1916 - Did only Dublin Rise?

Hagar

randylonghorn wrote: »

In fairness to the O'Rahilly, despite being angry at being blindsided and convinced that the rebellion was premature and destined to fail, and having done a whirlwind tour of Cork, Kerry, Limerick and Tipp by car to ensure that MacNeill's orders were delivered and enforced, when he arrived back in Dublin to find it was all kicking off anyway, he presented himself for duty at the GPO.

He conducted himself bravely, by all accounts, and was killed by British machine-gun fire while leading a recce patrol on the Friday seeking an escape route for the Volunteers from the GPO, which was by then on fire.

Indeed he did, Moore St area I think, nobody could have asked any more of him. He deserved the title "The" O'Rahilly.

kreuzberger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

four years after accpeting a knighthood he suddenly commits an act of treason (aiding the Germans was an act of treason, although his motives are understandable). It just seems odd.

aiding the germans was only an act of treason if you considered yourself British . For irishmen they were allies . Ireland and Germany had no history of nor reason for hostility . Britian was Irelands only enemy .Casement owed his allegiance to the Irish governemnt which later openly proclaimed itself as the Provisional governemnt of a sovereign independent republic during the rebellion , not the governemnt of an illegitimate foreign occupier .

Im not having a go at you but you often seem to forget you are speaking to Irish people , foreigners who view their nation as their nation , and you tend to present your opinions from a purely anglo centric point of view .

Hagar

Im not having a go at you but you often seem to forget you are speaking to Irish people , foreigners who view their nation as their nation , and you tend to present your opinions from a purely anglo centric point of view,

What else would you expect the guy to do? Give him a break, he's learning more about Irish history than most of us ever will about English history.


OT

Did anyone ever see the dramatization "Insurrection" shown on RTE every evening during Easter Week 1966? It was done as a news report with film of the action that happened on that day in history much like Sky News does now showing today in Irag. Eoin O'Suilabhain played PH Pearse. I'd love to see it again. Anyone has any info on sourcing a legit copy PM me please.

Red Hand

kreuzberger wrote: »

aiding the germans was only an act of treason if you considered yourself British . For irishmen they were allies . Ireland and Germany had no history of nor reason for hostility . Britian was Irelands only enemy .Casement owed his allegiance to the Irish governemnt which later openly proclaimed itself as the Provisional governemnt of a sovereign independent republic during the rebellion , not the governemnt of an illegitimate foreign occupier .

Im not having a go at you but you often seem to forget you are speaking to Irish people , foreigners who view their nation as their nation , and you tend to present your opinions from a purely anglo centric point of view .

I think Fred's point is that it seems odd that Casement accepted a knighthood from "the enemy" or "the occupier" in the first place.

Why do that if a few years later you are going to try and usurp the government that gave you a knighthood.

Fratton Fred

kreuzberger wrote: »

aiding the germans was only an act of treason if you considered yourself British . For irishmen they were allies . Ireland and Germany had no history of nor reason for hostility . Britian was Irelands only enemy .Casement owed his allegiance to the Irish governemnt which later openly proclaimed itself as the Provisional governemnt of a sovereign independent republic during the rebellion , not the governemnt of an illegitimate foreign occupier .

Im not having a go at you but you often seem to forget you are speaking to Irish people , foreigners who view their nation as their nation , and you tend to present your opinions from a purely anglo centric point of view .

Apologies, how many other 1916 leaders had received a knighthood from the king then? not many I guess.

Would a Knighthood from the King of Irelands only enemy not be considered treason as well?

just asking.

Hagar

Good question.
I suppose it would be hard to commit treason against a state that didn't yet exist. As a senior civil servant to turn down the offer of a knighthood would have killed his career immediately. Better to accept and maintain you position. We needed people at his level of influence.
When the State did exist a prohibition on titles of nobility was built into the constitution.

kreuzberger

randylonghorn wrote: »

Again, Hagar, I have to stress: the leaders of '16 did not hold the legitimate chain of command of the Volunteers. Pearse was senior enough to start the ball rolling: he and Clarke etc. presumed that if it had gathered enough speed MacNeill, Hobson, FitzGibbon, the O'Rahilly, etc. would bow to the inevitable and row in behind.

yes they did , they were the Provisional governemnt . MacNeill and co were not members of any governemnt

That didn't happen, especially in MacNeill and Hobson's case. The order to stand down came from Macneill, and agree with his decision or not, he was the legitimate GOC.

he was not a member of the governemnt , therefoe had no authority to countermand his own governemnts orders

I would also suggest that by the time the Rising actually started, Clarke knew damn well military victory was not possible, and he was far more the military strategist than Pearse, who was an idealistic dreamer ... a courageous and in many ways an admirable one, but not a strategist or a realist. In fact, accounts indicate that Pearse took little part in directing the course of the battle, despite being the recognised Commander, spending a lot of time with the sick Plunkett discussing ideological and philosophical issues. I would suggest that in those circumstances, holed up in the GPO and elsewhere, believing that they were engaged in a realistically fruitless yet symbolically powerful endeavour, they may not even have tried that hard to get messages out to the rouse the rest of the country and gainsay MacNeill after the Rising had actually commenced.

