Irish support to remain part of UK in early 20th Century

Silent Runner

Is it true that the people of Ireland wanted its Independance but at the same time wanted to remain part of the UK, as a state? I heard this somewhere before but can't find any information on it?

Has anyone got any links for this information?

mgmt

I remember hearing that the members of the Irish Nationalist Party used to sing 'God
Save the Queen' after meetings.

hotmail.com

Some wanted complete separation, some didn't. Evidence of the latter:

Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example.

Thousands lined the streets whenever the British monarch visited Dublin, as late as 1911.

For decades after independence, there was questions over the justification of separation, given our shambolic economic state. A lot of those that lived under British rule often spoke openly about how it was better under the British as late as the 1950s.

pablomakaveli

hotmail.com wrote: »

Some wanted complete separation, some didn't. Evidence of the latter:

Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example.

Thousands lined the streets whenever the British monarch visited Dublin, as late as 1911.

For decades after independence, there was questions over the justification of separation, given our shambolic economic state. A lot of those that lived under British rule often spoke openly about how it was better under the British as late as the 1950s.

These two examples only represent Dublin really and not the attitudes of the rest of the country.

Lapin

Silent Runner wrote: »

Is it true that the people of Ireland wanted its Independance but at the same time wanted to remain part of the UK, as a state? ...............
Has anyone got any links for this information?

It is true - and as a result a compromise was reached.
The majority of the island was granted the status of "Free State" with its own capital city in Dublin in 1922. It took a further 15 years for the people of the Free State to adopt a constitution (1937) to establish the republic and a further 12 years (1949) for that republic to emerge.

Silent Runner

Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example.

I heard that had something to with Dublin/Irish born soldiers serving in Irish regiments of the British army who were fighting in WW1, they seen the rising as a betrayal to their relatives fighting in WW1? And that some Irish in the police Constabulary were killed during the rising?

ChocolateSauce

Silent Runner wrote: »

Is it true that the people of Ireland wanted its Independance but at the same time wanted to remain part of the UK, as a state? I heard this somewhere before but can't find any information on it?

Has anyone got any links for this information?

Just read the wikipedia articles.

The long and the short of it is that the Irish Nationalist party, who were elected by the overwhelming majority of what is now the republic, wanted "home rule", a form of self-government less than what Canada and Australia had at the time, and similar to what the North now has. Republican sentiment didn't flare up until after the 1916 leaders were executed.

Manach

I suppose one of the ironies is that we are now (for mostly better) part of the EU and have devolved volunterily such powers to Brussels that were the hallmark of a state.

Lapin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Republican sentiment didn't flare up until after the 1916 leaders were executed.

Eh - 1798 ?

NSNO

The Rising was initially supported by a very small minority. Sympathy and respect for them grew after the executions of the leaders but still the majority of people would have been moderate nationalists who simply wanted home rule.

By the time of the 1918 election, popular support had swung towards Sinn Féin away from the Irish Parliamentary Party. Sinn Féin won 73 seats and the IPP won 6. And 4 of those 6 were as a result of a deal with SF in which they agreed to share the Ulster constituencies between them to avoid splitting the Nationalist vote.

However, and this is something you'll never hear from republicans, the Sinn Féin's electoral success wasn't as overwhelming as you might think. The IPP actually performed far better than their seats would indicate because the election was held under FPTP rather than PR-STV. SF got 485,105 votes and the IPP got 237,393 (In the South) Nationwide SF got 46.9% of the vote, Home Rulers & nationalists got 22.6% of the vote, and Unionist parties got 30.5%. In addition the Unionist Party won the 2 Trinity College seats as well as another in Dublin in the South

Irish 'loyalism' ('Loyalism' in quotes meaning loyalty to the Crown/Empire/Commonwealth, rather than supporting union with britain) slowly ebbed away after independence but God Save the King remained popular amongst the social elite at various functions and obviously the University of Dublin's Unionism is well known. Former Southern Unionists and Redmonites became involved with CnG & the Centre Party and later FG and some were even senators in the first Free State Senate. I think (please don't quote me on this one!) that there were even a few Irish earls in the first Senate. Neutrality and Dev's wartime leadership probably put the last nails in the coffin of Irish 'loyalism'.

