Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The legitimacy of the 1916 Rising
Options
-
05-04-2015 8:20pm#1After the split in the Irish Parliamentary Party over the Kitty O'Shea scandal which destroyed the political career and led to the early death of Charles Stuart Parnell, for a decade Irish Nationalism was split between the anti-Parnell and the Parnellite factions. This division meant that no Home Rule legislation had any hope of passing through the House of Commons until the division was mended.
Opposition to the Boer War by the majority of Irish Nationalist opinion led to the reunification of the IPP under the leadership of John Redmond. The surge in support for the IPP in the next decade up until their electoral triumph in the 1910 election when they held the balance of power in the Commons led to the reluctant introduction of the Home Rule Bill in 1912 by the Liberals.
The Conservatives allied with the Unionists were in open conspiracy against the government and committed treason when they imported German arms to threaten rebellion if Home Rule was implemented.
The Irish Volunteers were founded to defend the democratic rights of the overwhelming majority of the island of Ireland from the UVF who had superior arms and training and were supported by a mutiny of British Army officers who threatened to disobey orders from the civilian government to move against the UVF in order to implement Home Rule. To add insult to injury Irish Nationalists imported modest quantities of arms they were fired on by British troops.
Redmond who had opposed imperialism in 1900 cynically betrayed Irish nationalist and republican principles by allying the Irish Volunteers renamed the National Volunteers with the British war effort in 1914. Irish Home Rule was suspended and if the Conservatives and Unionists had their way would be permanently buried. Tens of thousands of Irishmen trusted Redmond and believed in his bogus claim that Irish blood sacrifice in the trenches of World War I would be gratefully rewarded with Home Rule following the war. Their honorable bravery and sacrifice counted for nothing in the eyes of Conservatives and Unionists.
The UVF were allowed to remain intact when they formed the Ulster Division while Irish Volunteers saw their units dispersed and commanded by upper class Anglo Irish Protestant officers when they joined the Irish regiments and divisions. The IPP TD Willie Redmond brother of John Redmond realized too late that the cream of Irish manhood were being slaughtered and his pleas for Irish Home Rule in the Commons fell on deaf ears before he chose a noble death when he went over the top with his own men.
By 1916 the Irish Parliamentary Party was moribund and discredited and the National Volunteers had been decimated. Nationalism was at a low ebb except for the rump Irish Volunteers and the socialist Irish Citizen Army who refused to fight for Britain and continued to defiantly drill openly. Dublin Castle was plotting to crack down on the Irish Volunteers and round up its leadership when the rebel leaders moved first and launched the rising.
Pearse, Clarke, Connolly et al knew that if they were lifted and the movement crushed and disbanded that it was the end of the road. The Unionists would be ascendant and Ireland would remain a province of the British Empire like Wales and Scotland.
Outside of the small conspiratorial movement the majority of constitutional nationalists had practically given up on peaceful change. They had marched to the summit but had been marched back down again after a generation of fruitless effort. The Fenians of the 1860s who had once used dynamite and later became MPs in the IPP were now frustrated white bearded old men.
This is why the 1916 Rising was the only chance left for Irish Republicans and for Nationalist Ireland. A military stand by Irish republicans would keep the dream alive. The orders of the wrongheaded Professor O'Neill which led to a much smaller force turning out in Dublin and nationally prevented a much longer pitched fight. Thousands more could have turned out to fight but did not and these men were subsequently rounded up in the aftermath.
The alternative was that Ireland would have been cowed for generations and perhaps never have become an independent state.
The rebellion was a failure and has elements of farce but the sheer heroism of the leaders who went to their deaths cannot be refuted. A generation of young Irishmen and Irishwomen were angered, ashamed, embarrassed but most importantly inspired and in 1918 when this generation went to the polls they swept away the tired old IPP and returned a youthful idealistic Sinn Féin with an overwhelming majority.
The British government responded by jailing Irish leaders and TDs leaving no other recourse but armed guerrilla war by the IRA. The subsequent indiscriminate terrorisation of the Irish people by the Black and Tans revealed to even the most die-hard West Briton that Irish democratic opinion meant nothing to the British establishment.
This is why the 1916 Rising was utterly justified.4
Comments
-
I unlocked your OP to see where this might go- It will have to monitored however as there are several similar threads lately where posters are unable to argue the issue and prefer to turn things personal. With this in mind the forum charter should be noted by anyone posting. It would also be helpful if an OP could include some sourced/ linked evidence to back up the views expressed.DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
Redmond who had opposed imperialism in 1900 cynically betrayed Irish nationalist and republican principles by allying the Irish Volunteers renamed the National Volunteers with the British war effort in 1914. Irish Home Rule was suspended and if the Conservatives and Unionists had their way would be permanently buried. Tens of thousands of Irishmen trusted Redmond and believed in his bogus claim that Irish blood sacrifice in the trenches of World War I would be gratefully rewarded with Home Rule following the war. Their honorable bravery and sacrifice counted for nothing in the eyes of Conservatives and Unionists.
.......
This is why the 1916 Rising was utterly justified.
With regard to much of the OP there are opposite sides of the issues that are not given. For example I would take issue with the description of Redmond's claims as 'bogus'. Events in 1916 were the reason why Home Rule did not follow the war- it was already pre-described in British parliament that Home Rule would follow. Also the theory at end of quoted post is unproveable and not based on any realistic fact. If you disagree then you should be able to point to some credible source evidence that shows your point.0 -
Very emotive. This will simply disintegrate into the usual shinners vs apologists thread.0
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I unlocked your OP to see where this might go- It will have to monitored however as there are several similar threads lately where posters are unable to argue the issue and prefer to turn things personal. With this in mind the forum charter should be noted by anyone posting. It would also be helpful if an OP could include some sourced/ linked evidence to back up the views expressed.
