Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’
Options
-
04-08-2014 10:56am#1
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/former-taoiseach-says-easter-rising-unnecessary-1.1886582The Easter Rising and subsequent War of Independence were “completely unnecessary” because Home Rule was already on the statute books, former taoiseach John Bruton has said.
Mr Bruton has called on the Government to commemorate the centenary of the passage into law of the Home Rule Bill on September 18th, 1914. It was intended the law be brought into force at the end of the first World War, which broke out, from a British and Irish point of view, 100 years ago today. In his detailed submission to the Government, Mr Burton said the violence of that period “should not be retrospectively justified in the other commemorations that are to be undertaken over the next 10 years”.
He reiterated a case he made in a recent debate at the Irish Embassy in London that, “Ireland could have achieved better results, for all the people of the island, if it had continued to follow the successful non-violent parliamentary Home Rule path, and had not embarked on the path of physical violence, initiated by the IRB and the Irish Citizen Army in Easter Week of 1916” .
“Sinn Féin and the IRA should have used the Home Rule Act as a peaceful stepping stone to dominion status and full independence in the same way as the Treaty of 1921 was so used, but only after so much blood had been shed,” he wrote.
A view which has been expressed by several posters on this forum over the years, myself included.
Whether you agree with him or not, I think it's refreshing to see the glorification of events such as The Rising questioned. I don’t think much consideration will be given to his suggestion, but it may at least provoke some discussion.40
Comments
-
Whilst it is always good to discuss history issues in a counter-argument way, perhaps Mr. Bruton had not taken into account other factors.
One being the attitude of the Unionists, who had prior to WWI both weaponised the debate and were highly organised to resist Home Rule. Another was this was an era of colonial people turning against the central power of the state. From Berlin to the Pacific, almost all nations experienced some form of territorial breakup or radical re-org of their political structure.
Thus as an exercise in what-ifs. it is of course good have this to be subject to debate but in this case that the end-route of Dominion/Independance was a final end result of Home Rule is more debatable.0 -
This is an argument I've never understood: it would have been futile to pursue the Home Rule route, because the Unionists would have started a war. This suggests that the argument against the political process is that it would lead to war, which would be fair enough, were it not simultaneously used as a justification for the IRB starting a war.Whilst it is always good to discuss history issues in a counter-argument way, perhaps Mr. Bruton had not taken into account other factors.
One being the attitude of the Unionists, who had prior to WWI both weaponised the debate and were highly organised to resist Home Rule.
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence, but if it means what I think it does, the whole "we never would have achieved independence via Home Rule" argument can be easily countered with "we never would have achieved independence via a Free State".Thus as an exercise is what-ifs. it is of course good to be subject to debate that the end-route of Dominion/Independance was a final end result of Home Rule is debatable.
Full independence (of the 26 counties, before I get pilloried) was achieved in 1937 without a shot being fired, which is all the argument that's needed against the idea that it could only have been achieved through violence.0 -
Always happy to educate oscarBravo.
Given that the Unionist party already had a symbiotic relationship with the Conservatives of that era, then having as an additional factor the Unionist threatening violence would have overwhelmed the civil structures in place during and in the immediate end of WWI. In context, there was considerable unrest within the UK mainland; both within the army and in segments of society. A Unionist action could thus not have been dealt with politically or militarily without risk of even more instability. Hence this was not only political processes in operation.
As for full independence, you are perhaps mixing up the members of the Home Rule party who would have been more inclined to stay within the UK political structures rather than seek independence, with those of the actual leaders in the 1930s who had a differing viewpoint on the UK. BTW, I believe it was 1948(?) when a fully independent republic was established and perhaps you'd care to comment on the economic war that was a consequence of the Irish moves to fuller independence; it was not cost free option.0 -
With respect, that's not much more than a long-winded reiteration of the argument that starting a war was necessary to avoid the war that would have resulted from a political process.Given that the Unionist party already had a symbiotic relationship with the Conservatives of that era, then having as an additional factor the Unionist threatening violence would have overwhelmed the civil structures in place during and in the immediate end of WWI. In context, there was considerable unrest within the UK mainland; both within the army and in segments of society. A Unionist action could thus not have been dealt with politically or militarily without risk of even more instability. Hence this was not only political processes in operation.
