A CRUTHIN SONG OF CHIVALRY by Jack Gallagher

A  CRUTHIN SONG OF CHIVALRY

 

THESE ARE THE LANDS OF THE CRUTHIN

THE LANDS OF THE  RED BRANCH CLAN

THESE ARE OUR  GLENS AND MOUNTAINS

OUR BORDER  THE BOYNE AND THE BANN

PREPARED TO DEFEND  OUR KINGDOM

PREPARED TO DIE FOR OUR LAND

 

 

WE ARE KNIGHTS OF A CHIVALROUS ORDER

WILLING TO DIE FOR THE RIGHT

SKILLED IN THE BATTLE AND BRAVE

THE SEA AT OUR BACK AS WE FIGHT

TO RESIST ALL WHO COME AGAINST US

FROM OUR BIRTH UNTIL THE GRAVE

 

 

NO ONE CAN MATCH OUR COURAGE

NO ONE  INFLICT  SUCH PAIN

THAT WE CANNOT RISE IN TRIUMPH

AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

WE STAND UNITED IN PURPOSE

TO FIGHT TILL THE BATTLE HAS CEASED

BUT WE PROFFER THE HAND OF FRIENDSHIP

TO THOSE WHO COME IN PEACE

Posted in Article | Comments Off on A CRUTHIN SONG OF CHIVALRY by Jack Gallagher

Islay

My great-grandmother Christina Lambie’s family came from Islay and spoke Gaelic, so I have always had a special interest in the island and the Gaelic language itself. Grandfather Robert Kerr always spoke lovingly of her, as did Grannie and my mother Jane. Robert was a miner, who joined the fight against the Kaiser, although he was a great supporter of Keir Hardie from Cumnock, near to where the family came to live in Knockshinnock, New Cumnock, beside Rabbie Burns’ Sweet Afton Water. Grandfather Robert took me on a tour of the Highlands and Islands when I was a boy and I consider this area very much part of my heritage. We visited Culloden Moor, where my Clan on my father’s side, the Clan Chattan or Wild Cat Clan, the Mackintoshes, fought for Charlie in 1745.

There are close resemblances in the Gaelic of the islands of Islay, Jura and Colonsay in many respects, although important variations occur between, and even within, all three. South Argyll in general, along with the Isle of Arran, indeed, constitute what we may term a Dialect Area These dialects are also closely associated with the East Ulster Gaelic of Rathlin, the Glens of Antrim and Louth as well as Fanad and Urris in Donegal, so I think a better term for the whole Dialect Area would be Ulidian, ignoring the “national” boundaries of Scotland and Ireland. Grannie and Granta told me much of this as well as the history of Rabbie Burns and Edward Sloan, Grannie’s relative from Conlig, an Ulster Rhyming Weaver, who wrote in Scots and English. She had little time for careerist academics and neither have I, trapped as they are in the nationalist ideologies which pay their wages.

Gaelic as a first language inherited in the home is now in serious trouble in South Argyll, which the Dalaradia organisation visited with Pretani Associates. We must make strenuous efforts here in Northern Ireland to standardize Ulidian and absorb words and phrases from South Argyll to form a link, while at the same time act to preserve the individual dialects, particularly of the West Ulster Gaelic of South Donegal, as well as Islay and Arran. This we will do through our Ullans Academy by translating the Bible into Ulster Gaelic, as we did for Scots, by-passing the useless Academic Establishment in Scotland.

While there has been a lot of debate on the relative and absolute settlement of Islay, for that is what academics do, most of them are agreed that the origins of the island name are unknown, although certainly several thousand years old, pre-Celtic and perhaps even pre-Indo-European. It was only after the classical reference by Ptolemy to the Aebudae ( “Hebrides”), Epidion (“Islay”) and Limnu (“The Lewes”) that any district or place-names were first recorded during the early Christian era. But the name Epidion is important, showing the presence of p-Celtic or Welsh rather than q-Celtic or Gaelic terminology in the area at this time. Coupled with the use of the Brittonic or Old British tongue in the Middle Kingdoms to the South , and the influence of the Norse, we have a wonderful history of linguistic development, all of which needs to be preserved.

Posted in Article | Comments Off on Islay

Daniel O’Connell Commemoration

Daniel O'Connell

 This afternoon, Helen Brooker of Pretani Associates and I attended the annual Daniel  O’Connell Commemoration in Dublin. Minister Jimmy Deenihan T.D.  gave the Annual O’Connell Lecture in the presence of living relatives of the great man

Sunday, 17th May 2015 

Glasnevin Cemetery 

Arrival at Glasnevin Cemetery at 12 noon approx. 

Officiants ushered into position.

Offical wreath laying ceremony commences at 12.30 pm 

Running Order:- 

            Welcome by Chairman of Glasnevin Trust            John Green  Glasnevin Trust  

            Prayer – Nominee of Archbishop of Dublin

            Monsignor Paul  Callan, Archbishop House  

            Music – Piper Lament Dublin Fire Brigade                                     Shay O’ Rourke 

 

            Reading – Representative O’ Connell Schools                                Gary Gannon and Dominik Michalik. 

 

The Laying of Wreaths:- 

Lord Mayor of Dublin  Christy Burke

Government Representative  Minster Jimmy Deenihan T.D. 

Mayor of Co. Kerry John Brassil, Cathaoirleach of Kerry County Council 

Minute’s Silence. 

Music Piper

Close – Guests adjourn to Pavilion for annual O’Connell Lecture, followed by Tea/Refreshments. 

Lecture :

“The relationship between Daniel O’ Connell and the Duke of Wellington  delivered by :Minister Jimmy Deenihan, T.D.

Daniel O’Connell – The Liberator. 

