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