Authenticity of the Ulster Covenant ??

HellsAngel

MarchDub wrote: »

Numbers aside Graham Walker in his History of the Ulster Unionist Party has some insightful comments to make on the place the Covenant played in shaping a separate ‘Ulster’ identity.

Implicit in the text of the Covenant was the belief that all methods, including force, would be justified in the pursuit of the defeat of Home Rule.

Also the issue of the willingness to use violence as means of stopping Home Rule. It was shortly after the signing of the Covenant that the UDF was formed.

I'm afraid unionism and it's puppet master Britain were using violence and the threat of it against nationalism long before any Home Rule campaign.

HellsAngel

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The Covenant was a major issue. It would be incorrect to assume fraud or coercion. It was a mass movement in opposition to Home Rule. In my own family, there are two Presbyterians who didn't sign while the rest did, indicating that it was very much a personal decision for most. On the Catholic side, there is one that signed, indicating that, perhaps cognate with Catholics voting Unionist today, there is always a small percentage from both communities who relate to the political values of the other.
It's a highly useful historical document, and I've found it helpful in identifying where family members were at that time. It's almost like a mini-Unionist census.

It's not unusal for a political campaign to exaggerate it's support, that's why I started the thread. Those behind the campaign would like any political campaign have their own agenda and version to give. To quote CDfm in an earlier post " I think the point is that it was not an election with a secret ballot and was far more than a survey and was open to abuse. "

My OP just asks is it true that under examination many of the signatures were signed by one person putting down the names of several, I just asked if their's any proof of this in a link ? And also where some of the books signed in Canada, Scotland, the rest of Ireland etc

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

It's not unusal for a political campaign to exaggerate it's support, that's why I started the thread. Those behind the campaign would like any political campaign have their own agenda and version to give. To quote CDfm in an earlier post " I think the point is that it was not an election with a secret ballot and was far more than a survey and was open to abuse. "

My OP just asks is it true that under examination many of the signatures were signed by one person putting down the names of several, I just asked if their's any proof of this in a link ? And also where some of the books signed in Canada, Scotland, the rest of Ireland etc

Maybe you could provide details of the allegations and why they were made?

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe you could provide details of the allegations and why they were made?

As I stated in my opening post "However I have heard that under examination many of the signatures were signed by one person putting down the names of their family, friends, neighbors,". I am quite open to any reliable link that can or cannot prove that about several signatures done by the one person and books being signed in Canada etc

Simples

jonniebgood1

owenc wrote: »

Excuse me how dare you! Who hell gives you the right to tell us all how it was. :mad: Republicans as usual at their dirty tricks trying to downplay everything. :rolleyes: You don't have a clue what your talking about. I'm sick of republicans and people generally down south trying to tell us how it is and how we are all wrong when really you all don't have a clue what the hell its like here so just shut up and let the natives talk. :mad: :rolleyes: Half of yous haven't even been to northern ireland anyway. The covenant was very important if it was not signed all hell would break loose and their would be a riot! People here would not have like to join your country. Everyone signed it and everyone was present at signing it no one else signed it for them and you can look at the individual signatures and compare them if you like. Also i'm nearly sure they had to provide some type of identification to sign it as-well. Very disrespectful in my opinion.

Your post is disrespectful and an over reaction to the post you are replying to. If the post you are replying to is incorrect you can correct it using properly sourced information. If the post you are replying to is against the history charter or offensive you report it.
If you respond like this again you will be banned. I do not hide the fact that I prefer not to ban users and have'nt done so yet, however posts such as the quoted one mean that will change. In future you should avoid sweeping statements such as 'yous', etc. If you have a problem with this PM me.
moderator

jonniebgood1

HellsAngel wrote: »

As I stated in my opening post "However I have heard that under examination many of the signatures were signed by one person putting down the names of their family, friends, neighbors,". I am quite open to any reliable link that can or cannot prove that about several signatures done by the one person and books being signed in Canada etc

Simples

Where did you hear this? Is it hearsay or did you read it somewhere?

It is an interesting subject but in the interest of keeping the thread open people should where possible provide sources to back up their opinions. This has not been happening. The purpose of this is to avoid people trolling as has been suggested by a number of people on the thread.

