Easter Rising - when it was first called this?

Coburger

Hi,

When was the term The Easter Rising actually coined? Would it have been known as this during and immediately after it?

I know that many people in Dublin were against the violence in the street.

Coincidentally, does anyone know of a place to read up on the victory parade that was held down College Green for Irish soldiers who returned from fighting for the British Army in France. Were there any protests against this by people in Dublin?

Coburg

tac foley

Coburger wrote: »

Hi,

When was the term The Easter Rising actually coined? Would it have been known as this during and immediately after it?

I know that many people in Dublin were against the violence in the street.

Coincidentally, does anyone know of a place to read up on the victory parade that was held down College Green for Irish soldiers who returned from fighting for the British Army in France. Were there any protests against this by people in Dublin?

Coburg

Whilst not a student of Irish history, I DID have an Irish father, who, as a young man, went up to Dublin to join in the cheering of the homecoming IRISHmen who had made it through the war. He never mentioned anything like a protest taking place, unsurprising, when you think that most were very happy that the whole 'bloody' business of dying in a foreign land seemed to be over. I'd be as interested as you are to discover the level of protest that took place but I reckon that you'll stand more chance of finding the Crown Jewels in your Christmas cracker.

Please note, too, as a matter of semantics, that at that time they were fighting IN the British Army, not FOR the British, as Ireland had not yet 'thrown off the yoke of British imperialism' and was still, like it or not, part of the British Empire.

tac

Jellybaby1

tac foley wrote: »

.....Please note, too, as a matter of semantics, that at that time they were fighting IN the British Army, not FOR the British, as Ireland had not yet 'thrown off the yoke of British imperialism' and was still, like it or not, part of the British Empire. tac

I absolutely agree with this as I remember my parents telling me that they were British subjects before Independence, and didn't have any problem with it. I have family documentation which they entered themselves as 'British'. They, and many more in Dublin at the time considered themselves British, all religions included. Seems hard to believe now. But of course not all of the British population was Protestant, and not all of the Irish population was Catholic.

DarkyHughes

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I absolutely agree with this as I remember my parents telling me that they were British subjects before Independence, and didn't have any problem with it. I have family documentation which they entered themselves as 'British'. They, and many more in Dublin at the time considered themselves British, all religions included. Seems hard to believe now. But of course not all of the British population was Protestant, and not all of the Irish population was Catholic.

That's pretty interesting. I wonder how long it took people to stop regarding themselves as Irish & started to regard themselves as British after the 1800 act of union.

Peregrinus

Yeats's poem Easter, 1916 had been written, at the latest, by September 1916. I don't known when the phrase "Easter Rising" or "Easter Rebellion" first appears in print, but the association between the event and the date was immediate. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't know as the Easter Rising/Rebellion pretty much from the get-go.

Reaction in the streets at the time of the Rising itself was mixed - some hostility, some bewilderment, some admiration for the rebels' courage and/or strategy, but very little sympathy or active support.

The Victory Parade in Dublin wasn't actually held until well in 1919, from memory - maybe round about July? By then the world had moved on a lot - the Volunteers now had a much higher degree of respect and support than they had had in 1916, we had been through the Conscription Crisis, the 1918 election, the collapse of the Irish Party, the first meeting of Dail Eireann, the outbreak of the War of Independence. So far as I know there was no protest at the victory parade, but nor was it treated by most as an occasion for a display of empire loyalism - for the majority it was a welcoming home, and an event to mark thankfully the end of a dreadful episode.

braddun

http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/04/22/the-easter-rising-%E2%80%93-a-brief-overview/#.VJT6MAO4A

buyer95

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeats's poem Easter, 1916 had been written, at the latest, by September 1916. I don't known when the phrase "Easter Rising" or "Easter Rebellion" first appears in print, but the association between the event and the date was immediate. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't know as the Easter Rising/Rebellion pretty much from the get-go.

Reaction in the streets at the time of the Rising itself was mixed - some hostility, some bewilderment, some admiration for the rebels' courage and/or strategy, but very little sympathy or active support.

