Ever want to blow stuff up because some bigwig politicians screwd you over? That's exactly what the above men thought of James I's England. To fully understand the Gunpowder Plot one must look at the religious background of the time. Henry the VIII was a remarkably upstanding Catholic... until the Pope refused his divorce that is. After that he cut most ties to the catholic faith; a practice that continued through his successors until finally during Elizabeth I's reign the remaining catholics were persecuted so badly they would turn almost anywhere for protection. Since James Stuart of Scotland was next in line, the Catholics turned to him and gained promises of toleration once he reached the throne. Once crowned, James I waffled, and vehemently raised the persecution levels. At this time a Catholic man named Catesby decided something needed to be done to save his people from persecution.
He first sent a messenger, Thomas Winter to Spain seeking if not support, at least an ally. He returned with Fawkes and together the three began a secret conspiratory organization. After aquiring a building near Parliament the team, adding seven to their number, began tunneling under Parliament. The job wasn't particularly well thought out however, for when they finally reached the tough outer masonry of the House of Lords, they discovered they could've just rented out the cellar under the House of Lords to begin with. This is what many modern highschool students would refer to as an "epic fail." From here they added three wealthy members, to pay for the operation, and began filling the cellar with powder. However the Parliamentary session was delayed due to plague in London, giving the Thirteenth member, Tresham time to tip off his friend in the House of Lords as to the affairs, and allowing time for the powder to decay to uselessness.
The House of Lords was searched twice, at last finding the powder and Fawkes standing guard. At this, the remaining conspirators fled but were either captured and sentenced to death or killed during arrest. The men not shown above, but active in the Plot were: Robert Keyes, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Evererad Digby, and their betrayer Francis Tresham.
For those interested here's the youtube video of the beginning of V for Vendetta. This video shows Fawkes's capture and the fate that befell his fellow conspirators. It also raises the question: Should one be condemned for what he/she believed to be right at the time?
Another interesting thing to think about is how the plot would have been recieved; at the time it was terrorism and high treason, but would the people have responded favorably and joined the uprising? What if a similar action took place today?
I don't believe a person should be condemned for their beliefs. But they should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions based on those beliefs. After doing a little research on Robert Catesby, I found him as sort of a rebel. Apparently he had already been arrested for involvement with the Essex revolt. He had to have been firmiliar with the outcomes of rebelious behavior. Maybe if he didn't use violent tactics I would have more sympathy for him and the people he convinced to follow in his steps.
ReplyDeleteIn modern day, I could see the Gunpowder Plot seen as high treason/terrism, but if the purpose of the act had a strong influence over people, I could see the attempt being a means of gaining support. It kind of reminds me of the Iranians revolting their government. It's not entirely relatable, but their revolts are provoked by leaders abusing power. If you're interested, this article explains the Iranian revolt a bit more in depth:
http://www.ihavenet.com/As-Iranians-Revolt-Iranian-Government-Reveals-True-Self.html
I agree with emily, you shouldnt be persecuted for your beliefs. Those who take the violent road to dignify their beliefs have to be ready to take the consequences. I dont think that having a violent reaction is necessary at all, unless your at your wits' end. In this case, i do believe it was necessary because of the false promises Catesby and his people were given.
ReplyDeleteI think that people have joined the uprising, the conclusion would have drastically changed. The remaining conspirators most likely would have survived and could have taken their revolt to the next level.
I also do not believe that people should be persecuted for their beliefs but like Emily, I believe they should take responsibility for their actions. I feel like the gunpowder plot would have caused a similar reaction today. In today's society, we handle things differently so I think their punishment would have been different. But I think the revolters would have been punished severely and most people would be upset by their actions. However, many people would have probably agreed with their purpose. I guess it's kindof like when people say, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." I don't think their purpose was a bad one, but the way they carried it out was not the best choice.
ReplyDeleteEmily I like your point about, Iran's similar revolutions. It's seems a very similar issue on the lack of religous tolerance. However Consider this link, http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/history.asp Conspiracy based on religion was nothing new.(Sadly half the links on that list of plots don't go anywhere.) Yet this is the only plot commonly remembered.
