Myth and propaganda of the unpopuliarity of 1916 ?

McArmalite

Was the 1916 Rising portrayed as very unpopuliar in Ireland a view that the british propaganda machine wanted to give the impression of, and that ofcourse the newspapers were unlikely not to publish anything to contradict it ?

At the monent I am rereading Ernie O'Malley's outstanding On Another Man's Wound ( couldn't recommend it enough for anyone who has not read it). He gives an eye witness account of the public's reaction to when they began occupying the GPO, the fighting and aftermath. In his account of it, the public was split in for support for the Rebels and the ' bowsies ' who were stabbing the efforts of Irishmen on the continent.

Their are also very credible historians such as former outstanding Guardian journalist Peter Berresford Ellis who suggests that portraying the rising as very unpopuliar in Ireland was certainly a view that the british propaganda wanted to impress on everyone, and that newspapers were unlikely to publish anything to the contrary.

According to Berresford Ellis quotes a Canadian journalist Frederick Arthur McKenzie, who arrived in Dublin with the English reinforcements sent to put down the insurrection had no sympathy for the Irish ‘rebels’ and German sympathizers, as he perceived them. " I have read many accounts of public feeling in Dublin in these days. They are all agreed that the open and strong sympathy of the mass of the population was with the British troops. That this was in the better parts of the city, I have no doubt, but certainly what I myself saw in the poorer districts did not confirm this. It rather indicated that there was a vast amount of sympathy with the rebels, particularly after the rebels were defeated. "

McKenzie describing how he watched as people were waving and cheering as a regiment approached, and that he commented to his companion they were cheering the soldiers. Noticing then that they were escorting Irish prisoners, he realised that they were actually cheering the rebels. The rebels he says were walking in military formation and were loudly and triumphantly singing a rebel song. McKenzie reports speaking to a group of men and women at street corners, "shure, we cheer them" said a woman, "why wouldn’t we? Aren't they our own flesh and blood." Dressed in khaki McKenzie was mistaken for a British soldier as he went about Dublin back streets were people cursed him openly, and "cursed all like me strangers in their city."

brianthebard

Ellis' history of the Irish Working Class is a very good book. Its hard to know how much support the rising had. Certainly the members of the IVF and IRB supported it and a majority of the ITGWU would have as well, which comes to anywhere between 30 and 50 thousand. Then there must have been at least some support in Redmond's volunteers, although very hard to calculate.
Another reason why some sections of the population were against the rising was that many thousands of men had been sent to the front so the rebels were seens as attacking or damaging these men.

donaghs

From my own reading on those times, I think the general public were for the most part against the rebels for the period of the Rising. But I do believe there has been exaggeration of the extent of the public opposition.

This exaggeration is probably due to post-Independence myth-making which many people tried to claim participation in and support for 1916 and the Black & Tan war. And successive governments were keen to promote this to butress their position and create a new national unity. The initial unpopularity of the Rising has been highlighted to counterbalance simplistic ideas about the National Struggle. The fact that Ernie O'Malley's older bother joined the British army and died in WWI is an example of the complexities that are often overlooked.

Sorry the small size of this, but this is a good Dublin Opinion cartoon which pokes fun at one aspect of this in the post-1916 era:

Speaker: "What's that?"
Crowd: "It's the bed you were under in 1916!"

McArmalite

brianthebard wrote: »

Ellis' history of the Irish Working Class is a very good book. Its hard to know how much support the rising had. Certainly the members of the IVF and IRB supported it and a majority of the ITGWU would have as well, which comes to anywhere between 30 and 50 thousand. Then there must have been at least some support in Redmond's volunteers, although very hard to calculate.
Another reason why some sections of the population were against the rising was that many thousands of men had been sent to the front so the rebels were seens as attacking or damaging these men.

Anyway, yes indeed it is hard to quantify the support for the Rising. But the point of my post is that historians have falling in behind the propaganda of the british and of course the papers reported the british version verbatim. Yes their were some against them as they had sons at the front fighting for " little Catholic Belgium " in the " war for small nations etc ". But my point been
that 1916 needs more discussion and research before it can be established to a practical degree the reaction of the general public to it and probably the myth of almost all out hatred to the Rebellion pre the executions dispelled ?

And indeed not just Dublin reaction but also the rest of the country. Not trying to put down the Dubs as Jackeens etc, ( but Dublin been well, a bit of a garrison town where unfortunately many through economic conscription had to join the rank and file of the brits in hard times, same in Athlone, Cobh or Queenstown as it was called) may have been initially more critical of the IRA.

One of the things I'm pondering is that in other areas of Ireland with little tradition of joining the british forces - and that would have been most of rural Ireland - was the reaction to the Rebellion more sympathetic to the Rebels ?

( A bit off topic but Ellis's history of the Irish Working Class is indeed a first class book and also 10 Men Dead about the 1981 Hunger Strike - outstanding.)

McArmalite

donaghs wrote: »

From my own reading on those times, I think the general public were for the most part against the rebels for the period of the Rising. But I do believe there has been exaggeration of the extent of the public opposition.

This exaggeration is probably due to post-Independence myth-making which many people tried to claim participation in and support for 1916 and the Black & Tan war. And successive governments were keen to promote this to butress their position and create a new national unity. The initial unpopularity of the Rising has been highlighted to counterbalance simplistic ideas about the National Struggle. The fact that Ernie O'Malley's older bother joined the British army and died in WWI is an example of the complexities that are often overlooked.

Sorry the small size of this, but this is a good Dublin Opinion cartoon which pokes fun at one aspect of this in the post-1916 era:

Speaker: "What's that?"
Crowd: "It's the bed you were under in 1916!"