Pearse was quite a practical man , which was why he was given the job of organising the rebellion by other very practical and battle hardened veterans . I suggest a read of hisorian sean cronins " The McGarrity papers" which documents in detail his efforts in getting an underground movement , arms and rebellion underway and his struggles with the treacherous and wimpish volunteer leadership over the years . He was no dozer by any means , very sharp .
Those inside the GPO were pinned down by sniper , machine gun and shell fire and there was little for them to do except fire back . They were not in a position to send reinforcements anywhere or help anywhere . There was nothing to direct . Things took a serious turn for the worse when the Guinness brewery workers hoisted steel vats onto lorries and cut firing ports in them for the British army , which allowed the British to completely dominate OConnell street and the surrounding streets with very accurate sniper fire impervious to anything the rebels could throw back at them . Rebel accounts claimed that even attempts to pass communications by tin cans attached to strings failed because British snipers were shooting the cans everytime one appeared . It was Pearse who gave the evacuation order to Moore street in an attempt to have the governemnt escape encirclement and take to the countryside in order for a guerilla campaign to conducted . The Germans had given the firm assurance that if the Provisional governemnt could demonstrate the Irish people actually wanted their freedom by simply holding out anywhere in the country for 6 months , then a full german expeditionary force equipped with artillery and arms and officers for an Irish army would be committed .
Had they busted out of that encirclement and made it into the countryside Irish history might well have taken a very interesting turn . So too would have world history .

Cronins account also makes clear that it was Dublin which was most committed to the seperatist enterprise . Pearse claimed even in 1915 that the Dubliners would rise immediately if he asked them to and were straining for rebellion . It was the rest of the country he couldnt count on .

sickens me to say it , but its from the horses mouth

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

Good question.
I suppose it would be hard to commit treason against a state that didn't yet exist. As a senior civil servant to turn down the offer of a knighthood would have killed his career immediately. Better to accept and maintain you position. We needed people at his level of influence.
When the State did exist a prohibition on titles of nobility was built into the constitution.

I agree, although he did retire not long after getting his Knighthood. This is what I find intriguing about the guy. In fact, I wish he was around today to help us gain independance from Dun Laoghaire.

The Commonwealth of Sandycove and Glasthule I like the sound of that

kreuzberger

Hagar wrote: »

Good question.
I suppose it would be hard to commit treason against a state that didn't yet exist. As a senior civil servant to turn down the offer of a knighthood would have killed his career immediately. Better to accept and maintain you position. We needed people at his level of influence.
When the State did exist a prohibition on titles of nobility was built into the constitution.

he accepted it in order to lend weight to the humanitarian work he was engaged in while exposing Belgian atrocities . It was when he later turned his attention to his own country that his career was fecked . Attempting to organise Irish brigades in German POW camps would sort of put a dampener on your career prospects with the English civil service

kreuzberger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Apologies, how many other 1916 leaders had received a knighthood from the king then? not many I guess.

Would a Knighthood from the King of Irelands only enemy not be considered treason as well?

just asking.

post joining the IRB yes I suppose , unless they asked you to go ahead with it . Casement got his knighthood prior to working for his own nations independence .

Red Hand

kreuzberger wrote: »

Pearse was quite a practical man , which was why he was given the job of organising the rebellion by other very practical and battle hardened veterans . I suggest a read of hisorian sean cronins " The McGarrity papers" which documents in detail his efforts in getting an underground movement , arms and rebellion underway and his struggles with the treacherous and wimpish volunteer leadership over the years . He was no dozer by any means, very sharp.

I wouldn't agree here at all. Maybe you have a point with him helping to organise an underground movement, but the proof is in the pudding. His failure to get the whole country mobilised on one day, and then totally confuse things by going ahead with ablood sacrifice is what gets me.

In my own opinion, he should have stuck to poetry (and tried to improve himself in regard to that), and avoided the guns.