ReplyDeleteWhat made this plot more memorable than the rest?
Maybe what made this rebellion more memorable were the people that were involved and who they are attempting to take down.
ReplyDeleteI think Caitlin made a good point when she stated, “I also do not believe that people should be persecuted for their beliefs but like Emily, I believe they should take responsibility for their actions.” People should stand up for what they believe in, but in a nonviolent way. When you create a violent act, it does cause the attention you seek, but in truth gets you virtually nowhere (unless you have a huge colonization of people backing you up). I think that a lot of people in today’s society might be too afraid to take a stand; people are mostly talk and no action. They just complain about the situation they are enduring, but do nothing about it to fix their predicament.
In response to Willy's question, I believe this plot could be the most memorable because of the attempt itself and of the outcome of the failed attempt. I found the plan to be different than the average plot to overthrow a government. I mean, digging a trench under a building then filling it with gunpowder with the intention to blow up the building? It seems to be different and uncommon of the time.
ReplyDeleteThat was a good question to ask, Willy. I'm curious of other opinions. Why do you think this plot was so memorable?
There could be many reasons why that one particular plot seemed to be remembered more than others. In the article willy provides they say that the English catholics were more of a minority in their own country, and that more people were turning protestant. This "revolt" was more of a stand the catholics took to place who they believed the rightful queen, Mary Queen of Scotts, into power. In a way they were acting out for what they believed, granted it could ahve been done in a much better, and less violent way, but its what they deemed to be a fit solution for the times. At least they sort of acted on what they didn't like, instead of, like Julie said, just complained about everything and didn't make any plans to change.
ReplyDeleteI really want to know why they felt the need to dig under parliment? couldn't there be a better way to overthrown the government. Hostile take overs seemed to work in the past, and sometimes they don't include attempting to blow up the symbolic home of government for their country.
In response to Mary's question. In the blog, Willy talks about how the people of the country were promised all these changes towards the persecution of catholics, then when the king was put in position he never did a thing. I believe that they felt like they had no where else to turn except towards violence. I think blowing up their government home was a very weird way of going about that violent act, but I see why they were ready to overthrow them.
ReplyDeleteCommenting on why this plot stood out from the rest, I would say that people have a tendency to remember what they are taught to remember. We know what we read in history books today; King James would have wanted everyone to know that he had triumphed over Catesby, who represented the population that he hated, the Catholics. He would've ensured that word be spread about the "epic fail" of the traitors, so everyone knew that he could not be fooled.
ReplyDeleteAlot of posts have been made towards the necessity nonviolence to gain support in a revolution. This article to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml outlines the probbable reaction of the people had the plot succeeded. Would events have been drastically different had the revolt been nonviolent, or just end badly for the rebles considering James's tolerance of threats to his power.
ReplyDeleteEarlier this year we talked of Contraposso in relation to Dante's Inferno. This link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7688786.stm details how one of the condemned traitors suffered a most gruesome death when he all did was claim knowledge of the plot before hand-- no active part in it. It's interesting how far James went to quell this rebellion.
I agree with everyone here, and just like Mary says, there could've been a better way to overthrow the government. They could've used a non-violent way, after all, we were taught that violence isn't the answer. However, since this took place hundreds of years ago, when they still did hangings and death sentences, they probably thought differently. Violence was the most effective way to get things done around here. To sum things up, no I don't think they should be condemned for what they thought was right, simply because it was a normal thing back in that time to take care of things simply by killing someone. Just look at how back then the townspeople carried around guns in public for protection, but now no one does because our views have changed drastically on how we handle situations.
ReplyDeleteTo add to Mary's blog, I think that back in the old days people didn't know how to react and most times war was the answer. These days we rebel with words and groups and patitions. I think in those times unless you were of power, you had no say and your words did not matter, so to rebal with violence was the perfect way to get someone's attention.
ReplyDeleteThe last line of your last post says it all Willy. James wished to make a statement with this act. It mattered not that this man had no real part in it.
ReplyDeleteGeneral consent amongst prior posters was that " [we] don't believe a person should be condemned for their beliefs. But they should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions based on those beliefs." While we all like to imagine that these consequences should fit the crime, this idea holds no water even within today's society. We can't defend ourselves, or even break up a fight in school anymore, because anyone associated with the act is carted off in handcuffs. Is Dr. Dubray not making a statement similar to that of King James I?
Mark I like your connection to our world and "zero tolerance" policies. As for Willy's question about public reaction if such an event were to take place today, I think it would be overwhelmingly negative. Even if there would have been an assassination attempt on Bush (who was for less popular than Obama is), people still would not support it because they see an attack on their leader as an attack on them. But if it were an appointed rather than elected ruler, people might have a different view.
ReplyDeleteMark i thought that was really interesting how you connected king James to Dr. Dubray. However, you do have a point. Its just like you said. Those who try to break up a fight or even act out in a way they see fit, they're automatically punished for it. which shouldn't be right at all. In a way i think you're right when you say his statement is similar to king James. Although i don't really think its because he fears to be overtaken, its because there are certain standards that he has to implement and follow.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cameron that if some plan like that were to even be attempted today it would been seen and reacted to negatively. Why is it though that even if its an attack on someone so many people don't like it would still be seen negative?
I don't think a person should be condemned for their beliefs alone. But, if you break the law, you should obviously be held accountable for your actions. Trying to blow up a government building is NOT going to fly, no matter how righteous you think your reason is.
ReplyDeleteIf this happened today, it would, I think, be much, much worse. Treason is a HUGE deal. Luckily today, people are much more tolerant, so this type of thing happens less so I don't think many (sane) people would ever think to conjure up an idea like this. I don't think anyone's diggin' under the White House.
Cameron said that an act such as this will be seen as negative despite all but an extreme measure of public support. The reason for this, Mary, is because modern public opinion is molded by the man with the fastest hands. whoever gives us the most concise viewpoint, at the most convenient time and place, we will snatch it as our own. This is unfortunate, but that is the extend of "the man"'s influence over the general public.
ReplyDeleteThe way everyone says you must accept responsibility for breaking the law reminds me of Martin Luther King Jr. While he obviously would not condone the violent approach Fawkes and the others took in this case, he would advocate the less violent approach that others have mentioned here.
ReplyDeleteAs for Willy's question as to whether or not we should be held responsible for doing what we thought was right I say yes, we should be. Some of the worst deeds in history (the Holocaust, for example) have been done with good intentions. If we let bad deeds go unpunished because someone's "heart was in the right place" then there is little detterent for others and even less justice
I'm going to go a little of the beaten path and make a point I feel like previous comments have failed to address. I think the class has an agreement that no one should be persecuted for their beliefs, but the actions followed by those beliefs may result in fair punishment. However, from my experience with religions, if you don't act on your faith, your beliefs, then it is empty. If there is no action, the belief means nothing. Where would we be if everyone followed the rules set by an authority just so they wouldn't have to suffer consequences? We would be slaves to a dictator, probably. Something very extreme.
ReplyDeleteHere's a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'"
Another quote we might remember from American Literature last year,
"If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." from Thoreau.
We must not forget that what these men were doing was definitely not civil disobedience, which is what we mostly focused on last year, but they were at least standing up for their beliefs. They were doing SOMETHING.
Ashley, I really love that post. I didn't think of it that way at all earlier. If no one stood up against their governments, we would not be the America we are today. I just wonder why we as Americans are so quick to condemn when these people did just what our forefathers did by creating this country. They were going against everything that their leaders wanted.
ReplyDeleteI'm really glad you brought that point of view to the table. It definitely made me think deeper into this issue.
Thank you Ashley, for being so bold as to start a new path for more to follow!
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly with the general idea behind your statement. While I do not condone cutting the head off of the snake (seeing as it kills the snake), so to speak, I believe that every party should fight to be heard at the table. This was Catholicism's way of fighting their current position.
On the other hand, however, extremists are always as hated as they are loved even within their own groups. I'm sure that this solitary act of rebellion tightened the ropes binding Catholics as a whole, creating a less than honorable opinion of Catesby. That is the trouble with overriding typical marxist theory; the larger the group being represented, the more difficult it is to reach absolute agreement.
Ashley makes a valid piont. If no one would stand up, or stick it to the man where would we be today? Funny thing but I just got done watching family guy and it was one were Stewie and Brian travel to different demensions, it just makes me think how there are so many different paths we can take, so many things can change our furture. People act on what they think is necessary, and what they are passionate about, sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe is right and see what happens.
ReplyDeleteNick took the words right from my mouth.
ReplyDeleteI can't remember who said it, but I agree that if someone tried to blow up a building today, it would be seen as terrorism, and taken very seriously.
I found Mark's statement very intrigueing, mostly because we know it's true. There was a fight on a Belleville school bus a couple weeks ago and all of the kids who were cheering on the fight, and not partaking in the fight, got suspended. Which links back to Willy's statement about contrapasso. It also interests me that James went as far as he did. I'm still curious as to why James picked that punishment for Henry Garnet (the "condemned traitor"), instead of a lesser punishment, and what statement James is trying to make by this decision.
I agree that you should stand up for what you believe in, however, what happens if you lose? What if the consequences of standing up harm you even worse than if you hadn’t done anything at all?
ReplyDeleteTaking a stand is a “noble” deed and like Ashley said at least people are “doing SOMETHING”, but sometimes doing something won’t make the slightest bit of difference. Every one of us is only one person, so what can one person accomplish when “the man” can easily take you down? The Gun Powder Rebellion is a perfect example of how all of them were killed, because the government found out. “The man” undoubtedly won.
I dont think people should be condemmened for having thier own beliefs. You see that throughout the world today. There are hundreds of different religions out thier with many different Gods. Also there are many people that dont believe in having a religion. For one group to say they are right out of hundreds of others is not right, however I do agree with emily that if you have your own beliefs, then you should be able to accept the concequences that may follow.
ReplyDeleteI found Willy's link, http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/history.asp, to be really awesome. I found the character profiles link from there to be really helpful in understand the whole process of this scandal.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for the positive feedback to my previous comment, Caitlin, Mark, and Caitie. I would like to continue with that thought and kind of bounce off what Mark had to say. Extremists are such a difficult thing to talk about for me. If you know me well, you know I suffer from extreme indecisiveness. I think this contributes to my want to both condemn and also sympathize with extremists, including terrorists. (Please don't hate on me!). I see both sides and I am curious to find out where the folk like me where in this time. Did they revolt to the extreme level they didn't agree with or sit back and do nothing to avoid confrontation?
Im not sure if the people back then would join the uprising or not. I could go both ways with that one. First I would say yes, that the Catholic people would join the uprising. If they saw that these few people accomplished something in thier favor, maybe it would buil other Cathoilic's confidence and faith, leading them to want to join the 'rebeillion' to fight to be free of persecution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I could aslo see them not following an uprise. Seeing how the men were indeed caught and killed, this probably frightened, or discouraged the Catholics to do anthing about it.
To answer the question about an uprise in todays society I googled 'an uprise against the US government and found this youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f590oNegjKU. It talks about how the government contorls us too much, and how we do not have the liberty to do certain things anymore. It seems like there will eventually be an uprising against that.
A question that I have is that was Catesby and his group the only group that tried to plot against thier government? Were there any other rebellions against the government at that time?
Going with ashley and Willie, The link you provided was good to clear up and make more sence of what is going on here. I believe that the Catholics had every right to be violent about the uprising. Sure we are taught to settle things peacefully, and they tried that, but getting stabbed in the back constantly, doesn't that eventually overwhelm you? How would you feel if you were in their position? How is that any fair to them. They tried to gain help w/ the next successor, and he turned on them. That was their peacefull attempt, and they didn't get the warning. The gvmt. had their chance, this was the concequence of not listening. I see it completely fair.
ReplyDeleteI agree no one should get killed for their beliefs but I also wonder going off of Cameron what defines a bad deed? because I know we should not let people go unpunished but I think it's a matter of opinion what is bad and what is good. and I think that what fawks did was not bad at all. It was him standing up for what he belived and the king should have respected everyone's beliefs, not just his own. That is what makes a good leader.
ReplyDelete