Morality of the Irish Revolution

Denerick

Was it truly necessary for the Irish Volunteers to take up arms against the Crown forces in 1919?

I'll give my two cents. In 1918 Sinn Féin ran their election on the premise of an independent Ireland but it is quite clear that they did not run their election on the premise of violent seperation from the Empire. They did not achieve a complete majority of the vote in Ireland, and the fantastic result for Sinn Féin was motivated more by a disdain of the IPP, Sinn Féin leadership in the Conscription Crisis and some residual reverence of the Easter Rising suicide squad than sympathy with Republican goals. The results of the Free State elections seem to confirm this.

Given this, it is quite clear that the nation was behind the idea of an independent state, but it is also very clear that the idea of armed conflict was anathema - Republican rhetoric of 'a nation in arms' and complete solidarity is and was nonsense, empty rhetoric. Dan Breen and Séan Treacy were widely lambasted for their Soloheadbeg 'incident' by most of Sinn Féin and even widely within the IRA itself.

If Sinn Féin had of persued a purely political campaign (IE, the 'Rival Government' of Dáil Eireann) with an armed group supporting it as a pressure group, it is quite clear that along with the marshalling of international opinion and the oath of allegiance from the county councils that the result would have been pretty much the same as the result of the violent attack on the British Empire.

I believe the Irish people wanted freedom, but did not want violence. There was no initial causus Belli for either the Easter Rising or the Revolution (Repression was unheard of before the Easter Rising, political autonomy was on the way, the country was prosperous and the people were enjoying the benefits of the war boom), and there very clearly was no popular support for it either in the early stages. It defied the doctrine of just war laid down by the Catholic Church and the doctrine of just war universally accepted by most Christian organisations generally. The Volunteers were the agressors; Dan Breen and a couple of country hicks kicked off a war which was widely condemned (IRA chief of Staff Richard Mulcahy later described it as 'tantamount to murder') by Sinn Féin itself.

In a way it says a lot about Irish history from this date onwards - a few ill-educated barbarians 'decide' they know better than the people and 'decide' it is their 'right' as 'Irish people' (Whatever that actually means to people like that) to 'kill' in the name of the 'people', irrelevant to whether the 'people' want them to 'kill in their name'.

I know I've used quite a bit of rhetoric of my own here, and I make no apologies for it. This is a moral examination on the internet, not a sophisticated essay for the consumption of experts. Feel free to let rhetoric flourish, but only so long as its grounded in facts.

IIMII

We wanted independence, the English presence in Ireland was always resented. First decent chance we got, someone was going to have a shot at it. Thankfully the vision of the volunteers realised that the British barbarians with the armed presence here would not leave unless they could not rule militarily. And they devised a strategy which succeeded in making the country ungovernable. This nation will be forever in their debt.

Your presumption that British violance is, well, ok is dubious to say the least.

Denerick

IIMII wrote: »

We wanted independence, the English presence in Ireland was always resented. First decent chance we got, someone was going to have a shot at it.

I know I said that we all should feel free to use rhetoric so long as grounded in facts, but you could have at least tried to formulate a proper argument.

IIMII

Why? Why go to an effort to explain things when your own arguements are complete rubbish?

Denerick

IIMII wrote: »

Why? Why go to an effort to explain things when your own arguements are complete rubbish?

If my argument is complete rubbish then it shouldn't be very difficult to counter it. Any old fool with a keyboard can claim something else is rubbish, it requires a little intelligence to explain why.

Denerick

Your presumption that British violance is, well, ok is dubious to say the least.

:rolleyes:

Please don't put words in other peoples mouths.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

I believe the Irish people wanted freedom, but did not want violence. There was no initial causus Belli for either the Easter Rising or the Revolution (Repression was unheard of before the Easter Rising, political autonomy was on the way, the country was prosperous and the people were enjoying the benefits of the war boom), and there very clearly was no popular support for it either in the early stages. It defied the doctrine of just war laid down by the Catholic Church and the doctrine of just war universally accepted by most Christian organisations generally. The Volunteers were the agressors; Dan Breen and a couple of country hicks kicked off a war which was widely condemned (IRA chief of Staff Richard Mulcahy later described it as 'tantamount to murder') by Sinn Féin itself.

Ok let me stop you there. There most certainly was repression before the Rising, the 1913 lockout, the suspension of free speech and trial by Jury, the Defense of the Realm Act, the Dublin Castle set up and its spying, forced enlistment by sacking workers-lots of repression. Add to that the Home Rule Act was suspended, and after two years seemed unlikely to come into effect. Why did it not immediately happen after the end of WWI? That's what had been promised to the IP. The country was nowhere near prosperous, I don't know where you got that idea. Slums were common in all large towns and cities, Dublin was the worst city in Europe in that regard. Infant mortality was much higher than the rest of Europe, certainly Britain. Unemployment rose during the war. Also the price of essential items rose significantly. Its hard to know whether you are referring to the Rising or the later War of Independence when you say country hicks, but if you think that Countess Markevicz, Pearse, Connolly and Ernie O'Malley to name a few were ignorant hicks then you are entirely wrong.

In a way it says a lot about Irish history from this date onwards - a few ill-educated barbarians 'decide' they know better than the people and 'decide' it is their 'right' as 'Irish people' (Whatever that actually means to people like that) to 'kill' in the name of the 'people', irrelevant to whether the 'people' want them to 'kill in their name'.

Revolutions do not succeed without the support of the people. Considering the common brutality and certainly the common ill-treatment of Britain and British forces at the time there were few people who supported their continued presence.

I know I've used quite a bit of rhetoric of my own here, and I make no apologies for it. This is a moral examination on the internet, not a sophisticated essay for the consumption of experts. Feel free to let rhetoric flourish, but only so long as its grounded in facts.

I suggest you do the same, some facts to back up your argument would be nice, because right now its baseless.

IIMII

Denerick wrote: »

If my argument is complete rubbish then it shouldn't be very difficult to counter it. Any old fool with a keyboard can claim something else is rubbish, it requires a little intelligence to explain why.

Yeah, yeah. Change the record. You wrote a load of drivel to hook in a multitude of posters for God knows what reason. Best of luck to you. But you might consider British influence in Ireland was maintained through violence, and no matter how many Union flags were hung on Grafton Street by the British ruling class and their social climbing associates this country remained Irish.

Did the whole land aggitation period pass you by? The Phoenix Park Invincables, the gun running and Belfast pogroms? This country was anything but docile. The Irish question kept changing in British eyes, but in Irish eyes there was only ever one ultimate answer.

Enough for me, good luck in kindling another row.

Denerick

Ok let me stop you there. There most certainly was repression before the Rising, the 1913 lockout, the suspension of free speech and trial by Jury, the Defense of the Realm Act, the Dublin Castle set up and its spying, forced enlistment by sacking workers-lots of repression.

DORA was imposed throughout Britain, not just Ireland. There was no discrimination there, it was war time legislation, not 'repression' as we think of it now. 1913 was a different kettle of fish - It was Dublin employers doing the repression, not the British government. I fail to see how an Irish administration would have done differently (And considering the Dáil was adamantly opposed to land seizures in the Revolution, methinks they would have sided with the employers.)

Forced enlistment? We didn't even have conscription. If anything we were the victims of 'positive discrimination'.

Add to that the Home Rule Act was suspended, and after two years seemed unlikely to come into effect. Why did it not immediately happen after the end of WWI?

I really fail to see how delaying HR was repression, by any stretch of the imagination. It was delayed because of the war, and it had wide support in Britain. It was going to happen, it was on the statute book - it had passed. It had merely been suspended.

Ireland was too turbulent to pass it after WWI - George TRIED to pass it through but since Redmond would agree to partition the north he lost all credibility and the IPP went down into a malaise in Ireland as a result. Sinn Féin wouldn't even countenance HR.

The country was nowhere near prosperous, I don't know where you got that idea. Slums were common in all large towns and cities, Dublin was the worst city in Europe in that regard. Infant mortality was much higher than the rest of Europe, certainly Britain. Unemployment rose during the war. Also the price of essential items rose significantly.

Farming profits BALLOONED. Industrial demand skyrocketed for the first time in Ireland. We actually had profitable industries.

The slums, infant mortality obviously a problem, but no different than in Britain. London's East End was a notorious haven of crime and poverty, I don't really know how you can say Dublin was the worst in Europe.

Its hard to know whether you are referring to the Rising or the later War of Independence when you say country hicks, but if you think that Countess Markevicz, Pearse, Connolly and Ernie O'Malley to name a few were ignorant hicks then you are entirely wrong.

I was referring to Breen and his coterie of thugs, the initial instigators of the war.

Revolutions do not succeed without the support of the people. Considering the common brutality and certainly the common ill-treatment of Britain and British forces at the time there were few people who supported their continued presence.

Obviously the people slowly came behind the rebels as things progressed and British reprisals proved counter productive. I'm talking about 1919, not 1920. There was NO initial causus belli.

I suggest you do the same, some facts to back up your argument would be nice, because right now its baseless.

Nice to see that the mods play nice too. Must bear that in mind next time one of you tell me off.

Denerick

IIMII wrote: »

Yeah, yeah. Change the record. You wrote a load of drivel to hook in a multitude of posters for God knows what reason. Best of luck to you. But you might consider British influence in Ireland was maintained through violence, and no matter how many Union flags were hung on Grafton Street by the British ruling class and their social climbing associates this country remained Irish.

Did the whole land aggitation period pass you by? The Phoenix Park Invincables, the gun running and Belfast pogroms? This country was anything but docile. The Irish question kept changing in British eyes, but in Irish eyes there was only ever one ultimate answer.

Enough for me, good luck in kindling another row.

If you feel that I'm kindling a row, why post?

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

DORA was imposed throughout Britain, not just Ireland. There was no discrimination there, it was war time legislation, not 'repression' as we think of it now. 1913 was a different kettle of fish - It was Dublin employers doing the repression, not the British government. I fail to see how an Irish administration would have done differently (And considering the Dáil was adamantly opposed to land seizures in the Revolution, methinks they would have sided with the employers.)

Forced enlistment? We didn't even have conscription. If anything we were the victims of 'positive discrimination'.

Is suspending freedom of speech and trial by jury ok then? You didn't mention it. In 1913 the employers were supported by the military and police, and it led to the Bloody Sunday incident in which at least two people were killed and many more wounded. This was also the reason why the ICA was founded. So there is absolutely a direct link between the police brutality of 1913 and the Rising of 1916.
By forced enlistment I mean that many employers sacked young men of military age so they had to either serve or go hungry. Also the National Registration act was an attempt to create a register of men eligible to serve.

I really fail to see how delaying HR was repression, by any stretch of the imagination. It was delayed because of the war, and it had wide support in Britain. It was going to happen, it was on the statute book - it had passed. It had merely been suspended.

Ireland was too turbulent to pass it after WWI - George TRIED to pass it through but since Redmond would agree to partition the north he lost all credibility and the IPP went down into a malaise in Ireland as a result. Sinn Féin wouldn't even countenance HR.

Its clearly repression of the popular will. It was suspended because of the war, even though it was passed and on the statute books. The first sign that Britain was not likely to fulfill its promises.
SF were very happy to accept Home Rule before 1916, George could have avoided the war if he had passed the HR bill, or Asquith in 1914.

Farming profits BALLOONED. Industrial demand skyrocketed for the first time in Ireland. We actually had profitable industries.

The slums, infant mortality obviously a problem, but no different than in Britain. London's East End was a notorious haven of crime and poverty, I don't really know how you can say Dublin was the worst in Europe.

