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

Easter Parade

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    duggie-89 wrote: »
    and what grudges do you feel are being held???
    :rolleyes:
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    the uvf would have staged a rising of their own i believe.
    So the best way to pre-empt that was to have a Rising and declare a Republic? Yeah, that'll show 'em. :rolleyes:
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    home rule was promised but achieving it is another matter totaly.
    It wasn't "promised", it was passed in 1914. There is a difference. It's enactment was delayed due to the outbreak of WWI.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    it is the popular belief of historians that the british public would not have stood for a population that wanted to remain part of the uk being succed.
    Considering the low level of knoweldge that the British public has of Ireland today, I can't imagine they were any better informed 100 years ago. I think they were probably far more concerned with making ends meet in the aftermath of the war.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    which would have happened, the uvf would have fgought a war to remain part of the uk and the british public would have reacted to this.
    The UVF may have rebelled, but correct me if I'm wrong, the UVF exists as a paramilitary group to this day anyway; so what difference would it have made?
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    you would be correct they didn't achieve their aims and their fight has still to be won. but would you say the same for such men such as che guvera??
    Yes. I don't understand the celebrity status attributed to that guy. To quote Johann Hari:
    ...Che Guevara is not a free-floating icon of rebellion. He was an actual person who supported an actual system of tyranny, one that murdered millions more actual people.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    i mean if lloyd george really wanted to grant home rule then why not after 1918 when ww1 ended????
    Eh, the Rising took place in 1916; Home Rule went out the window after that.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    and had the rising never taken place we could very possibliy have an ireland united................ but under the british crown.
    Why? The vast majority of people in Ireland want to be independent from Britain, so it is highly unlikely that we would still be part of Britain if the Rising had never happened.
    Mordeth wrote: »
    where exactly is this?
    Here.


  • Options
    #33
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    savetibet? :)

    I hope that was irony, too stoned atm to see it myself.


  • Options
    #34
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    murphaph wrote: »
    I personally feel much more sorry for the couple of hundred ordinary dubs like myself who were caught up in the rebels' reckless actions nd who paid for it with their lives. They tend to be forgotten about when glorifying the blood lust of Pearse and his jolly mates.

    Do you feel sorry also for the civilians murdered by the British army at the time? (helga random shelling especially comes to mind)
    murphaph wrote:
    I blame them for the division of orange and green on this island. Their actions caused ripples that were still being felt in NI decades later.

    Division between orange and green occurred with the formation of the Orange Order or shall we rewrite history on that one?
    murphaph wrote: »
    I guess the small numbers in attendance and the almost complete lack of any news about them show how the general population feel about it then....not much is the answer.

    Haha, nice try. It might not be an event for an unionist like yourself.

    I myself didn't know it was on, a bit of publicity would of helped turn out the crowds.
    By the time i arrived in town at 2:30pm that day, the thing was over hence my grievance earlier in the thread at it only lasting half hour long. :mad:


  • Options
    #35
    daithicarr
    Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭daithicarr


    djpbarry wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    The UVF may have rebelled, but correct me if I'm wrong, the UVF exists as a paramilitary group to this day anyway; so what difference would it have made?
    .

    Here comes the correction. the modern UVF were formed in 1966 to attack the IRA, which didnt really exist in much shape of form. they were just created to block catholic emanicpation . there is no direct link between the two. the newer one just took the name of the older one.

    The threat of UVF rebellion was very big, they were oppossed to a catholic goverment. they were happy enough when the north got a Protestant dominated home rule and all went off and joined stuff like the B specials


  • Options
    #36
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    duggie-89 wrote: »
    but can i just ask do you feel that those who fought on the rebels side during 1916 can be regarded as hero's??
    No, but if you regard them as heroes then who am I to stop you :)

    I believe the way history has been taught has made it difficult for people to analyse the rebel action properly and people are automatically dismissed as west brits for daring to question the rising.

    I wish they hadn't done it. I wish Ireland had gained home rule as a single unit, taking as much time to keep the protestants on board and I wish these things because the Free State and later RoI became a Roman Catholic Church controlled basket case.

    The british had their sexual revolution in the 60's. You practically couldn't even buy johnnies here until the 90's! The large number of protestants as part of an all ireland nation would have kept the catholic church much more in check than they were.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    gurramok wrote: »
    Do you feel sorry also for the civilians murdered by the British army at the time? (helga random shelling especially comes to mind)
    Of course. Do you not?
    gurramok wrote: »
    Division between orange and green occurred with the formation of the Orange Order or shall we rewrite history on that one?
    Strange thing to say. So catholics and protestants got on swimmingly until then?
    gurramok wrote: »
    Haha, nice try. It might not be an event for an unionist like yourself.

    I myself didn't know it was on, a bit of publicity would of helped turn out the crowds.
    By the time i arrived in town at 2:30pm that day, the thing was over hence my grievance earlier in the thread at it only lasting half hour long. :mad:
    Look. Nobody gave a monkies that there was no big parade or whatever.