" The fact that Ernie O'Malley's older bother joined the British army and died in WWI is an example of the complexities that are often overlooked. " Ernie's older brother Frank joined the british army pre 1916. Whether he would have joined the IRA had witnessed 1916 with Ernie obviously is conjecture. But it should be noted that Ernie's younger brother joined the IRA and was killed in the attack on the Custom's House in 1921.

meganj

I think that while your point about propaganda is true and interesting, the English papers would have course loved publishing accounts that went against the rebels in 1916. But there have been many eye witness accounts from people on the streets throughout the rising, the general consensus amongst historians has always been that the Rising was viewed by most of the ordinary people as a nuisance baring in mind that the country was in the grip of economic hardship and that they were constantly being bombarded with WW1 and as you and others have stated here some had men on the front.

However, what is important to note is that after the executions of the rebels were immediately catapulted to martyrs status and the support for the movement increased steadily in the subsequent months and years.

So while it may be true that there was a lot of propaganda about the volunteers and had always been that doesn't mean that everything published was propaganda and in this case a lot of it was true, especially I suppose in Dublin, what with it being the main stronghold of British control and politics in Ireland.

Fratton Fred

There was a thread on here a while back where I asked why it was thay 1916 is so revered yet the actual signing of the anglo irish agreement is never mentioned in ireland.

I think it was snickersman who said that because independance initially lead to a very bloody civil war that it is not something that the Irish are particularly proud of. So, yeah, I would conclude thayt there is probably a lot of myth and propoganda about easter 1916, but probably not for the reasons McArmalite would wish.

MarchDub

McArmalite wrote: »

Was the 1916 Rising portrayed as very unpopuliar in Ireland a view that the british propaganda machine wanted to give the impression of, and that ofcourse the newspapers were unlikely not to publish anything to contradict it ?

"

McArmalite - I agree with your thesis about British propaganda – one of their oldest and most successful traditions - but actually see this issue of the "popularity" of the actions taken the week of the Rising as a distraction from the real issue at hand about whether the Irish wanted a separate nation - and every piece of information we have says yes. The aspirations of the 1916 leaders were in sync with the Irish people – the only true discussion can be about the means. . The Irish electorate had for 30 years prior to the Rising returned Home Rule candidates to Westminster. Then as soon as an election was called in 1918 Sinn Fein swept the country -winning 73 out of 100 seats - even winning Ulster. This is the reason the border had to gerrymandered in the 1920 bill.

The real question for many was whether the British would grant Home Rule after the war - and many at the time of 1916 felt that they would not. It was not an unreasonable assumption to make given the lamentable record of constitutional politics. But the implied notion spread by the propaganda machine that the aspirations of the 1916 leaders were not popular is as far as I can see, a lie. All statistics say otherwise.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There was a thread on here a while back where I asked why it was thay 1916 is so revered yet the actual signing of the anglo irish agreement is never mentioned in ireland.

This is probably because the Treaty was and is still seen as an incomplete document. Michael Collins even referred to it as such. It was a "stepping stone" in his words. The fact that no united Ireland has since arrived makes it not ready for prime time to be celebrated. When the real "Treaty" is signed for the whole of Ireland then I would guess we would see celebrations.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

This is probably because the Treaty was and is still seen as an incomplete document. Michael Collins even referred to it as such. It was a "stepping stone" in his words. The fact that no united Ireland has since arrived makes it not ready for prime time to be celebrated. When the real "Treaty" is signed for the whole of Ireland then I would guess we would see celebrations.

That is kind of my point ( to an extent) Michael Collins is probably the greatest Irishman ever, and yet he was killed in a power struggle that is now called the Irish civil war. There were so many things that happened in the years after the anglo irish treaty that no one wants to talk about it, therefore, 1916 is a convenient, noble time for people to celebrate.

994

Dublin was always much more pro-British than the countryside, because they got economic advantage from being the second city of the Empire, but the culchies got landlords and tax. So maybe the housewives of the Liberties spat at the Volunteers, but I doubt they felt the same in Tralee or Sligo.

brianthebard

McArmalite wrote: »

Anyway, yes indeed it is hard to quantify the support for the Rising. But the point of my post is that historians have falling in behind the propaganda of the british and of course the papers reported the british version verbatim. Yes their were some against them as they had sons at the front fighting for " little Catholic Belgium " in the " war for small nations etc ". But my point been
that 1916 needs more discussion and research before it can be established to a practical degree the reaction of the general public to it and probably the myth of almost all out hatred to the Rebellion pre the executions dispelled ?

And indeed not just Dublin reaction but also the rest of the country. Not trying to put down the Dubs as Jackeens etc, ( but Dublin been well, a bit of a garrison town where unfortunately many through economic conscription had to join the rank and file of the brits in hard times, same in Athlone, Cobh or Queenstown as it was called) may have been initially more critical of the IRA.

One of the things I'm pondering is that in other areas of Ireland with little tradition of joining the british forces - and that would have been most of rural Ireland - was the reaction to the Rebellion more sympathetic to the Rebels ?

( A bit off topic but Ellis's history of the Irish Working Class is indeed a first class book and also 10 Men Dead about the 1981 Hunger Strike - outstanding.)

Look you have to keep in mind that this is a subjective issue and cannot be quantified properly. I don't believe that historians have been falling behind British propaganda-it also suits the Irish nationalist propagandists to suggest that the noble sacrifice of the rebel leaders was the spark that caused the people of Ireland to wake up from their slumber and seek liberation. Therefore to counter the myth of anti-rebellion sentiment you have to go beyond both British and Irish nationalist histories and find something different-this is the first step towards a revision of 1916.

