What if there had been no 1745 Rebellion?

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by Sherbrooke Jacobite

What so agitated those who wished the King ill will was not "the divine right of Kings" - but his issuance of the 1687 Declaration of Indulgence - which stopped the laws which persecuted both Catholics and Protestant dissenters.

Sent packing by the English? William arrived in England with 60 warships, 500 smaller vessels and an army of 14,000 men. The King disbanded the English army - and the Scottish army under Viscount Dundee arrived to late to do anything. The King was sent packing by the Dutch (and this army actually included a Scottish brigade under Captain Hugh Mackay - later to be immortalized as the defeated Commander at Killicrankie). No doubt memories of his grandfather's fate were fresh in his mind.

It would be very unusual to invade a county and find virtually zero resistance, but that is what William found. That he came with troops is hardly a surprise, it would be unwise for him to have done anything else. The English army could easily have seen off an invasion if that is what parliament had wished for.

You are correct that "1687 Declaration of Indulgence" was behind parliaments hostility to the king, but that is my point about why the Jacobite cause could not have succeeded, there wasn’t the support in England to allow it. In the 17th and 18th centuries religion was politics.

Remember that the Stuarts lacked sufficient support in the 1680’s, and there was never a revivial of support. The 1715 rising had a better chance than 1745 when Jacobite support was minimal in Scotland (mainly confined to the highlands), and practically non-existent in England. Indeed you seem to be agreeing with that: "Loyalty to the Stuarts remained a powerful force in the Highlands. The Clans had fought for the Stuarts so many times over the previous century, that that loyalty had become part of the gaelic culture. In religious matters, the Higlanders had little in common with the Presbyterian lowlands"

Charles did come within a few days march of attaining the throne for his father. He reached this point as a result of his boldness and courage. He had a military force which was light and mobile, and initially ran rings around the cumbersome British army (forshadowing tactics which would be used to great success in the soon to follow American revolution).

That the Jacobite army got close to London does not mean that Charles came close to winning the throne for the Stuarts. Your use of the words "boldness" and "courage" seem to indicate that you are focusing on the romance aspects of the Jacobite risings. Even if Charles had got to London that would not mean the throne was his.

When General John Cope tried to raise the people of Edinburgh to defend the city, he was only able to muster 400 men, from a city of 40,000. When, the next day, he intended to march out to fight the Prince's army, only 42 of them remained.

A very brave 42! They had more balls than I would have had, I would have no doubt have found that my presence was urgently required somewhere else that day. An army of highlanders must have been a terrifying prospect for anyone to face.

Where the Rising was lost was when the decision was made to turn around at Derby. The French were preparing troopships - and there was no force between them and the Capital that would have been able to withstand the Jacobite army

Well quite so! Yes a foreign power would have needed to back Charles coup d'état because support on British soil was absent. To succeed Charles needed a French invasion. However there is nothing admirable about a foreign power imposing regime change in Britain. Only the highlands of Scotland had significant Jacobite support, there was none in England and in the Scottish lowlands – where the Presbyterian clergy were hostile to Charles – the defeat of the Jacobites brought relief and celebration. The world has a habit of moving on, the Jacobites time had long since passed by the time 1745 came around.

Not so - even many of Charles' opponents thought highly of the young Prince. When Edinburgh Castle, with its virtually impregnable defenses, remained in Hanoverian hands - Charles, naturally, ordered a blockade. Word came from the castle that if the blockade was not lifted they would turn their guns on the innocent citizenry of Edinburgh. So Charles ordered the blockade lifted. At Prestonpans the Prince ordered quarter be given to all who surrended. He personally tended to wounded, on both sides. He constantly reminded those around him that he considered all these people his subjects, and they were to be treated as such.

Well if you aspire to be king it’s a pretty good idea to do a bit of public relations for you potential subjects. However when assessing the Jacobite risings it is important not to give undue weight to issues of character. They shouldn’t be ignored, but its important not to lose sight of the political machinery at work.