And that's just a restatement of the view that Home Rule would have been a political dead end from which full independence could never have been achieved. It's not a view that I think there's any rational basis for.As for full independence, you are perhaps mixing up the members of the Home Rule party who would have been more inclined to stay within the UK political structures rather than seek independence, with those of the actual leaders in the 1930s who had a differing viewpoint on the UK.
There were no shots fired in order to achieve either the abolition of the Free State in 1937, or the founding of the Republic in 1948.BTW, I believe it was 1948(?) when a fully independent republic was established and perhaps you'd care to comment on the economic war that was a consequence of the Irish moves to fuller independence; it was not cost free option.
I don't recall ever claiming that a political process is a cost-free option. The Anglo-Irish economic war was a result of protectionist policies and welshing on our debts, in the context of a global depression. I'm not sure what it has to do with whether or not 1916 was necessary.0 -
There is so much wrong with Bruton's drivel that it's hard to know where to start...
I'll try to make some start, please feel free to add:
1. Sinn Fein and the IRA had nothing to do with the 1916 Rising.
Even the most basic knowledge of Leaving Certificate history will tell you that it was coordinated between the Volunteer and Citizen Army. But this is a blatant and quite pathetic attempt at revisionism.
Of course many of the founding members of his own party, Fine Gael, were directly involved in the planning and execution of the 1916 Rising and this does not sit very comfortably with him so he blatantly turns it on Sinn Fein.
2. Oh yeah, the small matter of the 'Ulster' Protestants, the Covenant etc etc. Remember that it was that side that first imported arms and weapons and Citizen and Volunteer Army armed in direct response.
This drivel from Bruton is just a naked and not very good attempt at revisionism. Quite frankly it is a dangerous distortion of history.
Either Bruton is an idiot or he thinks the Irish public are idiots.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bruton is an idiot!0
-
oscarBravo wrote: »With respect, that's not much more than a long-winded reiteration of the argument that starting a war was necessary to avoid the war that would have resulted from a political process. And that's just a restatement of the view that Home Rule would have been a political dead end from which full independence could never have been achieved. It's not a view that I think there's any rational basis for. There were no shots fired in order to achieve either the abolition of the Free State in 1937, or the founding of the Republic in 1948.
I don't recall ever claiming that a political process is a cost-free option. The Anglo-Irish economic war was a result of protectionist policies and welshing on our debts, in the context of a global depression. I'm not sure what it has to do with whether or not 1916 was necessary.
That is rather simplistic. The period and series of events between, say, 1912 and 1937 cannot be viewed in isolation. Indeed, history no matter what period we are looking at, cannot be cherry picked and viewed on its own.
History is like a set of dominoes and are inextricably linked whether or not you support or agree with a particular event.0 -
Re-iteration of points that have not been addressed is always good tactic as it shows underscores their strength of premises which have not been meaningful answered.
My central premise is not that the rising was a positive/negative event, but that arguing that independence was a natural consequence of it not occurring is a major stretch by Mr. Bruton. This natural consequence is simple to argue, that if only one particular pathway was followed then the consequent would have applied. Of course this imaginary scenario, only works if one relies on simpilfications: ie that event A begat B begat C. History however does not precede in a linear manner. There are complexities. Thus retrofitting 2014 political structures into to that era makes it easier to understand but that fails to address the complex institutional and societal factors that would disrupt the simple narrative that Home Rule -> {insert magic} -> Full Independence.
In the real world, the social/governmental structures were crafted to achieve independence, which would have been absence in the alternative Home Rule Ireland were the natural orbit of such would have remained centred on London.
As an OT point, my understanding that the UK also "welched" at times on its own debts, the case in point being from WWI as owned to the US at roughly the same time as Ireland did.0 -
partyguinness wrote: »1. Sinn Fein and the IRA had nothing to do with the 1916 Rising.
Even the most basic knowledge of Leaving Certificate history will tell you that it was coordinated between the Volunteer and Citizen Army. But this is a blatant and quite pathetic attempt at revisionism.
Sinn Féin had nothing to do with the Rising that's true. However most Republicans would see the Rising as the first act of what Connolly called the "Army of the Irish Republic."2. Oh yeah, the small matter of the 'Ulster' Protestants, the Covenant etc etc. Remember that it was that side that first imported arms and weapons and Citizen and Volunteer Army armed in direct response.