With regard to much of the OP there are opposite sides of the issues that are not given. For example I would take issue with the description of Redmond's claims as 'bogus'. Events in 1916 were the reason why Home Rule did not follow the war- it was already pre-described in British parliament that Home Rule would follow. Also the theory at end of quoted post is unproveable and not based on any realistic fact. If you disagree then you should be able to point to some credible source evidence that shows your point.
The triumph of the IPP in 1910 election was predicated on delivering for Home Rule. Redmond knew that there was a rising tide of republicanism and he was canny enough to recruit hardline republicans and the IRB to support Home Rule and was joined on the Home Rule platform by Patrick Pearse and other advanced nationalists. The IPP stable of MPs were made up of tired Anglo-Irish Protestant Nationalists who had been part of Parnell's old crew and aging Fenian dynamiters who had never had to campaign for their seats for decades.
Chasing them for power were an impatient youthful generations who wanted to sweep them away. The republican clubs and Gaelic organisations were a threat to the IPP grassroots. The IRB zealously penetrated every Irish nationalist organization they could infiltrate with their members whether sporting, cultural or political.
Redmond was desperate to harness violent nationalism and republicanism for his own ends and bang the drum of blood sacrifice or otherwise he would lose the leadership of the pan nationalist movement to the radical republicans and socialists. This is why he endorsed the Irish Volunteers while making sure to stack the steering group with his own acolytes.
When World War I was declared he had gone down the rabbit hole of Home Rule so far that he would have been discredited in the eyes of his Liberal allies in the Commons if he took a hardline anti-imperialist position as he did in 1900.
Unfortunately the war was not over by Christmas, Irishmen died in their tens of thousands and Conservatives and Unionists were taking full advantage of the war to copper fasten the Union and bury Home Rule.
By 1916 Irish nationalism was on the rocks and Redmond was discredited.
A good comparison would be the fall of Bertie Ahern who was adored before the collapse of the Celtic Tiger.
The only explanation for the groundswell of support for Sinn Féin in 1918 is that the overwhelming majority of nationalists across the spectrum rowed in behind the rebels and gave their endorsement to the 1916 Rising for restoring national pride. The Sinn Féin party made no bones about their intention to form a separatist parliament and to defend it by force.
People who were Southern Unionists, people from an Anglo-Irish background who had supported the IPP , Catholic middle class people who still supported the war and had lost family members or participated in it, Catholic bishops who attacked atheistic secularist democracy , feminists, pacifists, business people, cultural nationalists who were not involved in politics and socialists who were disdainful of nationalist republicanism, changed their minds practically overnight.
It is not an exaggeration to say a "terrible beauty" was born.0 -
It was not justified in 1916. Basing an argument on mainstream political thought, violence is not justified if there are reasonably viable alternatives. The system in Ireland was sufficient so as representatives of the electorate were in place. Even in the context with the growth of nationalism and the myths of state building through Blood and Iron, to borrow from Bismark, the legitimate - meaning sanctioned by a law: such as natural theory was missing as a justification.
Thus the actual rising itself was not worth the cost of a single civilian life.0 -
It was not justified in 1916. Basing an argument on mainstream political thought, violence is not justified if there are reasonably viable alternatives. The system in Ireland was sufficient so as representatives of the electorate were in place. Even in the context with the growth of nationalism and the myths of state building through Blood and Iron, to borrow from Bismark, the legitimate - meaning sanctioned by a law: such as natural theory was missing as a justification.
Thus the actual rising itself was not worth the cost of a single civilian life.
There was no viable peaceful alternative.
Peaceful constitutional politics had been tried for a generation by Irish Nationalists and at the last hurdle was usurped through a conspiracy by Conservatives, Unionists and British militarists.
Prior to 1916 during the Home Rule crisis the Irish Parliamentary Party leader John Redmond raised a paramilitary army of Irish nationalists to meet the UVF head on. If World War I had not intervened it entirely possible that Ireland would have descended into civil war.
In 1918 when Sinn Féin won an overwhelming majority replacing the defunct Irish Parliamentary Party the British authorities were busy usurping the democratic wishes of the Irish people.
During the election campaign the Sinn Féin activists who spoke out against the introduction of conscription were lifted and thrown in jail even though there was a groundswell of opposition by middle Ireland including the Catholic Church, the farming community and the urban middle class against its introduction. Many of the 1918 Sinn Féin candidates were elected while in prison and were absent when the First Dáil met in January of 1919.
The subsequent introduction of the Black and Tans and extra troops who were turned lose on the Irish people - burning creameries, enforcing the ban on markets, hunting down and shooting republicans, murdering Sinn Féin activists, burning businesses and homes, raping and looting etc. further demonstrated the British held Irish nationalism and republicanism in contempt.
The British played hardball in 1921 threatening Collins and Griffith with renewed war if they did not sign the Treaty and partition which was already in operation since 1920. Collins was forced to shell the Four Courts when the alternative was British intervention. The Free State Army was supplied with British uniforms dyed green, ex-British Irish born soldiers, surplus artillery, armored cars and rifles. The British strangle hold on the Free State was only gradually eroded by De Valera through the Land War and his step by step dismantling of British institutions and the final one off financial payment that was accepted by Neville Chamberlain in return for end of land act loan payments and return of the Treaty Ports.
To sum up the British had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give up their presence in Ireland and violence was necessary to get the ball rolling.0 -
Advertisement
-
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »The triumph of the IPP in 1910 election was predicated on delivering for Home Rule.
And in terms of democratic mandate, I'd put triumph in quotation marks. As Diarmaid Ferriter observed (in response to John Bruton's oft-claimed assertions of the IPP's democratic credentials):"In the December 1910 general election, the last such election before the one in 1918 that destroyed the IPP, it won 84 seats in the Westminster parliament, but unopposed IPP candidates in that election numbered 53. This was a time when the Irish electorate consisted of a minority of wealthy, male voters; “national” self-determination did not exist. As historian LP Curtis observed: “The extent of uncontested elections makes it well-nigh impossible to calculate the popular support enjoyed by the Redmondite party”."