I find the whole topic very interesting myself. Many of these people and their lives have been almost written out of the Irish historical narrative until recently. Southern Unionism has always been portrayed as the preserve of the elite landed class. Only now are we starting to openly discuss the significant minority of Irish people who either supported the Union or were loyal to the Empire.

Lapin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

, a form of self-government less than what Canada and Australia had at the time, and similar to what the North now has.

Dominion Status.
The Home Rulers would have accepted that as a stepping stone to full independence at the turn of the last century.
But it was never going to be a final agreement in a manner similar to Canada and Oz.

And it has no similarity to the status of government in Northern Ireland now.

LordSutch

Silent Runner wrote: »

I heard that had something to with Dublin/Irish born soldiers serving in Irish regiments of the British army who were fighting in WW1, they seen the rising as a betrayal to their relatives fighting in WW1? And that some Irish in the police Constabulary were killed during the rising?

My understanding is that it was the 'ordinary people' of Dublin who objected to the Rising and that it was ordinary members of the public who jostled & pelted the rebels with eggs, verbal abuse, etc, etc. The rebels (now heroes) who brought death & destruction on Dublin had little or no support from the public at large (at the time of the rising), hence the disgust by the public. Most of the Irish regiments were still at the western front fighting & being killed by the Germans when the easter rising took place, and Yes indeed, their families back home must have been furious that the rebels were trying to stab them in the back.

supersean1999

i know this might be slightly off topic, but i often ask, if the british had not exported vast amounts of meat and grain during the famine would the anti english-british feeling ever grown to such a levels to seek independence

cc4life

Im not completely sure if this is what the person who started the thread was looking for but external association might be the phrase you were looking for.. It was the idea of being independent but an ally of Britain at the same time

CrankyCod

The anti-British sentiment after the Famine had largely disappeared by the 1900's: most Irish people were reasonably content with the status quo, hence the huge welcoming crowds for royal visits. The idea that only the elite and Protestants were 'loyal' is wrong; there were plenty of working class people who were not at all keen on full independence, fearing the Catholic middle classes, narrow minded gaelgoirs and the role of the church. Most of those people were intimidated into silence but I knew plenty of people growing up in Cork who thought Home Rule would have been adequate, and that the full separation and so-called Republic was a disaster.

Manach

Perhaps our Politicians might allow a tick-box for re-Unification in the pletoria of upcoming planned constitutional amendment votes.

supersean1999

CrankyCod wrote: »

The anti-British sentiment after the Famine had largely disappeared by the 1900's: most Irish people were reasonably content with the status quo, hence the huge welcoming crowds for royal visits. The idea that only the elite and Protestants were 'loyal' is wrong; there were plenty of working class people who were not at all keen on full independence, fearing the Catholic middle classes, narrow minded gaelgoirs and the role of the church. Most of those people were intimidated into silence but I knew plenty of people growing up in Cork who thought Home Rule would have been adequate, and that the full separation and so-called Republic was a disaster.

but was it not the rebels even though not that popular by the average dubliner who started the ball rolling, surely there contempt came from somewhere, you dont rebel if your happy

hotmail.com

pablomakaveli wrote: »

These two examples only represent Dublin really and not the attitudes of the rest of the country.

Victoria always got a good reception when she visited Cork.

It is fair to say that most of the support for retaining the union (outside of the North) came from Dublin. Dublin escaped the effects of the Famine, a fair amount of the Dublin middle classes were Protestant and naturally more inclined to keep the union due to fears of a Catholic state.

I don't think there's much evidence that the Dublin working class were too bothered with independence. Perhaps the Dublin working class were influenced by the fact that Dublin was essentially an English city and didn't see the great need for independence. Dubliners spoke English, had a similar culture to England (as it was an English city for hundreds of years) and of course were probably more concerned with day to day living concerns, staying alive for example.

Dev and most of the founding fathers detested this aspect of Dublin. They saw the future of the Irish identity linked with agriculture, rural life, the Irish language and Catholicism.

Seloth

Jeese I'm really shocked at the views of some people.

Yeah the full Republic support was gained till after 1916,thats why they called it a blood sacrifice!.

KeithAFC

I think there has been a lot of re writing of history in what a lot of Irish men thought in the early 1900s. Not as rebel like as people think.

phantom_lord

Manach wrote: »

I suppose one of the ironies is that we are now (for mostly better) part of the EU and have devolved volunterily such powers to Brussels that were the hallmark of a state.