The Victory Parade in Dublin wasn't actually held until well in 1919, from memory - maybe round about July? By then the world had moved on a lot - the Volunteers now had a much higher degree of respect and support than they had had in 1916, we had been through the Conscription Crisis, the 1918 election, the collapse of the Irish Party, the first meeting of Dail Eireann, the outbreak of the War of Independence. So far as I know there was no protest at the victory parade, but nor was it treated by most as an occasion for a display of empire loyalism - for the majority it was a welcoming home, and an event to mark thankfully the end of a dreadful episode.

Admiration of strategy? The Easter Rising fell in on itself before it hapenned, with the Aud being sank by the British. Nothing strategically brilliant about taking the GPO and other major buildings in Dublin, when they were all impossible to defend as they were far apart from each other, cutting what little men the IRB had, away from each other.

Jellybaby1

DarkyHughes wrote: »

That's pretty interesting. I wonder how long it took people to stop regarding themselves as Irish & started to regard themselves as British after the 1800 act of union.

My father joined the British Army during the 2nd world war and on his army documents he was (still) entered as British, so he still considered himself as British in the 40's. This is a very interesting point and never mentioned or discussed or even considered by those who fought in 1916 or 1922. Makes me wonder now if there had been a Referendum to decide whether Ireland should remain British or become independent, what would the numbers have actually looked like. I believe though that the majority vote would have been for independence but it would have been interesting to know all the same.

Qualitymark

buyer95 wrote: »

Admiration of strategy? The Easter Rising fell in on itself before it hapenned, with the Aud being sank by the British.

Point of information: the Aud was scuttled by its captain. The IRB in America messed things up, with John Devoy in New York sending the wrong message so the ship arrived too early despite being repeatedly told that the arms the ship carried were to arrive no earlier than Sunday April 23, 1916.

As for the term Easter Rising, it was used almost immediately; James Stephens' book Insurrection, published in October 1916, begins "The day before the rising was Easter Sunday, and they were crying joyfully in the churches 'Christ has risen'. On the following day they were saying in the streets 'Ireland has risen'."

As for who liked the idea of being a kind of sub-Briton at the time, plenty did; plenty of colonials always do like to identify with the empire whose colony their country is. Plenty didn't, too. Not much point in fighting it all over again.

mickmackey1

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Makes me wonder now if there had been a Referendum to decide whether Ireland should remain British or become independent, what would the numbers have actually looked like. I believe though that the majority vote would have been for independence but it would have been interesting to know all the same.

emmm maybe you'd like to check out the 1918 election results... :pac:

Peregrinus

buyer95 wrote: »

Admiration of strategy? The Easter Rising fell in on itself before it hapenned, with the Aud being sank by the British. Nothing strategically brilliant about taking the GPO and other major buildings in Dublin, when they were all impossible to defend as they were far apart from each other, cutting what little men the IRB had, away from each other.

The rebels' military strategy was hopeless but, then, their military position was hopeless, and no strategy was going to change that. Their political strategy, we can now see, succeeded brilliantly - possibly more by luck than by design, but there you are.

Be that as it may, contemporary accounts record that among the sentiments voiced by Dubliners at the time was admiration for the rebels' strategy. You may think that the admiration was misplaced (and you may be right) but the correct answer to the OP is that admiration of strategy was one of the immediate reactions to the Rising.

ChicagoJoe

buyer95 wrote: »

Admiration of strategy? The Easter Rising fell in on itself before it hapenned, with the Aud being sank by the British. Nothing strategically brilliant about taking the GPO and other major buildings in Dublin, when they were all impossible to defend as they were far apart from each other, cutting what little men the IRB had, away from each other.

I suppose you would have considered it "strategically brilliant" if they had copied the British and ran straight at the enemy's machine guns and rifle fire to be massacred like they did at the Somme, Gallipoli etc ?

Besides, the original plan for Dublin was for them to start the Rising and hold for a few days as the rest of the country joined in with the weapons landed by the Germans.

johnny_doyle

Coburger wrote: »

Hi,



Coincidentally, does anyone know of a place to read up on the victory parade that was held down College Green for Irish soldiers who returned from fighting for the British Army in France. Were there any protests against this by people in Dublin?