  • Options
    #38
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,027 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Obviously some people do as people would not be posting on a thread like this


  • Options
    #39
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Mordeth wrote: »
    savetibet? :)

    I hope that was irony, too stoned atm to see it myself.
    I didn't actually notice the URL. I was just going for the wilderness look - Everest fit the bill nicely.
    daithicarr wrote: »
    the modern UVF were formed in 1966 to attack the IRA, which didnt really exist in much shape of form. they were just created to block catholic emanicpation . there is no direct link between the two. the newer one just took the name of the older one.
    I am aware of the discontinuity -I was merely pointing out the existence of Unionist paramilitaries, Home Rule or no Home Rule.
    gurramok wrote: »
    It might not be an event for an unionist like yourself.
    I don't think it was much of an event for anyone - this thread is the first I've heard of it.


  • Options
    #40
    duggie-89
    Closed Accounts Posts: 168 ✭✭duggie-89


    djpbarry wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    o great answer, i now see the error of my ways.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
    djpbarry wrote: »
    So the best way to pre-empt that was to have a Rising and declare a Republic? Yeah, that'll show 'em. :rolleyes:

    again your knowledge and understanding of the republican movement shows. republicans are a progressive force, they didn't start a rising to piss off the uvf they started it to free ireland. if you cant understand that then please dont try and re-write history.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    It wasn't "promised", it was passed in 1914. There is a difference. It's enactment was delayed due to the outbreak of WWI.
    o and everything britians "passes" automatically happens, dont be so believeing in the "greatness" and honour of britian, as home rule was highly unlikly to succed for a long period of time as there was alot of opposition agaisnt it. both in ireland and britian. but it was promised that it would happen to the irish volunteers ie the ones who joine redmond and it was promised not to happen to the uvf ie the ones who became the 36th ulster divison. so how could they carry out both promises when each one went agaisnt the other?????
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Considering the low level of knoweldge that the British public has of Ireland today, I can't imagine they were any better informed 100 years ago. I think they were probably far more concerned with making ends meet in the aftermath of the war.

    you would infact be wrong ireland was on top of the political agenda thoughout that whole time period. from 1830's to 1920's the irish question was one that kept apperaing on the main agenda of the time. as the irish MP held the balance of power for those in westminister.
    the low level of knowledge that the british public has of ireland is prob because 26 out of 32 counties have gained freedom from britain and so have nothing directly to do with the british public.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    The UVF may have rebelled, but correct me if I'm wrong, the UVF exists as a paramilitary group to this day anyway; so what difference would it have made?

    as someone else has already pointed out they were two very different era's and forces but with the same name. also the old UVF would have a totaly differnt approach to a war than the current one. the old UVF would have fought britian and the ira instead of the current one which was backed up by britain
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Eh, the Rising took place in 1916; Home Rule went out the window after that.
    yes because it became obvious that home rule wouldn't have worked!!!! the rising was an awakeing for the people and the irish people soon realised that home rule wasn't going to end britians interference in ireland and so irish people couldn't decide how to make the most of their lives.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Why? The vast majority of people in Ireland want to be independent from Britain, so it is highly unlikely that we would still be part of Britain if the Rising had never happened.
    NO, the majority of irish people wanted home rule, there was alot of support for republicans but it wasn't wide spread until after the rising when the irish people saw and realised for themselves the injustices britain could do, remeber britian was seen at the time as a great and civilzed nation. the irish people realised that for them to have a future they needed to gain independance.

    have you read the proclomation?? what do you think of it??


  • Options
    #41
    duggie-89
    Closed Accounts Posts: 168 ✭✭duggie-89


    murphaph wrote: »
    No, but if you regard them as heroes then who am I to stop you :)

    I believe the way history has been taught has made it difficult for people to analyse the rebel action properly and people are automatically dismissed as west brits for daring to question the rising.

    I wish they hadn't done it. I wish Ireland had gained home rule as a single unit, taking as much time to keep the protestants on board and I wish these things because the Free State and later RoI became a Roman Catholic Church controlled basket case.

    The british had their sexual revolution in the 60's. You practically couldn't even buy johnnies here until the 90's! The large number of protestants as part of an all ireland nation would have kept the catholic church much more in check than they were.

    well if what you wished to happen could have come true then i would followed you. but i dont believe home rule would have worked, they was to many against it and we could never have seen the unionist accept home rule.

    look how long it took them to accept powersharing in the north which is practicly home rule.

    yes i agree the catholic church ruined the south and the protestants biogiots (noting that it doesn't refer to all protestants just the one's who were actaully bigots ie orange order and the specials) ruined the north. hence another reason why a 32 county republic would balance the whole thing out lol :D:D

    wel i feel its a pity that you dont seem them for hero's but i your entitled to that view. but just food for thought, all the major political parties see the men of 1916 as hero's is that because its what they believe or because its what they think the public wants to hear???


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Can someone explain to me the practical differences between the Free State that was achieved in 1922 after a botched rising and a bloody war of independence, and the Home Rule status that had already been granted in 1914?


  • Options
    #43
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    murphaph wrote: »
    Of course. Do you not?
    Yes i do, i don't cherrypick the sufferings of who suffered and by whom.
    murphaph wrote: »
    Strange thing to say. So catholics and protestants got on swimmingly until then?
    There was a thing called the United Irishmen, the OO did their best to promote division back then and still do.
    murphaph wrote: »
    Look. Nobody gave a monkies that there was no big parade or whatever.
    Thats your view, not everybodys view.


