Was the Ulster Covenant a success?

jonniebgood1

100 years after the Ulster covenant was signed by a massive number of people there seems to be different enterpretations of what significance the Covenant had, and whether it was successful in achieving its stated goals.

According to the BBC

the signing of the document laid the foundations for the partition of Ireland and the formation of Northern Ireland a decade later. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19765586

By similar virtue it can be taken that the signing of the Covenant was a significant event in the emergence of an independent Irish nation. The Irish Times has an analysis piece marking similarities with the proclamation of independence. There is also an acceptance that the organisation of the Covenant saw Nationalist become more hardline- the Covenant put itself against Home rule but 10 years later an Irish Republic emerged and many of the wishes stated in the document had been undone.

This is part of Irish nationalist history, too. Without the Covenant, and the implacable opposition to Home Rule that it crystallised, there would have been no Irish Volunteers, no Easter Rising, no collapse of the dominant Irish Parliamentary Party. Patrick Pearse and James Connolly might well have ended up as opposition leaders in a Dublin parliament. Why, then, do those of an Irish Catholic cultural background find it so hard to understand the Covenant as an aspect of their own history? There’s nothing innately alien to Irish Catholic culture about the idea of the mass public signing of a pledge: the temperance movement led by Father Mathew had already succeeded in getting hundreds of thousands of Catholics to sign public pledges to abstain from alcohol. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0929/1224324587418.html

SaoriseBiker

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

100 years after the Ulster covenant was signed by a massive number of people there seems to be different enterpretations of what significance the Covenant had, and whether it was successful in achieving its stated goals.

According to the BBC
By similar virtue it can be taken that the signing of the Covenant was a significant event in the emergence of an independent Irish nation. The Irish Times has an analysis piece marking similarities with the proclamation of independence. There is also an acceptance that the organisation of the Covenant saw Nationalist become more hardline- the Covenant put itself against Home rule but 10 years later an Irish Republic emerged and many of the wishes stated in the document had been undone.

It's one of the trademarks of unionism to claim every outcome as the total unionist victory as if it was what they wanted all along - but in reality they abandoned 1/3 Ulster proper and tens of thousands of other unionists such as Carson in Dublin. And doubtless on this thread our unionist friends will live up true to form

The unionists didn't partition our country, they couldn't, they never came close to the capability of the IRA and only at most make up a small minority of the country, 15% or so. It was the British who partitioned our country, they sent over tens of thousands of soldiers to murder, burn, impose martial law and generally terrorize the nationalist areas of the country. They invited some to talks with in London with the carrot of talks indicating a full withdrawal, and then told us if we didn't accept their terms they destroy the country even more. The unionists weren't even invovled in the negioations, such was the realpolitik of it for the British govt.

donaghs

In its overall aim, to prevent any sort of Home Rule for the island of Ireland, it was a failure.
Additionally, Ulster, as everyone then defined it was the full 9-county Province. So as mentioned the Unionists in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan were abandoned to the Free State.
But I do think it was important in the creation of Partition. The British may have negotiated this on their behalf, but they did ensure to give Ulster Unionist the maximum amount of territory they could control, even when it included Nationalist/Catholic majorities.

jonniebgood1

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

It's one of the trademarks of unionism to claim every outcome as the total unionist victory as if it was what they wanted all along - but in reality they abandoned 1/3 Ulster proper and tens of thousands of other unionists such as Carson in Dublin. And doubtless on this thread our unionist friends will live up true to form

The outcome of the period has its ups and downs for both sides of the 'divide', in the interests of keeping the thread on course try to keep away from sweeping statements like above which can be construed as goading.

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

The unionists didn't partition our country, they couldn't, they never came close to the capability of the IRA and only at most make up a small minority of the country, 15% or so. It was the British who partitioned our country, they sent over tens of thousands of soldiers to murder, burn, impose martial law and generally terrorize the nationalist areas of the country. They invited some to talks with in London with the carrot of talks indicating a full withdrawal, and then told us if we didn't accept their terms they destroy the country even more. The unionists weren't even invovled in the negioations, such was the realpolitik of it for the British govt.

You identify correctly that the the people who signed the Covenant were not directly involved in decisions about their future a decade after it was signed. However the background papers regarding the treaty show that Unionist leaders were kept informed on proceedings. Although they were outwardly dismissive of Unionist leaders the British side of the Treaty negotiations had to bear in mind Unionist wishes and did so in the discussions.

donaghs wrote: »

In its overall aim, to prevent any sort of Home Rule for the island of Ireland, it was a failure.
Additionally, Ulster, as everyone then defined it was the full 9-county Province. So as mentioned the Unionists in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan were abandoned to the Free State.
But I do think it was important in the creation of Partition. The British may have negotiated this on their behalf, but they did ensure to give Ulster Unionist the maximum amount of territory they could control, even when it included Nationalist/Catholic majorities.

I agree. A decade later the Irish free state came out of the Treaty- this saw greater freedom than that even sought by the Home rule party at the time.

SaoriseBiker

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The outcome of the period has its ups and downs for both sides of the 'divide', in the interests of keeping the thread on course try to keep away from sweeping statements like above which can be construed as goading.

You identify correctly that the the people who signed the Covenant were not directly involved in decisions about their future a decade after it was signed. However the background papers regarding the treaty show that Unionist leaders were kept informed on proceedings. Although they were outwardly dismissive of Unionist leaders the British side of the Treaty negotiations had to bear in mind Unionist wishes and did so in the discussions.

I agree. A decade later the Irish free state came out of the Treaty- this saw greater freedom than that even sought by the Home rule party at the time.

Please,please can you bar me off the history forum again ?? :D

jonniebgood1

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Please,please can you bar me off the history forum again ?? :D

I am sorry to have to say it but you represent all that is wrong with some elements of the forum currently. If you have no concept of discussing history without descending into rhetorically backward crap as in your first post or the above quoted nonsense then you should stick to whatever playground you came out of. Your request for renewal of ban is duly granted with the helpful advice that you will no doubt ignore but I give it freely in any case, grow up.

My apologies to anyone looking for history in posts no. 2, 5 and 6. It is easier said than done to eliminate all the clowns from the forum but we are getting there.