Not only was Daniel O’Connell, a son of an ancient Kerry family, a noted barrister, a former Lord Mayor of Dublin; he was the foremost constitutional parliamentarian of his age. His mass peaceful mobilisation of the Irish people into the parliamentary process, resulting in Catholic Emancipation, was a template followed by many in later years. Not only was he a Liberator to his own people , he was a leading figure in the development of democracy and human rights in Europe and it is appropriate that this commemoration takes place on Europe Day. His commitment to the democratic process was best explained when in The Nation newspaper on the 18th November 1843 he wrote:

“The principle of my political life …. is, that all ameliorations and improvements in political institutions can be obtained by persevering in a perfectly peaceable and legal course, and cannot be obtained by forcible means, or if they could be got by forcible means, such means create more evils than they cure, and leave the country worse than when they found it”

While time may have distanced us from the impact he had on his age, his importance can be judged from those whom he influenced.  William Gladstone for instance described him as “the greatest popular leader the world has ever seen.” Balzac said “I would like to have met three men only in this century: Napoleon, , Cuvier and O’Connell.” These few words testify in their fashion to the extraordinary impact left by O’Connell on European thought. William Grenville wrote that ” history will speak of him as one of the most remarkable men who ever lived.” Frederick Douglas wrote that “No transatlantic statesman bore a testimony more marked and telling against the curse of slavery than did Daniel O’Connell”.

However perhaps the most eloquent comment on his life came from an obsure Gaelic Poet, Seamus Mac Cuirtin from Clare who when hearing of O’Connell’s death wrote: 

Ó Conaill cáidh an flaith gan bhéim

Ad startha fíor do fuair árd réim

Fíraon Fodhla bhuaigh gach clú

Gan chréacht gan chosgar, gan fuiliú.

 

The gentle O’Connell, the peerless leader,

Who achieved the highest renown,

A good man of Ireland who won every honour

Without a wound, without destruction, without spilling blood.


                                                                        O’Connell and Wellington           

Daniel O’Connell and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, are among the most famous Irish figures of the 19th Century and both left remarkable legacies.  They were from very different backgrounds, Wellington from the Protestant Anglo-Irish Ascendancy and O’Connell from the dispossessed Catholic Gaelic nobility.  Despite this they came face to face with each other in dealing with big political issues of their time, through the remarkable lives that they led.

Wellington rose to prominence on the battlefields of Europe, most notably through his victory at Waterloo, and went on to a long political career at Westminster.  O’Connell fought on the political battlefields of Ireland, where he worked for Catholic and Irish rights and internationally became one of the founding fathers of the Christian Democratic movement and a tireless anti-slavery advocate.

As O’Connell pushed the issue of Catholic Emancipation in Westminster and at home, Wellington responded.  Although ostensibly anti-Catholic, he had long been considering how Catholic claims might be met.  Now, as Prime Minister, Wellington knew what needed to be done.  There can be little doubt that Wellington’s knowledge of Ireland played a part in ensuring Catholic Emancipation, with O’Connell ever present and pushing. Publicly there was little sign of common ground between the two men, particularly when it came to the question of the Repeal of the Union, but at times there were objectives on which they could work together.

Each graced his field of endeavour with genius.  When their paths crossed on the issue of Catholic Emancipation, there was to be but one outcome. 

No wonder George IV commented Wellington is the King of England, O’Connell is King of Ireland, and I am only the Dean of Windsor

Posted in Article | Comments Off on Daniel O’Connell Commemoration

36th Ulster Division Review

Brian Kingston's photo.

May 2015 — March past Belfast City Hall of the 36th Ulster Division

On the outbreak of the 1st World War an Ulster Division was formed of Lord Kitchener’s New Army.  It was made up of members of the Ulster Volunteer Force who formed 13 additional battalions, with 3 existing regiments, The Royal Irish Fusiliers, The Royal Irish Rifles and The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, as well as The Young Citizen Volunteers. Training camps were built at Clandeboye, Ballykinlar, and Newtownards in the East, and Finner on the Donegal coast. The people of Ulster were given an opportunity to see their Division as a whole on 8th May 1915. A March Past took place through Belfast, the salute being taken by Major-General Sir Hugh McCalmont at the City Hall.  It was a fine day; the City was dressed in bunting, and the main streets were filled with a mass of spectators, who had come by special trains from all over the Province. The troops were to remain two more months longer in Ireland, but that was the real farewell of Ulster to the Division she had given so nobly to the nation.

An enormous loyalist parade snaked its way across Belfast on Saturday afternoon, in remembrance of the 36th Ulster Division.

Ranks of marchers dressed in period costume, including Great War-era nurses and soldiers bearing rifles, walked from north Belfast through the centre and then to the eastern side of the city.

Loyalist parade through Belfast

Loyalist parade through Belfast

Police were unable to provide an estimate for the day’s turnout when asked by the News Letter.

Originally up to 15,000 participants were expected to be involved, and Alan Hill – one of the day’s main organisers – said officers had informed him there could actually have been up to 18,000.

“It must have been up around what the Orange Order have on the Twelfth of July”, he said.

Among those on the march were Orangemen and Apprentice Boys from as far away as Londonderry, Fermanagh and possibly Co Cavan, with some representatives of Somme associations in Scotland and England also present.

The parade also featured ‘soldiers’ on horseback, an old-fashioned ambulance, and a Jeep-type vehicle with a Maxim-style machine gun mounted on the back of it.

Mr Hill, 55-year-old chairman of Lagan Village Somme Society, said the horses themselves appeared to have proved a hit with camera-toting tourists.

He told the News Letter the whole event had been nine months in the making.

It was staged in the name of the 36th Ulster Division Memorial Association.

“The date wasn’t chosen, as such – history dictated it,” he said.

The event marked the departure from Belfast – on May 8, 1915 – of the Ulster Division.

They went to England, where they completed their basic training before being shipped to the Somme.

A great many never saw Ulster again.

“It is just to remember the fallen, our forefathers, and the sacrifices they made,” said Mr Hill.

“I think it was nice; it was done in a very orderly, dignified fashion. People are remembering World War One now. It’s not just one side; it’s both sides. All the communities lost fathers, sons, brothers in those days.”

While he said it would “probably be right” to describe the parade as being a loyalist/unionist one, he stressed that any community groups or associations were welcome to attend.

The money for the costumes and vehicles had all been raised by groups or individuals themselves.

To give some scale of the cost involved, he said his own Ulster Division uniform alone had cost around about £250, with the boots costing another £75.

There were hundreds, if not thousands, wearing similar period dress on the streets.

Asked why they had opted for May 9 instead of 8, Mr Hill said: “If we had it on Friday, when people were trying to get to work and come home from work, it would have been total bedlam.”

He said the ‘no alcohol’ rule had been adhered to by those involved, and said “the only so-called restriction” placed on the parade was that only hymns should be played outside St Matthew’s chapel at the Short Strand.