  • Options
    #44
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    duggie-89 wrote: »
    republicans are a progressive force, they didn't start a rising to piss off the uvf they started it to free ireland.
    Progressive indeed. **** Home Rule, we want a Republic and we're going to kill as many people as it takes to get one. Yeah, real progressive :rolleyes:.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    o and everything britians "passes" automatically happens, dont be so believeing in the "greatness" and honour of britian, as home rule was highly unlikly to succed for a long period of time as there was alot of opposition agaisnt it.
    You appear to have very little faith in democracy. Yes, there was a lot of opposition to Home Rule, but there was also a lot of support for it. The main opposition came from the Conservatives and obviously, Ulster Unionists. However, even the Conservatives introduced the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898 and the Unionists were not so much opposed to the idea of self-determination, but rather (understandably) a Dublin-based parliament heavily influenced by the Catholic Church; this was hardly an insurmountable obstacle.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    but it was promised that it would happen to the irish volunteers ie the ones who joine redmond and it was promised not to happen to the uvf ie the ones who became the 36th ulster divison.
    I'm not sure about the latter, but yes, Asquith and Redmond negotiated the Home Rule bill that was passed by royal assent in 1914. That is not a promise, any more than the passing of the Good Friday Agreement was a "promise" by the Irish government to abolish Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    you would infact be wrong ireland was on top of the political agenda thoughout that whole time period.
    But that's not what I said. Let me put it this way; Iraq is a big political issue in Britain right now, but how much do you suppose the average Briton knows about Iraq and it's people? How many people in Britain do you suppose could even name the Iraqi Prime Minister?
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    the low level of knowledge that the british public has of ireland is prob because 26 out of 32 counties have gained freedom from britain and so have nothing directly to do with the british public.
    So you think the British public know more about Northern Ireland than the Republic? I doubt it; based on my experience, British public knowledge of the entire island is pretty poor. I would say this is largely due to the fact that Anglo-Irish history does not really feature in the British education syllabus.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    as someone else has already pointed out they were two very different era's and forces but with the same name.
    And as I have already said, I am aware of the discontinuity; I was merely pointing out the existence of loyalist paramilitaries in either scenario.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    yes because it became obvious that home rule wouldn't have worked!!!!
    Because of the actions of the violent Republican movement, right?
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    NO, the majority of irish people wanted home rule, there was alot of support for republicans but it wasn't wide spread until after the rising ...
    First of all, you haven't given any reason why independence would not have been achieved had the Rising not occurred. Secondly, the Republican movement did not gain widespread support until after the executions of those who took part in the Rising, rather than the Rising itself. Finally, you are making the assumption that those who supported Home Rule did not see this as a step towards full independence.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    have you read the proclomation?? what do you think of it??
    "We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God."

    :rolleyes:

    Enough said.
    duggie-89 wrote: »
    hence another reason why a 32 county republic would balance the whole thing out
    So you think that Home Rule would not have worked, yet you think a 32-county Republic is now the way to go?!? That makes absolutely no sense and is a complete contradiction.


  • Options
    #45
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Can someone explain to me the practical differences between the Free State that was achieved in 1922 after a botched rising and a bloody war of independence, and the Home Rule status that had already been granted in 1914?

    the free state got more competence in areas such as tax and finance, and certain areas of policy were only opened to westminister, further the 1914 deal required that a number of representives in the free state were required to continue to sit at westminster. the 1914 deal was not keen on us having our own army (although the treaty did have a say on the limit we were to have as well) 1914 deal did not give complete power in domestic areas. the treaty of 1921 provided an improved deal, which is important, without the treaty deal we could not have produced our own currency etc. the whole point of hr, as you will have guessed was to at least have complete parliamentary independence from westminster on the domestic front


  • Options
    #46
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    gurramok wrote: »
    Yes i do, i don't cherrypick the sufferings of who suffered and by whom.


    There was a thing called the United Irishmen, the OO did their best to promote division back then and still do. .

    not to mention groups like the land league (ie for the ordinary protestant tenant), the gaelic league under hyde ((before dp moran raised his ugly head about his version of an irish man) and the league's inflitration by the irb))


  • Options
    #47
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Progressive indeed. **** Home Rule, we want a Republic and we're going to kill as many people as it takes to get one. Yeah, real progressive :rolleyes:.
    You appear to have very little faith in democracy. Yes, there was a lot of opposition to Home Rule, but there was also a lot of support for it. The main opposition came from the Conservatives and obviously, Ulster Unionists. However, even the Conservatives introduced the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898 and the Unionists were not so much opposed to the idea of self-determination, but rather (understandably) a Dublin-based parliament heavily influenced by the Catholic Church; this was hardly an insurmountable obstacle.
    I'm not sure about the latter, but yes, Asquith and Redmond negotiated the Home Rule bill that was passed by royal assent in 1914. That is not a promise, any more than the passing of the Good Friday Agreement was a "promise" by the Irish government to abolish Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland.
    But that's not what I said. Let me put it this way; Iraq is a big political issue in Britain right now, but how much do you suppose the average Briton knows about Iraq and it's people? How many people in Britain do you suppose could even name the Iraqi Prime Minister?
    So you think the British public know more about Northern Ireland than the Republic? I doubt it; based on my experience, British public knowledge of the entire island is pretty poor. I would say this is largely due to the fact that Anglo-Irish history does not really feature in the British education syllabus.
    And as I have already said, I am aware of the discontinuity; I was merely pointing out the existence of loyalist paramilitaries in either scenario.
    Because of the actions of the violent Republican movement, right?
    First of all, you haven't given any reason why independence would not have been achieved had the Rising not occurred. Secondly, the Republican movement did not gain widespread support until after the executions of those who took part in the Rising, rather than the Rising itself. Finally, you are making the assumption that those who supported Home Rule did not see this as a step towards full independence.
    "We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God."

