Talk:John Graham, 1st Viscount Dundee

Untitled
"He began his military career in the service of the French King, (Louis XIV), as many other Scots did over the centuries."

NB: Ambiguous - Louis XIV did not live for centuries.

"Dundee served in the French army for four years."

NB: He was not called "Dundee" at this time.

An only Victory
The legend of Dundee has done much to obscure the details of his career. Properly speaking Killiekrankie was the only time he led an army to victory in independent command. Up to that point his military career had not been one of great distinction. By precipitate action, and ignorance of the terrain, he allowed his troop of dragoons to be badly cut up by ill-armed rebels at Drumclog. He performed no decisive role at Bothwell Bridge in the army commanded by Monmouth. In the early 1680s he was little more than a policeman, chasing desperate peasants around the countryside of Ayrshire and Galloway. Rcpaterson 02:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cultural references
Sir Walter Scott wrote a famous poem about him, which was parodied in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass". AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Graham, aka Bloody Clavers, is also a major figure in Scotts novel, "Old Mortality" which perhaps casts a rather too flattering light on him. 12.73.9.20 (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

neutrallity and treatment of covenanters
some one disputed the part about Dundee recommending lenient treatment of the convenanters, why? is that fact wrong? or is did the tagger think that the juxatpution of that fact with the mentioning of his nickname "Bluidy Clavers" suggests that it(the nickname) is unwarranted. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There exists ample evidence in Claverhouse's own Letters of his lenient treatment of Covenanters.

With reference to the neutrality and bias, I think it should be the responsibility of those who use the Bluidy Claverse epithet to provide contemporary documentation to prove that he was ever called that during his lifetime. I'll wager none exists!

Lenient, yes and supported by contemporary historic evidence.

Bluidy, no! The term only appears a long time after his death and is only used by those who assert the 'saintly Christian nature' of what were ostensibly bigoted zealots - the 17th Century Scottish Taliban.

--Deeuu (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

this issue of Claverhouse's treatment of covenanters is indicative of a wider pro-Jacobite bias in the article and an attempt to form rather then inform readers' opinions.

Why is 'historians' in inverted commas. Presbetyrian "historians", whether you like their conclusions or not, historians they were. Also why the "so called glorious revolution" why not simply the "assumption of the throne by William of Orange" or some other neutral term. Referring to "the so called" glorious revolution implies it was not 'glorious'. Also why no consideration of the evidence that Claverhouse merits his title, 'Bluidy Clavers'. Extra judicial execution certainly was a characteristic of Covenanter persecution under Claverhouse. Whether or not the title "Bluidy Clavers" was "unfair", whether or not critics of Claverhouse were "historians" or not and whether or not the revolution was "glorious" are matters for the reader not the author to judge after a rounded consideration of the evidence.

It is extraordinary that no consideration is given at any point to viewpoints critical of Claverhouse.This surely should be a piece of history not a piece of Jacobite Hagiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.233.210 (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to say that to comply with WP:NPOV neither a Jacobite/Tory or Presbyterian/Williamite perspective should be adopted by the article, although both should be explained. Probably the main issue is a lack of reliable sources to support the significant points.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 10:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

The 'issue of Claverhouse's treatment of covenanters' is actually taken from historical record. If you choose to infer pro-Jacobite bias - none is meant or intended - maybe you should find reliable historical evidence to the contrary.

The original article contained 'statements' supported by McFeeters who can in no way be described as a historian. The "so called Glorious Revolution" was not simply "assumption of the throne by William of Orange". Far more emotive, but factually correct "Dutch Invasion" was not used because the event has widely been described as "the Glorious Revolution". How the invasion of sovereign Kingdoms by a foreign power can be claimed to be a "Revolution", or that the event was "Glorious" is almost beyond comprehension. The annexation of Austria in 1938 is a closer parallel.

"The History" has invariably been written by the victor - in this case the Williamite Dutch and their Hanoverian successors who were very adept at propaganda. This does not make it any more true. John Churchill (hero of Blenheim) is a case in point. Like Claverhouse, he held a Royal Commission. When the Dutch invaded Churchill deserted his post and 'went over to the enemy'. Yet history records him an English National hero. Claverhouse remained at his post, remained loyal to his commission, yet was branded a traitor and his name has been subsequently blackened by later 'historians'.