Also given the fact that Dublin was the scene of all major events of the rising I think it is unfair to suggest Dublin was inherently less sympathetic to the rebel ideals. You should also keep in mind that there had been a lot of organisation throughout the country before the Rising which did not express itself physically in April 1916 but you could say it took longer to gestate-there was rebellion in parts of Galway, Wicklow and areas surrounding Dublin, and IVF and IRB members in Cork, Sligo, Belfast, Tralee, Fenit and many other areas had been organised in the months prior to the Rising although they did not participate. So when these people did participate later it should not be seen as emerging from the sacrifice of the rebel leaders but from their attempts to organise the Irish population while they were still alive.

donaghs

meganj wrote: »

I think that while your point about propaganda is true and interesting, the English papers would have course loved publishing accounts that went against the rebels in 1916. But there have been many eye witness accounts from people on the streets throughout the rising, the general consensus amongst historians has always been that the Rising was viewed by most of the ordinary people as a nuisance baring in mind that the country was in the grip of economic hardship and that they were constantly being bombarded with WW1 and as you and others have stated here some had men on the front.

However, what is important to note is that after the executions of the rebels were immediately catapulted to martyrs status and the support for the movement increased steadily in the subsequent months and years.

So while it may be true that there was a lot of propaganda about the volunteers and had always been that doesn't mean that everything published was propaganda and in this case a lot of it was true, especially I suppose in Dublin, what with it being the main stronghold of British control and politics in Ireland.

Irish papers also tended to be against the Rising. William Martin Murphy's Irish Independent was famously opposed and called for the execution of James Connolly. People associate him most with the 1913 Lockout and the Yeats poem, but he would have represented a lot of mainstream middle class Irish Catholic and Nationalist opinion.

If you look at the country pre-1916, the Irish National Party (Redmond), still held sway and there was no popular credible alternative to them. Both Redmond and mainstream Nationalist opinion were frustrated with the progress of Home Rule - but were many people advocating an armed uprising against Britain?

The Rising was carried out in secret by a tiny minority of Irish Nationalism. It did achieve most of the real aims of its planners in that it changed the course of Irish history.

donaghs

994 wrote: »

Dublin was always much more pro-British than the countryside, because they got economic advantage from being the second city of the Empire, but the culchies got landlords and tax. So maybe the housewives of the Liberties spat at the Volunteers, but I doubt they felt the same in Tralee or Sligo.

Bit of a generalisation maybe. You could also argue that there was more resentment in Dublin due to having a large urban proletariat and some of the worst slums in Europe. The countryside on the other hand had settled down from the "Land Wars" due to Tenant Purchase schemes and other measures like "Killing Home Rule with Kindness". Agriculture was also going through a boom due to war food shortages in the UK, farmers were getting paid top dollar. Redmond's Home Rule within the UK trade zone would have suited these people very well. And like Dublin inner city women, country people also had sons and husband in the British army.

Does the Rising in Dublin and lack of action in the countryside mean that Dublin was more radical? Not really, the Rising leaders were not all native Dubliners, but planned the major actions there as it was the capital. Reading about the events in Cork it appears that the Volunteers there barely had enough bullets between them so couldn't sustain any sort of a fight. The Dublin inner city working class engaged in looting. And some Volunteers responded by firing shots over their heads.

Going back to the original question, "how divided was opinion?". Anyone got any other way of gauging this apart from eye witness accounts? James Stephens account is one of the best. He described varying reaction among witness to the Rising. But gives the mainstream view as being one of mostly shock, and some antagonism to the Volunteers during the Rising.

brianthebard

Actually there was strong resistance to joining the army in rural areas. Also there was action in Galway as I already pointed out and Wexford. James Stephens 'account' is terrible and in no way indicative of the events, nor does it show any real understanding of the purpose or ideology behind the Rising, I wouldn't trust it at all.

donaghs

brianthebard wrote: »

Actually there was strong resistance to joining the army in rural areas. Also there was action in Galway as I already pointed out and Wexford. James Stephens 'account' is terrible and in no way indicative of the events, nor does it show any real understanding of the purpose or ideology behind the Rising, I wouldn't trust it at all.

From my own reading, the various Irish regiments did a lot of recruiting in 1914, but this started to tail off long before 1916. Probably because of dissillusionment with the duration & stagnation of the war, the heavy casualties, and the postponement of Home Rule.
I've never read about significant anti-conscription campaigns in Ireland until post-1916.

I don't think anyone is denying that Volunteers took action outside of Dublin. The discussion got a little sidetracked as to why there was not more. An obvious answer to this is the confusion of orders from Pearse and MacNeill.

I'm not sure why you find James Stephens' account to be terrible. It is quite simply a recording of his first-hand observations, and seems quite pertinant to the original post. As for not understanding the purpose or ideology behind the Rising - only the secret planners really knew this (and Connolly and Pearse clearly had some sorting out of ideology to do if they ever found themselves in power together). Stephens would have been aware of the organisations and the participants general motives, but like most Dubliners would have been very shocked and surprised to see the Rising break out.

McArmalite

MarchDub wrote: »

McArmalite - I agree with your thesis about British propaganda – one of their oldest and most successful traditions - but actually see this issue of the "popularity" of the actions taken the week of the Rising as a distraction from the real issue at hand about whether the Irish wanted a separate nation - and every piece of information we have says yes. The aspirations of the 1916 leaders were in sync with the Irish people – the only true discussion can be about the means. . The Irish electorate had for 30 years prior to the Rising returned Home Rule candidates to Westminster. Then as soon as an election was called in 1918 Sinn Fein swept the country -winning 73 out of 100 seats - even winning Ulster. This is the reason the border had to gerrymandered in the 1920 bill.

The real question for many was whether the British would grant Home Rule after the war - and many at the time of 1916 felt that they would not. It was not an unreasonable assumption to make given the lamentable record of constitutional politics. But the implied notion spread by the propaganda machine that the aspirations of the 1916 leaders were not popular is as far as I can see, a lie. All statistics say otherwise.