The Citizen Army would have existed regardless as they were born out of the industrial strife of that period and were used to defend workers' demonstrations against the cops. Similarly, many of the figures involved in the Rising were dedicated physical-force Nationalists who probably would have done what they did irrespective of whether Unionism was armed or not. The likes of Thomas Clarke had been plugging at armed struggle away since 1880 odd and spent 15 years in jail for a bomb plot.
However, I do agree with your general argument that Bruton is a bit of a langer to put it bluntly. The Republican struggle against British imperialism and colonisation of Ireland is nothing to be ashamed of. As much as a failure as the Rising was in practical terms, it remained a far more noble endeavour than leading tens of thousands of Irishmen into the British Army to be slaughtered in trenches because various European elites had a spat.0 -
partyguinness wrote: »
Sinn Féin had nothing to do with the Rising that's true. However most Republicans would see the Rising as the first act of what Connolly called the "Army of the Irish Republic."
The Citizen Army would have existed regardless as they were born out of the industrial strife of that period and were used to defend workers' demonstrations against the cops. Similarly, many of the figures involved in the Rising were dedicated physical-force Nationalists who probably would have done what they did irrespective of whether Unionism was armed or not. The likes of Thomas Clarke had been plugging at armed struggle away since 1880 odd and spent 15 years in jail for a bomb plot.
However, I do agree with your general argument that Bruton is a bit of a langer to put it bluntly. The Republican struggle against British imperialism and colonisation of Ireland is nothing to be ashamed of. As much as a failure as the Rising was in practical terms, it remained a far more noble endeavour than leading tens of thousands of Irishmen into the British Army to be slaughtered in trenches because various European elites had a spat.
I am aware of those points and them some, it's just time constraints prevents me from turning a post into a dense history lesson. Indeed, may of the architects did not expect to win. They wanted to light a fuse so while they did not win the battle they certainly went a long way to winning the war.
As for the WWI slaughter, a interesting contrast was made last week, the 1916 Volunteers were Volunteers in the true sense and were not paid but the British Army soldiers were paid. Rather controversially, the author said the British soldiers were essentially paid mercenaries and were far from going on some noble and courageous battle to fight in a European civil war.
Brutal's comments are incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. Who can forget the cringefest when he toasted 'her Majesty the Queen'...:o:o0 -
Advertisement
-
In the cited excerpt from the article, he didn't say that independence would have been achieved; merely that it could have been achieved, and that, given the opportunity to pursue political means to an end rather than violent, it's regrettable that we choose to commemorate the violence.My central premise is not that the rising was a positive/negative event, but that arguing that independence was a natural consequence of it not occurring is a major stretch by Mr. Bruton. This natural consequence is simple to argue, that if only one particular pathway was followed then the consequent would have applied.
The Republican thesis is that there is no conceivable way that independence could have been achieved without 1916, which is a premise you should reject as vehemently as you have rejected the idea that independence would inevitably have followed from pursuit of solely political means.
It's possible that independence could have been achieved peacefully. When people argue otherwise, it's hard to avoid the feeling that their core unspoken argument is that war was necessary; why else would we be celebrating it? Which is nothing but a roundabout way of arguing from your conclusion.
I'm not sure how this differs from the fundamentally post hoc ergo propter hoc argument that indepence followed 1916, therefore independence could only have been achieved as a result of 1916.Of course this imaginary scenario, only works if one relies on simpilfications: ie that event A begat B begat C. History however does not precede in a linear manner. There are complexities. Thus retrofitting 2014 political structures into to that era makes it easier to understand but that fails to address the complex institutional and societal factors that would disrupt the simple narrative that Home Rule -> {insert magic} -> Full Independence.
I'm not arguing that independence would inevitably have followed from Home Rule. I'm arguing against the completely unsupported but oft-voiced assertion that independence couldn't possibly have followed from Home Rule.0 -
I don’t believe he said they did:partyguinness wrote: »There is so much wrong with Bruton's drivel that it's hard to know where to start...