Farming profits for a small few. Same with industry. Many Irish industries were also hurt hugely by the war. Add to that wartime industries only last for the war. There was no long term investment possibilities. Besides which this is a far cry from the statement "the country was prosperous".
No it was different from Britain, figures were much higher than anywhere else in Britain or Europe. This is well documented. They have been compared to Calcutta.

I was referring to Breen and his coterie of thugs, the initial instigators of the war.

I still fail to see how this adds to the debate, and I think that the aforementioned revolutionaries shows that there were many intelligent men and women involved in the movement.

Nice to see that the mods play nice too. Must bear that in mind next time one of you tell me off.

I was posting as a user, not a mod. I'm interested in history. I don't like to see baseless assertions.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

Nice to see that the mods play nice too. Must bear that in mind next time one of you tell me off.

Denerick wrote: »

If you feel that I'm kindling a row, why post?

Now speaking as a Mod, the above is unhelpful, off topic and unnecessary. Take note of the charter and post only to add to the thread.

Denerick

Look, I'm not sure where we're going here. I propose a relatively straight forward hypothesis:

1) The IRA lacked popular support to initiate the Irish Revolution.
2) The popular support for the war effort came from British reprisals, not popular support for the idea of violent seperation from the Empire.
3) The war was instigated by a small group of radicals condemned both from within and without their movement at the time.

How can you call this baseless?

The repression you speak of is not unique to Ireland. Britain put down general strikes on its own before 1913 in its own country. Ireland was not 'especially' repressed. There was no distinct repression aimed at Ireland because we were Irish. There was no widespread popular support for violent seperation. I probably should have phrased that better.

You are right about one thing - it is wrong to claim that Dublin was 'no worse' than other British cities. I agree we were in a pretty intolerable situation urban wise. Farming profits were very clearly not for the small few. Anyone who sold their excess produce benefited from the higher prices. The effects were widespread and domestic consumption in rural areas was greatly increased. This was unprecedented in Irish history. The Irish peasant was getting richer and owned more things.

I don't know what you are getting at with the HR suggestion. Its silly to have expected Britain to have instituted HR during the War - especially since they only considered that the war would be over in 6 months. This is not a broken promise, this is a sign of the realities of the time.

And please differentiate between Sinn Féin pre-1916 and Sinn Féin post-1916. Because that statement is simply wrong.

I still fail to see how this adds to the debate, and I think that the aforementioned revolutionaries shows that there were many intelligent men and women involved in the movement.

Please don't derail this thread any further. I've made it quite clear that I'm talking about the origins of the Irish Revolution and whether it was necessary for Sinn Féin and the IRA to take to arms against the Crown forces INITIALLY. I have to admit I'm getting quite frustrated that people don't seem to be listening to what I'm actually saying.

Now speaking as a Mod, the above is unhelpful, off topic and unnecessary. Take note of the charter and post only to add to the thread.

And saying my post was baseless without seeming to have understood it was necessary was it? Give me a break. The other guy was trolling, that was pretty clear.

conchubhar1

delete if needed but,

honest to god, give some sources or any type of backing to these ridicolous claims

they are so rubbish, they dont even need refuting with a counter argument.
re-read them yourself and you will see...

Denerick

conchubhar1 wrote: »

delete if needed but,

honest to god, give some sources or any type of backing to these ridicolous claims

they are so rubbish, they dont even need refuting with a counter argument.
re-read them yourself and you will see...

I've had enough. Going to bed. Please delete this thread and permanantly ban me from the history and heritage forum. I can't take this small and single mindededness, ignorance and complete lack of any erudition any ****ing longer. This history forum is a complete joke. I want to be banned and kept away from it. Pack of ****ing imbeciles.

BossArky

Denerick wrote: »

I've had enough. Going to bed. Please delete this thread and permanantly ban me from the history and heritage forum. I can't take this small and single mindededness, ignorance and complete lack of any erudition any ****ing longer. This history forum is a complete joke. I want to be banned and kept away from it. Pack of ****ing imbeciles.

Request granted.

Permanent ban on 2 accounts: you requested it & you earned it.