Such as?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Lapin wrote: »

Dominion Status.
The Home Rulers would have accepted that as a stepping stone to full independence at the turn of the last century.
But it was never going to be a final agreement in a manner similar to Canada and Oz.

And it has no similarity to the status of government in Northern Ireland now.

Actually what the Home Rule party wanted was exactly the same as the status of Northern Ireland or Scotland now. It wasnt until after the War of Independence that we achieved dominion status, and although less than Sinn Fein wanted, it was more than the IPP had campaigned for.

PatsytheNazi

Silent Runner wrote: »

Is it true that the people of Ireland wanted its Independance but at the same time wanted to remain part of the UK, as a state? I heard this somewhere before but can't find any information on it?

Has anyone got any links for this information?

hotmail.com wrote: »

Some wanted complete separation, some didn't. Evidence of the latter:

Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example.

Thousands lined the streets whenever the British monarch visited Dublin, as late as 1911.

For decades after independence, there was questions over the justification of separation, given our shambolic economic state. A lot of those that lived under British rule often spoke openly about how it was better under the British as late as the 1950s.

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think there has been a lot of re writing of history in what a lot of Irish men thought in the early 1900s. Not as rebel like as people think.

Firstly, I notice a big rise in the amount of unionist/partionist posters on this forum of late such as the Why are there still republican parties? thread which was rightly closed by mod Brian. Possibly kicked off Politics.ie were you lads as their has been a big cull over there ?

Anyway, the whole thing about Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example is a lie. It suited the Brit propaganda machine to portray the rising in a bad light and the ever populiar Tommy's coming to the rescue :rolleyes: The Trinity unionists might have verbally spoke against them, the vast majority of Dubliners were sympathetic to them.

The west Brits in south Dublin hung out bunteens etc when the Brit monarch visited, and a few people strectched their neck when she was passing by. Thousands turned out to protest and the vast majority just ignored it.

As for the 1950's a lot wanting to rejoin Britain -

PatsytheNazi

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps our Politicians might allow a tick-box for re-Unification in the pletoria of upcoming planned constitutional amendment votes.

A bit off topic but since you raised it - Yeah I can see that, wanting to join with a state that's marginally doing better than we are :
Britain's actual debt stands at £4.8 trillion http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/britains-actual-debt-stands-at-%C2%A348-trillion

RMD

The early 1900s up to 1916 was the period of closest Anglo-Irish relations in our history. Home rule was desired but many also wanted to remain within the UK / commonwealth. 10s of thousands of Irish men served for the British army in WW1 in an effort to achieve home rule (also due to fierce poverty and a lack of jobs).

Republican tensions didn't fully flare up until around 1916, 2 years after Home rule had been passed yet it still hadn't been introduced. Most people would never have supported a violent rebellion let alone consider one. The idea of armed resistance only fully came when the leaders on 1916 were executed without proper trial and it became clear Home rule wasn't going to be introduced, hence the war of independence 1919-1921.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

A bit off topic but since you raised it - Yeah I can see that, wanting to join with a state that's marginally doing better than we are :
Britain's actual debt stands at £4.8 trillion http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/britains-actual-debt-stands-at-%C2%A348-trillion

I'm not a West-Brit or any of that type of crap Patsy, but the amount of time you spend derailing British related topics is getting annoying. You're always doing it in the military forum and let's be honest, you add absolutely nothing for the topic discussion other than showing your obvious dislike of the Britain.

PatsytheNazi

RMD wrote: »

The early 1900s up to 1916 was the period of closest Anglo-Irish relations in our history. Home rule was desired but many also wanted to remain within the UK / commonwealth. 10s of thousands of Irish men served for the British army in WW1 in an effort to achieve home rule (also due to fierce poverty and a lack of jobs).

Republican tensions didn't fully flare up until around 1916, 2 years after Home rule had been passed yet it still hadn't been introduced. Most people would never have supported a violent rebellion let alone consider one. The idea of armed resistance only fully came when the leaders on 1916 were executed without proper trial and it became clear Home rule wasn't going to be introduced, hence the war of independence 1919-1921.

" Republican tensions didn't fully flare up until around 1916 " It was the raising of the Ulster Volunteers in 1912 that caused the formation of the Irish Volunteers in return.

hotmail.com

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Firstly, I notice a big rise in the amount of unionist/partionist posters on this forum of late such as the Why are there still republican parties? thread which was rightly closed by mod Brian. Possibly kicked off Politics.ie were you lads as their has been a big cull over there ?

Anyway, the whole thing about Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example is a lie. It suited the Brit propaganda machine to portray the rising in a bad light and the ever populiar Tommy's coming to the rescue :rolleyes: The Trinity unionists might have verbally spoke against them, the vast majority of Dubliners were sympathetic to them.

The west Brits in south Dublin hung out bunteens etc when the Brit monarch visited, and a few people strectched their neck when she was passing by. Thousands turned out to protest and the vast majority just ignored it.

As for the 1950's a lot wanting to rejoin Britain -

Waiting for the first poster to call Dubliners west brits.

This is a historical discussion, the aim being to examine the period in an objective manner without getting political.

Whether you like it or not, there was a significant amount of people that supported the retention of the union, even after independence.

PatsytheNazi

hotmail.com wrote: »

Waiting for the first poster to call Dubliners west brits.

This is a historical discussion, the aim being to examine the period in an objective manner without getting political.

Whether you like it or not, there was a significant amount of people that supported the retention of the union, even after independence.

Yes and maybe a few may have thought we become the 51st state of America :rolleyes: A vastly greater amount of Irish people believed in Irish independence, please stop protraying a picture that a mass of people all over the country were gagging to join up with Britain.

RMD

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

" Republican tensions didn't fully flare up until around 1916 " It was the raising of the Ulster Volunteers in 1912 that caused the formation of the Irish Volunteers in return.

Who were at the time nothing more than nationalists reacting to the formation of the Ulster Volunteers. They didn't steer towards Republican ideology until 1916.

Simarillion

Let me just get something straight.....

According to PatsytheNazi;
Someone who posts something that vaguely sounds like it supports the UK/GB, unionism, loyalism, British army, Ireland under the Crown etc. etc. is not only wrong but is spreading British propaganda lies?

I am referring to his comments on the notion that Dubliners threw stones at passing rebel prisoners in 1916.

Why is it that, this piece of information that suggests Dubliners were happier with the union than a war on their streets, is propaganda, but your opinion that they supported the rebels absolute gospel and fact?

Simarillion

If anything the most surprising factor in this is not the level of support for the union in Ireland around the early 1900-1920's but the rate at which it diminished.

If you look at the first Irish Senate, the level of representation of the establishment or for want of a better phrase "Anglo-Irish" minority within the new Free State is enormous. Much of this has to do with the purposeful appointment of these people to perhaps mollify the unionist population in the South who remained loyal to the Crown, and Protestants who may have felt intimidated by the Roman Catholic theocracy they found themselves in. But where is that representation now?
There was:
WB Yeats
Oliver St John Gogarty
Lord Headfort
Lord Glenavy
Lord Dunraven
Lord Mayo
The Countess of Desart
Lord Landsdowne
Lord Granard
Lord Wicklow
Sir Horace Plunkett
General Sir Bryan Mahon
Sir John Keane
Sir Thomas Esmonde
Sir John Griffith
Sir Nugent Everard
Henry Guinness
Edmund Eyre
James Goodbody - one the stockbrocking lot
Andrew Jameson - from the whiskey family
Maurice Moore -brother of George Moore
Thomas Westropp Bennett -whose family did continue in the Dail

I think you could count the Protestants in the Dail on one hand. The only ones that spring to mind are Ivan Yates, Sir Anthony and Sir John Esmonde who both held seats in Wexford, and Maurice Dockrell and they've all left the Dail.
I think the only Protestant TD left is Seymour Crawford. Quite a jump in representation really

PatsytheNazi

RMD wrote: »

Who were at the time nothing more than nationalists reacting to the formation of the Ulster Volunteers. They didn't steer towards Republican ideology until 1916.

It was the raising of the Ulster Volunteers in 1912 that caused the formation of the Irish Volunteers in return, which brought the gun into nationalists hands :rolleyes:

Pawwed Rig

pablomakaveli wrote: »

These two examples only represent Dublin really and not the attitudes of the rest of the country.