Yuo raise a good point there that their has been a policy of discrediting the Rising and the leaders aspirations were not in sync with the Irish people as if they Pied Piper style led the general public off in another direction. Though I do agree that the reaction by the public to the Rising is a subjective issue and cannot be quantified properly. However in my OP where I state what Ernie O'Malley witnessed, the report of the Canadian journalist that the poorer people sympathised with the Rebels and the ' respectable ' people tended to emphasize with the british. However, I think it's wrongly been portrayed to this day that the Rising and those who took part in it where universally jeered and booed as just reporting the british propaganda version.

McArmalite

donaghs wrote: »

Irish papers also tended to be against the Rising. William Martin Murphy's Irish Independent was famously opposed and called for the execution of James Connolly. People associate him most with the 1913 Lockout and the Yeats poem, but he would have represented a lot of mainstream middle class Irish Catholic and Nationalist opinion.

Martin Murphy's Independent newspapers were unionist in their outlook and still are today but owned by Sir Tony O'Reilly.

If you look at the country pre-1916, the Irish National Party (Redmond), still held sway and there was no popular credible alternative to them. Both Redmond and mainstream Nationalist opinion were frustrated with the progress of Home Rule - but were many people advocating an armed uprising against Britain?

The Rising was carried out in secret by a tiny minority of Irish Nationalism. It did achieve most of the real aims of its planners in that it changed the course of Irish history.

Yes, it did wake the slumbering giant of Irish nationalism. Ernie O'Malley's personal account of this is extremely good, from a young man who was basically indifferent to it, to it becoming the sole focus of his life, though he did pay a heavy price for it and I think when he died in the 50's he still had a few of the bullets left in him.

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

Anyway, yes indeed it is hard to quantify the support for the Rising. But the point of my post is that historians have falling in behind the propaganda of the british and of course the papers reported the british version verbatim. Yes their were some against them as they had sons at the front fighting for " little Catholic Belgium " in the " war for small nations etc ". But my point been
that 1916 needs more discussion and research before it can be established to a practical degree the reaction of the general public to it and probably the myth of almost all out hatred to the Rebellion pre the executions dispelled ?

And indeed not just Dublin reaction but also the rest of the country. Not trying to put down the Dubs as Jackeens etc, ( but Dublin been well, a bit of a garrison town where unfortunately many through economic conscription had to join the rank and file of the brits in hard times, same in Athlone, Cobh or Queenstown as it was called) may have been initially more critical of the IRA.

One of the things I'm pondering is that in other areas of Ireland with little tradition of joining the british forces - and that would have been most of rural Ireland - was the reaction to the Rebellion more sympathetic to the Rebels ?

( A bit off topic but Ellis's history of the Irish Working Class is indeed a first class book and also 10 Men Dead about the 1981 Hunger Strike - outstanding.)

with regarding places like athlone, mullingar and tullamore, three midland towns with very strong history with the british army, some historians have noted that many of the people of these towns were very hostile towards the men of 1916 and in some parts 1919-1923. local historians noted how the town councils/boroughs , like many others put motions condeming the republicans - lets bear in mind these men were irish parliamentary party supports - athlone after all is the home of tp o'connor. local historians note the strong economic increase that occurred with the presence of the army barracks in athlone (shops groceries etc) and the culture (soccer which lead to setting up athlone town fc, rugby and sailing). also the women, like in dublin, were relying on the widows pension from the army or seperation allowance for their husbands were fighting over in europe - amazing how economic realities effect one's allegiance. athlone barracks, by the way is suppose to be one of the oldest barracks in europe, was first established after 1690 siege and greatly expanded shortly after 1798. the town of athlone, with its wollen mills greatly benefited britain's war time efforts as far back as the crimean war. i understand that even the russian army had big orders with the main wollen mill during ww1.

of course the hostility quietened down when many many many men were interned after. the main local paper, westmeath independent. however, the black and tans burned down their building during the tan war.despite the influence of athlone town fc, people like dinny o'hanlon (major player in the league, irish international, captain & member of the 1st free state team, ex bohemians and athlone) worked and helped out in the local sinn fein courts. the tans seriously encourage the people towards republicanism, along of course with the rising through heavy handness and repression. a strong example of this occurred during 1918-1921 (not sure which) athlone was granted permission to host the all ireland football and hurling finals. this was big deal economically, however,the british took over the fields without notice for camps etc and thus after a huge uproar at last minute gave them back only for the games to be extremely poorly attended. in november 1920 the army caused further resentment when it odered all business premises to close for armistice day.failure to comply meant destruction of the business.

of course, go west along athlone into roscommon hinterland, past the hill of berries, this was very strong republican wise.memories of the ric's activities from the land war days were still fresh.poverty in the west made it less connected with london. athlone itself had an active brigade during the 1919-1921 war (not in the same manner of say north roscommon or the rest of the hilly counties like cork).i could be wrong, but i swore i noted from books written by tim pat coogan, roscommon was under martial law. at least 6-8 people from the athlone region, like many other regions, fought in dublin in 1916. one famous volunter, sean costello. cossan athlone had also being one of the centres of training ivf men in 1915. a contingent of 100 men from the athlone region were on their way to dublin but got as far as shannon bridge when the countercommand came through. on their way they had cut telegraphs etc. many went home. one or two carried on only to be arrested at lucan pitty they did not do something with the train track (some of the 18 pounders that were used against the gpo were based in the curragh and athlone barracks)

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There were so many things that happened in the years after the anglo irish treaty that no one wants to talk about it, therefore, 1916 is a convenient, noble time for people to celebrate.

While I said that the Treaty is an incomplete document I don't agree that 1916 is an expedient proxy celebration. It is in the act of standing up and declaring independence that is the great moment in a country's or a people's history. Pearse's reading of the Irish Proclamation of Independence is a great moment IMO - and the signatories are heroes who knew they faced certain death. Other countries also celebrate the beginning of revolution and not the end - and not because they are embarrassed about how it ended.