 

Posted in Article | Comments Off on 36th Ulster Division Review

General Election 2015

A disappointing General Election for UKIP – but Nigel Farage’s party won’t go away

If David Cameron can’t get a deal on Europe, the Eurosceptics will look to Nigel Farage once more

Share
2K
Email
Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage Photo: Paul Grover
 By Matthew Goodwin

12:16PM BST 09 May 2015

There’s no doubting it: the general election went badly for Ukip. Thursday evening started with hopes of winning a handful of seats, but quickly dissolved into a night of despair. It is a familiar story in British politics – a tale about a revolt against the established political class that falls at the last hurdle. From one target seat to the next – places like Castle Point, Boston and Skegness, Rochester and Strood, and Thurrock – Ukip failed to overthrow Conservative incumbents. This was even true in Thanet South, where Nigel Farage lost by almost 3,000 votes. He resigned soon after. With Mark Reckless gone, only Douglas Carswell remains in the House of Commons – and even his majority was slashed by 9,000 votes.

This leaves Ukip faced with an uncomfortable truth. It has never won a single seat outside of by-elections and where there has been no mainstream defector. And worryingly for the party, some of its most talented campaigners – the people who pushed and kicked the organisation towards a basic level of professionalism – are already talking about moving on.

In the end, and while its share of the national vote held steady, Ukip looks to have been squeezed by three factors: English fears over the prospect of a Labour-SNP alliance, which seems to have had a particularly strong effect on Conservative voters who might otherwise have defected; a clear desire among most Ukip voters to have David Cameron rather than Ed Miliband in Number 10; and Britain’s first-past-the-post system, which as it has done for more than a century quietly urged voters to put their head before their heart.

As is routine in the aftermath of war, the defeated will be written off and denounced as a lost cause. But even Conservative Party strategists know that they will need to tread carefully. Ukip did not win seats but it has still delivered the best performance by a new independent party in post-war English politics. It won support from more than one in 10 voters, taking 12.6 per cent across the country and 14 per cent in England. It also seems to have a different impact in different regions; in the South West, Ukip appears to have attracted protesters, and played a role in the collapse of the Liberal Democrats; in southern England, it appears to have propped up Conservatives; in some parts of northern England, it has replaced the Tories as the second political force.

The irony is that Farage appears to be leaving just at the moment when two factors underline his continued relevance in British politics. And this is why I do not think that he will leave – that after a summer of rest Farage will be back. First, often without trying, Ukip finished second in more than 120 seats and has laid the foundation for something far more significant. It won at least 20 per cent in 45 seats. Many of these are in the financially struggling, left-behind Labour territory that my co-author Robet Ford and I pointed to in our book last year, Revolt on the Right. We were ridiculed at the time but just look at the results.

Ukip won at least 28 per cent in Labour bastions like Hartlepool in the North East, Rother Valley and Rotherham in Yorkshire, and Jon Cruddas’s seat of Dagenham and Rainham in outer London. It also took at least 18 per cent in the Welsh seats of Islwyn, Caerphilly and Merthyr Tydfil, where there are big elections next year. Entrenched in many of these areas is a sense of national loss, threat and abandonment – or what the French call “cultural insecurity”. It is a language that is wholly at odds with the vernacular of people like Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt, and Yvette Cooper. That the election crystallised Ukip’s ability to appeal to voters in Labour areas is underlined by analysis of the results by the University of Oxford’s Stephen Fisher: “The rise of Ukip that was expected to disproportionately hurt the Tories, in fact seems to have undermined the Labour performance more.” The message is clear: Ukip stalled Labour’s comeback. Its voters seem to have returned to Cameron in the south while giving Labour a kicking in the north.

A second reason why Farage is likely to return is that he is having to exit the stage at the moment when everything that he ever wanted is about to arrive. The referendum on Britain’s EU membership now looks certain. This would bring a new moment of opportunity for the Eurosceptic camp. Despite the scale of his victory, Cameron should be reminded that he is not a popular figure among Eurosceptics and social conservatives. That they gave him their vote at a general election does not mean that they will stay well-behaved. Cameron would be well advised to use the early months of his new term to reach out to his reluctant voters and backbench MPs to ease tension before the real battle begins. And when that does begin, my money is on Farage being back as a prominent figure in the landscape of British politics.

Matthew Goodwin is the co-author of Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Routledge) 

Ukip improved their performance across vast swathes of England while in Scotland the SNP were the clear winners as the biggest party swings in each constituency clearly shows.

 

General Election 2015..WikipediaNottingham North
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Labour Graham Allen 19,283 54.6 +6.0
Conservative Louise Burfitt-Dons 7,423 21.0 -3.8
UKIP Stephen Crosby 6,542 18.5 +14.6
Green Katharina Boettge 1,088 3.1 +3.1
Liberal Democrat Tony Sutton 847 2.4 -14.7
TUSC Cathy Meadows 160 0.5 +0.5
Majority 11,860 33.6  

 

Turnout 34,285 53.6 -0.6
Labour hold Swing
Posted in Article | Comments Off on General Election 2015

Debrett’s Election Etiquette

Posted in Article | Comments Off on Debrett’s Election Etiquette

Theresa Villiers holds onto Chipping Barnet seat

Theresa Villiers holds onto Chipping Barnet seat

Theresa Villiers holds onto Chipping Barnet seat

The Conservatives’ Theresa Villiers has held on to her seat in Chipping Barnet.

The incumbent MP, who has been in power since 2005, won with 25,759 votes.

Coming second was Labour’s Amy Trevethan, who won 18,103 votes.

After being announced the winner, she told the audience at Allianz Park: “It’s a tremendous honour. I’ll do everything I can to stand up for everyone.

“I’d like to thank the other candidates for running a constructive campaign. It’s a huge responsibility.

“I’ll pledge to campaign on all local issues, improve infrastructure, transport and champion the NHS.

“A Conservative government will support a brighter and better future for this country.”

Amy Trevethan thanked her fellow candidates for running a “fair” campaign while Green Party candidate AM Poppy, who won 2,501 votes, said she would not be standing again.

UKIP candidate Victor Kaye received 4,151 votes, Liberal Democrat Marisha Ray 2,381 and Mehdi Akhavan 118.

 

Posted in Article | Comments Off on Theresa Villiers holds onto Chipping Barnet seat

The Pretani Princess

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have left hospital after Kate gave birth to a baby girl.

• The royal baby weighed 8lbs 3oz. The Duke was present for the birth.