MarchDub

An interesting thing I noticed on the page that Owenc submitted on the women's signature page - I noticed that one had not in fact signed because of illiteracy or incapacity. There was an 'X' with a 'confirming' handwriting next to it and the letters SA ? or SF? - 'signing as' or 'signing for'. This was a common way - putting in an "x" - that illiterate or incapacitated people used to sign back before everyone could read and write.

It was legal however as the person signing with just an 'X' had to be present.

CDfm

It is a fascinating subject and it was a very ballsy moment when Unionism became political in Northern Ireland.

It was loaded with symbolism

The Solemn League and Covenant

The alliance between the English Parliament and the Scottish Covenanters was sealed with the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant by both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish commissioners on 25 September 1643. It was a military league and a religious covenant. Its immediate purpose was to overwhelm the Royalists, who in 1643 seemed in a strong position to win the English Civil War.


http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/solemn-league-covenant.htm

The Scottish National Covenant

In 1637, King Charles I and Archbishop Laud tried to bring the separate churches of England and Scotland closer together by the introduction of a new Book of Canons to replace John Knox's Book of Discipline as the authority for the organisation of the Kirk and also by the introduction of a modified form of the Book of Common Prayer into Scotland. There were no consultations, either in the Scottish Parliament or in an Assembly of the Kirk, and the proposals met with outrage from Scots anxious to preserve their national and religious identity. A movement against the Laudian reforms gained momentum across Scotland headed by Presbyterian noblemen and radical clergymen. A group of godly Edinburgh women organised a popular protest and, according to tradition, Jenny Geddes flung her prayer stool at the dean of the High Kirk of St Giles in Edinburgh on 23 July 1637 when he tried to read from the new prayer book for the first time. This was followed by a mass riot and an attempt to stone the Bishop of Edinburgh. Similar demonstrations occurred in all the churches of Edinburgh where the new liturgy was introduced.


http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/scots-national-covenant.htm

Accompanied with pomp and ceremony



These guys challenged a parliment which was not democratically elected and went directly to the people and got a mandate.

And in the 1918 Election they captured 20 out of 38 seats in the 9 Ulster Counties

Did it translate to parlimentary representation ?

Well yes.

http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/38357-1918-irish-general-election-ulster-9-counties.html

And

http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm

I had never heard of the Labour Unionist Party

Cavehill Red

HellsAngel wrote: »

It's not unusal for a political campaign to exaggerate it's support, that's why I started the thread. Those behind the campaign would like any political campaign have their own agenda and version to give. To quote CDfm in an earlier post " I think the point is that it was not an election with a secret ballot and was far more than a survey and was open to abuse. "

It was a voluntary process, a mass movement signing a document, like people might sign a bereavement book for some tragedy today. Unionism at that time was rather monolithic, and the personality of Carson was easily able to muster almost the entire adult community in relation to the covenant, given the political fear mongering of the time. The alternative to the covenant would have been some form of outright rebellion or uprising by Unionism. Bear in mind the UVF came into existence that same year.

While Carson had a vested interest in seeing a big turnout for the covenant, in a way it was an act of desperation, evidence that Unionism wasn't getting a hearing in Westminster. I don't really understand your suspicion about the document. It passes as much muster as a historical document as the census of 1911 does. Is your sense of nationalism somehow threatened by the existence of a monolithic expression of Unionist intent from nearly a century ago?

HellsAngel wrote: »

My OP just asks is it true that under examination many of the signatures were signed by one person putting down the names of several, I just asked if their's any proof of this in a link ?

Not that I'm aware of, though it's not something I've looked into closely. My gut feeling, from having pored over a few hundred pages of the Covenant, is that isn't the case, though. I don't recall seeing lists of different names in the same handwriting at all. Though I daresay it's possible that people might have signed for infirm relatives who couldn't get out to the lodge or manse to sign. Maybe there might be some incidences of fraud or mass signing, but I'm not aware of it.

You know the whole thing is online here? My best advice to alleviate your concerns would be that you do as I did, and spend an interesting time looking through some pages. Pick some at random if you like. I think you'll soon get a sense that the covenant was the real deal.

HellsAngel

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Where did you hear this? Is it hearsay or did you read it somewhere?

I heard the allegation about the multitude signing of signatures on the Covenant on a radio discussion about the Home Rule crisis (possibly Talking History on Newstalk ) quite a while ago. As I have pondered on it and googled etc but couldn't get much on it so I thought I'd question it here.