In the USA the big celebration is around 4th July - the Declaration of Independence, not the final obtaining of it [ask any American when the revolutionary war finally ended and they are likely to be unsure, but they all know the moment of declaration and the signatories]. The French celebrate the storming of the Bastille - the beginning of the Revolution - as the moment when they first successfully challenged the Aristos - not the final achieving of the overthrow of the old order.

anonymous_joe

I was always under the impression that a lot of people didn't even want independence from the UK.

Home rule would presumably have been similar to what Wales and Scotland have now, and very few people would recognise them as independant of the UK. I doubt many would have wanted to leave the UK, given that at the time, it was still the world's leading superpower. Rather, with more independence, we could have been good citizens when needed. After all, how many thousands did go on and join the British Army?

It's interesting to contrast the desire for Home Rule to the full independence we actually got.

MarchDub

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I was always under the impression that a lot of people didn't even want independence from the UK.

Home rule would presumably have been similar to what Wales and Scotland have now, and very few people would recognise them as independant of the UK. I doubt many would have wanted to leave the UK, given that at the time, it was still the world's leading superpower. Rather, with more independence, we could have been good citizens when needed. After all, how many thousands did go on and join the British Army?

It's interesting to contrast the desire for Home Rule to the full independence we actually got.

I think you need to read some more history - I don't know where your "impressions" are coming from.


For one, in 1918 Sinn Fein swept the elections with the election promise of setting up a separate government in Dublin. They won 73 seats out of 100 and formed a Government in Dublin with a large majority of support from the Irish electorate. The Dublin Government was declared illegal by the British who sent in troops to arrest the Irish government and this led to the Irish War of Independence - but you cannot say, based on the election results, that it was not the will of the Irish people.

donaghs

McArmalite wrote: »

Martin Murphy's Independent newspapers were unionist in their outlook and still are today but owned by Sir Tony O'Reilly.

Hold the thread! How do you reckon this?

brianthebard

donaghs wrote: »

Hold the thread! How do you reckon this?

You have evidence that suggests otherwise?

donaghs

I'm not looking for some sort of an argument, but are you serious? William Martin Murphy, besides being a very successful Catholic businessman, was also a Nationalist, and for a few years an MP for the Irish Parliamentary Party (but of the anti-Parnelite faction).

The original Daily Irish Independent was dominated by the Parnelite faction of mainstream Irish Nationalism. Murphy took it over in 1900 and it then was more reflective of his anti-Parnelite Nationalist faction. Other newspapers which merged into the Indo like the Freemans Journal were also Nationalist in outlook.

Murphy's relations with John Redmond, the presumed-to-be Irish "leader in waiting" were initially cordial. But as negotiating positions began to be taken over impending Home Rule, Murphy antagonised Redmond by having editorials in the Indo arguing for full Domion status with fiscal autonomy, and arguing against any partition of Ireland.

The mainstream view of Murphy is very coloured by his harsh treatment of the working people during the 1913 lockout, and arguments with intellectuals (e.g. his tiff with Yeats over funding for the Hugh Lane gallery).
The Indo represented an aspect of mainstream Irish Parliamentary Party Nationalism, and as the ground changed, repositioned itself as a Cumann na Gael/Fine Gael paper. This would explain a consistant resentment towards it by more radical Nationalists.

So I think we can clearly say that it was a type of Nationalist newspaper. Not Unionist? Perhaps what this thread shows it that a heavy focus on Nationalism in period 1916-1923 means that some of the complexities of the larger period gets overlooked. I guess the period from the death of Parnell to 1914 isn't very exciting.

McArmalite

donaghs wrote: »

Hold the thread! How do you reckon this?

I'll leave it to the individual to conclude what ideology Independent newspapers were influenced by in their editorial on 1916 -

" No terms of denunciation that pen could indict would be too strong to apply to those responsible for the insane and criminal rising of last week.....our heads might now hang low in shame for the misdeeds of those who have been the willing dupes of Prussian intrigue. ....Irishmen have been the agents for the commission of the crime, from the consequences of which it will take us many years to recover.....They were out, not to free Ireland, but to help Germany. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/newspapers/na02.shtml

donaghs

McArmalite wrote: »

I'll leave it to the individual to conclude what ideology Independent newspapers were influenced by in their editorial on 1916 -

" No terms of denunciation that pen could indict would be too strong to apply to those responsible for the insane and criminal rising of last week.....our heads might now hang low in shame for the misdeeds of those who have been the willing dupes of Prussian intrigue. ....Irishmen have been the agents for the commission of the crime, from the consequences of which it will take us many years to recover.....They were out, not to free Ireland, but to help Germany. "

I know what you mean McArmalite, it is a very severe reaction from the Indo. Especially when you view from the prism of the post-1916 tradition.
But its clear that this is a dispute within Irish Nationalism. The post-Parnelites (despite their divisions) saw the IRB/Sinn Fein/Citizen Army as a threat to their grip on power, and their power within any free Ireland which could emerge. By trying to suggest that the 1916 rebels were merely "out, not to free Ireland, but to help Germany", they were appealing to Irish people to remain within their camp.

McArmalite

donaghs wrote: »

I know what you mean McArmalite, it is a very severe reaction from the Indo. Especially when you view from the prism of the post-1916 tradition.
But its clear that this is a dispute within Irish Nationalism. The post-Parnelites (despite their divisions) saw the IRB/Sinn Fein/Citizen Army as a threat to their grip on power, and their power within any free Ireland which could emerge. By trying to suggest that the 1916 rebels were merely "out, not to free Ireland, but to help Germany", they were appealing to Irish people to remain within their camp.

" they were appealing to Irish people to remain within their camp. "I agree, which was just a recipe for a symblic talking shop with nice perks for Murphy's buddies Redmond, Joe Devlin etc.