Those inside the GPO were pinned down by sniper , machine gun and shell fire and there was little for them to do except fire back . They were not in a position to send reinforcements anywhere or help anywhere . There was nothing to direct . Things took a serious turn for the worse when the Guinness brewery workers hoisted steel vats onto lorries and cut firing ports in them for the British army , which allowed the British to completely dominate OConnell street and the surrounding streets with very accurate sniper fire impervious to anything the rebels could throw back at them . Rebel accounts claimed that even attempts to pass communications by tin cans attached to strings failed because British snipers were shooting the cans everytime one appeared . It was Pearse who gave the evacuation order to Moore street in an attempt to have the governemnt escape encirclement and take to the countryside in order for a guerilla campaign to conducted . The Germans had given the firm assurance that if the Provisional governemnt could demonstrate the Irish people actually wanted their freedom by simply holding out anywhere in the country for 6 months , then a full german expeditionary force equipped with artillery and arms and officers for an Irish army would be committed

It wasn't exactly brilliant strategy to hole yourself up in a public building and a biscuit factory if you haven't thought things through when you are about to confront an army that could potentially mobilise troops from 4 or 5 continents. Why get yourself bogged down at all in a confined city centre location in the first place!?

Had they busted out of that encirclement and made it into the countryside Irish history might well have taken a very interesting turn . So too would have world history.

Cronins account also makes clear that it was Dublin which was most committed to the seperatist enterprise . Pearse claimed even in 1915 that the Dubliners would rise immediately if he asked them to and were straining for rebellion . It was the rest of the country he couldnt count on .

JæKæ

Hagar wrote: »

Was the Eastern half of the country garrisoned more heavily?
I note little activity in the soon to be Six Counties.

Interesting that the South East and the North were the most active areas in the 1798 rebellion. Maybe it had a long lasting psychological impact on both areas?

Or maybe there was a greater British presence in these areas from the earlier rebellion?

randylonghorn

randylonghorn wrote: »

Again, Hagar, I have to stress: the leaders of '16 did not hold the legitimate chain of command of the Volunteers. Pearse was senior enough to start the ball rolling: he and Clarke etc. presumed that if it had gathered enough speed MacNeill, Hobson, FitzGibbon, the O'Rahilly, etc. would bow to the inevitable and row in behind.

kreuzberger wrote: »

yes they did , they were the Provisional governemnt . MacNeill and co were not members of any governemnt

Please note the emphasis in my quote. Pearse may have stood in front of the GPO and proclaimed a Republic de jure, but that did not cause it to be universally and instantaneously acknowledged de facto throughout the country. Given the lack of Sky News, it wasn't even instantaneously known throughout the country! MacNeill was Chief of Staff of the Volunteers, had been for some time, and from the perspective of that organisation Pearse as Director of Operations was his subordinate officer.

kreuzberger wrote: »

he was not a member of the governemnt , therefoe had no authority to countermand his own governemnts orders

As above. Though if you're going to be all legalistic about it, consider this: Pearse proclaimed the Republic on Easter Monday; MacNeills countermanding orders had been issued prior to that, so he was not in fact countermanding "his own government".

kreuzberger wrote: »

Pearse was quite a practical man , which was why he was given the job of organising the rebellion by other very practical and battle hardened veterans . I suggest a read of hisorian sean cronins " The McGarrity papers" which documents in detail his efforts in getting an underground movement , arms and rebellion underway and his struggles with the treacherous and wimpish volunteer leadership over the years . He was no dozer by any means , very sharp.

I never said Pearse was a dozer, I said he was a dreamer. He was also an indefatigable worker, and quite practical in some ways ... he was not however a military strategist, and in fact he never claimed to be or had any particular illusions about being one. there's a difference. I'm a very practical person, but I'm about as able a military strategist as Dustin.

I have huge admiration for Pearse, let me be clear ... but I don't hero-worship him or expect him to be a uni-dimensional character out of a bad Hollywood B-movie.

kreuzberger wrote: »

Pearse claimed even in 1915 that the Dubliners would rise immediately if he asked them to and were straining for rebellion.

And did Easter 1916 prove him right? Did every able-bodied Dubliner spring to his side? Did even the majority?

EDIT: as you put it yourself:

kreuzberger wrote: »

They had gambled that the population would come to their aid once the choice was in the open . The gamble didnt pay off , it happens . Then they paid the price for it.

kreuzberger

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree here at all. Maybe you have a point with him helping to organise an underground movement, but the proof is in the pudding. His failure to get the whole country mobilised on one day, and then totally confuse things by going ahead with ablood sacrifice is what gets me.

he didnt go ahead with any blood sacrifice . Thats a myth , one that truly irritates me . And it was not his failure , it was the failure of the entire provisional governemnt due to a combination of factors . Principally MacNeills sabotage .
Germany had despatched a shipload of arms as a prelude to committing more substantial aid and if they were not met thered be no second chance . The British were circling and on the verge of taking out the entire leadership . Ireland had only one chance , it was there right in front of him and he had to take it without dithering . He acted decisively and as best as could be done under the circumstances . If they hadnt moved then all was lost . If they moved they at least had a chance , a slim one but a chance nontheless . The only criticism Id have is that he didnt put MacNeill under arrest under the rising got underway .