History must be contextualised. The best evidence currently available shows Claverhouse to have been anything but a tyrant. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he appears not to have indulged in committing atrocities. In fact the evidence suggests he continually urged restraint and tolerance. Many issues have been clouded by later Presbyterian propagandists who write of 'martyrdom' and 'saints'. If we accept that men at arms, committing cold blooded murder can be 'martyrs' and 'saints' then we need to consider how we view the modern day Taliban who claim precisely the same about their adherents. Like it or not, we must view the period from the perspective of the laws and social behaviour of the time. If we do this and apply known historically supportable facts, then there is no Jacobite Hagiography at all - merely historically supported facts. To hold a Royal Commission required the holder to obey their Sovereign, uphold the laws of the Kingdoms and defend both. Claverhouse did what his duty required him to do. There would appear to be no genuine evidence to the contrary.

Deeuu (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have misread my argument here. I am not arguing that Claverhouse should be treated like a tyrant, quite the reverse. The later part of your statement reads like an argument for bias "because it is true". What is much more important in a Wikipedia article is balance. To quote that section of the guidelines: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". The bit that follows on tone may also be important here.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 07:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems that way. I can see how you could construe my final paragraph reading 'like an argument for bias "because it is true"'. However, that is genuinely not my intention. I would contest that bias is a subjective element that can be applied. Although I would suggest that if bias appears to exist, it is maybe because an alternative viewpoint is expected, but not presented. Possibly because no properly authenticated alternative facts exist?

Much has been written about Claverhouse and the 'Glorious Revolution" that contains massive bias and untruth - little has been done to redress this imbalance, or more importantly provide a truthful, factual account. Maybe the article requires an additional section that deals with the Williamite and Presbyterian propaganda? It could include the "Bluidy Claverse myth" (I have yet to see an original contemporary source for this), the Wigtown Martyrs story (still widely told as a fact in some Scottish classrooms), 'John Brown martyr' and the good old 'silver bullet fable'. Please don't take this suggestion as me being flippant, I am definitely not.

Deeuu (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you have sen no contemporary evidence that Claverhouse was responsible for the death of Covenanters? I am very happy to provide it if necessary. There is within 100 yards of where I am sitting a gravestone naming a soldier under Claverhouse's command as responsible for the killing of a covenanter and within 15 miles there is one naming Claverhouse himself. Wheter the covenanters were saints and Martyrs or not (incidentally protestants hold with the sainthood of all beleivers so in their understanding the covenanters were saints, but thats by the by)is not relvant to questions about how Claverhouse prosecuted his campaign against them.

Do you not see how profound your bias is? You suggest a section on "Williamite and Presbytyrian Propoganda"and one on "The bluidy Clavers Myth". It is not for you as the author to tell the reader whether one interpritation or another is propoganda or myth.

Finally to suggest that the History was written by the Williamites is wrong. Whoever wrote the academic history, Jacobitism has always won the cultural battle. Tell me one popular book about a whig and I'll name five about the Jacobites, find one song about covenating and I'll find you 20 about the glorious 45. The Hanoverian propoganda machine obviously wasn't that succesful. Old Bonnie Dundee has had some pretty good propoganda himself (I could sing you a bit if you want). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.233.210 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

I said no historically sound evidence has been provided to support the alleged "atrocities of Claverhouse". If you have the evidence that you claim to, then yes, provide it. That is the whole point - getting to the truth - after all. Although it will have to be a little more substantial that some engraved stones. Claverhouse's own grave is wildly inaccurate about his age! And then - not withstanding the copious historical records of the day which include field reports, correspondence and papers of the Scottish Parliament - there is the small matter of Claverhouse's 'status' during the "Killing Time" itself.

During the "Killing Time" Claverhouse was very much out of favour with the Scottish Parliament. He had his judicial powers in Galloway removed. These were given over to Douglas. Hence Andrew Hislop was given over to Johnstone with an appeal for leniency NOT as is often misreported "murdered by Claverhouse". The "Killing Time" was perilous for Claverhouse himself if one reads the historical record. His powerful enemies would have loved any reason to further discredit and even punish him, if any had presented itself. Any of the "atrocities" that have later been ascribed to him would have allowed his enemies to bring about his ruin- yet this didn't happen - some would conclude that this is telling in itself?

Given that those who the historical records suggest were really responsible for the deaths - call them executions, murders, whatever you will - during the "Killing Time" were those who deserted their posts and joined William and his Catholic mercenary army soon after it invaded England. Is it any surprise that these 'martyrs monuments' - erected long after the events they speak of - but in all likelihood still during a time that these people held power in Edinburgh, don't name Douglas and others, but rather, they safely name their collective enemy Clavehouse - long dead and unable to defend his good name.