• The Duke of Cambridge brought Prince George to the hospital to meet his baby sister.

• The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall are said to be “delighted”.

Posted in Article | Comments Off on The Pretani Princess

The Trail of Tears

Today at the Ullans Academy, we discussed the visit of our friend Daphne Swilling to Northern Ireland and The Trail of Tears. Some years ago, on  Sammy Douglas and I, along with Deputy Lord Mayor Margaret Crooks, attended a Gathering in the King’s Hall when I spoke to a large audience of Native Americans and local people in Lakota Sioux. I wore my Indian headdress as a Wisdom Keeper of the Sioux nation.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Trail of Tears commonly refers to a series of forced relocations of Native American nations in the United States following the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The removal included members of the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, some of whom chose not to assimilate with American society, from their ancestral homelands in the southeastern U.S. to an area west of the Mississippi River that had been designated as Indian Territory. Some Native Americans who chose to stay and assimilate were allowed to become citizens in their states and of the U.S.[1] The phrase “Trail of Tears” originated from a description of the removal of the Choctaw Nation in 1831.[2] Many Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while going on the route to their destinations, many died, around 2,000-6,000 of the 16,543 relocated Cherokee.[3][4][5] European Americans and African American freedmen and slaves also participated in the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee, Creek, and Seminole relocations.[6]

Rationale for relocation

In 1830, a group of Native Americans collectively referred to as the Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee, and Seminole, were living as autonomous nations in what would be later called the American Deep South. The process of cultural transformation, as proposed by George Washington and Henry Knox, was gaining momentum, especially among the Cherokee and Choctaw.[7] The U.S. federal government had been pressured to remove the Native Americans from the Southeast by many white settlers, some of whom encroached on Indian lands while others wanted more land made available to white settlers. Andrew Jackson helped gain Congressional passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the government to extinguish Native American title to lands in the Southeast. In 1831, the Choctaw became the first Nation to be removed, and their removal served as the model for all future relocations. After two wars, many Seminoles were removed in 1832. The Creek removal followed in 1834, the Chickasaw in 1837, and lastly the Cherokee in 1838.[8] Many Native Americans remained in their ancestral homelands; some Choctaw are found in Mississippi, Creek in Alabama and Florida, Cherokee in North Carolina, and Seminole in Florida; a small group had moved to the Everglades and were never defeated by the U.S. A limited number of non-native Americans, including African Americans, usually as slaves; some as spouses, also accompanied the Native American nations on the trek westward.[8] By 1837, 46,000 Native Americans from the southeastern states had been removed from their homelands, thereby opening 25 million acres (100,000 km2) for predominantly white settlement.[8] Prior to 1830, the fixed boundaries of these autonomous tribal nations, comprising large areas of the United States, were subject to continual cession and annexation, in part due to pressure from squatters and the threat of military force in the newly declared U.S. territories—federally administered regions whose boundaries supervened upon the Native treaty claims. As these territories became U.S. states, state governments sought to dissolve the boundaries of the Indian nations within their borders, which were independent of state jurisdiction, and to expropriate the land therein. These pressures were exacerbated by U.S. population growth and the expansion of slavery in the South, with the rapid development of cotton cultivation in the uplands following the invention of the cotton gin.[9] The removal, conducted under President Andrew Jackson, followed the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The act provided the president with powers to exchange land with Native tribes and provide infrastructural improvements on the existing lands. The law also gave the president power to pay for transportation costs to the West, should tribes choose to relocate. The law did not, however, provide the president with power to force tribes West against the will of the tribe and without treaty.[10] In the few years following the Act, the Cherokee brought forth lawsuits. Some of these cases reached the Supreme Court, the most influential being Worcester v. Georgia. Samuel Worcester and other non-Native Americans were convicted by Georgia law for residing in Indian territory in the state of Georgia without a license. Worcester was sentenced to prison for four years, and appealed the ruling, arguing that this sentence violated treaties made between Indian Nations and the United States Federal Government. The Court ruled in Worcester’s favor, declaring the Cherokee Nation was its own establishment and was therefore required to adhere only to Cherokee law, not Georgia law. Ultimately, Indian land was free from the law of individual states. Chief Justice Marshall argued, “The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States.”[11][12] Andrew Jackson did not, however, adhere to the Supreme Court mandate, pointing out that because the Court had no means of enforcing their mandate, the President had power to do as he chooses. Even congressmen Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams, who supported Georgia’s initiative to place state laws on Indian Territory, were outraged by Jackson’s apparent disobedience and self-believed superiority over the federal government. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote an account of Cherokee assimilation into the American culture, declaring his support of the Worcester[13] Jackson chose to continue with Indian removal, granting Georgia power to force Native Americans off Indian land. The Treaty of Echota was signed on May 23, 1836, which granted American Indians two years to move off their land before forced removal. Few Indians left. Keeping with their promises, the U.S. government began moving American Indians west in May of 1838.[14] The Cherokee were remanded in camps east of the Mississippi River. In November, the Cherokee were broken into groups of around 1,000 each and began the journey west. They endured heavy rains and snow, and freezing temperatures. On their way westward, the Cherokee were joined by the other Native Nations, including the Creek, the Choctaw, the Muscogee, and the Seminole. When the Cherokee negotiated the Treaty of New Echota, they lost all their land east of the Mississippi and received $5 million from the federal government. Many Cherokee felt betrayed for accepting the money, with over 16,000 of their people signing a petition to prevent the passage of the treaty. By the end of the decade in 1840 tens of thousands of Cherokee and Native Americans were driven off their land east of the Mississippi River. Oklahoma was the new home for the Cherokee which was promised by the federal government to last for an eternity, but that never happened. When Oklahoma became an official state of the United States in the first decade of the 20th century, Indian land there became lost forever and the Cherokee were then again forced to move farther westward. The Cherokee along with a number of other tribes such as the Choctaws and Seminoles lost their land through the Indian Removal act of 1830. One Choctaw leader portrayed the Trail of Tears as “A Trail of Tears and Deaths”, the devastation of this event nearly wiped the Native American population of the southeastern United States out of their home land.[15]

Legal background.

Map of United States Indian Removal, 1830-1835. Oklahoma is depicted in light yellow-green.