It is an interesting subject but in the interest of keeping the thread open people should where possible provide sources to back up their opinions. This has not been happening. The purpose of this is to avoid people trolling as has been suggested by a number of people on the thread.

Well agreed, their is too much trolling going on here, but it seems that some go out of their way to antagonise others and trying their best to derail threads by for example introducing a Strawman decoy about what the French may have done on continental Europe, other comments such as on the Religius persecution thread " the Irish belief that the world is out to get them and they are the most oppressed people on earth " etc I'm afraid it brings out a likewise responce sometimes.

HellsAngel

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It was a voluntary process, a mass movement signing a document, like people might sign a bereavement book for some tragedy today. Unionism at that time was rather monolithic, and the personality of Carson was easily able to muster almost the entire adult community in relation to the covenant, given the political fear mongering of the time. The alternative to the covenant would have been some form of outright rebellion or uprising by Unionism. Bear in mind the UVF came into existence that same year.

Yes I understand it was a voluntary process, like people might sign a bereavement, I don't think I ever implied otherwise. Intimadation and thuggery was to come later of course as the isolated nationalists of Larne, Portadown etc were to find out - as you say the UVF came into existence that same year, but let's keep to the Ulster Covenant as I asked in the OP.

While Carson had a vested interest in seeing a big turnout for the covenant, in a way it was an act of desperation, evidence that Unionism wasn't getting a hearing in Westminster. I don't really understand your suspicion about the document. It passes as much muster as a historical document as the census of 1911 does. Is your sense of nationalism somehow threatened by the existence of a monolithic expression of Unionist intent from nearly a century ago?

Like I stated to johnniebegood above, I heard the allegation about the multitude signing of signatures on the Covenant on a radio discussion and I have pondered on it and googled etc but couldn't get much on it so I thought I'd question it here.

The reason it has stuck in my mind however, is that to me the Ulster Covenant has a position to unionists similiar to the 1916 Proclaimation to nationalists or Robert Emmet's speech from the dock. My sense of nationalism isn't threatened by the document, indeed it's seems to me that it's a unionist who would be the one threatened by questioning it's authenticity, sacred cows and all that.

Not that I'm aware of, though it's not something I've looked into closely. My gut feeling, from having pored over a few hundred pages of the Covenant, is that isn't the case, though. I don't recall seeing lists of different names in the same handwriting at all. Though I daresay it's possible that people might have signed for infirm relatives who couldn't get out to the lodge or manse to sign. Maybe there might be some incidences of fraud or mass signing, but I'm not aware of it.

You know the whole thing is online here? My best advice to alleviate your concerns would be that you do as I did, and spend an interesting time looking through some pages. Pick some at random if you like. I think you'll soon get a sense that the covenant was the real deal.

Thank you for the link, it is indeed interesting, it is well rearched and presented. I already had a quick search under my surname to find that some of my ' clan ' were on the other side !!!

I will have a look through, but to be honest I don't know if my opinion will be any good as I'm just the ordinary man in the street when it comes to handwriting. But doubtless if I say that their was not any multiple signings - then I will be told well and good. If I say there was multiple signings - I'll be told I'm just a biased bigot.

jonniebgood1

HellsAngel wrote: »

their is too much trolling going on here, but it seems that some go out of their way to antagonise others and trying their best to derail threads by for example introducing a Strawman decoy about what the French may have done on continental Europe, other comments such as on the Religius persecution thread " the Irish belief that the world is out to get them and they are the most oppressed people on earth " etc I'm afraid it brings out a likewise responce sometimes.

In the one sentence you say that there is to much trolling going on and then you quote a different thread and a different poster directly (I interpret this as you trolling or looking for a response from that poster). I have already given a warning to a poster for responding in thread to something they have a problem with and do so again here.
This is your warning. If you have a problem with this PM me.
moderator

Cavehill Red

HellsAngel wrote: »

Yes I understand it was a voluntary process, like people might sign a bereavement, I don't think I ever implied otherwise. Intimadation and thuggery was to come later of course as the isolated nationalists of Larne, Portadown etc were to find out - as you say the UVF came into existence that same year, but let's keep to the Ulster Covenant as I asked in the OP.