I refute that there is any "profound bias" as you put it. Clearly reading your final paragraph you don't do irony very well! I have read extensively from existing records; Parliamentary documents, Clavehouse's correspondence, the correspondence of others etc. and from this it seems fairly clear that the Williamites and the Presbyterians made extensive use of propaganda. Daniel Defoe, a known spy and liar figures large in some of this. Equally as I have pointed out above, 'gravestones' have been erected and clearly mislead or downright lie about events. Copious evidence exists to show that the Covenanters had a peculiar definition of murder and a martyrdom. This definition only seems to have applied to 'the Saints' and not to anyone else. For instance Archbishop Sharpe was not murdered, or a martyr specifically because he was not a Covenanter. You only have to read Wodrow or McFeeters to see clear evidence of Presbyterian propaganda. And, yes, as the author, if clear evidence of propaganda exist you need to explain and contextualise it surely?

As far as the 'academic history' goes, Thomas Babbington Macauley has been largely responsible for the inaccurate and lazy history that has barely been challenged subsequently. As for the cultural history, you cite a perfect example where you use monumental inscriptions to support your view. Your comments about Whigs and Jacobite popularity demonstrate how emotively people respond to the subject matter without ever looking at or challenging the whole issue with much academic rigour. My personal opinion is that Claverhouse was no more a Jacobite - in the sentimentalised, culturally cute sense of the word - than was Cameron of Lochiel. Both were Scots, first and foremost and had James VII predeceased Charles II - or any other permutation that would have provided a universally acceptable Scots Monarch - then he would have been equally loyal to them. At least that is what the actual history suggests!

My interest is the historical truth rather than culturally comfortable opinion. If you can add to this by providing real evidence I wholehearted welcome whatever you turn up.

Deeuu (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I am starting to think this is a little pointless, I will provide one example, Specifically the grave of Matthew McIlwriath in the churchyard at Colmonell. The text of which reads "‘I Matthew M’Ilwraith in Parish of Colmonell, By bloody Claverhouse I fell, Who did Command that I should die, For owning Covenanted presbytery. My Blood a Witness still doth stand, ‘Gainst all defections in this Land." The occurence of this event is supported by Shields who records "Item. the said Claverhouse Authorised his Troop to kill Matthew McKelwrath, without any Examination, in the Paroch of Camonel in Carrick, Anno 1685." (Shields, A Short Memorial, 35.)Whilst the current gravestone is a copy we know that it reproduces an inscription in place by 1730 at the latest.

Does that qualify as evidence that Claverhouse killed at least one covenanter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.233.210 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it "a little pointless"? The point surely is to discover the truth. To do this evidence is required. The fourth line of the monumental inscription says much doesn't it - "For owning Covenanted presbytery"? Now what could that mean in the context of the times?

As I mentioned before, Claverhouse was 'out of favour' during the Killing Time. Therefore, if he "authorised his Troop to kill Matthew McKelwrath, without any Examination" as Shields claims, he would have laid himself open to a variety of charges that his enemies - specifically his superior Colonel Douglas and the powerful Queensberry - would most certainly have pressed home to their advantage and this would have been documented. Likewise if no examination had taken place, surely the monument would not include the "For owning Covenanted presbytery" line, as it would not have been true?

The cases of John Brown, John Browning and Andrew Hislop provide us with clear historical evidence of the methods employed by Claverhouse. The case of Matthew McIlwraith is clearly inconsistent with this and therefore it raises some doubt whether Claverhouse was involved at all. As there is no date - sad given Shield's precision thirty years later in his 1715 "A true and faithful relation of the sufferings of ... mr. Alexander Shields, written with his own hand" - it makes it hard to conclude much. In the early part of the year Claverhouse was nowhere near Colmonell, later he was in Edinburgh and finally in London.

On balance the evidence would seem to suggest the possibility that McIlwraith refused to take the Abjuration Oath and was (in the context of the times) legally executed. Although who carried out the deed is not at all clear. As has already been stated, at the time, Claverhouse was in dispute with Colonel Douglas and Queensberry, the High Treasurer. (Fountainhall, Historical Notices, II, 633.) On 27 March, 1685, Colonel Douglas was given an extensive commission to suppress the Society people in the western and southern shires. At the Revolution in 1688, unlike Claverhouse, Lieutenant General Douglas quickly switched sides and brought his troops over to William of Orange. Douglas’s well-known support for William of Orange may explain why his specific role in the the western and southern shires has slipped just beyond the reach of history. However, it is beyond doubt that the Colonel Douglas who was one of William’s trusted generals at the Battle of the Boyne, persecuted Covenanters. (Dalton, Scots Army, 78-86; Fountainhall, Historical Notices, II, 636.)