Come to think of it, that sounds like the Irish political society of today :rolleyes:

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Actually there was strong resistance to joining the army in rural areas. Also there was action in Galway as I already pointed out and Wexford. James Stephens 'account' is terrible and in no way indicative of the events, nor does it show any real understanding of the purpose or ideology behind the Rising, I wouldn't trust it at all.

A great uncle was killed in the Somme in 1917. Another relative was a "civilian" victim during the period.

One thing that has always interested me was the little amount of information available on "civilian" victims in the whole episode. Also - that there were looter casualties on O'Connell Street.I read somewhere that in the 1916 rising that the British Troops on Guard Duty on Easter 1916 were not issued with ammunition.

As an issue how big were the "civilian" casualties in the period and was it an issue?

"Civilian" casualties were a big thing in the North and affected political support - so did they here?

The other issue I have always wondered about was the composition of the British Army Soldiers and were there Irish soldiers fighting against the rebels?

MrMicra

994 wrote: »

Dublin was always much more pro-British than the countryside, because they got economic advantage from being the second city of the Empire, but the culchies got landlords and tax. So maybe the housewives of the Liberties spat at the Volunteers, but I doubt they felt the same in Tralee or Sligo.

Absolutely false. Dublin and the Dublin area was always the cradle of rebellion in Ireland. If Culchies were so patriotic why did they vote overwhelmingly for partition?

The fact is that the people of Kerry and Sligo lived in endogamous incredibly insular communities and did not give a hang about Ireland or anything outside their own barony.
The people of Sligo were touching the forelock to Mountbatten in the bloody 1970s. Patriots indeed!

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

MrMicra

MarchDub wrote: »

I think you need to read some more history - I don't know where your "impressions" are coming from.

A million protestants for one thing. Surely they count as many people. Home Rule was not intended to be independence but a stepping stone to independence.

donaghs

MrMicra wrote: »

If Culchies were so patriotic why did they vote overwhelmingly for partition?

I don't think there was ever a vote for partition.

MarchDub

MrMicra wrote: »

A million protestants for one thing. Surely they count as many people. Home Rule was not intended to be independence but a stepping stone to independence.

If you had read the rest of my answer - or not edited it to suit your comment - you would have seen that I said that Sinn Fein won 73% of the seats in the all Ireland 1918 election. They won on the explicit platform of an independent Ireland and the expressed intention of setting up an independent government in Dublin - secession. In a democracy that counts as a win, the opinion of the losing minority notwithstanding.

brianthebard

MrMicra wrote: »

A million protestants for one thing. Surely they count as many people. Home Rule was not intended to be independence but a stepping stone to independence.

That's not true at all Home Rule was not intended to lead to full independence, you're mixing it up with the Anglo-Irish treaty.
Also please tone down the culchie bashing.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

That's not true at all Home Rule was not intended to lead to full independence, you're mixing it up with the Anglo-Irish treaty.

That is true.

One of the aspects of Home Rule was that it was kind of a successor to Parnells bunch. It was more an integrated federalist(if I am not mixing my terms) approach.

You also have to remember the suffrage issue and that not everyone had the vote.

I think I would be correct in saying the Home Rule Movement was more Middle Class and the Irish Volunteers more popularist.

Its demise could be parrallelled with that of the Liberal Party in the UK.

So there was radical socio-political change throughout Europe at that time not just Ireland.Think Weimar Germany and soldiers home from the war.

Some might say that model would have avoided partition and have been more integrationist and more in tune with the economic realities of independence.

While there has been some papers published about plansfor an Irish invasion of the North in 1969 -there was also another study that the Lynch government used that said it couldn't afford the North.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

As an issue how big were the "civilian" casualties in the period and was it an issue?

"Civilian" casualties were a big thing in the North and affected political support - so did they here?

Secret papers pertaining to British Army activities held by the British were released under Tony Blair's premiership and revealed that there were over 300 civilian deaths caused by the army during Easter Week 1916. In King Street - a contentious and disputed issue for years - these documents concurred that the British Army shot 13 civilians including a father and two young sons who were taken from their home and shot in the street outside.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Secret papers pertaining to British Army activities held by the British were released under Tony Blair's premiership and revealed that there were over 300 civilian deaths caused by the army during Easter Week 1916. In King Street - a contentious and disputed issue for years - these documents concurred that the British Army shot 13 civilians including a father and two young sons who were taken from their home and shot in the street outside.

I am not disputing that and a relative was a fatality.

You did have victims of Nationalists too. If I am not mistaken didn't the Nationalists take pot shots at looters in O'Connell Street.

So there were fatalities caused by the Nationalists.

The Nationalists werent the only insurgents as you also had the Irish Citizens Army- who are often ignored and that must have changed the political independence dynamic substantially.

I

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

That is true.


Some might say that model would have avoided partition and have been more integrationist and more in tune with the economic realities of independence.

The argument against that is that while Home Rule was on the table in 1912 and most especially when it was passed there was serious discussion amongst Unionists about partition. PM Asquith was very much considering partition of the island as later released papers reveal. This was known by the Irish Volunteers who wanted to take more immediate action – and did in 1916. The Home Rule Bill they felt, was leading to partition.

The idea of partition was not something that grew out of 1916 – it was one of the many reasons for 1916.

McArmalite

MrMicra wrote: »

A million protestants for one thing. Surely they count as many people. Home Rule was not intended to be independence but a stepping stone to independence.

I'm not trying to bitch with you Mr Micra because your posts have been quite good, but I assume you mean by a million protestants a million unionists. I said it many times on this forum that protestant does not = unionist. To define someone's political outlook as Catholic or Protestant is not just inacurate but also helps to perpetrate the myth that the conflict is a secterian religious one and not one of national allegiance.