In my own opinion, he should have stuck to poetry (and tried to improve himself in regard to that), and avoided the guns.

everybody has opinions as the saying goes and your entitled to yours , as timid as it may be .

It wasn't exactly brilliant strategy to hole yourself up in a public building and a biscuit factory if you haven't thought things through when you are about to confront an army that could potentially mobilise troops from 4 or 5 continents. Why get yourself bogged down at all in a confined city centre location in the first place!?

They had gambled that the population would come to their aid once the choice was in the open . The gamble didnt pay off , it happens . Then they paid the price for it .
The plan was for a raiding party to commence hostilities by entering the magazine fort in the phoenix park , seize a substantial haul of munitions and detonate the majority of the massive arsenal . The massive explosion would have been unmistakable throughout Dublin , and not only have been a rallying call and a clear signal that a determined effort was underway , leninding a lot of weight to the immediate political position of those in the GPO among their own people , but would have left the British in seriously short supply of ammunition and shells for their artillery . Pretty much unable to enagage for them for a crucial couple of days . ( some decades later the IRA raided the same magazine fort and made off with the free state armys entire reserve ammunition supply , about 4 million rounds)
That plan very nearly succeeded but at the last minute the key to the munitions storage depot couldnt be located through sheer bad luck after the raiding party entered . They absconded with some rifles after a gunfight and detonating their bomb against a very sturdy steel door , unable to get inside it .
Alongside this it was planned to take Dublin castle , the seat of British power and control in Ireland . Connollys citizens army were given this job , but following the shooting of a cop on the gate they withdrew in panic , leaving an empty castle with a full arsenal of weapons , not to mention the files on every last rebel and spy in Ireland , there for the taking . The fact is the Irish people had held Dublin castle in fear and awe as well as loathing for centuries , and the importance of the structure simply overawed Connollys men when the time for action came . They assumed it full to the brim of all sorts of soldiers and their initial unsucessful attempt to enter and the shooting at the gate led to a break down in discipline and last minute retreat .
Had they simply taken it , along with the destruction of the magazine fort , Irish confidence in the enterprise from the very beginning would have been a lot higher . Both would have been very bold and stunning moves that would very likely have mobilized at least some , if not many , sections of the Irish people . Britians ability to counter the rebellion at the outset would have been severely hampered , giving the rest of the country the necessary time to get on the move . Had the other areas mobilized as planned Britian would have had a very difficult time getting troops to Dublin , much less munitions for their troops .
Alongside this the rebellion was timed for the same day as the fairyhouse races , when virtually every British officer in sleepy Ireland was out for a day at the races and away from his post . Again , had the other parts of the plan not failed at the last minute , the British military would have been in a state of serious confusion and inability to counter the threat whilst Irish confidence would have been sky high .
Due to a combination of factors the plan didnt work out , but the chance had to be taken as the opportunity was never going to present itself again . It wasnt a great chance but it was still a chance and the only one they wee going to get . Pearse did the absolutely right thing in going for it .

randylonghorn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Four years after accpeting a knighthood he suddenly commits an act of treason (aiding the Germans was an act of treason, although his motives are understandable). It just seems odd.

From the perspective of the Service of which he had been a member, it was an act of treason. From the perspective of the IRB, his acceptance of a knighthood was probably viewed at least with strong suspicion, and many probably applied the same word to it.

Casement was a very complex individual, and I suspect would have been a very difficult work colleague. He actually received his knighthood for services to humanitarian causes, and as a result of strong public approbation for his work. I suspect there were many in the service he worked for who would have been quite happy if he had shut his mouth, and did not rock the boat ... things weren't so very different then!

He had a mix of loyalties and beliefs which must have seemed, and still seem, not to gel easily with one another. He was a man of great courage, though, both physical courage and courage of his convictions.

He was by no means the first, indeed, to have served in British civil service or in the army against "external" foes, yet rebelled at home. Indeed, many others, e.g. after '48, "served the crown" in Commonwealth posts many years after they had been exiled from Ireland.

kreuzberger

randylonghorn wrote: »

Please note the emphasis in my quote. Pearse may have stood in front of the GPO and proclaimed a Republic de jure, but that did not cause it to be universally and instantaneously acknowledged de facto throughout the country. Given the lack of Sky News, it wasn't even instantaneously known throughout the country! MacNeill was Chief of Staff of the Volunteers, had been for some time, and from the perspective of that organisation Pearse as Director of Operations was his subordinate officer.

Pearse had gone to MacNeill personally and informed him what his role was and what he was about . The object of the Irish volunteers was a republic with a governemnt . He opted to betray one and disobey the other .

As above. Though if you're going to be all legalistic about it, consider this: Pearse proclaimed the Republic on Easter Monday; MacNeills countermanding orders had been issued prior to that, so he was not in fact countermanding "his own government".

As above , Mac Neill had already been told the provisional governemnt had been formed .

I have huge admiration for Pearse, let me be clear ... but I don't hero-worship him or expect him to be a uni-dimensional character out of a bad Hollywood B-movie.

I have huge respect for him , and despise the one dimensional B Movie character hes been portrayed as . And particularly the cairicature of the rebellion as some blood sacrifice passion play he dreamed up .

And did Easter 1916 prove him right? Did every able-bodied Dubliner spring to his side? Did even the majority?

I meant Dubliners as in the Dublin brigade of the Irish volunteers , who on the day proved his asessment of their willingness absolutely spot on .

randylonghorn

kreuzberger wrote: »

Pearse had gone to MacNeill personally and informed him what his role was and what he was about . The object of the Irish volunteers was a republic with a governemnt . He opted to betray one and disobey the other.

So Pearse went to his Commanding Officer and told him he was deposed in favour of a secret military cabaal inside his own organisation, which had been plotting for years without informing the full Volunteer leadership? ... which, in fact, hadn't even kept the IRB Supreme Council properly informed?

So, in fact, under military discipline, there were legitimate grounds for either MacNeill or indeed the IRB leadership to have Pearse shot as a traitor.

OK, I know that's a bit extreme, and I'm very glad it didn't happen ... my point is that there are many ways of looking at the same events, and it might be no harm to try a few of them for size ... you might find it interesting, if nothing else.

kreuzberger wrote: »

And particularly the cairicature of the rebellion as some blood sacrifice passion play he dreamed up.

I agree that it has often been over-emphasised, and used to turn him into a one-dimensional caricature of himself. However, if you read his papers, his plays and poetry, even the speech over O'Donovan Rossa, it is a recurring theme, and I believe he did see the idea of brave men sacrificing themselves for Ireland as a way of giving Irish nationalism a shot in the arm, and waking up the shopkeepers fumbling in the greasy tills, as Yeats had put it earlier. And he was prepared to be part of that sacrifice / catalyst. It was not a unique attitude at the time, even in Britain every public schoolboy was taught Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

And it worked as he thought it would, though I am sure Pearse, who was an intelligent man, would have appreciated the irony that his inadvertent collaborator was an English General, Sir John Maxwell. By confirming the courts martial, and ordering the execution of the leaders, Maxwell did more for the Irish revolutionary cause than most Irishmen had done in the rising. The execution of Connolly was particularly sickening, and it is no surprise to me to hear "the voice of James Connolly" ring out in irish pubs nearly a century later, or that it is one of the few songs which can still usually hush the gathering. Maxwell gave Ireland another generation of "fenian dead", and Pearse's words over O'Donovan Rossa's grave became a true prophecy and a fitting epitaph.

kreuzberger wrote: »

I meant Dubliners as in the Dublin brigade of the Irish volunteers , who on the day proved his asessment of their willingness absolutely spot on .

With that clarification, fair enough.

kreuzberger

randylonghorn wrote: »

So Pearse went to his Commanding Officer and told him he was deposed in favour of a secret military cabaal inside his own organisation, which had been plotting for years without informing the full Volunteer leadership? ... which, in fact, hadn't even kept the IRB Supreme Council properly informed?

Pearse went and told MacNeill there was now a provsional governemnt and that action would be commencing in days . The situation was explained very clearly to him . In the absence of any other legitimate governemnt the one Pearse was the head of was the only one in town . Mac Neill knew very well what the purpose of the volunteer movement was about , it wasnt the girl guides . He sat about sabotaging it.

So, in fact, under military discipline, there were legitimate grounds for either MacNeill or indeed the IRB leadership to have Pearse shot as a traitor.

OK, I know that's a bit extreme, and I'm very glad it didn't happen ... my point is that there are many ways of looking at the same events, and it might be no harm to try a few of them for size ... you might find it interesting, if nothing else.

I have done over the years and often been very confused . But with the benefit of age Ive found it much more logical to look at issues logically . If one joined either the Irish volunteers or the IRB then one was there for a purpose , to fight for a sovereign independent Irish republic . Not to sabotage one , and not to disobey the provisonal governemnt of one . Otherwise you had no business being there in the first place . The fact that God almighty did not come down from the sky himself and establish one for the Irish people meant that one had to be established by whatever means were at hand . The fact Mr MacNeill was not personally responsible for those means did not give him the right to attempt to undo those means . He possessed no alternative , nor offered one , nor made an attempt to establish one . If he was opposed to violence and people being shot , he had no business joining an armed organisation established for the purpose of attaining and defending an Irish republic . So his mtives and actions are therefore deeply questionable . Undoubtedly they did a great deal of damage , deliberately so .

I agree that it has often been over-emphasised, and used to turn him into a one-dimensional caricature of himself. However, if you read his papers, his plays and poetry, even the speech over O'Donovan Rossa, it is a recurring theme, and I believe he did see the idea of brave men sacrificing themselves for Ireland as a way of giving Irish nationalism a shot in the arm, and waking up the shopkeepers fumbling in the greasy tills, as Yeats had put it earlier. And he was prepared to be part of that sacrifice / catalyst. It was not a unique attitude at the time, even in Britain every public schoolboy was taught Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

well , the situation was that Ireland had responded very enthusiastically to calls to go and die for the British empire , so it was logical to simply ask people to do it for their own country instead . One should not however confuse poetry and propaganda with personal intellect and interaction . Ive read his letters to John Devoy and Joe McGarrity and there was nothin grandiose or theatrical in them when discussing the actual business of revolution . Very frank , detailed and to the point and what struck me most, very realistic in his assessment of people and the situation over that period of some years . And the necessity to act due to real political and military calculations and considerations as opposed to any theatrical death wish . A hugely different character emerges from those letters ,and thats the one I have most admiration for . The assessment I had of him over the years was as a bit of a dreamer , theatrical etc but I strongly revised my opinion of the real character .

And it worked as he thought it would, though I am sure Pearse, who was an intelligent man, would have appreciated the irony that his inadvertent collaborator was an English General, Sir John Maxwell. By confirming the courts martial, and ordering the execution of the leaders, Maxwell did more for the Irish revolutionary cause than most Irishmen had done in the rising. The execution of Connolly was particularly sickening, and it is no surprise to me to hear "the voice of James Connolly" ring out in irish pubs nearly a century later, or that it is one of the few songs which can still usually hush the gathering. Maxwell gave Ireland another generation of "fenian dead", and Pearse's words over O'Donovan Rossa's grave became a true prophecy and a fitting epitaph.

while Ive no doubt the executions angered people , Im of the opinion that the simple fact somebody did something so absolutely shocking as a rebellion woke people to their senses and forced them to begin addressing the issue of their country being occupied by foreigners as opposed to simply going along with it . In my opinion to characterise what followed as a wave of sympathy isnt to do it justice . What followed wasnt merely sympathy but a result of being given actual hope and being woke to their senses as to what political path to persue . The rebellion polarised Ireland politically and forced people to ask themselves whose side they were on , Irelands or Britians . Whilst the executions no doubt exacerbated the situation politically I believe the issue goes much deeper . People getting misty eyed about a few patriots is a purely emotional response and a bit maudlin . Again I believe it to be part of the bad B Movie caricature we've had drummed into us by various people whod prefer us not to address the issue too deeply .

randylonghorn

I think you're being quite unfair to MacNeill, but then he has been turned into a whipping boy for generations, and I guess that's still his fate. We're not going to agree on it, so let's drop it.

kreuzberger wrote: »

I have done over the years and often been very confused. But with the benefit of age Ive found it much more logical to look at issues logically .

I love the implication!

I certainly try to look at history logically, as I try to look at everyday life. But with or without the benefits of age, I have discovered that very few things in life are black or white, that very few people are completely good or completely bad, that the "truth" looks quite different if you look at it from the other side ... and that logic has to take into account and deal with the diversity and often irrationality of humanity.

.

kreuzberger wrote: »

One should not however confuse poetry and propaganda with personal intellect and interaction . Ive read his letters to John Devoy and Joe McGarrity and there was nothin grandiose or theatrical in them when discussing the actual business of revolution . Very frank , detailed and to the point and what struck me most, very realistic in his assessment of people and the situation over that period of some years . And the necessity to act due to real political and military calculations and considerations as opposed to any theatrical death wish . A hugely different character emerges from those letters ,and thats the one I have most admiration for . The assessment I had of him over the years was as a bit of a dreamer , theatrical etc but I strongly revised my opinion of the real character .

I've read a lot of his stuff, including some that hasn't been published, and certainly most of what has been written about him. To me, the picture which emerges is of a man who could be fiercely idealistic yet at times very practical and realistic; a dreamer and yet a hard worker; a complex human being, in fact, who historians and propagandists on all sides have often tried to simplify to suit their own ends.