Your flippant comments are offensive

To whom? Everyone is dead now!

The Butcher's troops, at his orders, murdered and mutilated not only the wounded, defenceless troops left on the battlefield, but women and children and anyone they could chase down and catch, Jacobite or not. In the words of Lord Rosebery, Liberal Prime Minister in the 1890's "No blacker, bloodier page will be found in the history of any country than that which records the atrocities against a brave but vanquished enemy perpetrated at the command and under the eyes of a British monarch's son." On the road from Culloden to Inverness everyone wearing highland clothing, men, women and children was slaughtered.

That’s why I referred to it as "a tragedy for Scotland, one of the saddest in her history". However rising against the government isn’t the sort of thing you can do with impunity. Having had a couple of previous uprisings the government forces were determined that it was not going to happen again. The fact that the defeated forces of Charles regrouped and were ready to fight again demonstrated that suppressing them was not going to be easy, and therefore an extreme hardline approach had to be taken.

I am assuming by that you mean that Cumberland's treatment of the Highlands, and the government policy was stupid - and that you are not stating the Highlanders were stupid.

Cumberland’s treatment of the highlanders was brutal, but it was far from stupid. It was calculated brutality at aimed at ensuring the message that no further rebellions against the government would be tolerated.

Of course it was easy for men like Roseberry to tut tut a century and a half later when even Queen Victoria herself said she was a Jacobite at heart. It was a little different at the time.

There is no question that it was the ordinary highlander who paid the price for the King of France’s desire to have ‘regime change’ in Britain, the nobles largely got off lightly. History is indeed constantly repeated.

[TheVoyageur]

Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist

No there would not be. Sorry but your lack of knowledge regarding the highlands is obvious. The population of the higlands greatly increased in the early 19t century (that is long after 1746/6). That however was based on the kelp industry which later collapsed.

Charming!

I bet you were the popular kid in school then, huh?

I have to admit that your reply, is certainly up there, with the most 'un-friendliest welcome', I have ever had the displeasure in receiving on an Internet forum and certainly one, which does not fill me with a great deal of enthusiasm to help others, if this is the general attitude portrayed in your response.

Your reply certainly smacks of arrogance and ostentation and to make the ill informed assumption, that my "lack of knowledge regarding the highlands is obvious", certainly falls into the ‘un-educated hypocrisy’ bracket, considering you have no idea of who I am, or what I do for a living.

What you have mentioned in the your reply above, regarding the increase in population circa 19th century, is certainly correct factual based information, which is documented in many text references around. However, if you had re-read the question topic put up for comment, then perhaps your tiny brain might begin to compute what the initial poster on this thread was wondering about?

What if there had been NO 1745 Rebellion?

Your response to this opening question, as mentioned above, is knowledge of what occurred in the Highlands of Scotland, after the rebellion.

However, I raised a suggestion for discussion, on the basis that the rebellion did not occur and that life would carry on, the way it did for centuries before.

Given that you have not even questioned my reasoning behind this, clearly suggests that you have a very narcissistic approach in life, in which you do not bother to listen or learn from others in what they may, or may not believe and I have to admit that you are very conceited in your own learning of Scottish History.

Perhaps you should research your facts and information more carefully, before labeling something, or someone, with your pedantic comments.

[Edited by TheVoyageur on 13th June 2005 at 15:13]

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by TheVoyageur

Charming!

I bet you were the popular kid in school then, huh?

I have to admit that your reply, is certainly up there, with the most 'un-friendliest welcome', I have ever had the displeasure in receiving on an Internet forum and certainly one, which does not fill me with a great deal of enthusiasm to help others, if this is the general attitude portrayed in your response.

Yes fascinating……………………………

Your reply certainly smacks of arrogance and ostentation and to make the ill informed assumption, that my "lack of knowledge regarding the highlands is obvious", certainly falls into the ‘un-educated hypocrisy’ bracket, considering you have no idea of who I am, or what I do for a living.

