Talk:Massacre of Glencoe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Scottish clans and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Massacre of Glencoe, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 POV 2 Glencoe village 3 Massacres and Myths 4 Some points worth considering 5 Clanfight or not, 6 Who's to blame?

[edit] POV

Isn't the Aftermath section just POV, or at the very least unbecoming of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Lianachan 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some clarification is needed as to why this particular massacre is so well remembered, improvements will be welcome. ..dave souza, talk 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glencoe village

Regarding a question raised on my talk page, it seemed to me that his article should have a link to the Glencoe, Scotland article about the village and to the old village location, which was widely thought to be where the hospitality and the start of the subsequent Massacre took place. It seemed to me that readers might welcome an early link to maps of the area, so I've added both links to the intro. Any further clarifications will be appreciated. ..dave souza, talk 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the last sentence of the 'Aftermath' section should be removed. As the rest of the article makes clear (and this is perfectly well known from other sources) despite British government attempts to show this as a 'clan feud' it was in fact part of the 'ethnic cleansing' that we call the Highland Clearances. The visitor centre at Glencoe also makes perfectly clear that the main reason for the massacre was purely and simply pour encourager les autres: the highlanders were associated with Catholic insurrection, and the clan system had to be smashed to show who was boss. The Glencoe massacre was a test case to show that the (protestant) state was serious about this. 86.1.194.43 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massacres and Myths

In general, I believe this piece manages to trace a reasonable course through one of the more emotive minefields of Scottish history. My editing is intended to clarify some facts and eliminate some misconceptions.

1. The Jacobite clans were not threatened with 'death' if they failed take the oath of loyalty; nothing as specific as that. They were told that they 'would answer at their highest peril.' It is also perhaps worth mentioning-although this does not appear in this article-that Macian, while late, did at least take the oath to King William. Others, including the Macdonalds of Sleat and Glengarry, did not, at least not prior to the events of February 1692. The Macdonalds of Glencoe were chosen for extraordinary action because they were vulnerable in a way that the Sleat and Glengarry men were not.

2. I've tried to weaken any causal link between Glenlyon's losses in 1690 and the Massacre. As I highlight, he held the Glengarry men more culpable.

3. Breadalbane was not involved at any stage in the preparations for the Massacre. I've already highlighted this, with more detailed reasoning, in the talk page attached to the article on John Campbell Earl of Breadalbane.

4. I've rearranged the section on the Argyll Regiment to make the facts a little clearer. The way it was written suggests, amongst other things, that the Earl of Argyll was personally present, which, of course, he was not. He was colonel-in-chief of the regiment; but this was purely an honorary appointment; he never took part in any of its field operations. It is also important not to make too much of the regiment as a specifically Campbell formation. This was a regular army regiment, not a Highland militia.

5. I think the final section, headed 'Aftermath' could be better organized. The fair and accurate point is made that the focus of historical discussion has been steered away from official policy to clan rivalry; but then it wanders off into the usual misty Campbell/Macdonald associations. I've removed the original final paragraph because it loses all focus, and comes close to justifying the Massacre as just another episode in an ancient feud, which I feel sure was not the author's intention. I think my own last paragraph is absolutely necessary to put the whole thing in true perspective.

Rcpaterson 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some points worth considering

In checking an assessment of the outcome, I hauled out John Prebble's Lion in the North which gives a brief treatment of this subject which he had earlier tackled in depth in Glencoe. Some points, quotes or nuances he considered important aren't included here, and while they seem to set useful context I thought I'd note them before adding them to see if they're disputed by more authoritative or recent scholarship.

Firstly, that William was embroiled in war in the Low Countries, and to reduce the threat of another rising opening a second front the original scheme to pacify the Highlands was to buy loyalty, but Stair's negotiations fell through. From the royal camp in Flanders on 17 August 1761 William made the offer of pardon to those swearing allegiance before 1 January with the threat of "the utmost severity of the law" for those who didn't. Stair {privately] proposed "fire and sword and all manner of hostility" on several clans, particularly the MacDonalds, for few men would regret what happened to them.

The message from James authorising the signing arrived by messenger in the last week of December, saying that the loyal chiefs could "do what may be most for their own safety". At such short notice less than a hands-count were able to travel to the sheriffs of their shire and submit the oath in time.

The Glencoe MacDonalds had few, if any, friends: their only loyalty was to that which served Clan Donald and the Lords of the Isles, and they were thus hostile opponents of the Campbells, though they had not been above taking Clan Diarmid's [another name for the Campbells?] pay for the killing of its other enemies. Stair believed that it would be a lesson to the laggards and a mercy to the nation if this "thieving tribe were rooted out and cut off".

When news came out that MacIain had been late, Stair wrote "I am glad that Glencoe did not come in within the time prescribed, I hope what's done there may be in earnest."