I certainly don't think he had a death wish, but I do believe that he believed that in the last resort, death was in itself a form of service which would have consequences well after the event.

kreuzberger wrote: »

while Ive no doubt the executions angered people , Im of the opinion that the simple fact somebody did something so absolutely shocking as a rebellion woke people to their senses and forced them to begin addressing the issue of their country being occupied by foreigners as opposed to simply going along with it . In my opinion to characterise what followed as a wave of sympathy isnt to do it justice . What followed wasnt merely sympathy but a result of being given actual hope and being woke to their senses as to what political path to persue . The rebellion polarised Ireland politically and forced people to ask themselves whose side they were on , Irelands or Britians . Whilst the executions no doubt exacerbated the situation politically I believe the issue goes much deeper . People getting misty eyed about a few patriots is a purely emotional response and a bit maudlin . Again I believe it to be part of the bad B Movie caricature we've had drummed into us by various people whod prefer us not to address the issue too deeply .

I would agree with a lot of that. I never said people got all misty-eyed (except when drunk! :rolleyes: ) I think the reaction was anger and horror over the executions in cold blood. It's well documented, in fact, not so much in the formal records as in personal journals and in correspondence, some of the latter in my own family, who were obviously concerned about Tomás, and eventually creeping into newspapers. What is generally shown is a change in the general mood on the street from talk of 'foolishness', albeit with a certain admiration, to shock and to anger. It's very human, and similar changes in public mood have been well documented more recently in similar situations in S America, Eastern Europe, etc., and have had equally long-term consequences.

PHB

Any posts which are not specifically about 1916 will be/have been moved to the British empire thread.

Dinter

Pathfinder wrote: »

Inaccurate supporting fire came from a Royal Navy warship in Dublin bay.

There was an artillery position sited outside Trinity College that included a dismounted gun from the Helga. That gives less reason for indirect fire. An Australian working as an artillery spotter disrupted the rebels communications by shooting the wire that led from the GPO to Clearys that the rebels were sending messages back and forth on in a tin can. He was from the OTC at Trinners.

Pathfinder wrote: »

Which is also what caused most of the damage to buildings.

Most of the damage was caused by incendiary rounds that caused fires that were not dealt with as the brigade wouldn't go out for nearly a week.

Pathfinder wrote: »

The Sherwood Foresters had armoured cars, so the claim they lost 245 men in a crossfire can't be accurate. Although they did lose dozens of men when a frontal assault was ordered.

I don't think so. During the Rising the British commandeered Guinness lorries and converted them into armoured cars by cutting loopholes in the sides. A bit ott if they had real ones available.

The Sherwood Foresters were slaughtered as they were inexperienced and uninformed by command to such an extent that some believed they were in France (some of them were amazed that the "French" had such good English). Their tactics and officers were inflexible (Baggot St. bridge 300 yards away was undefended) and too disciplined (in that they would not adapt and wouldnot break. They continued with headlong charges).

Really Pathfinder if you look at their history and see just what battle they were decimated in before Dublin you'll have a pretty good idea of their officer's mindset. How they could lead men to be butchered as they were.

It is lucky that the only automatic weapon that any of the rebels had at Mount St was De Valera's Mauser pistol. If they were armed with magazine fed Lee Enfields instead of the old Mauser one shot, the carnage would have been far worse.

guinnessdrinker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

interesting character, I've often wondered what made him turn against the government he worked for. off topic, I'm sorry, but can anyone recommend any books on the guy?

Fred, I was actually walking by a local bookshop today and one of their new releases was a book about him called: "Roger Casement: Imperialist, Rebel, Revolutionary". I haven't read it yet so I don't know what it's like but could be worth a look.

randylonghorn

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Fred, I was actually walking by a local bookshop today and one of their new releases was a book about him called: "Roger Casement: Imperialist, Rebel, Revolutionary". I haven't read it yet so I don't know what it's like but could be worth a look.

Hah! You got there before me!

I just got an email about it today!

It's by Séamas Ó Síocháin, Anthropology Dept., NUI Maynooth.

Haven't read it either so can't comment.

(There is so much written about Casement and a lot of it quite contentious, that it's hard to know what to suggest, actually.)

duggie-89

well i think for the most part only dublin rose but i dont think you cant say that it was a dublin rising, it was a national rising, but there were a few other outburst but nothing on a rising scale. but i dont think it was there fault. if my knowledge serves me correctly it was a fact that there was mobilisation across the country for the volunteers but just before the rising was called there was an order saying stand down, when the commanders who wanted a rebellion heard they sent out orders to re form and fight but by the time they got the order out most men had dispersed and so it when they different groups got together many had no clear orders so didn't really take any clear actions.

i think there was a gathering field in coalisland in tyrone aswell.

also i believe that it was seen as a blood scarfice and a way to defy england. the chances of a victory was well handicaped by the fact that the rest of the country didn't reach its highets of armed rebellion. but what a defining moment in irish history it has been. the leaders of the rising were great men.