That really isn't true. It is a falsehood that is often propagated by anti Dublin sentiment in Ireland. On the rare occasions that a British monarch would visit Ireland (It was an arduous enough journey historically) they were usually warmly welcomed wherever they went, Cobh being a good example. As Dublin was the seat of power in Ireland at the time was it not logical for the head of state to go there more regularly? To organise the affairs of state it makes sense to go to where the centre of power is.
As can be seem from other posters the whole of (modern day RO) Ireland in the late 19th century supported pretty much the one party who were in favour of home rule but not in favour of independence or the removal of the monarchy. To say that Dubliners were Union jack waving unionists while the rest of the country were avid revolutionaries opposed to everything British is simply not true regardless of how much some wish it were.

PatsytheNazi

Simarillion wrote: »

Let me just get something straight.....

According to PatsytheNazi;
Someone who posts something that vaguely sounds like it supports the UK/GB, unionism, loyalism, British army, Ireland under the Crown etc. etc. is not only wrong but is spreading British propaganda lies?

I am referring to his comments on the notion that Dubliners threw stones at passing rebel prisoners in 1916.

Why is it that, this piece of information that suggests Dubliners were happier with the union than a war on their streets, is propaganda, but your opinion that they supported the rebels absolute gospel and fact?

The aspirations of the 1916 leaders were in tune with the Irish people – the vast majority of Irish electorate had for 30 years prior to the Rising returned Home Rule candidates to Westminster in the hope of taken steps to eventual Irish freedom. Of course their was the Trinity unionists and 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 it's completely misleading to pretend that the volunteers also didn't have their supporters, especially among the ordinary people.

It is reasonable to sugest that the British propaganda machine, would in true form have tried to discredit the 1916 Rising as unpopular - and with a compliant media to support them verbatim ( Irish Times, Independent, English papers etc) According to Berresford Ellis, he 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."

deise go deo

Simarillion wrote: »

If anything the most surprising factor in this is not the level of support for the union in Ireland around the early 1900-1920's but the rate at which it diminished.


I think you could count the Protestants in the Dail on one hand. The only ones that spring to mind are Ivan Yates, Sir Anthony and Sir John Esmonde who both held seats in Wexford, and Maurice Dockrell and they've all left the Dail.
I think the only Protestant TD left is Seymour Crawford. Quite a jump in representation really

I think that the divide between Catholic and Protestant as a political issue disappearing is a good thing.

As for the lack of Unionists in the Dáil.
I think that may be due to the lack of Unionist voters in the Republic.

PatsytheNazi

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That really isn't true. It is a falsehood that is often propagated by anti Dublin sentiment in Ireland. On the rare occasions that a British monarch would visit Ireland (It was an arduous enough journey historically) they were usually warmly welcomed wherever they went, Cobh being a good example. As Dublin was the seat of power in Ireland at the time was it not logical for the head of state to go there more regularly? To organise the affairs of state it makes sense to go to where the centre of power is.
As can be seem from other posters the whole of (modern day RO) Ireland in the late 19th century supported pretty much the one party who were in favour of home rule but not in favour of independence or the removal of the monarchy. To say that Dubliners were Union jack waving unionists while the rest of the country were avid revolutionaries opposed to everything British is simply not true regardless of how much some wish it were.

Totally agreed. The British army would have been held in low esteem by very many of the ordinary Dubliners. Look at the reception they had got after the fiasco of the British army attempt to capture the guns landed in Howth when the crowds of Dubliners jeered them along the way and they opened fire on them murdering 3 and injuring 32 on Batchelor's Walk in 1914.

Doubtless the memory of this incident just two years later was still fresh in the minds of the people of Dublin and hence another good reason to discredit the alleged popularity of the British army in Dublin 1916.

Pawwed Rig

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Totally agreed. The British army would have been held in low esteem by very many of the ordinary Dubliners. Look at the reception they had got after the fiasco of the British army attempt to capture the guns landed in Howth when the crowds of Dubliners jeered them along the way and they opened fire on them murdering 3 and injuring 32 on Batchelor's Walk in 1914.

Doubtless the memory of this incident just two years later was still fresh in the minds of the people of Dublin and hence another good reason to discredit the alleged popularity of the British army in Dublin 1916.

That really wasn't my point

Simarillion

deise go deo wrote: »

I think that the divide between Catholic and Protestant as a political issue disappearing is a good thing.

As for the lack of Unionists in the Dáil.
I think that may be due to the lack of Unionist voters in the Republic.

I absolutely agree that the dissapearance of religious divisions on a political level is agood thing, and that the reasons for the lack of unionists in the Dail is due to the almost nil support for them.

