact on the development of the Higher Degrees in 18th Century France should not be
>>18099544>When the impact and presence of the Irish and Scots in Pre-Revolutionary France is taken into consideration, their involvement in the development of Freemasonry should not be hard to reconcile>The Irish Brigade was a brigade in the French army composed of Irish exiles, led by Robert Reid. It was formed in May 1690 when five Jacobite regiments were sent from Ireland to France in return for a larger force of French infantry who were sent to fight in the Williamite war in Ireland. The Irish Brigade served as part of the French Army until 1792>Under the terms of the Treaty of Limerick in 1691, which ended the war between King James II and VIIand King William III in Ireland, a separate force of 12,000 Jacobites had arrived in France in an event known as Flight of the Wild Geese. These were kept separate from the Irish Brigade and were formed into King James's own army in exile, albeit in the pay of France. Lord Dorrington's regiment, later Rooth or Roth, following the Treaty of Ryswick in 1698, was formed from the former 1st and 2nd battalions James II's Royal Irish Foot Guards (formerly on the Irish establishment) of Britain>The Irish Brigade became one of the elite units of the French Army. While increasingly diluted by French and foreign recruits from elsewhere in Europe, its Irish-born officers and men often aspired to return to aid Ireland and regain their ancestral lands, as some did during the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745>Irish regiments participated in most of the major land battles fought by the French between 1690 and 1789, particularly Steenkirk (1692), Neerwinden (1693),Marsaglia (1693), Blenheim (1704), Almansa (1707), Malplaquet (1709), Fontenoy (1745), Battle of Lauffeld (1747); and Rossbach (1757)>They also remained strongly attached to the Jacobite cause, taking part in the rising of 1715 and the rising of 1745
>>18099549>For the latter, a composite battalion of infantry ("Irish Picquets") comprising detachments from each of the regiments of the Irish Brigade, plus one squadron of cavalry, was sent to Scotland. This force saw action at the second Battle of Falkirk (where they cemented the victory by driving off the Hanoverians causing the clans to waver) and Culloden, alongside the regiment of Royal Scots (Royal Ecossais) which had been raised the year before in French service. As serving soldiers of the French King the Irish Picquets were permitted to formally surrender after Culloden with a promise of honourable treatment, and were not subjected to the reprisals suffered by the Highland clansmen. Many other exiled Jacobites in the French army were captured en route to Scotland in late 1745 and early 1746, including significantly, Charles Radcliffe, 5th Earl of Derwentwater, a captain in Dillon's regiment who was executed in London in 1746>Freemasonry in Ireland is the second oldest system in the world and the first evidence for its formally institutionalized existence comes from the Dublin Weekly Journal of June 26th 1725>The paper describes an event which took place two days previously on June 24th - a meeting to install the new Grand Master, the 1st Earl of Rosse. Unfortunately the exact date of the foundation of the Grand Lodge is not known, but the installation of a new Grand Master would suggest it was already in existence for some time>There is considerable evidence that there were Masonic Lodges meeting in Ireland prior to the eighteenth century, for example the manuscript known as "the Trinity Tripos" dating to the 1680s, and the Baal's Bridge Square, discovered in Limerick in the mid nineteenth century, which dates to the early sixteenth century>The following article sheds some light on the presence and involvement of Irish Masons in the Irish Brigades in France prior to the French Revolution
>>18099556>The slightly out of date, and biased character of the author's opinions do not detract from a fairly concise documentation of some basic data on the Irish role in the development of Freemasonry in France. It was written by Richard Hayes for The Old Limerick Journal, French Edition in 1932 and more recently reproduced on the official website of the City of Limerick, in Ireland>The Irish Brigade and Freemasonry>Certain facts disclose Irish influences of various kinds that contributed to the establishment of masonry in France in the eighteenth century – some authorities even maintain that it was introduced there by Irish Jacobites. The cult was apparently non-existent in France until 1721. In that year, an English Catholic nobleman, Lord Derwentwater, and an Irishman, O’Hegarty, a prominent shipowner established at Dunkirk the first civil lodge in that country. Four years later, they