what if the 1916 leaders had not been executed?

greensausage

Apologies if this has been discused before but as the thread suggests just wondering how would of events played out if the easter rising leaders had not of been executed and public opinion had not changed after that?what would Ireland lool like today?

MarchDub

This isn't really a history thread now is it?

All we are going to get is personal opinion and more 'what if's' -

thecommietommy

greensausage wrote: »

Apologies if this has been discused before but as the thread suggests just wondering how would of events played out if the easter rising leaders had not of been executed and public opinion had not changed after that?what would Ireland lool like today?

Seems many people supported them regardless of the executions. According to Peter Beresford Ellis quoting 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."

http://www.ricorso.net/rx/az-data/authors/e/Ellis_PB/life.htm

lestat21

The Irish public immediately supported the English who had stopped the violence. Just think of the amount of damage to Dublin city and the number of innocents caught in the crossfire... But the English sent over General Maxwell cos all their better generals were bit busy. His approach was very harsh. Rounding up 3000 prisoners from all over the country even thou the rebellion was in Dublin and at most 1500 men took part. I would imagine that his approach influenced the decision to execute rebels but Im open to correction.

If the rebels hadnt been executed then Maxwell probably wasnt in charge and the rebellion would have been dealt in more political way. It would have meant less support for rebels. If this had happened it would have been unlikely that England was at war at the time. So HomeRule would probably have gone ahead in some form. You have to remember that world war 1 crystalised unionist sentiment in the north of ireland.

Just makes you think how well the rebels plan actually worked. England difficulty really was Irelands opportunity and their decision to hold a rebellion during the war lead to irish independence.

Although given the history of ireland, if the rebels hadnt been executed and everything had gone as I suspect, then I imagine wed be in the middle of a celtic spring rite now. Which would mean at least another hundred years of violence before wed have a peaceful island...

Jolly Red Giant

James Connolly would not have allowed William O'Brien to derail the class struggle by hanging on the coat-tails of nationalism.

(By the way - Beresford-Ellis is one of the poorest historians on the planet).

thecommietommy

lestat21 wrote: »

The Irish public immediately supported the English who had stopped the violence. Just think of the amount of damage to Dublin city and the number of innocents caught in the crossfire... But the English sent over General Maxwell cos all their better generals were bit busy. His approach was very harsh. Rounding up 3000 prisoners from all over the country even thou the rebellion was in Dublin and at most 1500 men took part. I would imagine that his approach influenced the decision to execute rebels but Im open to correction.

The English shelled Dublin with artillery and gun boats killing around 250 civilians in the process and wrecking Dublin. Doubt if the people of Dublin were too impressed with them as the Canadian journalist reports in the above post.

lestat21

thecommietommy wrote: »

The English shelled Dublin with artillery and gun boats killing around 250 civilians in the process and wrecking Dublin. Doubt if the people of Dublin were too impressed with them as the Canadian journalist reports in the above post.

Now there you are wrong. The rebels were the reason the uboats were brought in. The prisoners were pelted with rubbish as they were walked to the barracks!! I know that all the LC history books say this, and I have read first hand accounts of the public response in Dublin. But none of those are available online Take a look at these links, it was all I could find on short notice

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Taoiseach_and_Government/History_of_Government/1916_Commemorations/The_1916_Rising.html

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/easter_uprising.htm

thecommietommy

lestat21 wrote: »

Now there you are wrong. The rebels were the reason the uboats were brought in. The prisoners were pelted with rubbish as they were walked to the barracks!! I know that all the LC history books say this, and I have read first hand accounts of the public response in Dublin. But none of those are available online Take a look at these links, it was all I could find on short notice

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Taoiseach_and_Government/History_of_Government/1916_Commemorations/The_1916_Rising.html

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/easter_uprising.htm

Nothing in either of the links to say the rebels were pelted with rubbish. As for relieing on LC history books ....... . I have also read Ernie O'Malley's brillant On Another Man's Wound. In it he also states that opinion was split between the pro British who were the Trinity unionists etc and the ordinary people who were pro the Rebels.

MarchDub

thecommietommy wrote: »

[/URL]
Nothing in either of the links to say the rebels were pelted with rubbish. As for relieing on LC history books ....... . .

Yes to that.... not at all reliable source material.

nuac

Maxwell's heavy hand and the series of executions swung a lot of support behind the men and women of 1916.

the War of Independence might not have happened only for the executions.

lestat21

Well I pulled out my uni notes and they say the same thing.. Initially only republicans supported the rebels but after the heavy handed tactics of british forces supports turned in their favour. Much support for the rebels was channeled towards the sinn fein party which actually had nothing to do with the rising. Before this the majority of irish people fully supported the home rule movement. I dont have any legitimate sources to hand but I'll look into it.

I'm actually not sure where I got the detail about crowds throwing stuff but there was definately a lot of verbal abuse of prisoners. I havent taught this material in ages so I am a bit rusty on it. Whatever you say about leaving cert books, the emphasis these days is on primary documents that often provide a more balanced view of the events and movements studied

paky

greensausage wrote: »

Apologies if this has been discused before but as the thread suggests just wondering how would of events played out if the easter rising leaders had not of been executed and public opinion had not changed after that?what would Ireland lool like today?

good ole england wouldve given us home rule and the shinners couldve ran for the elections. eventually declaring ireland a republic once they held a majority

not bloody likely i might think :rolleyes:

thecommietommy

lestat21 wrote: »

Well I pulled out my uni notes and they say the same thing.. Initially only republicans supported the rebels but after the heavy handed tactics of british forces supports turned in their favour. Much support for the rebels was channeled towards the sinn fein party which actually had nothing to do with the rising. Before this the majority of irish people fully supported the home rule movement. I dont have any legitimate sources to hand but I'll look into it.