The territorial boundaries claimed as sovereign and controlled by the Native American nations living in what were then known as the Indian Territories—the portion of the early United States west of the Mississippi River not yet claimed or allotted to become Oklahoma—were fixed and determined by national treaties with the United States Federal government. These recognized the tribal governments as dependent but internally sovereign, or autonomous nations under the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government. While retaining their tribal governance, which included a constitution or official council in tribes such as the Iroquois and Cherokee, many portions of the southeastern Native American nations had become partially or completely economically integrated into the economy of the region. This included the plantation economy in states such as Georgia, and the possession of slaves. These slaves were also forcibly relocated during the process of removal.[9] A similar process had occurred earlier in the territories controlled by the Confederacy of the Six Nations in what is now upstate New York prior to the British invasion and subsequent U.S. annexation of the Iroquois nation. Under the history of U.S. treaty law, the territorial boundaries claimed by Federally recognized tribes received the same status under which the Southeastern tribal claims were recognized; until the following establishment of reservations of land, determined by the Federal government, which were ceded to the remaining tribes by de jure treaty, in a process that often entailed forced relocation. The establishment of the Indian Territory and the extinguishment of Native American land claims east of the Mississippi anticipated the establishment of the U.S. Indian reservation system. It was imposed on remaining Indian lands later in the 19th century. The statutory argument for Native American sovereignty persisted until the Supreme Court ruled in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), that (e.g.) the Cherokee were not a sovereign and independent nation, and therefore not entitled to a hearing before the court. However, in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the court re-established limited internal sovereignty under the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government, in a ruling that both opposed the subsequent forced relocation and set the basis for modern U.S. case law. While the latter ruling was famously defied by Jackson,[16] the actions of the Jackson administration were not isolated because state and federal officials had violated treaties without consequence, often attributed to military exigency, as the members of individual Native American nations were not automatically United States citizens and were rarely given standing in any U.S. court. Jackson’s involvement in what became known as the Trail of Tears cannot be ignored. In a speech regarding the removal of Native Americans, Jackson said, “It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.” According to Jackson, the move would be nothing but beneficial for all parties. His point of view garnered support from many Americans, many of whom would benefit economically from the removal. This was compounded by the fact that while citizenship tests existed for Native Americans living in newly annexed areas before and after forced relocation, individual U.S. states did not recognize tribal land claims, only individual title under State law, and distinguished between the rights of white and non-white citizens, who often had limited standing in court; and Indian removal was carried out under U.S. military jurisdiction, often by state militias. As a result, individual Native Americans who could prove U.S. citizenship were nevertheless displaced from newly annexed areas.[9] The military actions and subsequent treaties enacted by the Jackson and Van Buren administrations pursuant to the 1830 law, which Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett had unsuccessfully voted against,[17]are widely considered to have directly caused the expulsion or death of a substantial part of the Native Americans then living in the southeastern United States.

Choctaw removal

In 1832 a young 22-year-old Harkins wrote the Farewell Letter to the American People.

The Choctaw nation occupied large portions of what are now the U.S. states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. After a series of treaties starting in 1801, the Choctaw nation was reduced to 11,000,000 acres (45,000 km2). The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek ceded the remaining country to the United States and was ratified in early 1831. The removals were only agreed to after a provision in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek allowed some Choctaw to remain. George W. Harkinswould write to the citizens of the United States before the removals were to commence:

It is with considerable diffidence that I attempt to address the American people, knowing and feeling sensibly my incompetency; and believing that your highly and well improved minds would not be well entertained by the address of a Choctaw. But having determined to emigrate west of the Mississippi river this fall, I have thought proper in bidding you farewell to make a few remarks expressive of my views, and the feelings that actuate me on the subject of our removal … We as Choctaws rather chose to suffer and be free, than live under the degrading influence of laws, which our voice could not be heard in their formation.

— George W. Harkins, George W. Harkins to the American People[18]

United States Secretary of War Lewis Cass appointed George Gaines to manage the removals. Gaines decided to remove Choctaws in three phases starting in 1831 and ending in 1833. The first was to begin on November 1, 1831 with groups meeting at Memphis and Vicksburg. A harsh winter would batter the emigrants with flash floods, sleet, and snow. Initially the Choctaws were to be transported by wagon but floods halted them. With food running out, the residents of Vicksburg and Memphis were concerned. Five steamboats (the Walter Scott, the Brandywine, the Reindeer, the Talma, and the Cleopatra) would ferry Choctaws to their river-based destinations. The Memphis group traveled up the Arkansas for about 60 miles (100 km) to Arkansas Post. There the temperature stayed below freezing for almost a week with the rivers clogged with ice, so there could be no travel for weeks. Food rationing consisted of a handful of boiled corn, one turnip, and two cups of heated water per day. Forty government wagons were sent to Arkansas Post to transport them to Little Rock. When they reached Little Rock, a Choctaw chief referred to their trek as a “trail of tears and death.”[19]The Vicksburg group was led by an incompetent guide and was lost in the Lake Providence swamps.

Alexis de Tocqueville, French political thinker and historian

Alexis de Tocqueville, the French philosopher, witnessed the Choctaw removals while in Memphis, Tennesseein 1831,

In the whole scene there was an air of ruin and destruction, something which betrayed a final and irrevocable adieu; one couldn’t watch without feeling one’s heart wrung. The Indians were tranquil, but sombre and taciturn. There was one who could speak English and of whom I asked why the Chactas were leaving their country. “To be free,” he answered, could never get any other reason out of him. We … watch the expulsion … of one of the most celebrated and ancient American peoples.

—Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America[20]

Nearly 17,000 Choctaws made the move to what would be called Indian Territory and then later Oklahoma.[21] About 2,500–6,000 died along the trail of tears. Approximately 5,000–6,000 Choctaws remained in Mississippi in 1831 after the initial removal efforts.[22][23] The Choctaws who chose to remain in newly formed Mississippi were subject to legal conflict, harassment, and intimidation. The Choctaws “have had our habitations torn down and burned, our fences destroyed, cattle turned into our fields and we ourselves have been scourged, manacled, fettered and otherwise personally abused, until by such treatment some of our best men have died.”[23] The Choctaws in Mississippi were later reformed as the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and the removed Choctaws became the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. The Choctaws were the first to sign a removal treaty presented by the federal government. President Andrew Jackson wanted strong negotiations with the Choctaws in Mississippi, and the Choctaws seemed much more cooperative than Andrew Jackson had imagined. When commissioners and Choctaws came to negotiation agreements it was said the United States would bear the expense of moving their homes and that they had to be removed within two and a half years of the signed treaty.[24]

Seminole resistance

Main article: Seminole Wars

The U.S. acquired Florida from Spain via the Adams–Onís Treaty and took possession in 1821. In 1832 the Seminoles were called to a meeting at Payne’s Landing on the Ocklawaha River. The treaty negotiated called for the Seminoles to move west, if the land were found to be suitable. They were to be settled on the Creek reservation and become part of the Creek tribe, who considered them deserters; some of the Seminoles had been derived from Creek bands but also from other tribes. Those among the tribe who once were members of Creek bands did not wish to move west to where they were certain that they would meet death for leaving the main band of Creek Indians. The delegation of seven chiefs who were to inspect the new reservation did not leave Florida until October 1832. After touring the area for several months and conferring with the Creeks who had already settled there, the seven chiefs signed a statement on March 28, 1833 that the new land was acceptable. Upon their return to Florida, however, most of the chiefs renounced the statement, claiming that they had not signed it, or that they had been forced to sign it, and in any case, that they did not have the power to decide for all the tribes and bands that resided on the reservation. The villages in the area of the Apalachicola River were more easily persuaded, however, and went west in 1834.[25] On December 28, 1835 a group of Seminoles and blacks ambushed a U.S. Army company marching from Fort Brooke in Tampa to Fort King in Ocala, killing all but three of the 110 army troops. This came to be known as the Dade Massacre.

Seminole warrior Tuko-see-mathla, 1834

As the realization that the Seminoles would resist relocation sank in, Florida began preparing for war. The St. Augustine Militia asked the War Department for the loan of 500 muskets. Five hundred volunteers were mobilized under Brig. Gen. Richard K. Call. Indian war parties raided farms and settlements, and families fled to forts, large towns, or out of the territory altogether. A war party led by Osceola captured a Florida militia supply train, killing eight of its guards and wounding six others. Most of the goods taken were recovered by the militia in another fight a few days later. Sugar plantations along the Atlantic coast south of St. Augustine were destroyed, with many of the slaves on the plantations joining the Seminoles.[26] Other warchiefs such as Halleck Tustenuggee, Jumper, and Black Seminoles Abraham and John Horse continued the Seminole resistance against the army. The war ended, after a full decade of fighting, in 1842. The U.S. government is estimated to have spent about $20,000,000 on the war, at the time an astronomical sum, and equal to $488,758,621 today. Many Indians were forcibly exiled to Creek lands west of the Mississippi; others retreated into the Everglades. In the end, the government gave up trying to subjugate the Seminole in their Everglades redoubts and left fewer than 100 Seminoles in peace. However, other scholars state that at least several hundred Seminoles remained in the Everglades after the Seminole Wars.[27][28][29] As a result of the Seminole Wars, the surviving Seminole band of the Everglades claims to be the only Federally recognized tribe which never relinquished sovereignty or signed a peace treaty with the United States. In general the American people tended to view the Indian resistance as unwarranted. In an article published by the Virginia Enquirer on January 26, 1836 called the “Hostilities of the Seminoles” that assigned all the blame for the violence that came from the Seminole’s resistance to the Seminoles themselves. The article accuses the Indians of not staying true to their word—the promises they supposedly made in the treaties and negotiations from the Indian Removal Act.[30]

Creek dissolution

Main article: Muskogee

Selocta (or Shelocta) was a Muscogee chief who appealed to Andrew Jackson to reduce the demands for Creek lands at the signing of the Treaty of Fort Jackson

After the War of 1812, some Muscogee leaders such as William McIntosh signed treaties that ceded more land to Georgia. The 1814 signing of the Treaty of Fort Jackson signaled the end for the Creek Nation and for all Indians in the South.[31] Friendly Creek leaders, like Selocta and Big Warrior, addressed Sharp Knife (the Indian nickname for Andrew Jackson) and reminded him that they keep the peace. Nevertheless, Jackson retorted that they did not “cut (Tecumseh‘s) throat” when they had the chance, so they must now cede Creek lands. Jackson also ignored Article 9 of the Treaty of Ghentthat restored sovereignty to Indians and their nations.

Jackson opened this first peace session by faintly acknowledging the help of the friendly Creeks. That done, he turned to the Red Sticks and admonished them for listening to evil counsel. For their crime, he said, the entire Creek Nation must pay. He demanded the equivalent of all expenses incurred by the United States in prosecuting the war, which by his calculation came to 23,000,000 acres (93,000 km2) of land. – Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson[31]

Eventually, the Creek Confederacy enacted a law that made further land cessions a capital offense. Nevertheless, on February 12, 1825, McIntosh and other chiefs signed the Treaty of Indian Springs, which gave up most of the remaining Creek lands in Georgia.[32] After the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty, McIntosh was assassinated on May 13, 1825, by Creeks led by Menawa. The Creek National Council, led by Opothle Yohola, protested to the United States that the Treaty of Indian Springs was fraudulent. President John Quincy Adams was sympathetic, and eventually the treaty was nullified in a new agreement, the Treaty of Washington (1826).[33] The historian R. Douglas Hurt wrote: “The Creeks had accomplished what no Indian nation had ever done or would do again — achieve the annulment of a ratified treaty.”[34] However, Governor Troup of Georgia ignored the new treaty and began to forcibly remove the Indians under the terms of the earlier treaty. At first, President Adams attempted to intervene with federal troops, but Troup called out the militia, and Adams, fearful of a civil war, conceded. As he explained to his intimates, “The Indians are not worth going to war over.” Although the Creeks had been forced from Georgia, with many Lower Creeks moving to the Indian Territory, there were still about 20,000 Upper Creeks living in Alabama. However, the state moved to abolish tribal governments and extend state laws over the Creeks. Opothle Yohola appealed to the administration of President Andrew Jackson for protection from Alabama; when none was forthcoming, the Treaty of Cusseta was signed on March 24, 1832, which divided up Creek lands into individual allotments.[35] Creeks could either sell their allotments and receive funds to remove to the west, or stay in Alabama and submit to state laws. Land speculators and squatters began to defraud Creeks out of their allotments, and violence broke out, leading to the so-called “Creek War of 1836“. Secretary of War Lewis Cass dispatched General Winfield Scott to end the violence by forcibly removing the Creeks to the Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. With the Indian Removal Act of 1830 it continued into 1835 and after as in 1836 over 15,000 Creeks were driven from their land for the last time. 3,500 of those 15,000 creeks did not survive the trip to Oklahoma where they eventually settled.[15]