I'll try to make some start, please feel free to add:
1. Sinn Fein and the IRA had nothing to do with the 1916 Rising.
“Ireland could have achieved better results, for all the people of the island, if it had continued to follow the successful non-violent parliamentary Home Rule path, and had not embarked on the path of physical violence, initiated by the IRB and the Irish Citizen Army in Easter Week of 1916”
Maybe take some time to read what was actually said before you go accusing people of “pathetic attempts at revisionism”?partyguinness wrote: »Even the most basic knowledge of Leaving Certificate history will tell you that it was coordinated between the Volunteer and Citizen Army. But this is a blatant and quite pathetic attempt at revisionism.
Bruton said otherwise?partyguinness wrote: »2. Oh yeah, the small matter of the 'Ulster' Protestants, the Covenant etc etc. Remember that it was that side that first imported arms and weapons and Citizen and Volunteer Army armed in direct response.
…or you didn’t read what he said, but rather concocted some notion of what he said so that you could get irate about it?partyguinness wrote: »Either Bruton is an idiot or he thinks the Irish public are idiots…
How so? Might they cause people to question why The Rising should be commemorated? Can’t have that now, can we?partyguinness wrote: »Brutal's comments are incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.0 -
-
Avoidable loss of life in the pursuit of a political goal is always something to be ashamed of.The Republican struggle against British imperialism and colonisation of Ireland is nothing to be ashamed of.
Because you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?As much as a failure as the Rising was in practical terms, it remained a far more noble endeavour than leading tens of thousands of Irishmen into the British Army to be slaughtered in trenches because various European elites had a spat.0 -
John Bruton would do well to remember that the Irish electorate was given a choice between Sinn Fein and the Home Rule party in the 1918 elections and overwhelming voted for Sinn Fein and their 'violent' methods.0
-
The issue is not just an aversion to war but that fact that Unionist opposition made the Third Home Rule Bill a dead duck. Bruton is arguing that 1916 was unnecessary because Home Rule had already been legislated for but everyone knew that the Bill was entirely unworkable. Absolutely nobody was fooled by the idea that the war would end and then, poof, suddenly there would be Home Rule and a road to independence.oscarBravo wrote: »This is an argument I've never understood: it would have been futile to pursue the Home Rule route, because the Unionists would have started a war. This suggests that the argument against the political process is that it would lead to war, which would be fair enough, were it not simultaneously used as a justification for the IRB starting a war.
Besides, it would never have led to war. The suspicion of Nationalists, borne out by events, was that London would never have used force to compel Ulster to accept a solution that it did not want. Which brings us back to the above.
There are two things here. In the first place, it's deeply anachronistic to talk of 'independence for the 26 counties'. That wasn't on the agenda in 1916 and, while both the IRB and ICA can be criticised for their blindness or naivety to Ulster, I don't believe that they can or should be criticised for either not contemplating or rejecting partition. That was not a happy solution.Full independence (of the 26 counties, before I get pilloried) was achieved in 1937 without a shot being fired, which is all the argument that's needed against the idea that it could only have been achieved through violence.
Secondly, Ireland became de facto independent in 1921. Whatever the constitutional niceties, we achieved a level of autonomy far greater than that promised by Home Rule. The most obvious example of that is of course foreign affairs, where Ireland quickly established itself in an area that would have been verboten to it under the Home Rule Bill. Making the step to full independence in 1937 (and a republic in 1949) was easy precisely because independence had been effectively won the previous decade.
Could've, would've, should've. It's a matter of probabilities, not possibilities. Whatever about the theoretical possibility of a peaceful road to independence, that route was not clear or certain (certainly not as much as Bruton suggests). Anyone in 1914 looking back at Irish history would have seen decades of failed initiatives, broken promises and stalled progress. The probability of a Redmondite strategy succeeding cannot be considered high.In the cited excerpt from the article, he didn't say that independence would have been achieved; merely that it could have been achieved, and that, given the opportunity to pursue political means to an end rather than violent, it's regrettable that we choose to commemorate the violence.
Which is what bugs me. Criticising the Rising is fair enough. I disagree with a lot of it but c'est la vie. But to criticise it by holding up an illusory counter-factual is not playing fair. Home Rule and the IPP were perceived as dead ends by 1916 and roundly rejected in 1919. They can't seriously be held up as potential avenues for independence (having conveniently forgotten all the failures) to attack the IRB/ICA.
As for the violence comment, I hope it suffices here to note that neither the French nor Americans nor Italians, etc, etc see any harm in commemorating their independence/unifications, despite the bloodshed involved.