    :rolleyes:

    Enough said.
    So you think that Home Rule would not have worked, yet you think a 32-county Republic is now the way to go?!? That makes absolutely no sense and is a complete contradiction.

    name 10 political/international movements pre 1922 that did not attempt the use of force to get independence? what did france or america do? look how america to this day spreads its ideas of converting democracy etc to the middle east

    history repeats itself , so yes modern america is relevant here - my point is, if you are a shamed of how independence was won, is to look at what other countries were at, at this time - of course in todays world, violence is not the answer and politics and constitutionalism has shown to work, but analysing this period of history without having regard to the school of thought then is negligent to the harsh truths and realities.

    you seem to forget, or refuse to realise,or is ignorant (which i doubt) the following facts; that home rule came into power in 1914. within this time the uvf were established. it promised to do everything that was neccessary to stop home rule -even go to civil war. read the covenant of 1912! bonar law and randolph churchill and the conservatives supported this - ulster wll fight and ulster will be right. the gun running in larne with the assistance of conservative members highlighted their readiness to insurgency. there was a high possibility that uvf would turn the guns on not only on those who supported home rule which was democratically supported in the house of commons three times, but the gun could have also turned against members of HRM forces's who were there to uphold law and order. even the british historians accept that bonar law's action were TREASONIST

    you need to remember, during the war years Asquith and later Chamberlain did not enjoy complete control of their parties or governement as Conservatives were in the war room cabinet too.what hppens when war is over? will conservatives take over at election time and undo the work of the predeccessor. look at winston churchill - the people were quick to vote him out as pm post war

    the republican movement was divided and diverse,you also had the secretive irish republican brotherhood - the real players in 1916 rising. they never made it a secret of their aims - complete independence.

    people like pearse and de valera (although not prominent then) supported redmond and the home rule movement until 1912. the establishment of the uvf and threats to home rule - hence the set up of the irish volunteers, which in the words of eoin macneill was a defensive group, however the irb inflirated this like they did with everything.

    people like pearse where sick and tired of the lack of progress in westminister. the shelving of the act was the final straw. there was no guarantee that it would be respected or not repealed after the war. britian went to the somme to fight for the independence of the small nations like belgium but were happy to ignore ireland's

    the republican movement surprised the british, it set up their own courts and adminstrations successfully, the world looked in atonishment with the constitutional wing (sinn feinn) who like we see in the future with Ghandi (by the way sf influenced him!!!!) peacefully igorned the empire by setting up its own parliament which was attacked by britian with the dirty trick they are known and "loved for " (ie german plot) griffith as td for cavan proposed that a generous proportion of seats would we available to the unionist community in dail eireann. how is to say the catholic church would have been accepted they way it was by the people of ireland post 1922 had protestant unionist taken up the invitation in January 1919????


    so look lad, have regard for the realities OF THE TIME! no , there was no faith in democracy then, particularily when democracy was dictated by the empire.

    by the way, there is quiete a diffenece between Home Rule "Act" 1914 and the Good Friday "Agreement" if a bill is passed by royal assent, it is more than a promise, it becomes part of the law, a law that becomes effective upon royal consent or some time SHORTLY after enactment (certaintly not 2 years after). i accept your last bit thou (not that one would care lol)



    again, there is a bit of a difference between home rule then and a 32 county republic, independent of britian as we know it now. the first is there is greater understanding between both communities in his island now as there was then, the CC have damn all say in the republic now as they did back then, so that argument now goes out the window for unionists, greater efforts are now being made with the unionist division today.


  • Options
    #48
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Can someone explain to me the practical differences between the Free State that was achieved in 1922 after a botched rising and a bloody war of independence, and the Home Rule status that had already been granted in 1914?

    That he free state actually came into being unlike the 40 year old carrot that was home rule?


  • Options
    #49
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bambi wrote: »
    That he free state actually came into being unlike the 40 year old carrot that was home rule?
    Home Rule was two years old at that point. It had been denied for 40 years, then finally granted.

    I reckon this was a key driving force behind the rising: Home Rule was anathema to Pearse and company, who had a fanatical attachment to republicanism. Pearse in particular was also an open proponent of bloodshed as a means of purification.

    The rising's main aim was to prevent Home Rule. Its primary outcome was partition.


  • Options
    #50
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Home rule had 30 odd years to be implemented prior to 1916, and it never was, I guess that was Pearses fault too?