Chickasaw monetary removal

Historic Marker in Marion, Arkansas, for the Trail of Tears

Fragment of the Trail of Tears still intact at Village Creek State Park, Arkansas (2010)

Main article: Chickasaw

Unlike other tribes who exchanged land grants, the Chickasaw received financial compensation from the United States for their lands east of the Mississippi River. In 1836, the Chickasaws had reached an agreement to purchase land from the previously removed Choctaws after a bitter five-year debate. They paid the Choctaws $530,000 (equal to $11,382,152 today) for the westernmost part of the Choctaw land. The first group of Chickasaws moved in 1837 and was led by John M. Millard. The Chickasaws gathered at Memphis on July 4, 1837, with all of their assets—belongings, livestock, and slaves. Once across the Mississippi River, they followed routes previously established by the Choctaws and the Creeks. Once in Indian Territory, the Chickasaws merged with the Choctaw nation.

Cherokee forced relocation

Main article: Cherokee removal

Cherokee Principal Chief John Ross. Photographed before his death in 1866

In 1838, the Cherokee people were forcibly removed from their lands in the Southeastern United States to the Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) in the Western United States. In the same year of 1838 only about 2,000 Cherokee had left their homes in Georgia. It took Winfield Scott and his army to forcibly kick people out of their homes and home land, which was an order at the time by President Martin Van Buren,[15] which resulted in the deaths of approximately 4,000 Cherokees.[36] In the Cherokee language, the event is called Nu na da ul tsun yi—“the Place Where They Cried”. The Cherokee Trail of Tears resulted from the enforcement of the Treaty of New Echota, an agreement signed under the provisions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which exchanged Native American land in the East for lands west of the Mississippi River, but which was never accepted by the elected tribal leadership or a majority of the Cherokee people. Tensions between Georgia and the Cherokee Nation were brought to a crisis by the discovery of gold near Dahlonega, Georgia, in 1829, resulting in the Georgia Gold Rush, the second gold rush in U.S. history. Hopeful gold speculators began trespassing on Cherokee lands, and pressure began to mount on the Georgia government to fulfill the promises of the Compact of 1802. When Georgia moved to extend state laws over the Cherokee lands in 1830, the matter went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Marshall court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was not a sovereign and independent nation, and therefore refused to hear the case. However, in Worcester v. Georgia(1832), the Court ruled that Georgia could not impose laws in Cherokee territory, since only the national government — not state governments — had authority in Indian affairs.

Elizabeth “Betsy” Brown Stephens (1903), a Cherokee Indian who walked the Trail of Tears in 1838

John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! … Build a fire under them. When it gets hot enough, they’ll go.

—Andrew Jackson, 1832. Quoted in The Trail of Tears Across Missouri.[16]

Jackson had no desire to use the power of the national government to protect the Cherokees from Georgia, since he was already entangled with states’ rights issues in what became known as the nullification crisis. With the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the U.S. Congress had given Jackson authority to negotiate removal treaties, exchanging Indian land in the East for land west of the Mississippi River. Jackson used the dispute with Georgia to put pressure on the Cherokees to sign a removal treaty.[37] Nevertheless, the treaty, passed by Congress by a single vote, and signed into law by President Andrew Jackson, was imposed by his successor President Martin Van Buren who allowed Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama an armed force of 7,000 made up of militia, regular army, and volunteers under General Winfield Scott to round up about 13,000 Cherokees into concentration camps at the U.S. Indian Agency near Cleveland, Tennessee before being sent to the West. Most of the deaths occurred from disease, starvation and cold in these camps. Their homes were burned and their property destroyed and plundered. Farms belonging to the Cherokees for generations were won by white settlers in a lottery. After the initial roundup, the U.S. military still oversaw the emigration until they met the forced destination.[38] Private John G. Burnett later wrote, “Future generations will read and condemn the act and I do hope posterity will remember that private soldiers like myself, and like the four Cherokees who were forced by General Scott to shoot an Indian Chief and his children, had to execute the orders of our superiors. We had no choice in the matter.”[39]

Portrait of Marcia Pascal, a young Cherokee woman. (1880)

I fought through the War Between the States and have seen many men shot, but the Cherokee Removal was the cruelest work I ever knew.

—Georgia soldier who participated in the removal[40]

In the winter of 1838 the Cherokee began the 1,000-mile (1,600 km) march with scant clothing and most on foot without shoes or moccasins. The march began in Red Clay, Tennessee, the location of the last Eastern capital of the Cherokee Nation. Because of the diseases, the Native Americans (colloquially known as Indians) were not allowed to go into any towns or villages along the way; many times this meant traveling much farther to go around them.[41] After crossing Tennessee and Kentucky, they arrived at the Ohio River across from Golconda in southern Illinois about the 3rd of December 1838. Here the starving Indians were charged a dollar a head (equal to $22.15 today) to cross the river on “Berry’s Ferry” which typically charged twelve cents, equal to $2.66 today. They were not allowed passage until the ferry had serviced all others wishing to cross and were forced to take shelter under “Mantle Rock,” a shelter bluff on the Kentucky side, until “Berry had nothing better to do”. Many died huddled together at Mantle Rock waiting to cross. Several Cherokee were murdered by locals. The killers filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Government through the courthouse in Vienna, suing the government for $35 a head (equal to $775.14 today) to bury the murdered Cherokee.[41] As they crossed southern Illinois, on December 26, Martin Davis, Commissary Agent for Moses Daniel’s detachment, wrote: “There is the coldest weather in Illinois I ever experienced anywhere. The streams are all frozen over something like 8 or 12 inches [20 or 30 cm] thick. We are compelled to cut through the ice to get water for ourselves and animals. It snows here every two or three days at the fartherest. We are now camped in Mississippi [River] swamp 4 miles (6 km) from the river, and there is no possible chance of crossing the river for the numerous quantity of ice that comes floating down the river every day. We have only traveled 65 miles (105 km) on the last month, including the time spent at this place, which has been about three weeks. It is unknown when we shall cross the river….”[42]