Coburg

http://johnny-doyle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/victory-parade-dublin-1919.html

There were protests by some ex-service personnel (and protests in the UK by ex-service personnel for the parades held there - with riots in Luton and Swindon).

johnny_doyle

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

My father joined the British Army during the 2nd world war and on his army documents he was (still) entered as British, so he still considered himself as British in the 40's. This is a very interesting point and never mentioned or discussed or even considered by those who fought in 1916 or 1922. Makes me wonder now if there had been a Referendum to decide whether Ireland should remain British or become independent, what would the numbers have actually looked like. I believe though that the majority vote would have been for independence but it would have been interesting to know all the same.

if you were born in Ireland before 1st January 1949 you were entitled to consider yourself British and would have had no problems applying for a British passport.

Qualitymark

Makes me chuckle the way some Irish people talk about the fact that 3,000 resistants mainly armed with shotguns, pikes and a few rifles with the odd home-made grenade failed to triumph over 20,000 professional soldiers armed with 18-pounder guns, incendiary shells, machine guns and bombs.
If the British had faced down a hostile army like that against huge odds, they'd still be making TV programmes and films about the heroism and running stylish parades and wearing symbols.
But perhaps it takes a while to throw off the shame of colonisation. Finland and Iceland seem to have managed it, but maybe they weren't colonised for as long.

Jesus.

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

My father joined the British Army during the 2nd world war and on his army documents he was (still) entered as British, so he still considered himself as British in the 40's.

I've been assumed British a few times while out foreign and without even thinking I've said yes I am. To most people around the World, British is a term that encapsulates the people of the two islands off the northwest coast of Europe. There are still a decent amount of people from the Free State that consider themselves both British and Irish.

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Makes me wonder now if there had been a Referendum to decide whether Ireland should remain British or become independent, what would the numbers have actually looked like. I believe though that the majority vote would have been for independence but it would have been interesting to know all the same.

I think they would have too but if you take the 1918 election as a kind of referendum on independence then it was defeated.

As for the Rising, it was called the Sinn Fein rebellion straight away in the Unionist/British dominated press.

Qualitymark

Jesus. wrote: »

I think they would have too but if you take the 1918 election as a kind of referendum on independence then it was defeated.

Good heavens, no! In the 1918 election, nationalist parties won 79 seats, unionists only 22! In no way can you describe that truthfully as a defeat for a vote on independence! It was a landslide for independence.

Jesus.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Good heavens, no! In the 1918 election, nationalist parties won 79 seats, unionists only 22! In no way can you describe that truthfully as a defeat for a vote on independence! It was a landslide for independence.

That's the number of seats but I said if it was being treated as a referendum mate. Sinn Fein, the only party advocating independence (as opposed to Home Rule), won just under 47% of the vote.

So in such a scenario as described above, it would have been defeated.

Qualitymark

Jesus. wrote: »

That's the number of seats but I said if it was being treated as a referendum mate. Sinn Fein, the only party advocating independence (as opposed to Home Rule), won just under 47% of the vote.

So in such a scenario as described above, it would have been defeated.

That's a rather… theological approach to the question. They won like a landslide on what people voted for - seats in parliament.

Jesus.

Qualitymark wrote: »

That's a rather… theological approach to the question. They won like a landslide on what people voted for - seats in parliament.

Oh good Lord sweet Jesus!

You answered my post where I specifically stated I thought a referendum would pass. However if you were to use the '18 elections then it failed.

Jesus. wrote: »

I think they would have too (voted for independence in a referendum) but if you take the 1918 election as a kind of referendum on independence then it was defeated.

You said by using the '18 election as a referendum it would've passed. It wouldn't have!

Did you even read it Quality? Or are you purposely trying to wind me up! :mad:

johnny_doyle

Qualitymark wrote: »

20,000 professional soldiers armed with 18-pounder guns, incendiary shells, machine guns and bombs.

the use of incendiary shells during the Rising is a myth unfortunately.

There were no high explosive or incendiary shells available to the gunners from Athlone and the Royal Navy ships brought into action were anti-submarine vessels which had no stocks of incendiary shells.

The British army experienced a shell scandal in 1915 which had a wide reaching effect on how and where munitions were manufactured. Supplies of high explosive (HE) shells for example were scarce until March 1916. HE shells were needed in huge numbers to destroy bunkers and earthworks as the trench systems became more established.

Large amounts of incendiary shells were not required and they certainly weren't needed in Ireland. That's not to say there weren't attempts with incendiary shells. The first use of Thermite by the British Army during WW1 was on 2nd July 1916 on the Somme. The 500 shells fired failed to set alight the woods they were fired into. A few trees caught fire but more work was required to make the shells more effective.