I don’t know or care about either, I will judge only what your write on these threads.

What you have mentioned in the your reply above, regarding the increase in population circa 19th century, is certainly correct factual based information, which is documented in many text references around. However, if you had re-read the question topic put up for comment, then perhaps your tiny brain might begin to compute what the initial poster on this thread was wondering about?

What if there had been NO 1745 Rebellion?

Your response to this opening question, as mentioned above, is knowledge of what occurred in the Highlands of Scotland, after the rebellion.

I was NOT unaware of the question asked when responding to the reply you gave, I think any reasonably intelligent person could have grasped that, for someone with your no doubt gigantic brain I would assume it was obvious.

However, I raised a suggestion for discussion, on the basis that the rebellion did not occur and that life would carry on, the way it did for centuries before.

What you wrote was not difficult to understand, it was perfectly straightforward. It was UTTER NONSENSE, and showed that you did not have a clue about highland history. That was my criticism of it.

HOWEVER, if you can provide a reasoned argument as to how the events of 1745/46 prevented “thriving towns and communities up the western arm of Scotland with a lot more industry with, notably, a lot more distilleries on the west coast.” then I would love to hear it.

Given that you have not even questioned my reasoning behind this

Please, feel free to embarrass yourself further, no skin off my nose.

clearly suggests that you have a very narcissistic approach in life, in which you do not bother to listen or learn from others in what they may, or may not believe and I have to admit that you are very conceited in your own learning of Scottish History.

Moan, moan moan. I don’t give a damn about your opinions on what you think I think, I would be surprised if anyone else did either.

Either contribute to the thread or don’t contribute to it, but please stop your whining, its of interest to nobody.

[SherbrookeJacobite]

Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist

To whom? Everyone is dead now!

Their families/descendants! Most WWI vets are also dead now - but we still speak of them with respect.

[Eleana]

besides the fact that our favourite quarrelers found new food to quarrel...

... it's extremely hard to imagine what-if scenarios by singling out only one event in the history.

Do you want to discuss what would happen if 1745 had never ocurred but still the aversities were going on? Or, do you want to assume that Scotland would have been divided in pro England and a autonom Scotland? Or is your sceneraio more like what if they had won and the Highlaners would have been able to establish a stand alone Alba?

SE is correct in his assumptions that the Highlands would always have troubles being industrialized to an extend to allow a thriving community.

However, under the assumption clearances and oppression would not have occured, the Highlands might have been able to install a much better econmy.

Can't you see that even without the loss of the battle the war was lost. The landlords had no further interest in the Highlanders, people at those times were capital in the true sense of the meaning. Workforce, money provider, nothing else. A country on its own has a more vital interest in its people.
It may not be that easy anymore under the flag of glabalization but 200 years ago most certainly a valid point.

My 2 cents.

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by SherbrookeJacobite

Their families/descendants! Most WWI vets are also dead now - but we still speak of them with respect.

What about those who died fighting the Romans?

There are still some survivors from the First World War, and its fairly recent history, but your not seriously telling me that people today have emotional ties to their ancestors of a quarter of a millenium ago which would lead them to be offended ? I don't think so!

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by Eleana
SE is correct in his assumptions that the Highlands would always have troubles being industrialized to an extend to allow a thriving community.

However, under the assumption clearances and oppression would not have occured, the Highlands might have been able to install a much better econmy.

The Highlands just didn't have any resources to allow it to develop economically. In the age of industrialisation it simply could not compete with the resource rich lowlands. There was nothing on which to build a Highland economy.

Originally posted by Eleana
Can't you see that even without the loss of the battle the war was lost. The landlords had no further interest in the Highlanders, people at those times were capital in the true sense of the meaning. Workforce, money provider, nothing else. A country on its own has a more vital interest in its people.
It may not be that easy anymore under the flag of glabalization but 200 years ago most certainly a valid point.

My 2 cents.

To be honest I don't really understand what you are saying here.