    Home Rule was never implemented. It would never have been either, it was a bust flush. The English didnt have the will for it. Even Redmond walked away from the table in the end, but I guess he was just another blood thirsty nationalist.


  • Options
    #51
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bambi wrote: »
    Home Rule was never implemented.
    I've explained one reason I believe was a major factor in that. Home Rule had been earned through decades of political pressure, which was squandered over a few days in 1916.
    Bambi wrote: »
    It would never have been either, it was a bust flush.
    It's all too easy to say what would or wouldn't have happened, but the fact is that Home Rule had been signed into law and was awaiting the end of the war.

    The logical thing to have done would have been to wait for the end of the war and give the political process a chance, but there has always been an element of Irish republicanism that has leaped at the opportunity to spill blood.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    what did france or america do?
    Are you referring to the American and French revolutions? Those that took place at the end of the 18th century? Because I thought we were talking about the beginning of the 20th century. The Egyptian Revolution of 1919 was a largely peaceful, non-violent protest by the Egyptian population that eventually lead to the country's independence from Britain in 1922.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    look how america to this day spreads its ideas of converting democracy etc to the middle east
    So? Everyone should follow America's example, should they?
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    ...analysing this period of history without having regard to the school of thought then is negligent to the harsh truths and realities.
    As you have already pointed out with your reference to the USA, violence is as prevalent in the world today is it was then and it is still preferred to diplomacy by many political groups, such as the Bush administration. So why was violent political action more acceptable in 1916 than it is now? And how is it that Parnell achieved so much through diplomacy and non-violent political action (and he died a full 25 years before the Rising)?
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    ...home rule came into power in 1914. within this time the uvf were established. it promised to do everything that was neccessary to stop home rule -even go to civil war.
    Why do people keep bringing up the UVF? How does this justify the Rising? Had Home Rule come to pass (in say, 1918) and the UVF were still opposed, then the Irish government would have been supported by the British in dealing with this terrorist group, who would have had the support of only a small percentage of the population. How did the Rising improve the situation?
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    people like pearse where sick and tired of the lack of progress in westminister.
    The passing of the Third Home Rule Bill was a LACK of progress?
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    the shelving of the act was the final straw. there was no guarantee that it would be respected or not repealed after the war.
    It is highly unlikely that it would have been repealed if nothing had changed much in Ireland in the intervening years. It wouldn't have done any harm to wait a couple of years to find out.

    I've no doubt that Pearse and co. did become impatient with the slow progress in Westminster, but I doubt they were the only ones. I'm sure Parnell became impatient numerous times during his career. I'm sure Gandhi did too. In fact, I would say there are hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland right now who have lost all patience with Bertie and co. The point is, impatience is not a good enough excuse for violence.

    I have no idea why Republicans constantly claim that violence was more acceptable 100 years ago than it is now - was human life worth less back then or something?
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    the republican movement surprised the british, it set up their own courts and adminstrations successfully
    ...
    griffith as td for cavan proposed that a generous proportion of seats would we available to the unionist community in dail eireann.
    Exactly. Government institutions were established by Sinn Féin in Ireland (non-violent action/protest) and Arthur Griffith was prepared to compromise with the Unionists (diplomacy); where was the need for the bloodshed?
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    ...if a bill is passed by royal assent, it is more than a promise, it becomes part of the law, a law that becomes effective upon royal consent or some time SHORTLY after enactment
    So you agree that Home Rule had in fact been made law? It was initially suspended for just one year, in the belief that WWI was to be rather brief.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    the first is there is greater understanding between both communities in his island now as there was then
    Somehow, I could not never see Ian Paisley sitting in the Dáil (had he not retired, of course).
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    the CC have damn all say in the republic now as they did back then
    Remind me why it is illegal to sell alcohol in Ireland on Good Friday? Was the church not heavily involved in the introduction of a constitutional ban on abortion? Who runs the majority of schools in this country? Why is divorce so restricted in this country? You really think the Catholic Church has no say in Ireland?


  • Options
    #53
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've explained one reason I believe was a major factor in that. Home Rule had been earned through decades of political pressure, which was squandered over a few days in 1916. It's all too easy to say what would or wouldn't have happened, but the fact is that Home Rule had been signed into law and was awaiting the end of the war.

    The logical thing to have done would have been to wait for the end of the war and give the political process a chance, but there has always been an element of Irish republicanism that has leaped at the opportunity to spill blood.

    I think your missing the main point. For 46 or so years of promises, trust had been lost of British promises whether they had royal assent or not. Even Redmond didn't trust them.

    A feeling at the time was that once the world war was over, Britain will have the resources to concentrate on one thing only, the denial of home rule/independence here.
    They would have been bolstered by the fact of tens of thousands of nationalist irishmen slaughtered/injured in the war, Britain would put down any future rebellion post war without any problems whatsoever.

    Remember what was said..'England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity', that was seen as the reason not to wait and trust was the biggest factor i believe.

    Walrusgamble explains it all in a nutshell, excellent post.

    This post is laughable in my opinion
    djpbarry wrote:
    Why do people keep bringing up the UVF? How does this justify the Rising? Had Home Rule come to pass (in say, 1918) and the UVF were still opposed, then the Irish government would have been supported by the British in dealing with this terrorist group, who would have had the support of only a small percentage of the population. How did the Rising improve the situation?