But

It is interesting to note, that since independence, Irish politics has gone from a situation where the upper house of the Dail was almost entirely composed of unionist, Protestant, establishment members to there being almost none in politics at all ! The disappearance of an entire political class. The families and people involved are still there, but the political interest has waned enormously.
Apart from David Norris, and the odd attempt by Henry Mountcharles, there has been no political input from that end of society. A sad loss I think.

CrankyCod

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

The aspirations of the 1916 leaders were in tune with the Irish people – the vast majority of Irish electorate had for 30 years prior to the Rising returned Home Rule candidates to Westminster in the hope of taken steps to eventual Irish freedom. Of course their was the Trinity unionists and 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 it's completely misleading to pretend that the volunteers also didn't have their supporters, especially among the ordinary people.

"

If the 1916 leaderts represented the beliefs of the Irish people why did they not stand for election and replace the IPP? The truth is that the IRB had very little support even within the Volunteers, don't froget that the rebellion was cancelled by MacNeill. Pearse calculated (correctly) that a blood sacrifice was needed to "reawaken" Irish violent nationalism. This appealed to the mawkish sentimentality of the uneducated and to the prevailing religious symbolism; the use of the word 'rising' instead of 'rebellion' was not accidental.

You keep using the words 'nationalist' and 'republican' interchangeably: very very few members of the Irish Volunteers were outright republicans, that's why 95% of them joined the National Volunteers and followed Redmond's call to serve with Britain in WW1.

The vast majority of the Irish people were law abiding constitutional nationalists until the 1916 executions and the terrorism of the Black and Tans and Auxies radicalised them into supporting the IRA and Sinn Fein. All part of Pearse's original plan.

brianthebard

Lapin wrote: »

Dominion Status.
The Home Rulers would have accepted that as a stepping stone to full independence at the turn of the last century.
But it was never going to be a final agreement in a manner similar to Canada and Oz.

And it has no similarity to the status of government in Northern Ireland now.

What evidence do you have to show that dominion status would not have been accepted as a final agreement by the Home Rule Party? They never asked for full independence and always stated they wanted to remain within the empire.

Seloth wrote: »

Jeese I'm really shocked at the views of some people.

Yeah the full Republic support was gained till after 1916,thats why they called it a blood sacrifice!.

No, just no.

Enkidu

CrankyCod wrote: »

The idea that only the elite and Protestants were 'loyal' is wrong; there were plenty of working class people who were not at all keen on full independence, fearing the Catholic middle classes, narrow minded gaelgoirs and the role of the church.

Could you explain the part in bold. In the early 20th century, the "gaelgoirs" consisted of Conradh na Gaeilge, a few other organisations and the 600,000 remaining native speakers. I find it difficult to imagine that people feared an enthusiasts' organisation and couple of hundred thousand people who happened to speak a different language.
Do you have any references for this?

PatsytheNazi

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That really wasn't my point

Ok, Dublin was always the cradle of rebellion in Ireland, Thomas Emmet in 1803, the IRB was founded in Dublin in 1858. The people of the country were touching the forelock to their 'betters' from the 'mainland'. Look at Mountbatten down in Sligo lording it over the natives until into the bloody 1970s. Patriots indeed !

PatsytheNazi

CrankyCod wrote: »

If the 1916 leaderts represented the beliefs of the Irish people why did they not stand for election and replace the IPP? The truth is that the IRB had very little support even within the Volunteers, don't froget that the rebellion was cancelled by MacNeill. Pearse calculated (correctly) that a blood sacrifice was needed to "reawaken" Irish violent nationalism. This appealed to the mawkish sentimentality of the uneducated and to the prevailing religious symbolism; the use of the word 'rising' instead of 'rebellion' was not accidental.

The 1916 rising awoke the slumbering giant of Irish nationalism. It had tapped into the feelings of the majority of the people that the IPP's plan was just a recipe for a symbolic talking shop with nice perks for buddies Redmond, Joe Devlin etc. The proof that the 1916 leaderts represented the beliefs of the Irish people was Sinn Fein winning of 73% of the seats in the all Ireland 1918 election - but doubtless a superior intelluctual such as your self will declare thier opinion to be "the mawkish sentimentality of the uneducated" ( And those who had followed Redmond in supporting WW1, he wouldn't be called them "the mawkish sentimentality of the uneducated" )

You keep using the words 'nationalist' and 'republican' interchangeably: very very few members of the Irish Volunteers were outright republicans, that's why 95% of them joined the National Volunteers and followed Redmond's call to serve with Britain in WW1.