established a similar one at Paris, while, in 1732, ‘one Martin Kelly’ founded the first lodge at Bordeaux. The lodges were largely composed of Jacobite exiles and their main object was the restoration of the Stuarts to the English throne>At that period, it was, however, in the French army that the chief strength of masonry lay, and this continued right up to the Revolution, in the causation of which it is now seen more and more clearly, as has been stated elsewhere, that Masonic influences played a large part. The number of lodges in the various regiments increased from the year 1750 to the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789, and various dates during that interval mark the years of their constitution>In the official list of French lodges, that of Walsh’s Irish Regiment (La Loge Parfaite Egalité) always took premier place. In 1772, the Grand Lodge of France definitely recognized it as the senior Field Loge of the French army and, in addition, admitted its claim to date its constitution from the year 1688
>>18099563>This was confirmed by the Grand Orient in 1777. (The regiment, which was originally that of Roth, did not leave Ireland until 1691). In the middle of the eighteenth century we find the military lodge of this regiment composed of MacCarthys, Butlers, Nagles, O’Callaghans, Husseys, Keatings, FitzPatricks and other representatives of old Irish Catholic families>At the same period there was a lodge in Dillon’s Regiment functioning at St Germain-en-Laye which was made up of Lallys, Lynches, Burkes, O’Neills, Dillons, MacDonnells, Fitzgerals…And at this time, too, Jacobite influences in various French Masonic clubs were shown by the names given to new degrees – ‘Irish Master’,‘Perfect Irish Master,’ ‘Puissant Irish Master,’ &c.>In his interesting work, La Franc-maçonnerie en France des origins à 1815, the Catholic writer, Gustave Bord, states:>"For more than a hundred years historians and economists are asking why a country so fundamentally monarchical and Catholic as France could have suddenly changed its ideals and faith. France was sick at the end of the eighteenth century and that sickness was due largely to masonry and particularly to the Masonic spirit. It is there we must look for the real causes and logical explanation of the Revolution… In 1689, the Irish regiments embarked for France with their military rolls and their Masonic rolls – the former were executive agents, the latter the directive power. It was through the Jacobites, who followed James the Second into France, that masonry was introduced into the French army.">"And Louis Madelin… perhaps the most dispassionate historian of the Revolution, in his analysis of political and social conditions in France immediately before that event, writes in La Revolution Fraçaise (1911) that the army, which was the cradle in France of freemasonry, introduced by the Irish regiments from England, continued to be its favourite haunt."
>>18099569>"For some time before the outbreak of the Revolution, the Masonic cluibs, under the sinister influence of German Illuminism, were undoubtedly active centers of intrigue against the Monarchy and the Church. The majority of the French nobles had been members, but on seeing the trend of opinion in their circles they began to leave the clubs during the years immediately previous to 1789.">"In the first year of the Revolution there was a well known Masonic club in Paris, the Club de la Propagande, whose object was not only to consolidate the Revolution in France but to spread its principles to other countries">The leading figures of the time were among its members – Robespierre, Lafayette, Condorcet, Danton, Abbé Gregoire and others. The names of its Irish members are given in the records as ‘Boyle, Okard and O’Konnor.”>(Reprinted from Ireland and Irishmen in the French Revolution, London, 1932)Btw Many Latin American countries had military men of Irish ancestrality as founding fathers. Daniel Florence O'Leary in Venezuela, Juan Mackenna and Bernardo O'Higgins in Chile, Peter Campbell in Uruguay, John Thomond O'Brien and William Brown in Argentina, Francisco Burdett O'Connor in Bolivia, James Rooke in Colombia. France had a president and Spain a PM descended from Irish military families (Patrice MacMahon and Leopoldo O'Donnell). The point in what I'm saying is all of Ireland's military energy was devoted either to fighting for foreign Catholic armies abroad, rebelling at home (without access to actual military resources), fighting as footsoldiers for the British or US armies. The Irish in fact have an extremely eminent history of service in foreign armies. Peter Lacy was one of the most famous Russian generals before Suvorov. The Irish Brigade in French service played a crucial role in winning the battle of Fontenoy.