This is another enlightening article by Ferriter challenging Bruton's controversial claims about Redmond's democratic credentials and popularity prior to the Rising.
Brian Hanley, too, lambasts Bruton's claims about both Redmond's achievements and alleged opposition to using violence to achieve political aims:
Ronan Fanning, whose hostility to modern Sinn Féin is well known, also injected some realism into Bruton's repeated assertions that Home Rule had been achieved. Much more seriously, Fanning points out here that Redmond knew from March 1914 that partition was going to happen but wilfully concealed this from his electorate and therefore Redmond's own political death was deferred until after WWI: an incredibly serious accusation from Fanning given that Redmond spent the summer of 1914 encouraging Irishmen to engage in violence on behalf of the British Empire in order to "secure" Home Rule for Ireland:Although the compromise that put the Irish problem on ice for the duration of the Great War disguised this inevitability, it was yet another exercise in hypocrisy.
This time Redmond was complicit because the core of the compromise was his idea: that if the government would postpone the introduction of the amending Bill providing for Ulster’s exclusion, he would agree to the suspension of the coming into effect of the Bill (despite its being immediately put upon the Statute Book) until the amending Bill became law.
As Redmond encouraged mass numbers of Irish people to use violence to help secure something he knew would not be secured - Home Rule for the whole country - Bruton's grounds for praising Redmond and criticising the violence of the insurrectionists in 1916 looks, at best, deeply hypocritical on the issue of using violence to achieve political aims. At worst, Bruton is honouring a man who duped tens of thousands of Irishmen to fight, and die, for something that they could not secure (a cynic might suggest that this was in large part because Redmond wanted to hold on to power for a few more years).0 -
Lots of post 1916 historical cherry picking and exploring what ifs which do not lend any credible foundation to the foundation claims to the legamacy of the Rising. Was there such massive electoral fraud during the prior vote that discredited the MPs? No. Thus no mandate at the time for based on a minority's view of a what a national destiny should be. If they wanted a republic, then that was a platform they could have run in. Not run over people's lives.0
-
And in terms of democratic mandate, I'd put triumph in quotation marks. As Diarmaid Ferriter observed (in response to John Bruton's oft-claimed assertions of the IPP's democratic credentials):
This is another enlightening article by Ferriter challenging Bruton's controversial claims about Redmond's democratic credentials and popularity prior to the Rising.
Brian Hanley, too, lambasts Bruton's claims about both Redmond's achievements and alleged opposition to using violence to achieve political aims:
Ronan Fanning, whose hostility to modern Sinn Féin is well known, also injected some realism into Bruton's repeated assertions that Home Rule had been achieved. Much more seriously, Fanning points out here that Redmond knew from March 1914 that partition was going to happen but wilfully concealed this from his electorate and therefore Redmond's own political death was deferred until after WWI: an incredibly serious accusation from Fanning given that Redmond spent the summer of 1914 encouraging Irishmen to engage in violence on behalf of the British Empire in order to "secure" Home Rule for Ireland:
As Redmond encouraged mass numbers of Irish people to use violence to help secure something he knew would not be secured - Home Rule for the whole country - Bruton's grounds for praising Redmond and criticising the violence of the insurrectionists in 1916 looks, at best, deeply hypocritical on the issue of using violence to achieve political aims. At worst, Bruton is honouring a man who duped tens of thousands of Irishmen to fight, and die, for something that they could not secure (a cynic might suggest that this was in large part because Redmond wanted to hold on to power for a few more years).
One of Bruton's and other revisionists chief criticisms of the 1916 Rising is that it copperfastened partition.
It was the Unionists who copperfastened partition since the UVF was the ULSTER Volunteer Force and they had plans of their own to launch their own rising in Belfast in the event of Home Rule!
The 1912 Ulster Covenant is a partitionist document threatening Ulster rebellion if Home Rule is implemented:
"BEING CONVINCED in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V., humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right, we hereto subscribe our names.
And further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant."
The 1916 Proclamation is an inclusive document asserting "the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland" and "religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens" and "all the children of the nation equally."
Bruton and revisionists turn fact and history on its head.
The fact that Rising occurred is a tragedy and that hundreds of people died the overwhelming majority of them civilians is also tragic.
Disgust at bloodletting does not negate the justness of the rebellion.
Nonetheless the Rising was legitimate.
Bruton and others denigrate the Rising out of a wrongheaded belief that the 1916 Rising gives legitimacy to the Provisional IRA.
I do not believe it does.0 -
Lots of post 1916 historical cherry picking and exploring what ifs which do not lend any credible foundation to the foundation claims to the legamacy of the Rising. Was there such massive electoral fraud during the prior vote that discredited the MPs? No. Thus no mandate at the time for based on a minority's view of a what a national destiny should be. If they wanted a republic, then that was a platform they could have run in. Not run over people's lives.
The overwhelming majority of Irish people outside of the north east of Ireland who could vote at the time (the first time men regardless of property or wealth and the first time women could vote was in 1918) voted for Home Rule in 1910 and had done so for decades prior.
Home Rule had been passed through the Commons by a majority in 1914.
BUT it was suspended.
The Conservatives and Unionists had usurped the will of the majority of the Irish people.
Therefore British rule in Ireland was no longer with the consent of the people.
It is legitimate to rebel when the will of the people has been usurped.
That is precisely what the 1916 rebels did.
If Home Rule would not be implemented then it was right to declare a Republic.0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »During the election campaign the Sinn Féin activists who spoke out against the introduction of conscription were lifted and thrown in jail even though there was a groundswell of opposition by middle Ireland including the Catholic Church, the farming community and the urban middle class against its introduction.
Can we keep a sense of chronological order here please? The conscription crisis was in the spring of 1918, the election was in December of that year, after the war was over - so nobody was lifted during the election campaign for opposing conscription.
That being said, if you read the BMH accounts, it's clear that the conscription crisis had more of a galvanising effect on nationalist opinion than the Easter Rising did. SF, along with what would more recently have been called the rest of "pan-nationalist Ireland", opposed conscription in the spring and it reaped the benefits in the December election.0 -
Advertisement
-
Dr.Nightdub wrote: »Can we keep a sense of chronological order here please? The conscription crisis was in the spring of 1918, the election was in December of that year, after the war was over - so nobody was lifted during the election campaign for opposing conscription.
Really? That's news to me.
The Sinn Féin party campaign on opposition to conscription which garnered them support across the political spectrum. Sinn Féin meetings and demonstrations were broken up by RIC batons and mobs of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Sinn Féin activists were beaten and arrested. Many Sinn Féin TDs were in prison for making seditious speeches when elected and could not attend the first Dáil because they were still banged up.That being said, if you read the BMH accounts, it's clear that the conscription crisis had more of a galvanising effect on nationalist opinion than the Easter Rising did.
But who did middle Ireland rally to? Veterans of the 1916 Rising. They elected De Valera and Count Plunkett, the father of Joseph Plunkett and others in the months after the Rising. De Valera was one of the few leaders of the rebellion who was not executed. He was elected in the seat vacated by late Willie Redmond, the brother of John Redmond, who had been killed in action on the Western Front. If this was simply about conscriptions they would have rallied to Labour or dissident IPP MPs. Instead they rallied behind hardline republicans like De Valera. The only logical explanation is that the 1916 Rising gained popular support and this fed into opposition to conscription. The hardcore of the IRA in the subsequent War of Independence were middle class farmers sons had refused to fight in World War I. These men were radicalized by the 1916 Rising and refused to be conscripted and later formed flying columns.SF, along with what would more recently have been called the rest of "pan-nationalist Ireland", opposed conscription in the spring and it reaped the benefits in the December election.
They couldn't possibly have gained this support unless the majority of people already supported the 1916 Rising. Membership of the IRA soared in 1917 when the Irish Volunteers were reorganized and renamed. The manifesto of Sinn Féin was openly Republican and promised that British attempts to suppress the Republic declared in 1916 would be met with force. Nobody voting for Sinn Féin in 1918 would have been under any illusions about what they were voting for so it follows they endorsed the 1916 Rising.0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »The Sinn Féin party campaign on opposition to conscription which garnered them support across the political spectrum. Sinn Féin meetings and demonstrations were broken up by RIC batons and mobs of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Sinn Féin activists were beaten and arrested. Many Sinn Féin TDs were in prison for making seditious speeches when elected and could not attend the first Dáil because they were still banged up.
No.
Opposition to conscription was across political and social divides rather than party political. Ascribing this as a method of garnering support does not take account of the facts.
Anti conscription feeling was wide and probably most clearly expressed by the dominant Church leaders. Link here https://books.google.ie/books?id=wL5Nup6gIKUC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq=conscription+campaign+ireland+1917&source=bl&ots=-8oJ9PBF5s&sig=PvU4PCfQs2gD-keIRE1Z8VxliKI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TAolVY-RPIfiaqfrgMAG&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=conscription%20campaign%20ireland%201917&f=false
Can you please provide sources for your information as your arguments need to have some basis in fact. So make your point first of all, then post information which you believe backs up said opinion. Thanks.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »No.
Opposition to conscription was across political and social divides rather than party political. Ascribing this as a method of garnering support does not take account of the facts.
Anti conscription feeling was wide and probably most clearly expressed by the dominant Church leaders. Link here https://books.google.ie/books?id=wL5Nup6gIKUC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq=conscription+campaign+ireland+1917&source=bl&ots=-8oJ9PBF5s&sig=PvU4PCfQs2gD-keIRE1Z8VxliKI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TAolVY-RPIfiaqfrgMAG&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=conscription%20campaign%20ireland%201917&f=false
Can you please provide sources for your information as your arguments need to have some basis in fact. So make your point first of all, then post information which you believe backs up said opinion. Thanks.
Go and read any number of history books about the period of 1918 election.
Some of the best books on the period such as A Nation Not A Rabble by Diarmuid Ferriter, The War of Independence by Michael Hopkinson, the Irish Republic by Dorothy Macardle, Michael Collins by Tim Pat Coogan, My Fight For Irish Freedom by Dan Breen, On Another Man's Wound by Ernie O'Malley all describe how the British cracked down on Sinn Féin in advance of the 1918 election.
On May 17th 1918 there were sweeps of Sinn Féin politicians and activists. 73 were deported including Arthur Griffith, Eamon De Valera, Count Plunkett, William Cosgrave, Countess Markievicz, Madame Gonne MacBride and the widow of Thomas Clarke. Michael Collins evaded capture but all other senior leaders of the IRA and Sinn Féin organizers were removed. Lord French's explanation was the bogus "German plot" when it was obvious that the British knew Sinn Féin was on the cusp of sweeping the Irish Parliamentary Party away in the 1918 election.
The British tried to sabotage the election in advance and tried to usurp the democratic will when it was obvious Sinn Féin had won a majority.
In the Longford byelection in which Collins and his men played key roles they fought fist fights with the Ancient Order of Hibernia and were batoned by the RIC. This happened repeatedly around the country to other activists.
When Dan Breen, Sean Treacy, Seamus Robinson et al began the War of Independence with the shooting of two RIC it was the culmination of a whole pletora of incidents in which Volunteers and Sinn Féin activists were harassed and suppressed and arrested by Crown forces. Crown forces activities in suppressing the democratic will forced the IRA into open revolt by early 1919. Only 27 TDs attended the first Dáil because so many were in prison or on the run.0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »Lord French's explanation was the bogus "German plot" when it was obvious that the British knew Sinn Féin was on the cusp of sweeping the Irish Parliamentary Party away in the 1918 election.
You're doing it again. How could the British know in May 1918 that Sinn Fein was on the cusp of anything when the 1918 election hadn't even been called yet?0 -
Dr.Nightdub wrote: »You're doing it again. How could the British know in May 1918 that Sinn Fein was on the cusp of anything when the 1918 election hadn't even been called yet?
Your knowledge of the period is clearly very limited.
There was a surge in support for the IRA with tens of thousands of men drilling and Sinn Féin branches opened in every town and village and parish the length and breadth of the country. Robberies, seizures of arms and explosives by bands of republicans under way to prepare for guerrilla war. Thousands of people turned up at rallies and demonstrations and speeches as Sinn Féin sought support. RIC district inspectors were reporting to Dublin Castle on republican activities and that the mood of the people had swung behind Sinn Féin.
The recently published The Black And Tans In North Tipperary: Policing, Revolution and War 1913-1922 by Sean Hogan gives a ground level view of what happened at local level in Tipperary. This phenomenon was replicated nationally too.0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »Your knowledge of the period is clearly very limited.
You are not addressing the points made in reply to your op and subsequent posts. People reading the thread can decide who's knowledge of the period is limited by going through some of the posts . And for what its worth nightdub has posted on this forum previously and with good knowledge. If this is your response to being queried on your posts then you have already lost the debate.
Stick to the subject matter in future.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »You are not addressing the points made in reply to your op and subsequent posts. People reading the thread can decide who's knowledge of the period is limited by going through some of the posts . And for what its worth nightdub has posted on this forum previously and with good knowledge. If this is your response to being queried on your posts then you have already lost the debate.
Stick to the subject matter in future.
What are you talking about? I did address the points in reply to my op and subsequent posts.
One of the posters did not apparently know that Sinn Féin activists were batoned and attacked by the RIC, arrested and jailed.
Has he never even heard of the 1916 hero Thomas Ashe who died on hunger strike?
Another did not know about the surge in popularity for Sinn Féin and republicanism following 1916 which predicted they would sweep the board in 1918.
I also gave the names of leading Sinn Féin politicians who were jailed by the British on trumped up accusations of a German plot.
I gave a list of books which support my points.
The evidence of history is quite clear that Conservatives and Unionists usurped the democratic will of the majority making rebellion necessary.
The subsequent behavior of the British in trying to suppress Sinn Féin and the democratic will bears out the wisdom of Pearse and Connolly et al.
The Free State was only obtained through IRA violence and dragged kicking and screaming from the British.
No credible argument has been put forward which has refuted any of my points.0 -
David, I'm merely trying to maintain a sense of factual rigour here and avoid getting caught up in rhetoric - examples:DavidRamsay99 wrote: »The triumph of the IPP in 1910 election was predicated on delivering for Home Rule.
No, the triumph of the IPP in 1910 was predicated on them not having any opposition apart from the Unionists in the north and in TCD and the All for Ireland League in Cork, who won 8 seats in 1910 despite the best efforts of the AOH. Outside those areas, most IPP MPs were elected unopposed and had been for decades.DavidRamsay99 wrote: »Prior to 1916 during the Home Rule crisis the Irish Parliamentary Party leader John Redmond raised a paramilitary army of Irish nationalists to meet the UVF head on.
No, John Redmond didn't raise the Irish Volunteers, that would be Eoin MacNeill and various members of the IRB. Read the autobiography of Bulmer Hobson to see how Redmond later usurped the leadership of the Volunteers, which is an entirely different thing.DavidRamsay99 wrote: »During the election campaign the Sinn Féin activists who spoke out against the introduction of conscription were lifted and thrown in jail
Once again: the conscription crisis was in the spring of 1918, but no election had been called at that point. The election was only called after the war ended in November 1918. Why would Sinn Fein activisits or anyone else be speaking out against conscription after the end of the war when it was no longer an issue?DavidRamsay99 wrote: »There was a surge in support for the IRA with tens of thousands of men drilling
No, this was in response to the conscription crisis - one of the BMH witness statements from Tyrone even refers to two members of the local UVF joining the Volunteers in order to avoid conscription. As a case in point, a memoir written by Thomas Gunn of B Company in the Belfast Battalion (the original is in the Collins Papers in Military Archives) states: "The strength of B Coy in 1917, as far as I can recollect, was between 40 and 50 but during the conscription scare of 1918 its numbers were swelled by about 120. When the danger of conscription was definitely past, our additional strength fell away and only two of the 'conscriptioneers' remained in the company."DavidRamsay99 wrote: »Lord French's explanation was the bogus "German plot" when it was obvious that the British knew Sinn Féin was on the cusp of sweeping the Irish Parliamentary Party away in the 1918 election. The British tried to sabotage the election in advance
Once again: the "German Plot" arrests were in May 1918, but no election had been called at that point - there was no election in the offing for anyone to have premonitions about or to sabotage. Far from being on the cusp of being swept away, the IPP won three bye-elections in a row in early 1918, so even if an election had been called in May 1918, the result was by no means a foregone conclusion. As it happened, the one 1916 commandant who stood for election in December 1918, de Valera, was beaten out of sight in Belfast Falls by the IPP's Joe Devlin. Just as well he also stood in Clare East.DavidRamsay99 wrote: »The Free State Army was supplied with British uniforms dyed green, ex-British Irish born soldiers, surplus artillery, armored cars and rifles.
No, the uniforms were made in Britain but were not British Army uniforms - compare the collars and note the use of leggings instead of puttees and soft caps instead of steel helmets. Until July 1922, recruitment to the Free State Army was restricted to those who had served in the IRA during the War of Independence. Thereafter, it was opened up to all, including ex-British Army soldiers who returned here after being demobbed - and they volunteered rather than being "supplied". In that, it was no different to the IRA during the War of Independence - Tom Barry being the most notable example but off the top of my head I can think of a Brigade O/C in Antrim, a battalion O/C in Belfast and two company Captains in Belfast who had all served in the British Army during the war.DavidRamsay99 wrote: »Robberies, seizures of arms and explosives by bands of republicans under way to prepare for guerrilla war.
You are over-estimating the degree of preparedness and organisation of the IRA at the start of 1919 - as late as November of the following year, GHQ was still appointing full-time organisers to go to various areas to try to get the local volunteers into shape. My granda was one of them.0 -
Dr.Nightdub wrote: »No, the triumph of the IPP in 1910 was predicated on them not having any opposition apart from the Unionists in the north and in TCD and the All for Ireland League in Cork, who won 8 seats in 1910 despite the best efforts of the AOH. Outside those areas, most IPP MPs were elected unopposed and had been for decades.
Home Rule was the last chance saloon for Redmond and the IPP. It was the keystone holding the party together after the mending of the split in 1910.
The IPP received the endorsement of the majority but only if Home Rule was delivered. When the UVF formed to fight against Home Rule, Redmond moved quickly to put his people on the steering group of the Irish Volunteers and made sure that mainstream nationalists filled out the ranks instead of the organization being dominated by the IRB hardcore. Why would he do that unless he feared the IPP was in danger of being eclipsed by republicanism if Home Rule was not delivered?No, John Redmond didn't raise the Irish Volunteers, that would be Eoin MacNeill and various members of the IRB. Read the autobiography of Bulmer Hobson to see how Redmond later usurped the leadership of the Volunteers, which is an entirely different thing.
The overwhelming majority of the rank and file of the Irish Volunteers were IPP supporters because Redmond encouraged them to join. MacNeill and his people were sidelined prior to 1914. That changed when the war came along and the majority National Volunteers broke away and joined the British Army. The rump of a few thousand republicans left who refused to fight in the war formed the core of the 1916 rebellion. After the 1916 Rising and the mass casualties of the Great War and the beginning of the War of independence the men who had been involved in the Irish Volunteers came back and joined the IRA in 1917.Once again: the conscription crisis was in the spring of 1918, but no election had been called at that point. The election was only called after the war ended in November 1918.
Everyone knew an election was on the cards once the war was over. It hadn't been called but everyone knew it was going to happen. They knew the IPP was moribund and that Sinn Féin was going to clean up.Why would Sinn Fein activisits or anyone else be speaking out against conscription after the end of the war when it was no longer an issue?
They didn't and I never said they did.No, this was in response to the conscription crisis - one of the BMH witness statements from Tyrone even refers to two members of the local UVF joining the Volunteers in order to avoid conscription. As a case in point, a memoir written by Thomas Gunn of B Company in the Belfast Battalion (the original is in the Collins Papers in Military Archives) states: "The strength of B Coy in 1917, as far as I can recollect, was between 40 and 50 but during the conscription scare of 1918 its numbers were swelled by about 120. When the danger of conscription was definitely past, our additional strength fell away and only two of the 'conscriptioneers' remained in the company."
You are selecting an isolate case of two UVF guys joining the Irish Volunteers to try and disprove the influx of members was motivated by republicanism right? The reason why so many Irish were opposed to conscription was because of awakened nationalism. Everyone could see the war had cost Ireland the cream of its manhood and that they had been sold a pig in a poke by Redmond. The 1916 Rising introduced a new fire and spirit and opposition to conscription was an act of rebellion.Once again: the "German Plot" arrests were in May 1918, but no election had been called at that point - there was no election in the offing for anyone to have premonitions about or to sabotage.
The public support for the Sinn Féin organisation at local and national level was already leading to a de facto separatist state parallel with the British rule. Read the reports of the DI inspectors to Dublin Castle and it is obvious that the IPP was moribund and Sinn Féin garnered huge support across the political spectrum. Germany was on its last legs and victory was imminent and a general election was sure to follow.As it happened, the one 1916 commandant who stood for election in December 1918, de Valera, was beaten out of sight in Belfast Falls by the IPP's Joe Devlin. Just as well he also stood in Clare East.
In East Clare De Valera took the seat of the late Willie Redmond, the brother of John Redmond the leader of the IPP. Redmond had died a heroic death at the Western Front. This victory by Sinn Féin in July 1917 was the canary in the mine that signaled what was coming. De Valera was elected on an openly republican platform trumpeting his role as a leader in 1916 and as anti-conscription candidate. It is clear then that people were anti-conscription because they were already republicans. They did not become republicans because they were anti-conscription. They became republican because Home Rule had not been delivered and the rebels of 1916 offered the only alternative - republicanism.No, the uniforms were made in Britain but were not British Army uniforms - compare the collars and note the use of leggings instead of puttees and soft caps instead of steel helmets.
The specially made uniforms of the officers and the elite Dublin Guard maybe. But the rank in file made do with civilian clothes at first and as ex-British soldiers joined as common infantrymen they used surplus uniforms dyed green. They also brought their belt kit and rifles with them following the disbandment of the Irish Regiments.Until July 1922, recruitment to the Free State Army was restricted to those who had served in the IRA during the War of Independence. Thereafter, it was opened up to all, including ex-British Army soldiers who returned here after being demobbed - and they volunteered rather than being "supplied".
When the British Army's Irish regiments were disbanded they joined the Free State Army en masse. War veterans also joined up and the Free State Army which was a chaotic rabble at the beginning of the Civil War became a tightly organized professional force by the end of the war the following year. They were effectively freed up to be recruited into the Free State Army. For republicans the mismatched uniforms of the Free State Army earned them the nickname "The Green And Tans."In that, it was no different to the IRA during the War of Independence
The overwhelming majority of the IRA were middle farmers sons and middle class clerks shopkeepers tradesmen and so forth who had not joined the British Army during the Great War. They were good guerrilla fighter both were hopeless as a conventional fighting force during the opening phase of the the Civil War when the Free State Army offensive got going.The bulk of the - Tom Barry being the most notable example but off the top of my head I can think of a Brigade O/C in Antrim, a battalion O/C in Belfast and two company Captains in Belfast who had all served in the British Army during the war.
The majority of the IRA during the War of Independence were complete amateurs. Except for a few disciplined units knocked into shape by the likes of Barry and others very few others functioned effectively as fighting units against the superior numbers of the Black and Tans, Auxillaries and British Army. The reason the British decided on a Truce is because it was obvious at national and local level the Sinn Féin organisation was firmly in power and the majority were not going to accept the Union any more.You are over-estimating the degree of preparedness and organisation of the IRA at the start of 1919 - as late as November of the following year, GHQ was still appointing full-time organisers to go to various areas to try to get the local volunteers into shape. My granda was one of them.
What is more important is the numbers on the IRA roll books. The IRA were a paper army for the most part. Only a few thousand actually made a contribution in the fighting. It is clear that tens of thousands were members - whether those members actually did anything of any significance is neither here nor there. The majority of Irish people swung behind the republican cause after the Easter Rising and this was the sea in which the rebel fishes swam.
To sum up. The Easter Rising was the key event. Without it there would have been no War of Independence, no Free State and no Republic today.
If the Easter Rising had not occurred the Irish Nationalist and republican movement would have run into the sand much as it did in Scotland for decades after their own Home Rule movement was dead and buried.
This is why the rebellion was legitimate.0 -
Not enough reference is given to the intentions and actions of the Ulster Volunteer Force and elements with the British Army based in Ireland. Home Rule for the entire island would never have been accepted without a violent response from those elements.0
-
Advertisement
-
Santa Cruz wrote: »Not enough reference is given to the intentions and actions of the Ulster Volunteer Force and elements with the British Army based in Ireland. Home Rule for the entire island would never have been accepted without a violent response from those elements.
In an alternative reality in which world war had not broken out in 1914 (the assassin Princip was standing near Moritz Schiller's cafe when Franz Ferdinand's car had gone past after taking a wrong turn) there is no question that the UVF would likely have fought against Home Rule and they likely would have had the support of the British Army. The UVF planned to seize buildings in the center of Belfast. The Catholic Irish in the ranks of the British Army in Ireland and Catholic members of the RIC would probably have sided with the Irish Volunteers but the British would have replaced them.
The Conservatives would have sided with the Ulstermen and the British Army. The Liberals would not have wished to have civil war with the Conservatives over Ireland. Outgunned the Irish Volunteers would have been defeated. There would have been heavy loss of life from sectarian warfare and the country devastated.0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »..... There would have been heavy loss of life from sectarian warfare and the country devastated.
This would have been terrible. Almost like a civil war....
Oh no wait.
Your alternative doomsday scenario ends with the same as what reality ended with. Are you suggesting that the 1916 rising did not change how things would have turned out.
When your in a hole stop digging is the phrase that comes to mind when reading your posts.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »This would have been terrible. Almost like a civil war....
Oh no wait.
Your alternative doomsday scenario ends with the same as what reality ended with. Are you suggesting that the 1916 rising did not change how things would have turned out.
When your in a hole stop digging is the phrase that comes to mind when reading your posts.
Several thousand died and there was a lot of damage in particular to Dublin, Cork and other towns as well as the rail network and creameries but Ireland certainly was not devastated by the War of Independence and Civil War. It would have been if there had been a civil war between the north and the south.
I believe the 1916 Rising prevented that.
The War of Independence was overwhelmingly a war between the British Crown and Irish republicanism. Republicans in Northern Ireland made a limited impact compared to their southern comrades and so the Northern Unionists got on with creating a Protestant dominated state in the six counties from 1920 onward. When Collins and Griffith and their delegate signed the Treaty in 1921 partition was a fait accompli.
Collins supplied the northern IRA with rifles that had been supplied by the British and there were several border skirmishes but if Collins had any plans to continue a border war it was put to an end by the outbreak of Civil War. Republicans fighting eachother was just what the Unionists and Conservatives wanted. After Collins was dead Cosgrave, O'Higgins and Mulcahy had little or no interest in republican resistance in the six counties.
In a scenario where World War I had never intervened a far larger war would have probably occurred with direct involvement by the UVF in the south. Mercifully German machine guns took care of the Ulster Division on the 1 July 1916 or otherwise those same men would have been the opponents of the Irish Volunteers. In 1914 the Unionists had superior arms and training to the Irish Volunteers and with British Army help would probably have taken over the entire island. The bloodletting would have on a bigger scale than either the War of Independence and Civil War with sectarian massacres sure to be a feature.
So arguably our timeline was the least worst outcome.
Without a 1916 Rising the entire country would probably have experienced a Protestant hegemony like that in Northern Ireland from 1920 until 1972. If a Troubles style conflict had broken out in the late 1960s it would have been country wide rather than confined to the six counties.0 -
The 1914 Curragh Mutiny has been held as a precursor to a pustch by the British army in the even of Home Rule. While a handy fable for the nationalist historian it has the disadvantage of not being credible when compared to other military based coups/regimes. From AFAIK from Shiner's "Man on Horseback" & Luttwark's "Coups" that provide the standard works on such, to mount a military operation against the state the army would have needed some measure of popular support and acquience of some of the power-brokers in society. In the case of that Mutuity this was simply not the case. The historical memory of the Cromwell era and the many interactions between military/ruling classes meant that any officers disobeying orders would easily have been cashiered if they persisted.
Instead compare the actual instability that 1916 inspired with the re-introduction of violence that robs it of legitamacy.0 -
The 1914 Curragh Mutiny has been held as a precursor to a pustch by the British army in the even of Home Rule. While a handy fable for the nationalist historian it has the disadvantage of not being credible when compared to other military based coups/regimes. From AFAIK from Shiner's "Man on Horseback" & Luttwark's "Coups" that provide the standard works on such, to mount a military operation against the state the army would have needed some measure of popular support and acquience of some of the power-brokers in society. In the case of that Mutuity this was simply not the case. The historical memory of the Cromwell era and the many interactions between military/ruling classes meant that any officers disobeying orders would easily have been cashiered if they persisted.
Instead compare the actual instability that 1916 inspired with the re-introduction of violence that robs it of legitamacy.
If the UVF had rebelled against Home Rule - gone through with their plan to seize the center of Belfast and other towns - and the British military commanders in Ireland refused to move against them or openly supported them then UK public sympathy would have been with these plucky loyal British subjects.
No British government was prepared to use force to bring about Home Rule rather they were in favor of at the very least fudging it and at most using military force to quell the Irish.
In such a scenario Irish Nationalists would probably have responded by seizing Dublin and other southern towns and the Republicans would have said Home Rule was not worth the paper it was written if it had been passed in the Commons and the British were unwilling to enforce it and turn their machine guns on renegade loyalists and British soldiers. They would probably seized control of the Irish Volunteers and declared a Republic.
The British would have their excuse to crush Irish nationalism.
Instead of fighting the war with one arm tied behind their back as in 1919-1921 this would have been unrestricted warfare.
Two events prevented this from happening.
The outbreak of World War I and the 1916 Rising.
England's difficulty really did become Ireland's opportunity.0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »In an alternative reality in which .............
Countless emotive adjectives, too much bias, supposition, hypotheses, conjecture, assumptions, guesstimation. Not a source – primary or secondary - in sight.
Who gives a rats about what might have happened? It’s not history, just bulls#!t on the lines of (and as meaningful as) si mi tia tuviera cojones seria mi tio! Next we will have the relatives of the 1916ers holding forth as experts just because they are relatives and deserve a place/be heard/ whatever. 99.9% of the country has moved on......0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Countless emotive adjectives, too much bias, supposition, hypotheses, conjecture, assumptions, guesstimation. Not a source – primary or secondary - in sight.
Who gives a rats about what might have happened? It’s not history, just bulls#!t on the lines of (and as meaningful as) si mi tia tuviera cojones seria mi tio! Next we will have the relatives of the 1916ers holding forth as experts just because they are relatives and deserve a place/be heard/ whatever. 99.9% of the country has moved on......
The whole point of history is to find out what happened and why. Specifically by trying to find out what options were on the table and why chances were missed and why the present turned out this way and not some other way.
Otherwise what is the point?
My assumptions are informed by the reality at that time and what people thought and the alternatives that were available.
Clearly 99.9% of the country has not moved on since the commemorations of 1916 are getting under way and the impact of the Rising continues to send ripples into the present.
Without 1916 there might have been no War of Independence and no Civil War and no Free State and no Republic. Irish Republicanism inspired uprisings in other colonies of the European Empires. The rebellion is the seminal moment of Irish history.
The question of its legitimacy is the key question. That's what I have tried to address in my OP and in the thread discussion.0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »The whole point of history is to find out what happened and why. Specifically by trying to find out what options were on the table and why chances were missed and why the present turned out this way and not some other way.
Otherwise what is the point?
My assumptions are informed by the reality at that time and what people thought and the alternatives that were available.
Clearly 99.9% of the country has not moved on since the commemorations of 1916 are getting under way and the impact of the Rising continues to send ripples into the present.
Without 1916 there might have been no War of Independence and no Civil War and no Free State and no Republic. Irish Republicanism inspired uprisings in other colonies of the European Empires. The rebellion is the seminal moment of Irish history.
The question of its legitimacy is the key question. That's what I have tried to address in my OP and in the thread discussion.
What discussion ? 14 posts by you, and half the remainder are polite requests for sources !0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
My assumptions are informed by the reality at that time and what people thought and the alternatives that were available.
Clearly 99.9% of the country has not moved on since the commemorations of 1916 are getting under way and the impact of the Rising continues to send ripples into the present.
No, your assumptions are informed by your personal interpretation of that time and you are selecting (or, more precisely, using adverse selection) to suit your hypothesis.
As for the 99.9%, personally I view the cr@p that is going on over the Rising as sickening, with Walter Mitty types dressing up in period costume and as informed about the Rising as the Bloomsday long dress and bowler hat gobdaws who parade around Sandycove are about Joyce & Ulysses..
1916 centenary commemoration? Shur it'll be graand, it'll bring in loadz of tourists (and we can get plenty of time in front of the cameras before the election!).....0 -
Advertisement
-
What discussion ? 14 posts by you, and half the remainder are polite requests for sources !
Did not the Conservatives and Unionists plot to sabotage Home Rule by importing arms?
Did not Home Rule clear every hurdle in the Commons and was passed only to be suspended by the outbreak of war?
Did not the British Army plot to mutiny if they were ordered to oppose the UVF?
Did not Redmond's decision to support the British war effort play a major role behind the decision of tens of thousands of Irishmen to fight and die in World War I?
Do not all of these facts indicate that Home Rule was dead by 1916 and the only real chance at independence was to abandon the moribund Home Rule cause instead fight for a Republic?
Did not the subsequent actions of the British in trying to suppress the national will prove the wisdom of the 1916 leaders?
Does not the overwhelming majority in 1918 election for Sinn Féin prove that the majority of Irish people became republicans and endorsed the 1916 rebellion by voting for those same rebels who stood on an openly republican platform?0
Advertisement