    The episode of the Curragh troops acting against the Irish volunteers within a heartbeat and ignoring UVF arms shipments torpedoes that argument.


  • Options
    #54
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Remind me why it is illegal to sell alcohol in Ireland on Good Friday? Was the church not heavily involved in the introduction of a constitutional ban on abortion? Who runs the majority of schools in this country? Why is divorce so restricted in this country? You really think the Catholic Church has no say in Ireland?

    Some good points raised in the post djp but just on this last one. I don't think the Catholic Church is that influential either. Yes they have a say but at the end of the day they don't legislate for us. It should be the political parties that you should blame for those laws you mentioned above.

    I personally don't think I know any fanatical Catholic Church suppoters but I'm not saying they don't exist. But in saying that you could say the same for any religion in Ireland. For example, the strict stance the Presbyterian church took against playing sports on the Sabbath or I think it was the Free Presbyterian supporters (but I stand corrected) that went as far as locking up swings in a playground so that children would not disrespect the Sabbath.


  • Options
    #55
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gurramok wrote: »
    I think your missing the main point. For 46 or so years of promises, trust had been lost of British promises whether they had royal assent or not. Even Redmond didn't trust them.
    I'm not missing the main point; I'm making a different point. Home Rule was very much on the cards in 1916, and it was the very danger of it becoming a reality that prompted the rising.

    The majority of Irish people wanted Home Rule. A small minority wanted a republic, and were dismayed at the prospect of Home Rule. A tiny minority of that minority were prepared to sacrifice their own lives, and as many others as necessary, to put the cause of Republicanism ahead of what the people actually wanted.

    You are aiming to portray Pearse as someone who was forced into a rising because he didn't trust the British to deliver Home Rule. This ignores the fact that Pearse was a romantic idealist who glorified blood sacrifice, and for whom the almost certain failure of his rising was preferable to the acceptance of Home Rule.


  • Options
    #56
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gurramok wrote: »
    The episode of the Curragh troops acting against the Irish volunteers within a heartbeat and ignoring UVF arms shipments torpedoes that argument.
    The Curragh mutiny (along with the executions after the rising) was one of the moments of dyed-in-the-wool stupidity on the part of the British that contributed to the bloodshed that became the hallmark of 20th-century Irish history. When the soldiers mutinied, their commanding officer (whose name escapes me) should have been court-martialled and stripped of his rank, and those who participated punished appropriately.


  • Options
    #57
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gurramok wrote: »
    This post is laughable in my opinion
    You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't believe I said anything about moving the British Army in to battle the UVF; not much point substituting one civil war for another.
    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    I don't think the Catholic Church is that influential either.
    I don't think they have THAT much influence either; just pointing out that they haven't disappeared off the radar altogether as walrusgumble suggested they had.


  • Options
    #58
    earwicker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 163 ✭✭earwicker


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The Curragh mutiny (along with the executions after the rising) was one of the moments of dyed-in-the-wool stupidity on the part of the British that contributed to the bloodshed that became the hallmark of 20th-century Irish history. When the soldiers mutinied, their commanding officer (whose name escapes me) should have been court-martialled and stripped of his rank, and those who participated punished appropriately.

    The problem with most of the points you've tried to make in this thread is that they simply amount to useless and unproductive historical speculations about what would/should have happened. You simply don't know whether Home Rule would have actually been implemented: arguing from that point of view is, ironically, a retreat from history.

    This sort of discussion is much better off dealing with what actually happened rather than pointless handwringing over ousted historical possibilities.


  • Options
    #59
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Are you referring to the American and French revolutions? Those that took place at the end of the 18th century? Because I thought we were talking about the beginning of the 20th century. The Egyptian Revolution of 1919 was a largely peaceful, non-violent protest by the Egyptian population that eventually lead to the country's independence from Britain in 1922.
    So? Everyone should follow America's example, should they?
    As you have already pointed out with your reference to the USA, violence is as prevalent in the world today is it was then and it is still preferred to diplomacy by many political groups, such as the Bush administration. So why was violent political action more acceptable in 1916 than it is now? And how is it that Parnell achieved so much through diplomacy and non-violent political action (and he died a full 25 years before the Rising)?
    Why do people keep bringing up the UVF? How does this justify the Rising? Had Home Rule come to pass (in say, 1918) and the UVF were still opposed, then the Irish government would have been supported by the British in dealing with this terrorist group, who would have had the support of only a small percentage of the population. How did the Rising improve the situation?
    The passing of the Third Home Rule Bill was a LACK of progress?
    It is highly unlikely that it would have been repealed if nothing had changed much in Ireland in the intervening years. It wouldn't have done any harm to wait a couple of years to find out.

    I've no doubt that Pearse and co. did become impatient with the slow progress in Westminster, but I doubt they were the only ones. I'm sure Parnell became impatient numerous times during his career. I'm sure Gandhi did too. In fact, I would say there are hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland right now who have lost all patience with Bertie and co. The point is, impatience is not a good enough excuse for violence.