Scootay

From reading some of the witness statements of Volunteers I know that there was a gathering in Westmeath of Volunteers who, on seeing how few had turned out due to the cancellation, decided to head up to Dublin to join in. Not all of them managed to get in to Dublin though and one man was left behind as he had forgotten his bicycle and they couldn't wait for him to go and get it.

randylonghorn

Scootay wrote: »

... one man was left behind as he had forgotten his bicycle and they couldn't wait for him to go and get it.

And of thousands of such simple, human, day-to-day events, usually completely overlooked, is history made ...

kreuzberger

i had the privelege as a young boy of having my father introduce me to Joe Clarke , one of the men who fought at Mount street bridge . My father knew him very well . The firing was that heavy they had to dip the barrels of the one shot mausers into buckets of water and wrap handkerchiefs round the gunstocks . Bits of their gunsights were falling off . Had their rifles been of better quality theres little doubt the massacre would have been far worse

Hagar

Joe Clarke




Clanwilliam House

kreuzberger

duggie-89 wrote: »

i think there was a gathering field in coalisland in tyrone aswell.

there certainly was . If I remember correctly 2 of james connollys daughters were present at it

also i believe that it was seen as a blood scarfice and a way to defy england.

I strongly disagree , the plan relied a lot on chance but was very definitely workable with concrete aims and objectives , both military and political. The plan was for victory , definitely not a gesture . Had the 20,000 rifles and machine guns been landed ( horrific luck , they were sitting off the coast for almost 2 days in plain sight of a rebel force ), the magazine fort with the main British ammunition supply destroyed in a veritable mushroom cloud ( more horrific luck , the last minute failure to locate a single key prevented it ) and the near empty Dublin castle taken ( only an initial lack of discipline prevented this ) then even despite the failure to mobilise the beginning of the rebellion would have electrified the political and military situation throughout the country . Mobilisation would have went into full swing accross the country within 48 hours , little doubt of that . Many more civilians would most likely have made their minds up to take a chance on the enterprise earlier on and thered have been no shortage of arms for them .
Even at the end had the Provisional governemnt succeeded in getting through the cordon theyd have been giving mobilisation orders throughout the country instead of surrender orders . The German promise was that if any concrete resistance held out for 3 months then a German force would be committed . Germany lived up to its previous promises so theres no reason to believe this promise would not be honoured . Furthermore in 1916 , prior to American intervention in the war , it looked very likely Germany would be victorious in Europe . They gave assurances to the Irish that on the wars end full Irish Independence would form part of any peace terms theyd dictate to a defeated Britain . All the Irish had to do was put up some sort of fight for their own country , to show they actually wanted independence .
So bearing all this in mind the rebellion was not intended as some blood sacrifice but as a genuine attempt at total victory . To inflict total and utter defeat on the British occupation .
Personally I suspect that blood sacrifice myth we have been encouraged to believe is promoted to encourage the belief in our people of their innate powerlessness and inability to free their own country from foreign occupation . Its a myth to prote disempowerment and to suggest 1916 wasnt about full independence and sovereignty for the Irish people and nation . Its been very handy for successive waves of politicians to suggest the rebellion was annoyance about delaying home rule , British intransigence, unionist favouritsim ..blah blah blah to cover up their own failures to address the issue Pearse and Connolly set out to address with a very risky but definitely concrete plan . That of a sovereign and fully independent Irish republic comprising the whole of the national territory and an end to British interference in Irish affairs . To portray a fully independent sovereign nation as an unrealisable objective by suggesting 1916s objective was something else , and then sell the politicians agenda as somehow linked to 1916 or something Pearse and Connolly would have approved of and setlled for .

the chances of a victory was well handicaped by the fact that the rest of the country didn't reach its highets of armed rebellion. but what a defining moment in irish history it has been. the leaders of the rising were great men

they were indeed great men , the finest this nation has ever produced . And their greatness was such that they werent out to make a gesture but inflict total physical defeat on the occupying forces . I believe they were capable of doing this and this is what they fully intended to do .

walrusgumble

kreuzberger wrote: »

This is untrue . I cant believe you left out the primary reason why the rest of the country did not mobilise , in that the leader of the Irish volunteers , a dubliner , expressly ordered the rest of the country not to mobilise .

eoin mcneill, was not a dubliner. he was an ulsterman, he was from the six counties