The vast majority of the Irish people were law abiding constitutional nationalists until the 1916 executions and the terrorism of the Black and Tans and Auxies radicalised them into supporting the IRA and Sinn Fein. All part of Pearse's original plan.

Yes and many of those who returned from the front of WW1 were embittered at the actions of the British during their years away and supported Sinn Fein and joined the IRA such as Tom Barry.

Simarillion

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Ok, Dublin was always the cradle of rebellion in Ireland, Thomas Emmet in 1803, the IRB was founded in Dublin in 1858. The people of the country were touching the forelock to their 'betters' from the 'mainland'. Look at Mountbatten down in Sligo lording it over the natives until into the bloody 1970s. Patriots indeed !

Lord Mountbatten didn't "lord it over the natives" he lived a perfectly normal life in Classiebawn until the IRA decided to murder him by blowing his boat sky high!

He had the respect of the locals who wouldn't have given it to him if they didn't think he was deserving of it.
On a complete side note, he was extremely helpful in assisting the Gore Booths when the Irish courts and government tried to swindle them out of their home and land in the 1960/70's

brianthebard

This is all off topic, please return to the original topic or thread will be locked/posts deleted. Mod.

CrankyCod

The 1916 rising awoke the slumbering giant of Irish nationalism.
It had tapped into the feelings of the majority of the people that the IPP's plan was just a recipe for a symbolic talking shop with nice perks for buddies Redmond, Joe Devlin etc. The proof that the 1916 leaderts represented the beliefs of the Irish people was Sinn Fein winning of 73% of the seats in the all Ireland 1918 election

If as you say Pearse and Co were attuned to the real wishes of the Irish people why did they not contest the 1910 election as separatists? Because they needed the "spectacular" of the Rising to get the mob fired up. BTW, what else would an Irish Parliament be but a talking shop?

Yes and many of those who returned from the front of WW1 were embittered at the actions of the British during their years away and supported Sinn Fein and joined the IRA such as Tom Barry.

Of the 175,000 who sided with Redmond, how many joined the IRA? 1%? The rest just kept their heads down and tried to fit into the new order. There was a smothering consensus, read any of the writers like O'Connor and O'Casey. The country was taken over by narrow minded xenophobic Catholic zealots who squeezed out any dissidents.

PatsytheNazi

CrankyCod wrote: »

If as you say Pearse and Co were attuned to the real wishes of the Irish people why did they not contest the 1910 election as separatists? Because they needed the "spectacular" of the Rising to get the mob fired up. BTW, what else would an Irish Parliament be but a talking shop?

Sinn Fein's victory in 1918 proved their where attuned to the wishes of the Irish people with the IPP quislings thrown aside. And if you don't know what's meant by the term talking shop - I'm not ar$ed to explain it

Of the 175,000 who sided with Redmond, how many joined the IRA? 1%? The rest just kept their heads down and tried to fit into the new order. There was a smothering consensus, read any of the writers like O'Connor and O'Casey. The country was taken over by narrow minded xenophobic Catholic zealots who squeezed out any dissidents.

Have you got any credible links to prove that only 1% joined/supported the IRA or is it just your 'expert' opinion ?

As for " narrow minded xenophobic Catholic zealots " yet another wannabe funny guy :rolleyes:..... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

brianthebard

CrankyCod wrote: »

If as you say Pearse and Co were attuned to the real wishes of the Irish people why did they not contest the 1910 election as separatists? Because they needed the "spectacular" of the Rising to get the mob fired up. BTW, what else would an Irish Parliament be but a talking shop?

You do realise that in 1910 many of the rebels supported home rule? It was a series of extremist events between 1911 and 1916 which pushed many of them towards revolution.

CrankyCod

brianthebard wrote: »

You do realise that in 1910 many of the rebels supported home rule? It was a series of extremist events between 1911 and 1916 which pushed many of them towards revolution.