Shrapnel shells from 18 pounder artillery pieces deliver 375 "bullets" each and are capable of causing fires when used in an urban setting with combustible material available.


Much of the re-organisation of munition factories and processes was directed by American K B Quinan. Amongst those who helped Quinan was Irish scientist Frederick George Donnan.

Qualitymark

Jesus. wrote: »

Oh good Lord sweet Jesus!
Did you even read it Quality? Or are you purposely trying to wind me up! :mad:

I think I'll leave this discussion if it's going to become a squabble.

Jesus.

johnny_doyle wrote: »

the use of incendiary shells during the Rising is a myth unfortunately.

Sadist...

Peregrinus

Jesus. wrote: »

Oh good Lord sweet Jesus!

You answered my post where I specifically stated I thought a referendum would pass. However if you were to use the '18 elections then it failed.

No, it wouldn't.

Sin Fein won 47% of the votes cast. But we can't overlook the fact that in 25 seats (out of 105) there was no poll, since the Sinn Fein candidate was the only one nominated. These seats were Sinn Fein strongholds; in a referendum there would of course have been a poll there, and a very strong Sinn Fein vote. Plus, in a further four seats where there was a poll, there was no Sinn Fein candidate (because of a deal Sinn Fein did with the Irish Parliamentary party. So, in fact, if you are treating the 1918 election as a referendum with a vote for Sinn Fein being treated as a vote for independence, then in 29 out of 105 constitutencies a vote for indepenedence was not an option. But independence candidates still secured 47% of the votes cast.

There is little doubt that if Sinn Fein had run a candidate in every constituency, their total vote would have been in excess of 50%. And if you treat a vote for Sinn Fein as a vote for independence, that suggests that an independence referendum would certainly have been carried.

Peregrinus

johnny_doyle wrote: »

if you were born in Ireland before 1st January 1949 you were entitled to consider yourself British . . .

As far as UK law was concerned you were "a British subject", as was anybody born in any of the Dominions, colonies, etc.

johnny_doyle wrote: »

. . . and would have had no problems applying for a British passport.

Actually, that wasn't quite so straightforward.

The UK position on this in 1922 was that everyone born in any of the British dominions, colonies, etc was a British subject, and that this was fully evidenced by the issue of a passport by the government of the dominion, colony etc in which you were living. So Canadians, say, were British subjects, but they didn't get passports from the British government; they got passports from the Canadian government which identified them as British subjects.

The Irish Free State was, at the time, the only Commonwealth country to have its own citizenship. The UK took the view that Irish Free State citizenship was of no consequence outside the Free State; in the rest of the world (including in the UK) citizens of the IFS were "British subjects", just like Canadians, Australians, etc. The Irish Free State wasn't entirely comfortable with this, but they issued passports describing the holder as a "Citizen of the Irish Free State and of the British Commonwealth of Nations". The UK didn't issue passports to residents of the IFS any more than they did to Canadians, Australians, etc unless they had some closer connection to the UK - i.e. they had been born in Britain, and had later moved to the IFS, or they had been born in the IFS, but were now in the UK.

In 1948 the British view on citizenship changed. As well as being a "British subject", everybody was to have a Commonwealth Citizenship - Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, UK, etc. When they were planning this they already knew that Ireland would be declaring a republic and finally leaving the Commonwealth in 1949, so they didn't treat Irish citizenship as a Commonwealth citizenship.

They did include a measure which allowed certain Irish citizens to retain British subject status, if they applied to do so. To qualify, it wasn't enough that you were an Irish citizens who was a British subject before 1948 - you had to have some further link with the UK, such as having been born there or having a parent or grandparent born there, having served in the UK armed forces, etc. If you qualified, and if you applied, you could remain a "British subject without citizenship", but (a) you would not be a UK citizen, and (b) you could not pass on your British subject status to your descendants. Someone who successfully applied would be able to get a passport from the British government identifying them as a British subject without citizenship.

The effect of this was to deprive all Irish citizens of British subject status, and at the same time to allow many, but not all, of them to recover it on application, while excluding them from the new UK citizen status. This was a cock-up of major proportions, since it deprived much of the population of Northern Ireland of UK citizenship, which of course was not the intention. Further legislation was passed in 1949 to ensure that people connected with Northern Ireland would be UK citizens regardless of whether they held Irish citizenship or not.