A Trail of Tears map of Southern Illinois from the USDA – US Forest Service

It eventually took almost three months to cross the 60 miles on land between the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.[43] The trek through southern Illinois is where the Cherokee suffered most of their deaths. However a few years before forced removal, some Cherokee who opted to leave their homes voluntarily chose a water-based route through the Tennessee, Ohio and Mississippi rivers. It took only 21 days, but the Cherokee who were forcibly relocated were weary of water travel.[44] Removed Cherokees initially settled near Tahlequah, Oklahoma. When signing the Treaty of New Echota in 1835 Major Ridge said “I have signed my death warrant.” The resulting political turmoil led to the killings of Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot; of the leaders of the Treaty Party, only Stand Watie escaped death.[45][46][47] The population of the Cherokee Nation eventually rebounded, and today the Cherokees are the largest American Indian group in the United States.[48] There were some exceptions to removal. Perhaps 100 Cherokees evaded the U.S. soldiers and lived off the land in Georgia and other states. Those Cherokees who lived on private, individually owned lands (rather than communally owned tribal land) were not subject to removal. In North Carolina, about 400 Cherokees, known as the Oconaluftee Cherokee, lived on land in the Great Smoky Mountains owned by a white man named William Holland Thomas (who had been adopted by Cherokees as a boy), and were thus not subject to removal. Added to this were some 200 Cherokee from the Nantahala area allowed to stay in the Qualla Boundary after assisting the U.S. Army in hunting down and capturing the family of the old prophet, Tsali. (Tsali faced a firing squad.) These North Carolina Cherokees became the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation.

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

Map of National Historic trails

In 1987, about 2,200 miles (3,500 km) of trails were authorized by Federal law to mark the removal of 17 detachments of the Cherokee people.[49] Called the “Trail of Tears National Historic Trail,” it traverses portions of nine states and includes land and water routes.[50]

Trail of Tears outdoor historical drama, Unto These Hills

A historical drama based on the Trail of Tears, Unto These Hills, has sold over five million tickets for its performances since 1950, both touring and at the outdoor Mountainside Theater of the Cherokee Historical Association in Cherokee, North Carolina.[51][52]

Commemorative medallion

Cherokee artist Troy Anderson was commissioned to design the Cherokee Trail of Tears Sesquicentennial Commemorative Medallion. The falling-tear medallion shows a seven-pointed star, the symbol of the seven clans of the Cherokees.[53]

Terminology of forced relocation

The latter forced relocations have sometimes been referred to as “death marches“, in particular with reference to the Cherokee march across the Midwest in 1838, which occurred on a predominantly land route.[9] Tribesmen who had the means initially provided for their own removal. Contingents that were led by conductors from the U.S. Army included those led by Edward Deas, who was claimed to be a sympathizer for the Cherokee plight.[citation needed] The largest death toll from the Cherokee forced relocation comes from the period after the May 23, 1838 deadline. This was at the point when the remaining Cherokee were rounded into camps and pressed into oversized detachments, often over 700 in size (larger than the populations of Little Rock or Memphis at that time). Communicable diseases spread quickly through these closely quartered groups, killing many. These contingents were among the last to move, but following the same routes the others had taken; the areas they were going through had been depleted of supplies due to the vast numbers that had gone before them. The marchers were subject to extortion and violence along the route. In addition, these final contingents were forced to set out during the hottest and coldest months of the year, killing many. Exposure to the elements, disease and starvation, harassment by local frontiersmen, and insufficient rations similarly killed up to one-third of the Choctaw and other nations on the march.[22] There exists some debate among historians and the affected tribes as to whether the term “Trail of Tears” should be used to refer to the entire history of forced relocations from the United States east of the Mississippi into Indian Territory (as was the stated U.S. policy), or to the Five Tribesdescribed above, to the route of the land march specifically, or to specific marches in which the remaining holdouts from each area were rounded up.

See also

Posted in Article | Comments Off on The Trail of Tears

Royal York LOL 145 Annual (Ladies Night) Dinner 2015

Royal York is a very old Lodge having been formed from the ranks of the York Fencible Regiment in 1796. The Regiment was stationed in Ulster to protect Britain from French invasion. During the ‘98 uprising the York Fencibles played a major role. In June 1798 the Regiment took part in the Battle of Saintfield and lost 56 officers and men [out of a total strength of 270]. The Regiment was disbanded in 1802 when some of it’s members joined the newly formed Rifle Brigade and fought with Wellington against Napoleon’s armies in Spain, France, and at Waterloo. However the Lodge remained in existence and the Lodge warrant (signed by the future King of Hanover, hence ‘Royal’) made its way back to Belfast where LOL145 has met ever since.

York has always been very active in the support of Orangeism and the ideals of the Glorious Revolution. Over the years the Lodge has supplied a number of Orange leaders in Ulster, Ireland and worldwide. The Lodge has also sponsored two successful daughter Lodges. In recent years the lodge has sought to develop and expand the cultural and community side of Orangeism. The Lodge has always been very proud of its origin in the York Fencibles. The Lodge has explored the history of the 1798 in Ulster and especially the Battle of Saintfield. The Lodge was the driving force in the creation of the York Island Arts and Heritage Association [York Island is a small area of ground just outside Saintfield where the dead of the York Fencible Regiment are mainly buried]. The Association has gone from strength to strength and set up a film company, which produced a much-acclaimed film about the Battle of Saintfield, “Brethren in Arms”. Many Lodge members took part in the film and wore the red and gold uniform of their brothers who originally created LOL 145. It has also produced an original play about the 1798 entitled “Who dares speak”.

Royal York was the first private Lodge in recent times to have held a meeting and dinner in the Palace of Westminster (by invitation of Lodge members Lord Rogan and Lord Laird). This historic event was held to mark the Queen’s Golden Jubilee and was attended by many prominent guests including the Grand Masters of England and Scotland. York Lodge has been very active in support of the County Grand Lodge of Belfast’s efforts to make the Twelfth of July parade even more attractive to the community generally and to tourists in particular with the ‘Orangefest’ initiative. The Lodge has had a float or similar attraction in the procession for the past six years. These included a large scale model of a seventeenth century emigrant ship, a horse drawn brake containing Lodge members in the uniform of the York Fencible Regiment, and a float displaying the talents of the only English Lambeg drumming Club “Luton and Bedford”, and a float celebrating the role of Orangemen in the Armed Services.

Posted in Article | Comments Off on Royal York LOL 145 Annual (Ladies Night) Dinner 2015