Tying into the violence comment just above, this is a bizarre thing I find: people who condemn the Rising for its use of violence yet have no problem commemorating the infinitely greater and more pointless slaughter of the Great War.djpbarry wrote:Because you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?
Let's be honest about this: either violence is an acceptable, if regrettable, option or it's not. The latter is called pacifism. If you don't have a pacifist objection to violence itself then of course your opinion of a campaign of violence is going to be predominately determined my its aims (plus scale, nature, etc).
(And by these measures the violence in Ireland 1916-1923, however unfortunate and traumatic for the country, was incredibly more understandable or acceptable than the destruction of a generation elsewhere in Europe at the time.)0 -
And if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that electorates always know best, right?partyguinness wrote: »John Bruton would do well to remember that the Irish electorate was given a choice between Sinn Fein and the Home Rule party in the 1918 elections and overwhelming voted for Sinn Fein and their 'violent' methods.0 -
Well sure, if you dismiss everything that Parnell, Redmond, O’Connell and the IPP had achieved up to that point and ignore that every armed rebellion in Irish history was a catastrophic failure, then yeah, sure, you could conclude that diplomacy was a dead end and shooting up O’Connell St was the only way to go.Home Rule and the IPP were perceived as dead ends by 1916 and roundly rejected in 1919. They can't seriously be held up as potential avenues for independence (having conveniently forgotten all the failures) to attack the IRB/ICA.
I can’t condemn both?Tying into the violence comment just above, this is a bizarre thing I find: people who condemn the Rising for its use of violence yet have no problem commemorating the infinitely greater and more pointless slaughter of the Great War.
Eh, no, it’s not. If you think that’s pacifism, then you don’t know what pacifism is.Let's be honest about this: either violence is an acceptable, if regrettable, option or it's not. The latter is called pacifism.
So your argument essentially boils down to “The Rising was fine because World War I”?(And by these measures the violence in Ireland 1916-1923, however unfortunate and traumatic for the country, was incredibly more understandable or acceptable than the destruction of a generation elsewhere in Europe at the time.)0 -
-
Avoidable loss of life in the pursuit of a political goal is always something to be ashamed of.
That's the thing though, sometimes violence and loss of life is made inevitable by an oppressive force. John Bruton seems to be of the opinion that British imperialism could be challenged by peaceful means alone and that would have resulted in success. The reality of the situation however, was that England had always maintained its dominance over Ireland and systemically shut down any peaceful opposition to its rule there. When its rule was challenged to any serious degree it had no problem deploying legions of police, secret police, agent provocateurs etc etc and ultimately its military in order to crush any resistance.
Ireland wasn't exactly the last colony the Brits lost either. They had very little qualms in brutally suppressing independence movements in places like Cyprus, India, Kenya and a variety of others. From the 1970s onwards they fought a long and dirty war in Ireland with a view to keeping a part of that country within the UK.
I fail to see the inevitability of a peaceful transition to independence considering the violent imperial power Britain was.Because you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?
No, because there's a difference between using physical force to resist colonisation and create a country of "religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens" and getting slaughtered wholesale to preserve the rule of elitist monarchies and capitalists across Europe.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is no way unionists would have allowed a home rule bill to go through. Bruton's knowledge of history is brutal.0
-
-
I wonder what exactly Bruton was referring to when he said:
"should not be retrospectively justified in the other commemorations that are to be undertaken over the next 10 years"
Does he mean that there are other violent episodes of that period that were justified? Obviously we know that the 1916 Rising and WofI were not justified in his eyes.
Any thoughts?0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Absolutely ridiculous statement from Bruton - without the Easter rising and the resulting WOI Ireland today would more then likely be the same as Scotland and Wales - remaining under the monarchy. As already said the Unionist population in the north would never have stood for Home Rule from Dublin. Even today any question of taking power from London in the north would create a massive revolt from unionists. Partition though was one of the worst things that London ever inflicted on the country, London should have stood behind democracy in 1921 and held a 32 county vote on the issue. Home rule under London or Full Independence - let the people decide.0
-
Let's not forget the peaceful methods used by the British to colonise the island over several centuries or those peace loving Black n Tans sent over to defeat the IRA.