Indeed. Let's. I was simply offering some context to the circumstances that gave rise to the covenant. It was in a real sense an act of desperation on the part of Unionist leadership, one that was often echoed later in the actions of Paisley (who was it claimed that like the Grand Old Duke of York he was forever scaremongering his people halfway up the hill, then took them back down again?) But it would, I think, be an error to think it was coerced on the Unionist population or that it was widely fraudulent.

HellsAngel wrote: »

Like I stated to johnniebegood above, I heard the allegation about the multitude signing of signatures on the Covenant on a radio discussion and I have pondered on it and googled etc but couldn't get much on it so I thought I'd question it here.

It's a legitimate question to ask, though like others I'm curious to know where such an allegation arises from. There seems little or no evidence of any widespread fraud in relation to the covenant. People took it very seriously, in an age of much less venality and a good bit more honour in such matters of documentation than one might expect today.

HellsAngel wrote: »

The reason it has stuck in my mind however, is that to me the Ulster Covenant has a position to unionists similiar to the 1916 Proclaimation to nationalists or Robert Emmet's speech from the dock. My sense of nationalism isn't threatened by the document, indeed it's seems to me that it's a unionist who would be the one threatened by questioning it's authenticity, sacred cows and all that.

To be honest, I'm not sure that Unionists in general see the covenant in that way. Many barely know their own history (even from just a few generations back) and others wouldn't care less. It has a certain totemic value within political unionism, and the methodology of mass action was still being used by unionist politicians to manipulate that populace in relatively recent times. However, since the Seventies at least, with the splits in Unionism becoming more pronounced, more regular and more fluid, I don't think that tactic works anymore. The last effective use of the tactic was the Ulster Workers Strike and the final time we might have seen it was Drumcree. In other words, I don't think it is a sacred cow for Unionism in the same way that, say, Loyalty to the Queen, commemorating 1690 or their British citizenship is.

HellsAngel wrote: »

Thank you for the link, it is indeed interesting, it is well rearched and presented. I already had a quick search under my surname to find that some of my ' clan ' were on the other side !!!
I will have a look through, but to be honest I don't know if my opinion will be any good as I'm just the ordinary man in the street when it comes to handwriting. But doubtless if I say that their was not any multiple signings - then I will be told well and good. If I say there was multiple signings - I'll be told I'm just a biased bigot.

I'm not ruling out categorically what you say. I just personally found little evidence of it when I was researching my own family history and I've never heard it said before. As others have pointed out, there are X's signed by illiterates, and likely the odd example too of people signing for the infirm. In such a large document, it would be unlikely that it would be entirely without fraud too. But given the nature of the document and the context of the times, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to accept that it is as it appears, ie a mass expression of Unionist will from that era.

It's a fascinating document, and I found nearly all of my Protestant forefathers were signatories, and one of the Catholic ones. As an Irish nationalist, I find it a potent image of how monolithic Unionism once was and welcome the greater openness and diversity within Unionism today in that context.

CDfm

I had a quick look at the figures and posted some links and my gut feeling is that there was little in the way of "schenanigans" going on.

It seems very representative of the political movement of the time and tapped into an era when the Protestant/Scottish Presbyterian Community in NI was feeling disenfranchised. This was pre universal suffrage for men and women.

(In some way, John Redmond took his eye off the ball and concentrated more on parlimentary issues and lost touch with his grass roots.His achievements were written off by the intervention of WWI. He was hooked up with the Liberals whose star was in the wane the post-war elections.Carson and Co delivered a voting bloc to Westminster )

So on the intangibles Edward Carson and the Unionists hit the spot and it is easy to loose sight at just how innovative they were.

Falsifying the figures would have been a double edged sword and here us why.

Why would they pad the figures, they didn't need to and it would have been counter productive for their "Unionist Roadshow" and the trust they were building with their support base. Their own supporters needed to believe them too and that is what they would have eroded by doing anything improper.

kabakuyu

I did a little bit of genealogical research into two Unionist families who at the time of the covenant had sons serving in the forces, and while the families did sign the covenant, the sons did not because they were serving overseas, the family did not sign on their behalf.The one regret I see is that Redmond did not organise a similar oath to Home Rule for nationalists, what a resource it would be today.

getzls

HellsAngel wrote: »

Allegedly Carson and others are supposed to have signed it in their own blood. Interesting that the unionists wanted a southerner interfairing in the affairs of ' Northern Ireland ' isn 't it.