>>18099544>>18099563>>18099569>>18099575Also:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Roëttiers_de_Montaleau>Alexandre-Louis Roëttiers de Montaleau, born November 22, 1748 in Paris and died January 30, 1808 in the same city, was a French goldsmith, medalist, and Freemason>He was one of the leading figures of the Grand Orient of France, a Masonic obedience that owed its survival during the French Revolution to him, as well as the founding of numerous Masonic lodges. The testimonies of his contemporaries prove that the obedience's archives were saved by Roëttiers de Montaleau, who also played a prominent role in establishing the modern French Rite. For six years, after serving as general engraver of coins and auditor at the Chamber of Accounts, he served as director of the Paris Mint>Alexandre Roëttiers de Montaleau is the son of Jacques Roëttiers de la Tour, former general engraver of the British mints, who had been invested in 1732 with the office of goldsmith to the King of France and was to receive a diploma confirming his nobility in 1772. On his mother's side, he was the grandson of the king's goldsmith, Nicolas Besnier. He was the brother of Jacques-Nicolas, also a goldsmith and creator in 1770-1771 of the Orloff service commissioned by Catherine II>Deeply attached to the Stuarts, notably through the support of Jacques François Stuart and Jacques II, the Roëttiers de Montaleau family is thus in the Jacobite tradition
>>18099590>He chaired the governing body of the Grand Orient of France in 1799 and 1802. Heir to a substantial fortune and a noble title granted to his father, he embraced new ideas and viewed the Revolution with sympathy, but was imprisoned during the Terror after hiding the archives of the order. Roëttiers de Montaleau died on January 30, 1808. His religious funeral took place two days later, on February 1, at the Saint-Sulpice church in Paris. As for the Masonic lodges, they held numerous funeral ceremonies in his honor>Alexandre-Louis Roëttiers de Montaleau is a key figure in the history of French Freemasonry. He played a vital role in the Grand Orient of France from the 1780s until his death in 1808>Initiated at an imprecise date into the "L'Amitié" lodge in Paris, he was "raised to the rank of master" in Masonic terms in 1775. In this lodge, he served successively as Second Warden in 1775, Worshipful Master from 1778 to 1781 and from 1786 to 1778, a total of five years>On December 26, 1783, he was received into the Philanthropic Society of Paris and served on its executive committee from 1784 to 1787>Co-founder of the "Grand Chapitre Général," which transformed into the "Souverain Chapitre Métropolitain," de Montaleau was elected president on April 8, 1784, for approximately ten years, until 1793. As a deputy, he represented the chapters of Limoges, Rouen, Dieppe, and Aix-en-Provence>From 1770 to 1777, Roëttiers de Montaleau held various officer positions in the Chamber of Provinces, before becoming its president until 1794. After this period in the Chamber, he was venerable of approximately ten metropolitan lodges>The collective memory of Masons associates him more or less with two events: the survival of the Grand Orient during the Revolution and the establishment of the modern French Rite. Moreover, his career and personality are emblematic of a certain Masonic generation that passed the torch from the 18th to the 19th century
>>18095156t. Mick
>61 replies>not a single post about my boy SkipponThis board really is reddit-tier
>>18099533Based and grinchpilled. Smash all idols. Total Romish death.
Mmm, thats why so many Baptist pastors in the South, if not most of them at some point were Masons
>>18099307>t. Paid tudor shill playwright The house of York should have won the war. >>18099422>t. Godwinson familys now out of a royal job bardEdward was the last true king of the anglos, godwinson was a traitor to Britain, instead of mustering an army in 1050 after he reurned from exile, sailing the channel and genociding the french like any decent englishman, he instead took over the kingdom from a literal saint He then handed the country to the french by "coincidentally" throwing himself to a pre-planned arrow. Despite Btfoing the vikangs weeks before. Dooming england from legitimate, saintly rule to french degenerates
>>18100809Is it morally better to kill baptist children before then can be satanically baptized as they will then just go to purgatory? At what age does this cut off?
>>18095156>>Hang the tyrannical king, declare Republic>>Become tyrannical king, enact hereditary rule based on himselfHe didn't became a king.>What 160 IQ game was he playing?Cromwell & his Roundheads tried to do something using religion as the main vehicle of creed. Their (unavoidable?) error was to not separate religion from the executive & legislative organs of the state. >Looking at his actions, his goal was to genocide as many irishmen as humanly possible.The RCC association is what affected the Irish case. The RCC is an institution by and for the nobility, with the rest being convenient slaves/serfs. It is an entity for the benefit of the nobility, and royalty in general. Think of Pharaohs and their relatives in invented temples of animal worship, for literal crowd control. Cromwell being a Protestant, he knew these things (power dynamics & relationships; the actual power politics) better than the average serf on some lord's farm. His fears that the RCC, respectively the Catholic kingdoms, using Hibernia as a strategic & tactical launching platform for perpetual invasions, weren't unfounded or irrational. Look at the chronological epoch - the Thirty Years War, fresh.
>>18102002>He didn't become kingWhich is why the entire state revolved around him and his son inherited the kingdom>They were the taliban of their timeThis is a reason for a good Catholic genocide, not failure. Laicism is lying cope by cultists.>He feared the catholic for treason and riotsObviously one should genocide the Catholic irish and keep the kingdom to solve this. It's quite brilliant in it's simplicity desu
>>18102452>Which is why the entire state revolved around himNo one else was capable of filling the void >and his son inherited the kingdomAnd almost immediately gave it up. If Cromwell was a king then I can fly
>>18095156>What 160 IQ game was he playing?I don't think it was like that at all. I actually tend to think Cromwell got railroaded into a lot of positions he wouldn't have initially supported. His preferred solution was clearly retaining Charles as a limited monarch with a constitutional settlement that gave parliament more power.
>>18095156But enough about napoleon
>>18100906Edward was a mediocrity that surrounded himself with French dependents and who owes his saintly reputation to Harold and William building a saintly cult around him to legitimise their own claims to the throne as his heirs.
>>18103043ThisPeople act like he came charging out of the gate the moment Parliament turned on Charlie as a tyrant and called for his head. No such thing. Cromwell, as John Hampden once said, was simply the man who rose to the moment.