That's exactly my point: the vast majority of people supported the constitutional non-violent pursuit of Home Rule in 1910. There was no mandate for 1916; the results of 1918 can't confer a retrospective mandate, that's a licence for anyone to overthrow a government and then go looking for public approval. My point was that Pearse & Co were a minority in the Irish Volunteers, who were a tiny splinter group of the original volunteers.

The Citizen Army may have had some support from the radicalised working class after the 1913 lockout, but that does not convert into a mandate for armed revolt.

I believe that a majority of Irish people would have been quite happy with Home Rule, granted in 1918 after the war. The support for total separation came about because of Pearse's calculation that the British would overreact to the Easter rebellion and create martyrs, and that would stir people into rejecting any link with Britain. The British were so stupid in their reaction that they further alienated people by bringin the terrorist Auxies and Black and Tans into Ireland to make sure that there would be no going back.

I also believe that anyone who disagreed with the ethos of the Catholic, conservative, insular anti-labour Free State that emerged was sidelined and silenced.

That included left-wingers like Peadar O'Donnell but also those who would have preferred to have retained some link with the UK, perhaps if only through the monarchy. I think our public institutions would have been much richer if we had had a Unionist voice and a left-wing contribuition instead of 90 years of phoney consensus on the economy, and a pretend choice between TweedleFF and TweedleFG

brianthebard

CrankyCod wrote: »

That's exactly my point: the vast majority of people supported the constitutional non-violent pursuit of Home Rule in 1910.

So unforeseen changing events are not a good enough reason for people to change political ideology? At what point after being dragged into a world war are people entitled to change their political ideals? Your earlier post suggested you wanted the impossible, for people who had not yet been radicalised to realise they would be radicalised and present a new political platform that they themselves had not yet discovered in 1910. How is that possible?

There was no mandate for 1916; the results of 1918 can't confer a retrospective mandate, that's a licence for anyone to overthrow a government and then go looking for public approval. My point was that Pearse & Co were a minority in the Irish Volunteers, who were a tiny splinter group of the original volunteers.

The Citizen Army may have had some support from the radicalised working class after the 1913 lockout, but that does not convert into a mandate for armed revolt.

I don't think there is such a thing as a mandate for revolt but the 1918 election shows that people had enough of British rule by 1918.

I believe that a majority of Irish people would have been quite happy with Home Rule, granted in 1918 after the war.

But home rule was supposed to be granted in 1914. The majority were well aware that they have been promised something and then had it taken away. So again at what point are people allowed change their ideals?

The support for total separation came about because of Pearse's calculation that the British would overreact to the Easter rebellion and create martyrs, and that would stir people into rejecting any link with Britain.

What calculation was that?

The British were so stupid in their reaction that they further alienated people by bringin the terrorist Auxies and Black and Tans into Ireland to make sure that there would be no going back.

Did that not give people a mandate to change their politics so?

I also believe that anyone who disagreed with the ethos of the Catholic, conservative, insular anti-labour Free State that emerged was sidelined and silenced.

That included left-wingers like Peadar O'Donnell but also those who would have preferred to have retained some link with the UK, perhaps if only through the monarchy. I think our public institutions would have been much richer if we had had a Unionist voice and a left-wing contribuition instead of 90 years of phoney consensus on the economy, and a pretend choice between TweedleFF and TweedleFG

but connections with britain were maintained up until a republic was declared, or at least until Ireland left the commonwealth. Alternatively one could say there are still many links between the two countries in trade and travel as well as politics.

deise go deo

CrankyCod wrote: »

I also believe that anyone who disagreed with the ethos of the Catholic, conservative, insular anti-labour Free State that emerged was sidelined and silenced.

That included left-wingers like Peadar O'Donnell but also those who would have preferred to have retained some link with the UK, perhaps if only through the monarchy. I think our public institutions would have been much richer if we had had a Unionist voice and a left-wing contribuition instead of 90 years of phoney consensus on the economy, and a pretend choice between TweedleFF and TweedleFG

Would this be the same Free State that maintained a link with the UK through the monarcy and Commonwealth until 1949?

The Free state was not responciple(Apart from their role in acepting partition) for the lack of a unionist voice in our instutions, Partition was, the % of the population that was unionist was very small, and sone after partition many left, or just accepted the Free State and took part in mainstream politics.

When you look at the context of the time, a minority getting 'sidelined' in a new state that had a turbulent(to say the least) Birth, isent exactly supprising, It could have been much much worse as it was for minoritys in many places across Europe at the time.