The use of Campbell soldiers had little to do with their ancient feuds, they were the only disciplined and reliable force in John Hill's district, but the selection of the bankrupt and drunkard Glenlyon was perhaps deliberate... on their way back from Dunkeld, the MacDonalds had burnt and looted his glen for the second time, completing a financial ruin begun by drink and gambling.

Stair had to resign his secretaryship, but his work had been effective and the laggard chiefs came quickly to take the oath of submission. Though Jacobites used the incident as propaganda, the Glencoe men showed their tolerance when in 1715 they fought beside the sons and tenants of Glenlyon.

[The Scottish] Parliament's courage in addressing the King, declaring the responsibility of his minister and asking for the trial of his officers reflected their growing independence in their frequently hostile relationship with the king who was imposing a heavy burden on Scotland in the long and unpopular war with France.

Feedback will be welcome. ..dave souza, talk 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful in trying to draw a direct causal link between Glenlyon's misfortunes and his involvement in the Glencoe Massacre (Massacres and Myths-point 2). In the claim for compensation placed before the Privy Council for the losses he sustained in the 1690 raid he makes no mention of Glencoe, holding the Glengarry men more culpable. There is also a wider point to be considered. Much of the evidence suggests that he was being deliberately set up as a scapegoat; and while this cannot be proved conclusively, it is virtually certain that he knew nothing of his true task in Glencoe until he received his written orders on 12 February, with their hints and threats on the consequences of failure.

I'm puzzled, quite frankly, by your commendation of the 'courage' of the Scottish Parliament. The inquiry into the causes of the Glencoe Massacre was set up with one purpose only: to exonerate the King. Dalrymple was an obvious target, and stood condemned by his plentiful and public correspondence. William, far from being forced to dispense with a treasured minister, was only to happy to lose Dalrymple, quite simply because he no longer served any useful purpose. Beyond loss of office, he suffered no other penalty. The Scottish Parliament, in its address to the King, did no more than what was expected of it, even in its request that the Argyll Regiment officers stand trial. The Glencoe Macdonalds, moreover, received not a penny in compensation. I can see no evidence of either poilitical or moral courage. Rcpaterson 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, on the first issue I read Prebble as emphasising that Glenlyon may have been selected because he was a bankrupt with various problems, including an argument with the MacDonalds generally, and so would be less likely to refuse the (unlawful) orders he was given. This ties in with him being set up as a scapegoat.

Secondly, I accept your assessment of Prebble's comment on "courage", and you make good points. I did find interesting the idea that the parliament was getting restive, and the context that Scotland was suffering the costs of William's continuing war with France seemed useful. This suggests the massacre as a callous exemplary action to discount French hopes of a second front, carried out reluctantly by soldiers under orders, rather than the clanfight scenario.

A point made in Glencoe is that in 1688 James granted Letters of Fire and Sword against some clans, particularly the MacDonalds, as well as requiring his subjects to concur "in rooting out the said barbarous and inhuman traitors", though in May 1689 he was asking for their support against the "antimonarchial" forces of William. Jacobite identification with the Highlanders was not long standing. Your comments on the other points will be appreciated ..dave souza, talk 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you.

There are important aspects of this whole episode that tend to escape from both the written narratives and the popular preception. All of the leading players, including William, Breadalbane and Dalrymple had their own particular agendas. William's was simple enough: he cared little for Scotland, or Scottish issues, and simply wanted a quick peace in the Highlands to allow him to pursue his war on the Continent. Breadalbane, anxious to take on the role of statesman, and to replace his cousin Argyll as the head of the Campbells, laboured to achieve a negotiated peace with the rebel chiefs. His efforts were partially rewarded with the truce he managed to conclude at Achallader.

Dalyrmple is, perhaps, the most complex of all. He, too, wished to remain in William's favour ( a very difficult thing with the cold and impatient Dutchman), but was far less patient than Breadalbane, a man he did not fully trust. But there was, for him, an even higher consideration; he was working towards a full political union with England, which, he believed could not be achieved as long as Scotland continued to be haunted by unruly and barbarous Highlanders. Temporary truces were not good enough: pacification could only be achieved by terror, and terror in its most frightful and militant form. His original scheme for military action was sweeping in scope, taking in much more than the men of Clan Iain Abrach. Practical considerations narrowed this down to Glencoe alone.