Another interesting fact about the McIlwraith death is the imaginative account of Defoe in 1717 in which the unwitting man is shot down in cold blood while crossing the street. Which might account for the monument - apparently erected at least forty five years after the event - being slightly inaccurate to say the least.

I think it is highly improbably to assume that Claverhouse did not kill any Covenanters. He would almost certainly have done so at Drumclog, Bothwell and the defence of Glasgow. The case of John Brown is one which he freely admits to and he writes about in some detail. I have never claimed that Claverhouse did not kill a single Covenanter - that would just be naive - however, what I do contest is that he only did so (in a historical context) as his duty required, legally and as a last resort. Therefore, the claims that he was some bloody sadist spurred on by the Devil are unjust and a hideous distortion of history and needs to be properly reassessed.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Deeuu (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A few points, firstly what are your sources for Claverhouse's treatment of Andrew Hislop, I am only familiar with accounts from Shields and Wodrow.If these are your sources you must concede that accepting Shields account when it is favorable to Claverhouse and rejecting it when it is critical lays you open to charges of being rather selective.

Secondly, my reading does not lead me to believe that extra judicial execution was a matter for censure it seems to have been pretty common. Indeed their is compelling evidence that troops under Douglas' command conducted exactly such executions. Specifically I would point you to the execution of Edward McKeen at Dalwyne near Barr as recorded by Shields and Wodrow.

These historical records along with both McKeen's gravestone (I do love a grave stone) inscription "1685, here lies Edward McKeen who was shot in this parish by Cornet James Douglas...". (the James Douglas named was in fact James Dundas an officer of Dragoons under Douglas' command) and at least one other gravestone naming Cornet James Douglas, would also go some way to refuting the suggestion that all evidence of Douglas' crimes has slipped beyond the reach of history.

If the monument to McIlwraith had been erected because of Defoe's account why does it say "For owning Covenanted presbytery". No-one owns covenanted presbytery in Defoe's account they just cross the road. We know it was there in 1730, but it may well have predated Defoe.

Finally, whether or not Claverhouse was elsewhere early in 1685, he was certainly in Ayrshire later in the year. One of his letters dated 03 May puts him at Galston. Which at a rough guess must be 40 or 50 miles from Colmonell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.233.210 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My sources are certainly not Shields or Wodrow. Napier, Morris, Sandford, Barrington and Scott; all deal with Claverhouse's alleged mistreatment of Covenanters. Invariably they conclude that when official facts are reviewed, Claverhouse did not commit atrocities in the manner that Shields, Wodrow, Walker, Defoe and MacAuley all claim! It is important to note that Shields was a 'Cameronian' during the 'Killing Time' so it is hardly surprising that he does not 'record' events in a balanced and factual manner. As we have seen, if he had done so we would have some reasonably accurate dates for these events which would allow one to marry up official records with events. Wodrow often simply repeats Shields and embellishes it with religious interpretations of his own.

I was not suggesting that Defoe's account was used verbatim, but rather that his 'fact' - Claverhouse butchered someone here - was siezed upon and embellished using Shields.

I don't disagree with you that Claverhouse was in Galston in May, but as you point out it is 40 or 50 miles from Colmonell. In the 17th Century that is a long way away. He was also charged with watching the border during the Monmouth rebellion. So from May to July is seems unlikely that he strayed too far from the border regions. We know that he then went to Edinburgh to resume his seat on the Privy Council.

I wasn't suggesting that extra-judicial execution per-se was a matter for censure. I was suggesting that had Claverhouse done anything during his time 'out of favour', that Douglas and Queensberry would have taken full advantage and at the very least publicly denounced Claverhouse - they didn't - which, as I said is most telling.

Jardine provides a detailed breakdown of claims made during the Killing Times in appendix 049 41 of his thesis on the United Societies. These account for 113 deaths in total. This record includes "Edward M'Keen" but, interestingly includes the description "House siege and shot". M'Keen is also clearly identified as a member of the United Societies, which in context would have clearly made him an insurgent and would suggest that Douglas (Dundasse) was acting within the law of the time on this occasion?

This is a fascinating period in Scottish history, and as such deserves to be treated with the utmost historical vigour and scrutiny. Hence my suggestions for additional sections to unravel the layers of mis and dis information that the likes of Shields, Wodrow and MacAuley have presented us with.

Deeuu (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)