    I have no idea why Republicans constantly claim that violence was more acceptable 100 years ago than it is now - was human life worth less back then or something?
    Exactly. Government institutions were established by Sinn Féin in Ireland (non-violent action/protest) and Arthur Griffith was prepared to compromise with the Unionists (diplomacy); where was the need for the bloodshed?
    So you agree that Home Rule had in fact been made law? It was initially suspended for just one year, in the belief that WWI was to be rather brief.
    Somehow, I could not never see Ian Paisley sitting in the Dáil (had he not retired, of course).
    Remind me why it is illegal to sell alcohol in Ireland on Good Friday? Was the church not heavily involved in the introduction of a constitutional ban on abortion? Who runs the majority of schools in this country? Why is divorce so restricted in this country? You really think the Catholic Church has no say in Ireland?

    bloody hell lad, uvf =tiny minority? well it was a bloody loud minority. this tiny minority had a bit of a say if a gropu like the conservatives wanted to over take the liberals, that tiny minority helped to be in a thorn in th side of the likes of gladstone whose liberal party, as you will remember split over the irish question. do you think, especially when people of london reading how the men of ulster were fighting gallantaly in the somme would back an english government who would impose home rule against their will ?

    the uvf are relevant becasue they made it clear that they would take up arms and defeat home rule if it effected them - moreover, they had the support of a large and influential political party who made it very very clear of their opinions in the prior to this in commons and lords.

    (remember prior to 1916-1918, the idea of partition was not taught about) jesus christ half of the house of commons and the house of lords did not want home rule in ireland as it was seen as a stepping stone and ireland wa considered more integral to britain than far off india. sure the conservatives were angered by what was offered in the treaty

    as for parnell, it is a pity that he did not live longer,truley was the uncrownd king of ireland - but just remember he got his card via the land league and that was no tea party in the way they achieved their methods. armed rebelion such as 1798 and 1849 forced people like gladstone to consider "pacifying the irish" it is weird but physical force, although not successful made brtian wake up and listen to what ireland wanted. whilst britian felt complete independence was out of the question, grants like offering the normal tenant farmer the opportunity to buy his land (the most sacret thing to him) was suppose to keep them quite and happy, they did not care about if a parliament was in ireland, but once parnell helped them get their lands he sought for their assistance in the ipp in westminister. but you are right, even during his time, the irb was always on the look out for opportunities eg manchester martyrs and phoenix park murders.

    as for why is violence not accepted now? good question, i suppose horrors of ww1 & ww2 forced countries to think differently. but we enjoy the oppurtunity of hindsight. i am not from that era and neiter are you, but that is the way things were settled then.


    for for the need for blooshed, ye fair enough pearse was a wee bit mad on that, crazy even, but if that is the case why did british army need to be based here?

    as for the church, christ all mighty, have you ever looked at the north? ban on drink on good friday,abortion, divorce - these are many things our protestant neighbours agree with. sure no league soccer is allowed to be played on sundays. when ulster rugby proposed to play on sundays paisely went ap sh8T. are people really that idiotic and unable to think for themselves? it was the people who allowed the cc get to the position it once got to, it was the people who voted no (twice on abortion) and it was only 6-10% majority that voted yes in the divorce referendum. yes the CC had a big influence, but when was the last time someone like john mcquid had so muh voice in the noughties?


    as for the schools, jesus unless you were abused or had the sh*te kicked out of you (sorry to hear if you were), the church for a majority of its leaders gave a great service to this state with its schools and hospitals. they took a huge load off the backs of successive governements in providing these facilities, if anything, it is the previous governments fault for not taking more control and not the church.

    it would not be for the first time paisley disrepted democracy in refusing to deal with leaders who were democraticly elected, or refusing to recongise (ie good friday agreement) policy in a bid to end violence.


  • Options
    #60
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Home Rule was two years old at that point. It had been denied for 40 years, then finally granted.

    I reckon this was a key driving force behind the rising: Home Rule was anathema to Pearse and company, who had a fanatical attachment to republicanism. Pearse in particular was also an open proponent of bloodshed as a means of purification.

    The rising's main aim was to prevent Home Rule. Its primary outcome was partition.

    pearce only joined the irb in or around 1915- he HAD supported home rule in the past. what do you do when you have nothing else?- when people in westimister many of whom knew nothing about ireland, bar randolph churchill (asquith only came over twice) yet felt qualified to deny even home rule in the past. in fairness, asquith threatened to deny the house of lords democratic right to voice their opionions by threatening to flood them wth liberals, even the king pleaded with them (that 1912 act was a result of a finance bill) but asquith was not going to stay forever, and he didn't,llyod george was not overily keen on home rule as much as the conservatives.

    the rising's main reason wa not to prevent home rule - the volunteers had been established to protect it. the rising's main reason was for complete independence.

    why didn't westminster just left dail eireann to their own devices in january 1919 if they so wanted to give them a parliament?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Carolus Magnus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭Carolus Magnus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not missing the main point; I'm making a different point. Home Rule was very much on the cards in 1916, and it was the very danger of it becoming a reality that prompted the rising.

    The majority of Irish people wanted Home Rule. A small minority wanted a republic, and were dismayed at the prospect of Home Rule. A tiny minority of that minority were prepared to sacrifice their own lives, and as many others as necessary, to put the cause of Republicanism ahead of what the people actually wanted.

    You are aiming to portray Pearse as someone who was forced into a rising because he didn't trust the British to deliver Home Rule. This ignores the fact that Pearse was a romantic idealist who glorified blood sacrifice, and for whom the almost certain failure of his rising was preferable to the acceptance of Home Rule.

    Might be rehashing a bit of what's already been said here but ... Jaysus. I mean, I'm traditionally a constitutional nationalist and admirer of that path but come out with your hands up over this lad.

    Pearse et al were members of Redmond's IVF and supporters of Home Rule (speaking in favour of it on many occasions) so long as it came in to force for all of Ireland. When it was suspended from coming in to operation on foot of the war that merely added to frustration that existed already due to Unionist agitation to prevent Dublin rule coming to pass. When they rose up to proclaim the Republic that was because they feared Home Rule even as Redmond desired would never come to pass and there is some reason to believe this.

    To say they rose up to prevent it coming in to force makes you wonder why they involved themselves in the Home Rule movement up until 1914.

    You do know the Buckingham Palace conference of 1913, yes? Where even Redmond would not permit the North to opt out permanently but only for a temporary period. A temporary partition was something Craig regarded as a 'stay of execution'. He wanted rule from Westminster at all costs or failing that rule by Unionists from Belfast. The conference ended at an impasse with IVF and UVF ready to fight on either side to decide the matter.

    The fact that the sovereign parliament of Westminster had passed the law did not mean that there was not the prospect of IVF/UVF civil war to oppose it/support it or indeed pledges from within the same parliament in the form of the conservative leader Andrew Bonar Law to illegally oppose a legitimate decision of that parliament!

    Britain took away with one hand as she gave with another. The UVF imported guns through Larne with impunity and drilled openly. The IVF however was pursued by law enforcement agencies for doing the same thing. If you're looking on at this, and you're a character such as Pearse and Redmond is telling you that Asquith will surely grant us what we want if we fight in Flanders you might do well to ask; he may want to, but what if his people don't let him?

    1916 itself did not end the prospect of Home Rule. There was a subsequent North-South conference in 1917 to get it to work at which the Unionists under Craig refused to attend and so Redmond left dejected because of the unresolvable impasse.

    Far more than 1916 made Home-Rule untenable. The fact that the public were no longer going to be satisfied with the limitations of Home Rule was something highlighted by the conscription crisis of 1918. Here, the inability of a Dublin parliament to decide on matters such as war and peace was most vividly illustrated. The fact too that Home-Rule was not going to be an all-Ireland solution dampened the appetite of one part of a very large spectrum of people that were giving Home-Rule a chance (including Pearse) as late as 1914. The overwhelming return of most constituencies for Sinn Fein in 1918 with many of their candidates and leading party figures having participated in the Rising is something else we must consider when claiming to know the mood of the Irish people on the question of Home Rule.

    As for the part I've emboldened there in your post, I might humbly suggest that this is a case of you suffering from hindsight. The German High Command together with Austria-Hungary seriously contemplated the support of insurrection in Ireland as diverting critical war-time resources from Britain. Germany was fighting a war in which every bullet and every shell counted. If they did not think that the lads in Dublin had some chance of success as opposed to none (which you allege) then I do not realise why they would have committed the resources. If the plan had gone off as intended then there would have been country-wide insurrection and the landing of arms from the Aud. As it happened, due to a large number of things going wrong on Easter Sunday the major fighting was restricted to Dublin.

    Don't hold me to it either, but Jerome aan de Wiel may have presented a paper in Cork in 2006 in which he argued that the Germans were willing to give a second insurrection further support if it could be demonstrated that one might be organised in 1917 but then, apart from their communiques being decoded by Britain, the Germans realised their communications were compromised due to the Zimmermann Telegram and abandoned the scheme.

    Edit - Having glanced back at aan de Wiel's paper, the plan - Aufgabe P. - was cancelled when Devoy (then reorganising the Republican movement) through the German Ambassador told them there was no point trying again unless they were willing to send troops which they were not rather than any German cognisance of compromised communications (which they were, compromised that is.) I mixed this up with the general thrust of aan de Wiel's paper at that point which was to demonstrate that the British knew 1916 was coming and could have had the ringleaders arrested on Easter Sunday but didn't for fear that an early arrest might tip off Jerry about the code being cracked. His conclusions are those in line with Eunan O' Hailpin's of 1984 that the Brits let the rising happen and could have stopped it.

    Of course, when you asked this:

    "Can someone explain to me the practical differences between the Free State that was achieved in 1922 after a botched rising and a bloody war of independence, and the Home Rule status that had already been granted in 1914?"

    Absolutely no offence intended, I swear :), but I expected a basic acquaintence with the difference between Dominion status (along the lines Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa enjoyed) and Home Rule if you were versed with the period which if you aren't is fine it's just I wouldn't assert certain things with as much confidence as you seem to do. It's just my sneaking suspicion that if you aired the view you did of Pearse fighting in the GPO to stop Home Rule rather than establish a Republic, even in a room full of 'revisionist' (God, I hate that word) historians they'd probably fall over in peals of laughter. Sorry again if that seems offensive, I'm trying not to be.


Advertisement