The net result of all this is that:

Prior to 1948, everyone born in the 26 counties was regarded in British law as a British subject, but in most cases this didn't allow them to get a passport from the British government. The only evidence of their British subject status was their Irish passport.

Since 1948, all people born in the 26 counties before 1922 and some people born in the 26 counties between 1922 and 1948 have been British subjects, and can get a passport from the British government saying so. However they are not UK citizens.

From 1948 until 1981 UK citizens (along with Canadian citizens, Australian citizens, etc) were also British Subjects; "British Subject" was an umbrella term for people holding the citizenship of any Commonwealth country, and for groups (like the Irish people we are discussing here) who had a historic connection with the UK but who didn't hold any Commonwealth citizenship. But the British changed the law again in 1981 to make "British subject" a residual term for people who have some connection but don't hold any Commonwealth Citizenship. The result is that UK citizens (now called British Citizens) are not now British subjects.

Most of the world's remaining British subjects are Irish citizens who have retained the status under the 1948 arrangement. There are also a few people who acquired British subject without citizenship status on the independence of India in 1947. Necessarily, they are all at least 65 years old. As the status is not heritable it will disappear entirely in the next couple of decades.

gozunda

Coburger wrote: »

Hi,

When was the term The Easter Rising actually coined? Would it have been known as this during and immediately after it?

I know that many people in Dublin were against the violence in the street.

Coincidentally, does anyone know of a place to read up on the victory parade that was held down College Green for Irish soldiers who returned from fighting for the British Army in France. Were there any protests against this by people in Dublin?

Coburg

Interestingly and mistakingly - it was also referred to as the ' ‘Sinn Féin Rebellion'

http://theirishwar.com/organizations/sinn-fein/

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Irish Free State was, at the time, the only Commonwealth country to have its own citizenship.

Didn't this only come about with the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935?

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Didn't this only come about with the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935?

No. Art 3 of the 1922 Free State Constitution created the status of citizen and defined who was initially entitled to it, and the rest of the Constitution explicitly conferred a variety of rights and obligations on "citizens".

Jesus.

Peregrinus, will you PLEASE do me the courtesy of going back to my first post on the subject and read it before telling me a load of stuff I already know?

If that's too much trouble I'll repeat it again here: If a referendum was held I think it would've passedd. But IF one insists on using the 1918 election as a kind of referendum (which they shouldn't but somebody above me asked) then according to those results, it would have failed.

I don't know how many more times I have to make that clear :mad:

DecStone

Jesus. wrote: »

Peregrinus, will you PLEASE do me the courtesy of going back to my first post on the subject and read it before telling me a load of stuff I already know?

If that's too much trouble I'll repeat it again here: If a referendum was held I think it would've passedd. But IF one insists on using the 1918 election as a kind of referendum (which they shouldn't but somebody above me asked) then according to those results, it would have failed.

I don't know how many more times I have to make that clear :mad:

You are using a distorted figure to gauge Sinn Fein support in the 1918 elections.

The number of votes actually cast is not at all an indication of how successful Sinn Féin were in the overall 1918 election because it doesn't take into account that Sinn Féin won a further 25 seats without opposition. Their popularity was so great that no party even went up against them in those areas.

So the 46.9% - the figure that gets bandied around - only accounts for 48 seats that they won. Whereas in fact they won a total of 73 seats out of a total of 105.

ParsleyQueen

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

My father joined the British Army during the 2nd world war and on his army documents he was (still) entered as British, so he still considered himself as British in the 40's. This is a very interesting point and never mentioned or discussed or even considered by those who fought in 1916 or 1922. Makes me wonder now if there had been a Referendum to decide whether Ireland should remain British or become independent, what would the numbers have actually looked like. I believe though that the majority vote would have been for independence but it would have been interesting to know all the same.

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware that some Irish people considered themselves as British that far along. (Assuming he was in the South & not the North.)

Even Michael Collins noted that the proclamation of the republic was "in advance of national thought" at the time, and it took two years of propaganda for the idea to catch on more widely.

A referendum *would* have been interesting. The great tragedy is that the Home Rule effort was never seen through.