*Loyal Orange Women http://lol52.club24.co.uk/orange/owomen.html

Ah, there was no Northern Ireland then.

CDfm

getzls wrote: »

Ah, there was no Northern Ireland then.

There wasn't a proper democratic system anywhere either.

HellsAngel

getzls wrote: »

Ah, there was no Northern Ireland then.

And why do you think I put single commas around ' Northern Ireland '

getzls

HellsAngel wrote: »

The 1912 Ulster Covenant is alleged to have been signed by half a million individual Ulster unionists. However I have heard that under examination many of the signatures were signed by one person putting down the names of their family, friends, neighbors, Mickey Mouse


Ah, there was no Mickey Mouse in 1912. Though i know what u mean. Bit like dead people voting for the shinners in west belfast for a lot of years.:)

CDfm

getzls wrote: »

Ah, there was no Mickey Mouse in 1912. Though i know what u mean. Bit like dead people voting for the shinners in west belfast for a lot of years.:)

Do you mean the Ulster Covenant was padded out with false entries ?

If so do you have any evidence ?

HellsAngel

getzls wrote: »

Ah, there was no Mickey Mouse in 1912. Though i know what u mean. Bit like dead people voting for the shinners in west belfast for a lot of years.:)

Really :eek:, was it widespread or was the very odd individual accused of it down the decades ?? Link please .

EDIT- JONNIEBGOOD1: Part of post deleted. it is enough to ask for source without an added insult.

CDfm

It would seem that there are a lot of myths about NI Voter Impersonation . This thread has tackled a myth relating to the Ulster Covenant.

More recently Robert McCartney made allegations on Voter Impersonation to a Commons Select Commitee here -long time ago and measures were taken to satisfy both sides on voter identity proceedures since then.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmhaff/768/76807.htm

It seems to be a myth and no different to anywhere else

owenc

Nhead wrote: »

I've reported your bigotry on a number of occasions. I live in the republic I am not some you or empty headed hive member that you can paint in to a corner with bigoted ideas. You are well able to criticise the republic and insult people's families. Have you lived with them or in the republic?

Post deleted

EDIT- JONNIEBGOOD1- Infraction for bringing religion into the discussion unnessesarily.

jonniebgood1

This is not on topic so is locked for now.

jonniebgood1

I am giving people leniency in the hope that they take it on board and get back to the topic being discussed.
Infraction to OwenC for introducing religion into the mud slinging.
A warning to Nhead and Hellsangels- if there is a problem with a post you report it rather than respond to it.
I could have put infractions on several posts so I have been lenient to all concerned but if this is not heeded then I will ban users.
Any problem with this should be PM'd to me.

I have deleted the posts and we should continue with the thread subject. As mentioned previously opinions that are in any way questionable should be backed up by a source.

Nhead

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am giving people leniency in the hope that they take it on board and get back to the topic being discussed.
Infraction to OwenC for introducing religion into the mud slinging.
A warning to Nhead and Hellsangels- if there is a problem with a post you report it rather than respond to it.
I could have put infractions on several posts so I have been lenient to all concerned but if this is not heeded then I will ban users.
Any problem with this should be PM'd to me.

I have deleted the posts and we should continue with the thread subject. As mentioned previously opinions that are in any way questionable should be backed up by a source.

Thank you mod. Apologies.

getzls

CDfm wrote: »

Do you mean the Ulster Covenant was padded out with false entries ?

If so do you have any evidence ?

I didn't say that, i was replying to a poster who said there was. Re-read it please.

CDfm

getzls wrote: »

I didn't say that, i was replying to a poster who said there was. Re-read it please.

I could not understand your point.

You responded to a post questioning the accuracy of the Ulster Covenant with something about voter fraud or voter impersonation by Sinn Fein Voters.

I can't make out what your point is -its like you are answering a question with a question.

Are you saying that it is an unfounded allegation and the same false allegation is made of Sinn Fein and the Covenant records are accurate, or that Sinn Fein engaged in Electoral Fraud, or that it is a regional thing and both the Unionist and Nationalist communities in Northern Ireland engaged in and because of that you expect the entries were padded out.

Sunnyisland

Interesting thread & posts,enjoying reading (most) it.

getzls

CDfm wrote: »

I could not understand your point.
Sinn Fein engaged in Electoral Fraud, ( tick that box)