I'm actually not sure where I got the detail about crowds throwing stuff but there was definately a lot of verbal abuse of prisoners. I havent taught this material in ages so I am a bit rusty on it. Whatever you say about leaving cert books, the emphasis these days is on primary documents that often provide a more balanced view of the events and movements studied

But the problem with the primary documents that are quoted - the Irish Times, Independent, British papers etc - is that they were heavily biased in favour of the British portraying their actions in the best possible light i.e. sort of liberators coming to the rescue and putting the bad guys down. They even called for the execution of the leaders immediately before the British decided to do so.

Now I know I have only given two accounts, the Canadian journalist McKenzie and Ernie O'Malley, but I wonder in archieved recorded accounts of the rising with witnesses and the Volunteers themselves, was the actual reaction among the Dublin public hostile or many supportive as McKenzie and O'Malley have stated ?

whitelines

Wasn't it normal to execute rebels in those days (or at least their leaders)?

MarchDub

thecommietommy wrote: »

Now I know I have only given two accounts, the Canadian journalist McKenzie and Ernie O'Malley, but I wonder in archieved recorded accounts of the rising with witnesses and the Volunteers themselves, was the actual reaction among the Dublin public hostile or many supportive as McKenzie and O'Malley have stated ?

There are other accounts and many do indeed conflict with the gloss that has been painted over 1916 to make it look like it there was a complete turnaround only after the executions.

For one example, an eyewitness statement given by Louise Gavan Duffy after the Rising in which she describes going home late on the Saturday from seeing Thomas MacDonagh at Jacobs. When she got home to her digs in Haddington Rd her landlady expressed concern that her [the landlady’s] retired policeman husband would lose his pension over the Rising [this was a frequently expressed concern from other wives and widows of soldiers and police]. BUT Louise Gavan Duffy then goes on to say that her landlady said to her:

“Wasn’t it really grand that they held out for a week! Wasn’t it lovely?” That was as much in her heart as the pension. She was thrilled with delight about the Rising.

Also within the context of the time, considering what had occurred on Bachelors Walk in 1914 it’s not credible to me anyway based on the evidence that the British presence had much support in Dublin. At that time - July 1914 - the Dublin crowd displayed an absolute hostility to the British army's attempt to stop the Howth gun running by haranguing and throwing stones at the army as they marched back into the city. The army responded with open fire on the crowd killing 4 and wounded about 30 people. The funeral was a massive public event with thousands of citizens turning out to march alongside Oglaigh na hEireann, Cumman na mBan, Fianna Eireann and the Irish Citizen Army. No member of the British army was ever brought to court marshall over this.

Jack B Yeats did a painting to commemorate what became known as the Bachelors Walk Massacre of Dublin civilians on that day.

And we are therefore seriously expected to believe that a mere 20 months later the same Dubliners who were fired on, and some gunned down, by the British Army for jeering at the army for attempting to stop the gun running were in support of the British army and against any armed rebellion. Totally lacks credibility.

indioblack

Bear in mind that the British focus was on the western front at this time.

jonniebgood1

An account by James Stephens of the week of the Rising is availiable freely http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Insurrection-in-Dublin.html

He in the end accurately describes the difficulties of Irelands position against propaganda, etc in seeking freedom. At the beginning however he says that public opinion was not with the leaders, in fact people were hostile in regards of their actions.

The women were less guarded, or, perhaps, knew they had less to fear.
Most of the female opinion I heard was not alone unfavourable but
actively and viciously hostile to the rising. This was noticeable among
the best dressed class of our population; the worst dressed, indeed the
female dregs of Dublin life, expressed a like antagonism, and almost in
similar language. The view expressed was--

"I hope every man of them will be shot."

And--

"They ought to be all shot."

taken from James Stephens account of the Rising

I think that his summary may be telling in that the fact that some people saw them as having lost the battle may have clouded judgement afterwards-

Was the City for or against the Volunteers? Was it for the Volunteers,
and yet against the rising? It is considered now (writing a day or two
afterwards) that Dublin was entirely against the Volunteers, but on the
day of which I write no such certainty could be put forward. There was a
singular reticence on the subject.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

An account by James Stephens of the week of the Rising is availiable freely http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Insurrection-in-Dublin.html

He in the end accurately describes the difficulties of Irelands position against propaganda, etc in seeking freedom. At the beginning however he says that public opinion was not with the leaders, in fact people were hostile in regards of their actions.


taken from James Stephens account of the Rising

I think that his summary may be telling in that the fact that some people saw them as having lost the battle may have clouded judgement afterwards-

James Stephens 'account' of the Rising is not considered by many historians to be a reliable source on 1916 as our previous mod Brianthebard pointed out a number of times. Brian was working directly on source material on that period.