Or let's not forget Churchill's violent threat to mobile 250k troops in an instance if the Treaty was not signed...
Using peaceful methods is all well and good if your dealing with peaceful opponent. The British Empire was a war mongering 'empire' built on war and violence. Call it fighting fire with fire if you like. What did you expect them to do?
I have been hearing this 'anti violence' argument for the best part of 25 years from people. Most of it is pure and simple dislike/disdain for the Republican movement but dressed up as some sort of 'anti violence' platform. I've seen it and heard it all before.
Criticise the 1916 Rising all you want and you don't agree with it fine but at least be honest about it.0 -
What I wouldn't give to have been there to say, 'So what John?'
More of the classic FG 'If it had been left to us we would have done better' nonsense, ignoring the realities of the time. They talk the same nonsense about Sunningdale, ignoring as always, the elephant in the room.0 -
It doesn't matter how long the road leading up to it is, a dead end is a dead end. How many more decades should people have blindly trusted the IPP to muddle through? Or how much longer could they put off actually competing at the ballot box?This post had been deleted.
Frankly, the bigger fantasy here is that a single event (ie the Rising) suddenly precipitated the collapse of a thriving parliamentary party with a bright future. The reality was that the IPP was in decline and was done for as soon as it attached itself to the (always unpopular) war. Hence it was trounced as soon as a rigorous Nationalist alternative emerged that actually challenged the party at the ballot box.
No idea where you got that one.So your argument essentially boils down to “The Rising was fine because World War I”?
If there actually is one thing history has taught us, it's that electorates are the only real basis for national sovereignty.And if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that electorates always know best, right?
I'm fine with people rejecting both. But insisting on a distinction between politics and violence (or rejecting outright any role for the latter) is a facile judgement. Again, other countries have no problem in accepting that use of violence in the formation of their political or national institutions.Permabear wrote:I have no trouble condemning both the First World War and the 1916 Rising. The only reason for commemorating either event is to reflect upon the pointlessness of using violence as a "solution" to political problems.
The problem is that Irish politicians have long been so terrified of lending legitimacy to the post-Independence IRA that they reject outright the possibility of using violence for acceptable means. Hence we get Bruton preferring to laud some meaningless parliamentary bill than accept the key role that the events of the "other commemorations" played. Safer in Ireland to hail the politicians than the gunmen.0 -
partyguinness wrote: »I have been hearing this 'anti violence' argument for the best part of 25 years from people. Most of it is pure and simple dislike/disdain for the Republican movement but dressed up as some sort of 'anti violence' platform. I've seen it and heard it all before.
Criticise the 1916 Rising all you want and you don't agree with it fine but at least be honest about it.
Very popular during the 1990s that lark was; the whole anti-violence thing (while noble in itself) was often used in Ireland as a euphemism for anti-Republican violence. People who raised the inherent violence of the British establishment were often shouted down.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bruton is right. The violence in 1916 onwards:
1 - Didn't achieve anything materially better than the Home Rule that was already on the table. Sunningdale for slow learners 8 decades early.
2 - Didn't prevent the partition of Ireland - in fact it probably doomed any slight chance of a compromise.
3 - Heavily contributed to, if not outright caused, the Irish Civil War and the political bitterness that has defined our main political parties since.
But for the likes of Pearse, what was critically important was the concept of blood sacrifice. Pearse was as much a jingoistic eejit as the imperialists the Provos denounce today. He was overjoyed when WW1 broke out:It is patriotism that stirs the people. Belgium defending her soil is heroic, and so is Turkey . . . . . .
It is good for the world that such things should be done. The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed with the red wine of the battlefields.
Such august homage was never before offered to God as this, the homage of millions of lives given gladly for love of country
The idea of an independent Ireland coming to pass peacefully was disgusting to him. In Pearse's view there *had* to be blood and conflict to consecrate Ireland as a *real* nation. Freedom and independence was something the Irish had to take violently, it wasn't something the British could give us. Let alone a certain self interest - a peaceful handover of power would leave violent men and violent groups out in the cold politically. Whereas, after the Rising and the resulting conflicts, the Dail was dominated by parties and men with militant records and backgrounds.
So while Bruton is right, he is thinking about it from the point of view of what benefits the Irish people. Pearse and his ilk thought about it from an entirely different perspective.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement