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 Rising - when it was first called this?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    DecStone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭DecStone


    Jellybaby1 wrote: »
    My father joined the British Army during the 2nd world war and on his army documents he was (still) entered as British, so he still considered himself as British in the 40's. This is a very interesting point and never mentioned or discussed or even considered by those who fought in 1916 or 1922. Makes me wonder now if there had been a Referendum to decide whether Ireland should remain British or become independent, what would the numbers have actually looked like. I believe though that the majority vote would have been for independence but it would have been interesting to know all the same.


    ParsleyQueen wrote: »
    Thanks for that. I wasn't aware that some Irish people considered themselves as British that far along. (Assuming he was in the South & not the North.)

    Even Michael Collins noted that the proclamation of the republic was "in advance of national thought" at the time, and it took two years of propaganda for the idea to catch on more widely.

    A referendum *would* have been interesting. The great tragedy is that the Home Rule effort was never seen through.

    We may be getting beyond ourselves here. My father left Ireland to work in England during WWII and was classified on work documents as 'British' - he would not have ever described himself as that but that was how the British authorities regarded people from the Free State and how they were then classified for work or other purposes.

    From the British point of view the 1922 Treaty did not alter the status of citizens of the Free State as being British subjects. The British regarded Irish citizenship as being of local - within the Free State boundaries - consequence only. From the legal view of the British the Irish in the Free State were only citizens of the Free State while they reminded "within the limits of the Free State's jurisdiction". There were even cases in WWII where Irish born men - living in England - were conscripted into the British Army because they were considered under British law to be British citizens.

    It was only with the 1948 British Nationality Act that this changed.

    As for the Home Rule Bill by the time it got to 1914/16 it was so decimated, watered down and threatened with partition that it was a dead end document and Parnell would not have recognised it.


  • Options
    #33
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Sadist...
    poor placing of the word "unfortunately" on my part :)


  • Options
    #34
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    DecStone wrote: »
    You are using a distorted figure to gauge Sinn Fein support in the 1918 elections.

    That's it. I give up. There must be something in the water :(


  • Options
    #35
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Peregrinus, will you PLEASE do me the courtesy of going back to my first post on the subject and read it before telling me a load of stuff I already know?

    If that's too much trouble I'll repeat it again here: If a referendum was held I think it would've passedd. But IF one insists on using the 1918 election as a kind of referendum (which they shouldn't but somebody above me asked) then according to those results, it would have failed.

    I don't know how many more times I have to make that clear :mad:
    I did read it.

    I didn't post because I failed to read what you wrote; I posted because I thought what you wrote was wrong. If you "take the 1918 election as a kind of referendum on independence", then you can't just take the election results in the contested seats; you have to take the election results in the all the seats, contested and uncontested.

    If you want to take the poll results in the contested seats as a kind of referendum on independence, they you could make the case that such a referendum would have been lost. But that would be just silly. Taking results from just the contested seats makes about as much sense as taking results from just Dublin Rathmines, or just Galway South.


  • Options
    #36
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    I know what you're saying Peregrinus. And I agree wholeheartedly.

    However, what I said was if you take the 1918 election results. Not what it should have been, not what wasn't in it, not anything else other than what it was, which was Sinn Fein 47% of votes cast.

    I said at the beginning that you should NOT take 1918 as a referendum because that would be daft. And if there was a Ref it would surely have passed. However, if one was so inclined (stupid?) to take the 1918 election results (votes cast) then it would have failed. That's all I'm saying pal :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I think we're just quibbling over terminology, Jesus.

    The 1918 election was held in 105 constituencies. In 48 of them Sinn Fein won on the back of a poll. In a further 25 they won without a poll, since no other candidates were nominated. In the remaning 32 seats candidates of other parties were elected on the back of a poll.

    All 105 MPs were elected. The election result, therefore, was a landslide for Sinn Fein. If you take the election result as indicative of the outcome of a referendum, the referendum would have been resoundingly carried.

    If you take the poll result, however, Sinn Fein only won 47% of the poll. And if you take that as indicative, the referendum would not have been carried. As we both agree, a referendum would have been carried. The lesson? Taking the poll result as indicative of the outcome of a referendum is not likely to produce a reliable indicator. Taking the election result would give a better indicator.


  • Options
    #38
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    DecStone wrote: »
    My father left Ireland to work in England during WWII and was classified on work documents as 'British' - he would not have ever described himself as that but that was how the British authorities regarded people from the Free State and how they were then classified for work or other purposes.

    As did my father, born in 1904. Since he had a British criminal record for 'arson and the unlicensed use of explosive and sundry inflammable materials' in connection with the destruction of an RIC station in 1920/21, he was not able to join the Armed forces of the crown. He was, however much in demand for his skill with the then-current welding technology, as a result of much experience gained keeping a fleet of charabancs on their wheels in Co. Cork. He ended up mending tanks that had been violently modified by the opposition at that time.

    tac


  • Options
    #39
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    Coburger wrote: »
    Hi,

    When was the term The Easter Rising actually coined? Would it have been known as this during and immediately after it?
    Some of the publications from the immediate period after the Rising :

    The Sinn Fein Revolt

    The 6 Day Insurrection

    Sinn Fein Rising

    Irish Rebellion

    A variety of postcards with Irish Rebellion, Sinn Fein Rebellion etc.

    1919 saw the term "Easter Week" being used in one of the Catholic magazines to refer to the Rising. Easter Week is used in the first of the 1926 An T'Oglach articles along with Insurrection.

    http://johnny-doyle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/an-t-oglach-easter-rising-series-of.html


  • Options
    #40
    ParsleyQueen
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭ParsleyQueen


    Thanks for the links, johnny_doyle. These are great sources!! :-)


  • Options
    #41
    DecStone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭DecStone


    Jesus. wrote: »
    That's it. I give up. There must be something in the water :(

    It's sarky quips like this that put me off this forum. If you have something to say of historic value then say it. But just putting in remarks of this kind, without any value whatsoever to the discussion is just mindless.

    Besides the whole issue of what the 1918 election results actually meant in terms of Sinn Fein support is just going around in meaningless 'opinion' circles with just I say, you say.

    Prior to the 1918 election Sinn Fein had already won by-elections [starting in 1917] in Roscommon, Longford, Clare and Kilkenny. So support for their platform of secession was well known amongst all parties and supported by the electorate. It was the by-election results that put the wind up the Home Rule party and why they decided not to contest some of the seats in the General Election where they knew they had little chance of winning. A decision was made to channel their resources in order to maximise results. The Home Rulers failed anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Fair enough Dec.

    On a side note, I've noticed that there seems to be an annual Rising commemoration outside the GPO over the past few years. This used not be the case as far as I can remember. Who brought it in?

    I don't think its a good idea. There's just no need for it. I would say something like on the 7th year of every decade would be more appropriate. Once every ten years. 2016, 2026, 2036 etc. You don't want to be going down the route of over militarisation of past events. Just let them be and mark them very occasionally in a dignified and inclusive manner.

    The thought of becoming even remotely like Northern Ireland on the 12th terrifies me :eek:


  • Options
    #43
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I did read it.

    I didn't post because I failed to read what you wrote; I posted because I thought what you wrote was wrong. If you "take the 1918 election as a kind of referendum on independence", then you can't just take the election results in the contested seats; you have to take the election results in the all the seats, contested and uncontested.

    If you want to take the poll results in the contested seats as a kind of referendum on independence, they you could make the case that such a referendum would have been lost. But that would be just silly. Taking results from just the contested seats makes about as much sense as taking results from just Dublin Rathmines, or just Galway South.
    Which makes about as much sense as rewarding the Irish Parliamentary Party's 21.7% to unionism. But then 'democracy' for the British and their apologists is when you rig elections, create sectarian gerrymanders etc It should also be noted, Sinn Fein achieved an overwhelming victory despite 37 of it's representatives been locked up under the excuse of the so called ' German Plot ' in 1918 ( alleged plan to import arms ) while of course unionists who openly supported German arms been landed in Larne where allowed to stand freely and later given knighthoods etc


  • Options
    #44
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Fair enough Dec.

    On a side note, I've noticed that there seems to be an annual Rising commemoration outside the GPO over the past few years. This used not be the case as far as I can remember. Who brought it in?

    I don't think its a good idea. There's just no need for it. I would say something like on the 7th year of every decade would be more appropriate. Once every ten years. 2016, 2026, 2036 etc. You don't want to be going down the route of over militarisation of past events. Just let them be and mark them very occasionally in a dignified and inclusive manner.

    The thought of becoming even remotely like Northern Ireland on the 12th terrifies me :eek:
    It's to deprive fringe republicans of a platform.


  • Options
    #45
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Fair enough Dec.

    On a side note, I've noticed that there seems to be an annual Rising commemoration outside the GPO over the past few years. This used not be the case as far as I can remember. Who brought it in?

    I don't think its a good idea. There's just no need for it. I would say something like on the 7th year of every decade would be more appropriate. Once every ten years. 2016, 2026, 2036 etc. You don't want to be going down the route of over militarisation of past events. Just let them be and mark them very occasionally in a dignified and inclusive manner.

    The thought of becoming even remotely like Northern Ireland on the 12th terrifies me :eek:
    It already is -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXif-OaboM4


  • Options
    #46
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Victor wrote: »
    It's to deprive fringe republicans of a platform.

    I wonder is the Government's decision to take the British back to the European Court of Human rights attempting something similar?

    Its a dangerous tactic, trying to outflank the hardliners.


  • Options
    #47
    DecStone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭DecStone


    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    It already is -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXif-OaboM4

    This is a commemoration of the foundation of the state - akin to the 4th July in the US. It's appropriate that it should be officially celebrated and honoured.


  • Options
    #48
    femur61
    Registered Users Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭femur61


    Re: Protests against the Irish returning from war.
    I know on Armistice day when the Dubliners were celebrating the end of the war Sein Fein at the time were in the throes of election and people were on the streets celebrating the end but there was also people verbally attacking the celebrants who supported the English. a lot of the Dubliners who went to war in WW1 were not supporters of the crown but people who needed work.


  • Options
    #49
    ParsleyQueen
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭ParsleyQueen


    femur61 wrote: »
    a lot of the Dubliners who went to war in WW1 were not supporters of the crown but people who needed work.

    Economic conscription. Dubliners and Irish all over the island needed the money. That was the great tragedy of the thing. Service in the war was touted as a great adventure, and the men who were forced into serving for one reason or another (peer pressure to prove masculinity was another) ended up in hell.


  • Options
    #50
    Jellybaby1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,108 ✭✭✭Jellybaby1


    ParsleyQueen wrote: »
    Economic conscription. Dubliners and Irish all over the island needed the money. That was the great tragedy of the thing. Service in the war was touted as a great adventure, and the men who were forced into serving for one reason or another (peer pressure to prove masculinity was another) ended up in hell.

    Absolutely! Having done the Future Learn course on the WWI era I learned so much more than I had ever known before.


Advertisement