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.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61834759&postcount=15

Stephens' claims of actually 'witnessing' the events has been shown to be doubtful -

MarchDub

Found this footage of the massive public turnout in Dublin for the funeral of the Bachelors Walk massacre victims shot by the British army [the Kings Own Scottish Borders] in July 1914...the relationship of this event to the 1916 Rising has often been dropped out of history books...

Ellis Dee

I always wince a bit when I see a thread about what would/might have happened if ---:)

--- and then it is called a history thread.:rolleyes:

That is because I fully subscribe to what is one of the key tenets in the study of history, one that was brilliantly summed up by von Ranke in his dictum that history is all about "wie es gewesen ist" (how it was; what actually happened rather than what would have happened if ---) and that was drilled into us at the university.:)

That said, it is a historical fact that Ireland had been struggling for national independence for a very long time and there was little likelihood of that changing. In addition, the Irish Volunteers under Redmond had gone off to war for the British and they believed, probably very naively, that Britain would honour the promises that it had made to them. But a lot of well-trained, battle-hardened men were sooner or later coming home and Britain was bound to emerge from the war as a weakened force. Thus the murder - for that is what it was - of the 1916 leaders probably did little to weaken or strengthen Irish resolve, but it did provide further evidence of British stupidity and of their unsuitability to rule this country.:)

MarchDub

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I always wince a bit when I see a thread about what would/might have happened if ---:)

--- and then it is called a history thread.:rolleyes:

That is because I fully subscribe to what is one of the key tenets in the study of history, one that was brilliantly summed up by von Ranke in his dictum that history is all about "wie es gewesen ist" (how it was; what actually happened rather than what would have happened if ---) and that was drilled into us at the university.:)

Thanks - I absolutely agree. I don't like threads on what is supposed to be 'History' that do the 'what ifs' and 'maybe' ...which is why I posted my similar response/comment at the start of the thread.

It's fiction really - not history, so the only way to try and deal with this is to try and steer the discourse onto the actual record, otherwise we get completely into lala land.

whitelines

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I always wince a bit when I see a thread about what would/might have happened if ---:)

--- and then it is called a history thread.:rolleyes:

That is because I fully subscribe to what is one of the key tenets in the study of history, one that was brilliantly summed up by von Ranke in his dictum that history is all about "wie es gewesen ist" (how it was; what actually happened rather than what would have happened if ---) and that was drilled into us at the university.:)

That said, it is a historical fact that Ireland had been struggling for national independence for a very long time and there was little likelihood of that changing. In addition, the Irish Volunteers under Redmond had gone off to war for the British and they believed, probably very naively, that Britain would honour the promises that it had made to them. But a lot of well-trained, battle-hardened men were sooner or later coming home and Britain was bound to emerge from the war as a weakened force. Thus the murder - for that is what it was - of the 1916 leaders probably did little to weaken or strengthen Irish resolve, but it did provide further evidence of British stupidity and of their unsuitability to rule this country.:)

Why was it murder?

I'm talking under the relevant laws of that time.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

James Stephens 'account' of the Rising is not considered by many historians to be a reliable source on 1916 as our previous mod Brianthebard pointed out a number of times. Brian was working directly on source material on that period.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61834759&postcount=15

Stephens' claims of actually 'witnessing' the events has been shown to be doubtful -

I have read the account and looked at casualty lists and agreed with Brian.

There is also doubt that Stephens could have witnessed the locations from where he was at.

And, I am not soft on the volunteers in 1916 when it comes to civilian or unarmed police casualties.

Milk & Honey

The big move behind Sinn Fein was in 1918. There were two causes. the threat of conscription and land re-allocation. Sinn Fein was promising to give everyone a farm. These two factors and the first past the post led to the Sinn Fein success in the 1918 election. The other factor as regards the executions was the effect on American public opinion. Bad press in America was pivotal in bringing the British to the negotiating table in 1921. The 1916 executions kick started it. The British badly needed American support in 1916 and for decades afterwards.

CDfm

The Rising was neither a military or popular success. The civilian deaths lost the rising for the British.

In 1918 the all adult males over 21 and women over 30 could vote for the first time. So the composition of the electorate had significantly changed and with that the demographic of the voter in both Britain and Ireland and composition of parliament.

I am not so sure that the American's did anything much but the Irish American's raised money.

CDfm

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I have come across this particular photo before and if my recollection is correct it was a staged pic for PR purposes .

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

James Stephens 'account' of the Rising is not considered by many historians to be a reliable source on 1916 as our previous mod Brianthebard pointed out a number of times. Brian was working directly on source material on that period.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61834759&postcount=15

Stephens' claims of actually 'witnessing' the events has been shown to be doubtful -

CDfm wrote: »

I have read the account and looked at casualty lists and agreed with Brian.

There is also doubt that Stephens could have witnessed the locations from where he was at.

It is one first person perspective on the Rising and was published in the immediate aftermath. I took it from some of the explanations that it may also have been aimed at a foreign audience. Are his representations on the feeling of the people of Dublin during the Rising week repeated by others?

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is one first person perspective on the Rising and was published in the immediate aftermath. I took it from some of the explanations that it may also have been aimed at a foreign audience. Are his representations on the feeling of the people of Dublin during the Rising week repeated by others?

Ok, but it isn't an eyewitness account then and that is the difference. It is discounted as a secondary source and tainted.