Your point about the Stewarts and the Highlanders is well made: for James they were simply a means towards an end, as they were to be for his son and grandson in times to come. Although he managed to establish reasonably good relations with the chiefs when he came to Edinburgh in the early 1680s, his general perceptions were little different from his Stewart ancestors, for whom the Highlands were a source of trouble as far back as the reign of James IV. The Glencoe Massacre is a singular event in Scottish history, but it is rooted in an ancient hostility. James V seriously considered the wholesale extirpation of Clan Chattan, and James VI authorised the systematic extermination of the Macleods of Lewis, and threatend death for the crime of being called Macgregor. Even the traditionally loyal Campbells were not immune from Lowland hostility. At the outset of James' reign it was seriously suggested that the men of the clan be physically disabled, and the women shipped to the outer isles, as the price for their involvement in the ninth Earl of Argyll's rebellion in 1685. The 'Letters of Fire and Sword' you mention were issued by James against the Keppoch Macdonalds, shortly before the collapse of his regime, and technically remained in force even after they joined Dundee. I've always been amused-and angered- by the hype,lies and myths surrounding stories of Loyal Highland Clans and Stewart Princes, based, as it so often is, on the shallowest understanding of Scottish history.

I note that you have been drawing on John Preeble's Glencoe. It's a fine book, and the first full account I myself read of the Massacre; but it is now a fairly dated work, and some of the judgements are open to question. He places John Hill, for example, in a far better light than he deserves. As I noted elsewhere, Hill's opportunism and lack of real moral courage made him one of the minor architects of the Massacre. Have you read Paul Hopkins' Glencoe and the End of the Highland War? The prose style is as turgid and dull as Preeble is vivid and imaginative; but it musters every conceivable fact about the whole period.

Rcpaterson 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clanfight or not,

Some people are looking at the historical documents, i, Quaggga, am looking at the circumstances, Could it be or couldn't it be a simple clanfight in the perceptions of the rivalising parties, the macdonalds and the campbells, and indeed, it is not my goal to rewrite the glen coe massacre, it is a tragedy and we have to remember this for the sake of abuse of power.

My contribution to this has been erased, and apparently there is just room for one kind of view. But call it stubborn or any name you want When we're looking at the circumstances, what do we see: 1. A massacre 2. A family who had a hard time in the past decades, 3. Animosity with another clan

I'm not defending the campbells, or support the macdonalds. And vica versa. But the results of 1 to 3: 1. 40-70 persons are killed 2. the campbells, the chief of the clan had to flee to Holland, the first Marquis hanged, and his sons had to fear for their own lives 3. the macdonalds, since the 1600 a major obstacle for good relationships.

and now with the blessing of the government the campbells got the chance to get rid off the macdonalds. what would you do? take of leave it

I'm interested in your comments

Thanks, Quaggga, the point is that there were other more murderous massacres associated with the clanfights, this one was memorable because it was under specific government orders that contravened both Scots law and Highland custom. The clans were pawns in a bigger game, and it says more about the antipathy of lowland gentry to what some effectively saw as thieving savages than it does about the complex Campbell / MacDonald rivalry. ..dave souza, talk 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who's to blame?

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 30 for processing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How was it possible for such a thing to happen in late seventeenth century Britain? Was it the fault of the English? Lord of the Glens 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired now, but I cannot resist giving an answer to this before trotting off to bed.

Your Lordship, the English were the very last people to blame for the Massacre at Glencoe. It was, from beginning to end, an entirely Scottish affair, that was approved by a Dutch king for reasons of strategic and political expediency. The scheme itself was conceived by John Dalrymple, Master of Stair, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who acted in conjunction with Thomas Livingstone, the Scottish commander-in-chief. The task was then delegated to the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot, a formation on the Scottish military establishment. This regiment's Campbell associations helped give the whole affair quite spurious overtones of clan rivalry, an act of deliberate obfuscation.

Why, then, did Dalyrmple conceive of this act? Because he wanted a quick end to the Highland war against William, and because he was looking forward to eventual political union between Scotland and England. The one obstacle on the path of both schemes was the Gaelic peoples of Scotland's 'wild west'; and that expression is not chosen by accident. If one wishes an analogy with what happened in Scotland in 1692 one could do no better than look to the United States and the policy towards the Indian tribes of the West in the nineteenth century. I imagine Dalrymple would have shared Philip Sheridan's sentiment with a slight adaptation, in that for him the 'only good Highlander he ever saw was dead.'

There was a huge and ancient cultural gap in Scotland between the English-speaking Lowlands and the Gaelic-speaking Highlands, with hostility and misunderstanding spread along the way. For many Lowlanders the Highland 'savage' was an embarrassment, an obstacle to progress and civilization. James V had pressed for the wholesale extirpation of the people of Clan Chattan, who had given him particular offence; and James VI had advanced a scheme for Lowland settlement in the Hebrides, based on the extermination of the local people, MacLeods and MacDonalds. These hostilities were compounded by the rise of Jacobitism, which divided the Lowlands of the south still further from the Highlands. In 1692 hatred, racism and the politics of cultural contempt finally acquired a practical and murderous form. Clio the Muse 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)