And I also agree with MarchDub " Sinn Fein won 73% of the seats in the all Ireland 1918 election. In a democracy that counts as a win, the opinion of the losing minority notwithstanding. " The majority in any democracy is 50%+1. However in Ireland when we vote 73% in favour - somehow we have british apologists such as Garret Fitzgerald, Ruth Dudley Edwards etc who tells us it's not the mandate of the majority !!!!!

But anyway, it's one of the great myths of so called ' Northern Ireland ' there's never been a million unionists, at most their's 900,000 of them at the moment ( about 800,000+ nationalists ) in the six counties. It's always trotted out by anti nationalists that a " million unionists cannot be forced into a United Irealnd " but of course frocing 800,000 nationalists into a british state is ok with the same people .....:rolleyes:

And yes, I totally agree that Home Rule was intended to be but a stepping stone to independence.

walrusgumble

MrMicra wrote: »

Absolutely false. Dublin and the Dublin area was always the cradle of rebellion in Ireland. If Culchies were so patriotic why did they vote overwhelmingly for partition?

The fact is that the people of Kerry and Sligo lived in endogamous incredibly insular communities and did not give a hang about Ireland or anything outside their own barony.
The people of Sligo were touching the forelock to Mountbatten in the bloody 1970s. Patriots indeed!

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

i am from down the country myself.

sadly, many who were farmers probably could not give a feck or were content with their lot (further progress in buying up of land) after the land league war. Many went ape over the ideas of connolly and co when they considered all land should be used in the state's interest etc

i don't know where your at about voting for partition. The treaty? good friday ? - jesus if thats the case, your very mistaken to think dublin was unco-operative.

Know doubt you are aware of the work of cork,limerick, longford and clare during the tan war

McArmalite

CDfm wrote: »

One thing that has always interested me was the little amount of information available on "civilian" victims in the whole episode.

This is from wiki " The British Army reported casualties of 116 dead, 368 wounded and 9 missing. 16 policemen died and 29 were wounded. Irish casualties were 318 dead and 2,217 wounded. The Volunteers and ICA recorded 64 killed in action, but otherwise Irish casualties were not divided into rebels and civilians. "

Also - that there were looter casualties on O'Connell Street.

From what I vaguely remember, on the evening of Easter Monday the Volunteers fired a few shots over the heads of the looters to disperse them as needless to say, things were getting very hot military wise in the city centre. I have no recollection of the IRA shooting dead anyone, but to me I would have thought their sympathies would have been with the poor and oppressed of Dublin. It would be more like the british officer class to order the shooting of looters.

I read somewhere that in the 1916 rising that the British Troops on Guard Duty on Easter 1916 were not issued with ammunition.

So what, that's their tough luck.

As an issue how big were the "civilian" casualties in the period and was it an issue?

"Civilian" casualties were a big thing in the North and affected political support - so did they here?

I cannot say exactly, as far as I know most of the civilians causaulties weren't due to rifle fire from either side, but due to cannon fire ( the british managed to kill quite a few of their own by cannon fire mistaking them for Rebel positions ) and the gunboat the Helga did a huge amount of damage. It makes sense really. The surrender document presented to the british states " In order to prevent the further slaughter of Dublin citizens, and in the hope of saving the lives of our followers now surrounded and hopelessly outnumbered, the members of the Provisional Government present at headquarters have agreed to an unconditional surrender, and the commandants of the various districts in the City and County will order their commands to lay down arms."

The other issue I have always wondered about was the composition of the British Army Soldiers and were there Irish soldiers fighting against the rebels?

There was a mix, there were even quite a few Aussies there. Regardless, a british soldier is a british soldier.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

The argument against that is that while Home Rule was on the table in 1912 and most especially when it was passed there was serious discussion amongst Unionists about partition. PM Asquith was very much considering partition of the island as later released papers reveal. This was known by the Irish Volunteers who wanted to take more immediate action – and did in 1916. The Home Rule Bill they felt, was leading to partition.

The idea of partition was not something that grew out of 1916 – it was one of the many reasons for 1916.

It was one of the options but some might say that it was the fall back position if political agreement was not reached.

So the fall back position became the reality when you had a war situation.

THe other issue to take into account is that universal male suffrage came in after the WW1 in return for the sacrifices made by soldiers from the UK.

Who knows while this goodwill was being spread around that you would not have had goodwill on Home Rule too.

Its conjecture but you had a lot of change.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

It was one of the options but some might say that it was the fall back position if political agreement was not reached.

So the fall back position became the reality when you had a war situation.

THe other issue to take into account is that universal male suffrage came in after the WW1 in return for the sacrifices made by soldiers from the UK.

Who knows while this goodwill was being spread around that you would not have had goodwill on Home Rule too.

Its conjecture but you had a lot of change.

Please believe me that I don't wish to offend you but this is really armchair political and historical hypothesizing at its best. The reality of the times - based on the evidence we have from available documents that give off very different vibes – is that the British had built up little sense of "goodwill" in Ireland. Partition was no garden party "fall-back" position chatter but a reality that was being discussed at cabinet level in 1913. It was an anathema to the IRB.

By 1914 the situation had become explosive both in Ulster and in the south. We can’t look back and speculate on what might have been based on what we would like to think might have been– historically all we can do is look at the record of what was.

CDfm

MrMicra wrote: »

Absolutely false. Dublin and the Dublin area was always the cradle of rebellion in Ireland. If Culchies were so patriotic why did they vote overwhelmingly for partition?

I am confused by this didnt Sinn Fein have 75 seats in westminister in 1918 election?

The fact is that the people of Kerry and Sligo lived in endogamous incredibly insular communities and did not give a hang about Ireland or anything outside their own barony.

Dev was from Clare, Collins from Cork and you forget leaders like Liam Mellows in Galway and MacCurtain in Cork. There was great confusions over orders and actions in 1916 In Dublin not to mind anywhere else who recieved orders and countermanded orders.