You might as well take George Bernard Shaws -one act play- O'Flaherty VC ; a recruitment pamphlet and quote it as a real event.

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1595/

Look at Dev and Mick Collins and ask yourself what would they say

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

Ok, but it isn't an eyewitness account then and that is the difference. It is discounted as a secondary source and tainted.

I have no graw for the account so if it misses facts then I move on to the next analysis. Can you point me towards reviews, etc where it is discounted, I have read forum opinions on it already.

Jolly Red Giant

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The big move behind Sinn Fein was in 1918. There were two causes. the threat of conscription and land re-allocation.

Conscription was defeated as a result of a general strike by the ILPTUC - the British couldn't afford disruption to the supply lines by strikes. As for land-allocation - SF and the IRA actively prevented agricultural labourers from taking over landed estates.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

These two factors and the first past the post led to the Sinn Fein success in the 1918 election.

The primary reason for SF's success in 1918 was the decision by the ILPTUC not to stand candidates. William O'Brien's coat-tailing of the nationalist movement allowed SF to assume the mantle of the liberation movement instead of the Labour movement. I it had stood the ILPTUC would probably not have won more than three or four seats in the election but would probably have deprived SF of a significant number of theirs.

In the 1920 local elections SF got 27% of the vote on an all island basis - the same as Unionists and the ILPTUC won 19%. SF won 550 seats out of 1,700 - the ILPTUC won 394.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I have no graw for the account so if it misses facts then I move on to the next analysis. Can you point me towards reviews, etc where it is discounted, I have read forum opinions on it already.

I don't have the time to do that right now and I am aware that he gets quoted in lots of places and probably because it is free on-line.

Here it is for those who want to read it and haven't .

http://www.ricorso.net/rx/library/authors/classic/Stephens_J/Insurr_1.htm

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Conscription was defeated as a result of a general strike by the ILPTUC - the British couldn't afford disruption to the supply lines by strikes. As for land-allocation - SF and the IRA actively prevented agricultural labourers from taking over landed estates.

On an aside here, what if any "military" activities did the labour and socialists engage in post the Rising.

Were there other rebels than the IRA/SF operating ?

Milk & Honey

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Conscription was defeated as a result of a general strike by the ILPTUC - the British couldn't afford disruption to the supply lines by strikes. As for land-allocation - SF and the IRA actively prevented agricultural labourers from taking over landed estates.

That doesn't mean that Sinn Fein were not promising land.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The primary reason for SF's success in 1918 was the decision by the ILPTUC not to stand candidates. William O'Brien's coat-tailing of the nationalist movement allowed SF to assume the mantle of the liberation movement instead of the Labour movement. I it had stood the ILPTUC would probably not have won more than three or four seats in the election but would probably have deprived SF of a significant number of theirs.

Sinn Fein was thus a beneficiary of the threat of conscription, whether deserved or not.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In the 1920 local elections SF got 27% of the vote on an all island basis - the same as Unionists and the ILPTUC won 19%. SF won 550 seats out of 1,700 - the ILPTUC won 394.

Sinn Fein had set up the First Dail by that time and was prosecuting the War of Independence. The pivotal even was the 1918 election.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I have no graw for the account so if it misses facts then I move on to the next analysis. Can you point me towards reviews, etc where it is discounted, I have read forum opinions on it already.

Here is a snippet. from the IT

Away from the archives, take James Stephens’s The Insurrection in Dublin , published in 1916 (and which we also drew from for our supplement). Dublin had hardly finished smouldering when it was published later in 1916, and no account better captures the confusion in Dublin during that week. Its unreliability is part of its appeal. Here was a writer in a city in flames, filled with fighters, lurkers, looters and rumours. He doesn’t know what is happening any more than anyone else, and his ignorance is what makes it so insightful.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0107/1224309929263.html

Its unreliability is what makes it useless as a source of history.He put out the first account with himself as a bystander and expert and he wasn't.

And lest we forget Arthur Griffith and his dual monarchy and Prince Joachim

HOW come we don't hear more about Prince Joachim? If there's one guy who gets short-changed in this whole 1916 business, it's Prince Joachim Franz Humbert of Prussia. Had the Easter Rising succeeded in giving the Brits the heave-ho, the name Joachim might be as popular in Ireland today as are Padraig, Eamonn, Sean, Michael and the names of all the other heroes.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/codswallop-about-1916-is-our-birthright-128922.html

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

Here is a snippet. from the IT



Its unreliability is what makes it useless as a source of history.He put out the first account with himself as a bystander and expert and he wasn't.

A bystander and not an expert. The same is true of most ordinary men. Thanks for searching the link- I spent some time looking for opinions on this and could not find many. I also checked in Ferriters book of the 20th century and he is not referenced in relation to 1916.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A bystander and not an expert. The same is true of most ordinary men. Thanks for searching the link- I spent some time looking for opinions on this and could not find many. I also checked in Ferriters book of the 20th century and he is not referenced in relation to 1916.

Not quite - the point is he was neither a bystander NOR an expert. He was writing a fictionalised version - it's what he did best. He wasn't even in Dublin city during the time he describes. That's why his work is not much use to historians.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I don't have the time to do that right now and I am aware that he gets quoted in lots of places and probably because it is free on-line.

Yes good old Google, serving up a warped rendition of events.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A bystander and not an expert. The same is true of most ordinary men. Thanks for searching the link- I spent some time looking for opinions on this and could not find many. I also checked in Ferriters book of the 20th century and he is not referenced in relation to 1916.

It would not get a "look in" in Ferriters work as it is not a reliable source.

Usually in history the idea is you look at sources and debate their accuracy and that's normal. It's not what gets labelled as "revisionism" because it is the history method.

Whereas some writers recommend it as a source.

As recommended by An Phoblacht columnist and historian SHANE MacTHOMÁIS


The Insurrection in Dublin by James Stephens. It is an excellent account of how the average citizen felt during the Rebellion and is highly recommended.


http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/15107

I stopped looking at or reading Irish History for years because of the accuracy of the material.

See what I mean.

MarchDub

The local elections in 1920 confirmed Sinn Fein's position as the dominant nationalist party outside of the Ulster Unionist region securing 41% of the vote. But it was the relatively high showing of Sinn Fein within the Unionists' area that bothered the Unionists.

Proinsias Mac Aonghusa described the part that PR played in this and why the Unionists wanted to - and did - consequently abolish PR for the six county region local elections-

On the face of it it seems probable that the Unionists would have had an overwhelming victory in Belfast, and that Sinn Feiners alone would have been elected in the Dublin municipal elections, if these were held under the old system.

In fact the results achieved through P.R were as follows: Dublin elected 80 members to its Corporation of whom 42 were Sinn Feiners, 15 Labour, 12 Unionists, nine Nationalists and two Independents. Of the 60 seats to be filled in Belfast 35 went to the Unionists; Labour won 12, Sinn Fein and the Nationalists won five apiece and three were secured by Independents. The Republicans in Dublin were quite pleased with the result and said that what they wanted was fair representation for all on elected bodies. The same cannot be said for the dominant party in Belfast, which reiterated its threat to abolish P.R. as soon as it was humanly possible to do so.

Because of its excellent showing in Sligo, local bodies, newspapers and prominent citizens of all political views, apart from Ulster Unionists, all over Ireland, acclaimed it and advocated its introduction in all elections held in the country. Sinn Feiners as well as Southern Unionists. Labour men as well as Tory Nationalists spoke and wrote in its favour and when the Irish Local Government Bill was being drafted later that year, the P.R. principle of election was incorporated in it.

The Bill was bitterly opposed in the Commons by the Unionist representatives of Ulster, who saw in it a danger to their own supremacy. They knew that it would give Nationalists some representation on local bodies in areas where Unionists had majorities and where no other interest could secure seats under the relative majority system.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Not quite - the point is he was neither a bystander NOR an expert. He was writing a fictionalised version - it's what he did best. He wasn't even in Dublin city during the time he describes. That's why his work is not much use to historians.

Thats what I was looking for- "He wasn't even in Dublin city during the time he describes".

Where was he during the Rising week?

He is sourced in encyclopedias (not wiki's) as a source for the Rising which is a fairly serious mistake if it was fully a work of fiction. Even the Times piece quoted by CDfm suggests that he was in Dublin that week.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

It would not get a "look in" in Ferriters work as it is not a reliable source.

Usually in history the idea is you look at sources and debate their accuracy and that's normal. It's not what gets labelled as "revisionism" because it is the history method.

Whereas some writers recommend it as a source.

As recommended by An Phoblacht columnist and historian SHANE MacTHOMÁIS


The Insurrection in Dublin by James Stephens. It is an excellent account of how the average citizen felt during the Rebellion and is highly recommended.


http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/15107

I stopped looking at or reading Irish History for years because of the accuracy of the material.

See what I mean.

Very hard to figure. I started to search MacThomais and then quit- it could go on and on.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Very hard to figure. I started to search MacThomais and then quit- it could go on and on.

I don't see why Ferriter should include James Stephens as it is not a true account. History is based on facts so the Stephens book just does not belong.

MacThomais recommend's it and he has his own reasons and he may have a political agenda. Search him on an Poblacht.

What excludes Stephens is that it just does not fit or conflicts with other accounts on the basis that it is fiction, not fact.

Nobody can be dubbed a revisionist for crossing Stephens of the list as he should never be there.

Edit The Military Archive is going on-line shortly making real first hand accounts more accessable and that is something to look forward to.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I don't see why Ferriter should include James Stephens as it is not a true account. History is based on facts so the Stephens book just does not belong.

MacThomais recommend's it and he has his own reasons and he may have a political agenda. Search him on an Poblacht.

What excludes Stephens is that it just does not fit or conflicts with other accounts on the basis that it is fiction, not fact.

Nobody can be dubbed a revisionist for crossing Stephens of the list as he should never be there.

Edit The Military Archive is going on-line shortly making real first hand accounts more accessable and that is something to look forward to.

I think most people on here, amateur or historian would agree that the basis of our discussions need to be factually correct. It is difficult then to do this if we have recommendations by people who label themselves historians that turn out to be unreliable. If we have to analyse each historians agenda then alot of source material could be written off as is convenient to each ones own. I'm not arguing for any account by the way- just pointing out the obvious.

With regard to the Military archive is there a criteria for accounts to be accepted as 'real'. Is it based only on recorded archives from the 50's?

thecommietommy

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Conscription was defeated as a result of a general strike by the ILPTUC - the British couldn't afford disruption to the supply lines by strikes. As for land-allocation - SF and the IRA actively prevented agricultural labourers from taking over landed estates.

Anyone familiar with the background of those who made up SF and the IRA would know that SF and the IRA were the agricultural labourers, as well as dockers, fishermen, construction etc

The primary reason for SF's success in 1918 was the decision by the ILPTUC not to stand candidates. William O'Brien's coat-tailing of the nationalist movement allowed SF to assume the mantle of the liberation movement instead of the Labour movement. I it had stood the ILPTUC would probably not have won more than three or four seats in the election but would probably have deprived SF of a significant number of theirs.

It's possible, it's also possible Labour didn't stand as they feared the back lash of opposing the nationalist SF vote. ( Similiar to the SDLP not standing against Bobby Sands in Fermanagh/S Tyrone in 1981)

In the 1920 local elections SF got 27% of the vote on an all island basis - the same as Unionists and the ILPTUC won 19%. SF won 550 seats out of 1,700 - the ILPTUC won 394.

I had a quick search as those results surprised me that you have there given the landslide SF had just 2 years earlier. Well it's a wiki so not always the most relaible, but the figures you give are for the urban vote. It also says for the rural vote that " The rural elections showed a much greater level of support for Sinn Féin in its core support area. It took control of 338 out of 393 local government bodies, county councils, boards of guardians and rural district councils across the whole island. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_local_elections,_1920#cite_note-3

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Anyone familiar with the background of those who made up SF and the IRA would know that SF and the IRA were the agricultural labourers, as well as dockers, fishermen, construction etc

In 1916 you didn't have the IRA and Sinn Fein was a fringe party.

It would be very interesting to see the emigration figures to Britain in the period and what were deemed as war workers.

The support in West Cork was linked to the Gaelic Revival and the GAA etc which is a bit different.

Peadar Ó Laoire & Roger Casement both had a hand in that in West Cork and I have yet to see a book that ties it up. It was a bit more local than national and neither was it homogenous throughout the country as you can't find the soviets that sprung up mentioned in many places.

How could you account for the likes of John Jinks , nationalist, small businessman and trade unionist ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056064820

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think most people on here, amateur or historian would agree that the basis of our discussions need to be factually correct. It is difficult then to do this if we have recommendations by people who label themselves historians that turn out to be unreliable. If we have to analyse each historians agenda then alot of source material could be written off as is convenient to each ones own. I'm not arguing for any account by the way- just pointing out the obvious.

I often come across sources that maybe MarchDub or Bannasidhe or Jolly Red Giant or others might read differently.

And, someone might put the source in context for me. So if I picked up on an account of the Battle's of the Boyne & Aughrim from Williamite source's(& I have) then whats wrong with getting the heads up from someone on the source.

"It is difficult then to do this if we have recommendations by people who label themselves historians that turn out to be unreliable."

I suppose that's why people study it as a discipline

With regard to the Military archive is there a criteria for accounts to be accepted as 'real'. Is it based only on recorded archives from the 50's?

I don't really want to go there as that is a wider discussion.

All I am saying is that it is generally accepted that James Stephens account is not a reliable "history" source .

That's not being disrespectful to the man or his oeuvre or the reasons behind his publication at that time.

The reason I posted the link on MacThomais was to give you some context for Stephens. Everyone approaches history with a bit of bias and if he was writing in a peer reviewed journal I imagine his approach would be somewhat different.

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

On an aside here, what if any "military" activities did the labour and socialists engage in post the Rising.

The labour movement did not engage in 'military' activities - such activities are counter to the instinctive operation of the labour movement. The 'activies' and 'weapons' of the labour movement are strikes, protests and occupations.

I would argue that these 'activities' were more effective than the IRA campaign during the War of Independence and significantly influenced how both the British and the leaders of the Nationalist movement reacted to the growing power of the labour movement during this period. For example - I would argue that the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 was not implemented as a result of pressure from Unionists - but to facilitate the creation of sectarian division between Catholic and Protestant workers in the North and to divert the attention of the growing class struggle in the Southern counties.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That doesn't mean that Sinn Fein were not promising land.

The Nationalist movement promised a lot - but delivered little.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Sinn Fein was thus a beneficiary of the threat of conscription, whether deserved or not.

In electoral terms only - and that was only because of the abdication of the leaders of the labour movement who should have taken the lead role in the campaign for political, social and economic emancipation.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Sinn Fein had set up the First Dail by that time and was prosecuting the War of Independence. The pivotal even was the 1918 election.

I disagree - even as late as 1922 the potential existed for the labour movement to grab the bull by the horns and wrestle the leadership of the struggle from nationalism. If O'Brien and his cronies had called a general strike in support of the Munster Soviets it would have met with massive support from working class people and the rural poor and placed not just full independence on the agenda - but socialist revolution as well.

MarchDub wrote: »

The local elections in 1920 confirmed Sinn Fein's position as the dominant nationalist party outside of the Ulster Unionist region securing 41% of the vote. But it was the relatively high showing of Sinn Fein within the Unionists' area that bothered the Unionists.

As the dominant nationalist party yes - as the dominant political movement - no way. Sinn Fein got a free run in 1918 - in 1920 it did not - indeed the result would have been a lot closer if Tom Johnson hadn't been sabotaging the establishment of labour branches in many parts of the country in order to prevent Marxist activists winning control of the labour movement in these areas. Indeed given the lack of political action by the labour movement in 1918 it would be reasonable to expect Sinn Fein to consolidate their position in 1920 (less than 14 months later) - they did not. The results in 1920 demonstrated that if the labour movement had moved to take the lead in the struggle it could well have done so. By mid-1920 the leadership of Sinn Fein were absolutely terrified of the potential of the class war replacing the nationalist struggle. Some nationalists even argued that the struggle for independence should be put on the back burner in order to defeat the class struggle being waged at the time.

thecommietommy wrote: »

Anyone familiar with the background of those who made up SF and the IRA would know that SF and the IRA were the agricultural labourers, as well as dockers, fishermen, construction etc

To quote from 'Ministry for Home Affairs', The Constructive Work of Dáil Eireann, No.1, The National Police and Courts of Justice, p.12,

"The mind of the people was being diverted from the struggle for freedom by a class war, and there was every likelihood that this class war might be carried into the ranks of the republican army itself which was drawn in the main from the agricultural population and was largely officered by farmer’s sons"

Support for the IRA ebbed and flowed in many areas depending on whether the agricultural labourers were engaged in strike action against farmers or not. Many of the farmer's sons 'officers' of the IRA participated in the quasi-fascist Farmers Freedom Force set up to break strikes by agricultural labourers.

The above document clearly demonstrates that the potential existed for the IRA to be pulled asunder because of the pressures of class conflict that existed at the time. Sinn Fein used the compliance of the leadership of the ILPTUC - namely William O'Brien and Tom Johnson - to ensure that the struggle of the labour movement was continuously derailed.

thecommietommy wrote: »

It's possible, it's also possible Labour didn't stand as they feared the back lash of opposing the nationalist SF vote. ( Similiar to the SDLP not standing against Bobby Sands in Fermanagh/S Tyrone in 1981)

That was the excuse that has been peddled - the reality is somewhat different. The main left-wing organisers within the labour movement were syndicalists who regarded trade union organisation rather than political organisation as paramount. When O'Brien and the leadership of the ILPTUC backed out of fighting the 1918 election the left-wing organisers did not see it as a crucial battle to fight - they were involved in organising workers in unions and engaging in widespread strike action. Ironically - James Connolly - the man who brought syndicalism to Ireland from the USA - would have understood the need for political action and would have demanded that Labour run in 1918. Unfortunately he wasn't around to make that call.

thecommietommy wrote: »

I had a quick search as those results surprised me that you have there given the landslide SF had just 2 years earlier. Well it's a wiki so not always the most relaible, but the figures you give are for the urban vote. It also says for the rural vote that " The rural elections showed a much greater level of support for Sinn Féin in its core support area. It took control of 338 out of 393 local government bodies, county councils, boards of guardians and rural district councils across the whole island. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_local_elections,_1920#cite_note-3

In many rural areas deals were done between Sinn Fein and Labour to divide up local council seats. For example - in Newcastle West there was no election - Sinn Fein took 8 seats and Labour took 7. All 15 people were members of the ITGWU. This was replicated in many parts of the country and as a result Sinn Fein are noted as 'controlling' the local bodies - when in fact in places like Newcastle West it was really the ITGWU who were in control - this was certainly the case in many rural towns and villages in Limerick and Clare.

The reason this happened was that Sinn Fein did not want to give the labour movement an opportunity to reclaim its potential that was lost in 1918 by not standing in the general election - and the national leadership of the ILPTUC were willing once again to coat-tail the nationalist movement rather than take the lead and agreed to a minority divide of the seats on many local councils rather than fighting an election.

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The labour movement did not engage in 'military' activities - such activities are counter to the instinctive operation of the labour movement. The 'activies' and 'weapons' of the labour movement are strikes, protests and occupations.

I would argue that these 'activities' were more effective than the IRA campaign during the War of Independence and significantly influenced how both the British and the leaders of the Nationalist movement reacted to the growing power of the labour movement during this period.

And James Connolly & the Irish Citizens Army ?

There is something in what you say and others have commented that Connolly and Markievicz did not foresee many of the changes that occurred in Britain following WWI.

For example - I would argue that the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 was not implemented as a result of pressure from Unionists - but to facilitate the creation of sectarian division between Catholic and Protestant workers in the North and to divert the attention of the growing class struggle in the Southern counties.

I agree.

Very interesting and we could probably have a deep political theory discussion.

I would probably argue that the Labour Movement in NI operated along sectarian line.

I am not so sure that there was that much of a class divide in Southern Ireland. For example, a draper or retail worker would be a tradesman etc.Home ownership or business premises ownership was rare too. So you would have had too primitive a development of capitalism for me.

Much later on when we joined the EU Ireland was viewed as primitive and even pre celtic tiger a lot of economists viewed Ireland as having a primitive capital base.

I am not saying that I am right but there was a bit more of the peasant in the society than a lot of people would like to admit.

MarchDub

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

For example - I would argue that the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 was not implemented as a result of pressure from Unionists - but to facilitate the creation of sectarian division between Catholic and Protestant workers in the North and to divert the attention of the growing class struggle in the Southern counties.

Fine - but what or where is your source material for this position? You say so but offer no evidence for your statement.

But to clarify what you are saying - Are you saying that there was no significant input from Unionists on this issue? There is an ample record of discussion within Unionism, English Conservative party, the British Cabinet on the subject of Irish partition going back to the days of Parnell [who scoffed at the idea].

thecommietommy

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The labour movement did not engage in 'military' activities - such activities are counter to the instinctive operation of the labour movement. The 'activies' and 'weapons' of the labour movement are strikes, protests and occupations.

I would argue that these 'activities' were more effective than the IRA campaign during the War of Independence and significantly influenced how both the British and the leaders of the Nationalist movement reacted to the growing power of the labour movement during this period. For example - I would argue that the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 was not implemented as a result of pressure from Unionists - but to facilitate the creation of sectarian division between Catholic and Protestant workers in the North and to divert the attention of the growing class struggle in the Southern counties.


The Nationalist movement promised a lot - but delivered little.


In electoral terms only - and that was only because of the abdication of the leaders of the labour movement who should have taken the lead role in the campaign for political, social and economic emancipation.


I disagree - even as late as 1922 the potential existed for the labour movement to grab the bull by the horns and wrestle the leadership of the struggle from nationalism. If O'Brien and his cronies had called a general strike in support of the Munster Soviets it would have met with massive support from working class people and the rural poor and placed not just full independence on the agenda - but socialist revolution as well.


As the dominant nationalist party yes - as the dominant political movement - no way. Sinn Fein got a free run in 1918 - in 1920 it did not - indeed the result would have been a lot closer if Tom Johnson hadn't been sabotaging the establishment of labour branches in many parts of the country in order to prevent Marxist activists winning control of the labour movement in these areas. Indeed given the lack of political action by the labour movement in 1918 it would be reasonable to expect Sinn Fein to consolidate their position in 1920 (less than 14 months later) - they did not. The results in 1920 demonstrated that if the labour movement had moved to take the lead in the struggle it could well have done so. By mid-1920 the leadership of Sinn Fein were absolutely terrified of the potential of the class war replacing the nationalist struggle. Some nationalists even argued that the struggle for independence should be put on the back burner in order to defeat the class struggle being waged at the time.


To quote from 'Ministry for Home Affairs', The Constructive Work of Dáil Eireann, No.1, The National Police and Courts of Justice, p.12,

"The mind of the people was being diverted from the struggle for freedom by a class war, and there was every likelihood that this class war might be carried into the ranks of the republican army itself which was drawn in the main from the agricultural population and was largely officered by farmer’s sons"

Support for the IRA ebbed and flowed in many areas depending on whether the agricultural labourers were engaged in strike action against farmers or not. Many of the farmer's sons 'officers' of the IRA participated in the quasi-fascist Farmers Freedom Force set up to break strikes by agricultural labourers.

The above document clearly demonstrates that the potential existed for the IRA to be pulled asunder because of the pressures of class conflict that existed at the time. Sinn Fein used the compliance of the leadership of the ILPTUC - namely William O'Brien and Tom Johnson - to ensure that the struggle of the labour movement was continuously derailed.


That was the excuse that has been peddled - the reality is somewhat different. The main left-wing organisers within the labour movement were syndicalists who regarded trade union organisation rather than political organisation as paramount. When O'Brien and the leadership of the ILPTUC backed out of fighting the 1918 election the left-wing organisers did not see it as a crucial battle to fight - they were involved in organising workers in unions and engaging in widespread strike action. Ironically - James Connolly - the man who brought syndicalism to Ireland from the USA - would have understood the need for political action and would have demanded that Labour run in 1918. Unfortunately he wasn't around to make that call.


In many rural areas deals were done between Sinn Fein and Labour to divide up local council seats. For example - in Newcastle West there was no election - Sinn Fein took 8 seats and Labour took 7. All 15 people were members of the ITGWU. This was replicated in many parts of the country and as a result Sinn Fein are noted as 'controlling' the local bodies - when in fact in places like Newcastle West it was really the ITGWU who were in control - this was certainly the case in many rural towns and villages in Limerick and Clare.

The reason this happened was that Sinn Fein did not want to give the labour movement an opportunity to reclaim its potential that was lost in 1918 by not standing in the general election - and the national leadership of the ILPTUC were willing once again to coat-tail the nationalist movement rather than take the lead and agreed to a minority divide of the seats on many local councils rather than fighting an election.

Ah yes, the sort of conjecture Eoghan Harris used to churn out in the 1980's :rolleyes:

" If O'Brien.....if Tom Johnson .....if the labour movement ...... " if, the biggest word in the world :rolleyes:

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Ah yes, the sort of conjecture Eoghan Harris used to churn out in the 1980's :rolleyes:

" If O'Brien.....if Tom Johnson .....if the labour movement ...... " if, the biggest word in the world :rolleyes:

Well , an Eoghan Harris link would be nice .

Not too many people speak of Tom Johnson and he was almost taoiseach too. I had heard the name and read bits about him.

I don't know how militaristic or not marxists were in the War of Independence but during 1926 they and the rump of the IRA were.

Johnson seemed consistent there and with the army mutiny as a nationalist and democrat.

So I reckon that this could be an interesting and lively discussion.

.