You are being unfair as many of the population of those counties were so extraordinarily poor and you were not talking about whitewashed stone cottages but of subsistence farming and glorified mud huts.Politics and revoloution is a luxury in those situations.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Please believe me that I don't wish to offend you but this is really armchair political and historical hypothesizing at its best. The reality of the times - based on the evidence we have from available documents that give off very different vibes – is that the British had built up little sense of "goodwill" in Ireland. Partition was no garden party "fall-back" position chatter but a reality that was being discussed at cabinet level in 1913. It was an anathema to the IRB.

I think you miss my point and I am just saying that of the options available the rebellion achieved the option they desired least. So they ended up with the worst possible solutions that the Home Rule Party believed they could achieve.

I am not saying the British Rulers built goodwill. I am saying that the Irish Soldiers in WW1 had built goodwill and Redmond and the HR Party hoped to use this goodwill for a better settlement.

The rebelion could be seen as making partition inevitable as it forced an entrenchment of positions along the lines favoured by Askwith.Home Rule had already been voted by parliment but delayed by the War.So it was happening -it was the final part that had to be implimented.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I think you miss my point and I am just saying that of the options available the rebellion achieved the option they desired least. So they ended up with the worst possible solutions that the Home Rule Party believed they could achieve.

I am not saying the British Rulers built goodwill. I am saying that the Irish Soldiers in WW1 had built goodwill and Redmond and the HR Party hoped to use this goodwill for a better settlement.

The rebelion could be seen as making partition inevitable as it forced an entrenchment of positions along the lines favoured by Askwith.Home Rule had already been voted by parliment but delayed by the War.So it was happening -it was the final part that had to be implimented.

I do get the point - you are speculating and I am answering that exercise directly. But I will leave it to Oscar Wilde to really clear things up -

"Ah! That is clearly a metaphysical speculation, and like most metaphysical speculations has very little reference to the actual facts of real life, as we know it."

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I do get the point - you are speculating and I am answering that exercise directly.

It may be speculation but what are the odds that the Anglo/Irish Treaty was any better than the political solution negotiated by the HR Party and which was passed for the Third Time by Parliment in 1913.

The Home Rule Act is a fact and after it had passed for the third time in the Commons it was inevitable.

The speculation is whether or not the Rising achieved anything in the form of improved terms?

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

It may be speculation but what are the odds that the Anglo/Irish Treaty was any better than the political solution negotiated by the HR Party and which was passed for the Third Time by Parliment in 1913.

The Home Rule Act is a fact and after it had passed for the third time in the Commons it was inevitable.

The speculation is whether or not the Rising achieved anything in the form of improved terms?

You could go around in circles forever with that pub style argument - what if the Russian Revolution had not occurred in the middle of WWI? , what if the Americans had not gone into Revolution in 1776 and remained a part of the Empire - maybe their civil war would not have happened ? etc etc. Would they be better of?... and other such nonsensical questions etc etc. We can't know and I don't engage in endless circles - we don't have a parallel universe to consult.

CDfm

Don't get me wrong I am proud to be Irish.

I have mixed views on whether 1916 actually achieved anything and it is something that I have always wondered about.I am cynical.Home Rule was already achieved but had to be implemented.

What did change was that rather then the Home Rule Party assuming power the IRB Volunteers and their successors did.

Once 1916 occurred there was no alternative but the war of independence. It changed the landscape.Partition was inevitable. You had terretorial concessions and in the aftermath you had mass emigration of protestants and with them their investment capital.

Even Michael Collins was convinced the Republicans only had 2 weeks left when the Treaty Negotiations started. He said the treaty would be his death warrant so understood the Civil War was inevitable.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I am proud to be Irish.

I have mixed views on whether 1916 actually achieved anything and it is something that I have always wondered about.I am cynical.Home Rule was already achieved but had to be implemented.

What did change was that rather then the Home Rule Party assuming power the IRB Volunteers and their successors did.

Once 1916 occurred there was no alternative but the war of independence. It changed the landscape.Partition was inevitable. You had terretorial concessions and in the aftermath you had mass emigration of protestants and with them their investment capital.

Even Michael Collins was convinced the Republicans only had 2 weeks left when the Treaty Negotiations started. He said the treaty would be his death warrant so understood the Civil War was inevitable.

All I can say is that IMO the real inevitability had become the 1916 Rising.

Given all the complex tensions - the arming of the Ulster Volunteers in 1913 and their expressed determination to break the "achieved" Home Rule Bill - Rome Rule as they feared - by arms and blood if necessary, the support this got from the English Conservative Party, – the skepticism for many nationalists surrounding the implementation of Home Rule Bill and the counter arming of the Irish volunteers, all meant that the constitutional path had failed dismally.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

I am not disputing that and a relative was a fatality.

You did have victims of Nationalists too. If I am not mistaken didn't the Nationalists take pot shots at looters in O'Connell Street.

So there were fatalities caused by the Nationalists.

The Nationalists werent the only insurgents as you also had the Irish Citizens Army- who are often ignored and that must have changed the political independence dynamic substantially.

I

No the republican forces did not shoot at the looters. Also to refer to the rebels as 'nationalist's' is somewhat wrongheaded, both the ICA and the IRB were republican in ideology, although the ICA was of the socialist republican persuasion.

CDfm wrote: »

Once 1916 occurred there was no alternative but the war of independence. It changed the landscape.Partition was inevitable.

Since this thread is about myths then this is another interesting myth that should be dealt with. It has suited the Irish state establishment to write that partition was a result of 1916 and the war of independence, and thus that violence caused as much harm as good to Ireland. This has become ever more important since the Troubles began in the late 60s. But partition was already more than a possibility but a certainty if Home Rule was ever to be introduced. Part of the very reason for 1916 was to avoid partition, at least for Connolly but also probably for most if not all of the leaders.