John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

irishfeen · 05-08-2014 10:59PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which would, of course, have been utterly reprehensible of them. Using violence to fight for a political end? Don't they know that that's only acceptable behaviour from one side?

You see you have to balance it out with democracy - the unionist population (mainly in Ulster) armed themselves and kept the country to ransom albeit being a small minority. The signing of the Ulster Covenant in 1912 drove the IRA/nationalists to arm themselves in perpetration for a possible Irish civil war, of course the London government actively tried to prevent arms reaching nationalists while turning a blind eye to unionists for the main.

Manach · 05-08-2014 11:09PM

My own 2c on the Easter Rising violence, whilst the meme of Ireland's opportunity during England's difficulty has a historical precedent, I would state that in a vast majority of historical cases, violence is never justified. It was certainly not in this case. Given the then parliamentary make-up of Redmondite Home Rule party, it had the legitimate and democratic support of a majority of people. So while (IMHO) there never would have been anything near independence being achieved, the rising was not justified because the Irish people had a voice in the political metreopole with its alliance with the Liberal Party.

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 11:18PM

Good loser wrote: »

I think Bruton is basically correct.

If the Irish had simply adopted the position that they wanted an independent country and absolutely refused to accept anything less than a 32-county free state (probably dominion status) eventually it would have been conceded without a drop of blood being shed.

'simply'.....interesting

So you are with the anti-Treaty side on this? Hold out for 32 county of nothing. Have you anything to back this up with?

The Unionists were already positioning themselves for a fight and the Government of Ireland Act 1920 already divided the county up and then was replaced by the Treaty. The country was already partitioned by the time negotiations came along.[/QUOTE]

Good loser wrote: »

The momentum created by the ridiculous 1916 rebellion precluded this ever happening.

Any chance of an elaboration?

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 11:19PM

I have no issue with people expressing the opinion that things could would have been different if the 1916 Rising had not taken place. That is unquestionable.

Essentially what Burton is saying is 'Ireland was going to achieve independence anyway so there really no need for the 1916 Rising.' Personally I am not sure where this confidence is coming from. That is pure conjecture and always will be. It is not based on fact or evidence whatsoever.

I have never heard that the British were just about to grant full independence to a united Ireland but for the 1916 Rising. The British did everything to stop it- from their initial response to the WofI.

If the British were such a reasonable bunch of chaps then why didnt they just grant full independence in 1918 after the elections and spare the subsequent bloodshed?

The words 'eventually' and 'without bloodshed' has been used. Why did the British wait? Were they slow learners? Give their egos a little time to get used to the idea perhaps?

Holding up some hypothetical 'if only' scenario with full 32 county independence as a fait accompli only for the 1916 Rising is just not tenable and not borne out by any credible evidence from that period. Criticise the Rising all you want but suggesting a fait accompli a la Bruton is dangerous revisionism.

Like it or not, the 1916 Rising gave rise to the birth of this nation as we know it and something that demands sombre, mature and dignified reflection.

Not everyone will like it. I respect that but it's also terribly sad.

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 11:40PM

Manach wrote: »

My own 2c on the Easter Rising violence, whilst the meme of Ireland's opportunity during England's difficulty has a historical precedent, I would state that in a vast majority of historical cases, violence is never justified. It was certainly not in this case. Given the then parliamentary make-up of Redmondite Home Rule party, it had the legitimate and democratic support of a majority of people. So while (IMHO) there never would have been anything near independence being achieved, the rising was not justified because the Irish people had a voice in the political metreopole with its alliance with the Liberal Party.

Let's not forget that the bunch of unelected warmongers started the Rising went on to win landslide elections in 1918 once the Irish electorate decided that a voice in the politicial metropole was not enough anymore and they could force the issue another way...

If the opposition was more than happy to send thousands of it's men to certain death on an imperial jolly then taking up arms wass probably the best and only way to get their attention. They were probably right.

Regretably, violence gets results in certain situations.

irishfeen · 05-08-2014 11:48PM

It really is amazing how many "what ifs?" pop up during the struggle for Irish independence ... What if the leaders had not been shot? .. What if Collins rejected the treaty? .. What if the Dáil rejected the treaty? What if Collins had survived? What would Collins have done about the 6 counties? What if a more moderate Taoiseach was in place and offered the ports to the UK during WW2?... What if DeValera had listened to the "nation once again" proposal from Churchill etc. ... The amount of what ifs is ridiculous, you would wonder how we got this far at all

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 11:55PM

Oh just another thought on the ol' 32 county independence/no bloodshed that was apparantly a fait accompli...

Why didnt the British allow the Treaty party go back to Dublin and discuss the matter?

Or allow the Treaty to be put to a 32 county national vote?

Perhaps because that would have certainly meant 'Bye Bye' to the North and they were not going to let that happen.

So the notion that political means would have brought a 32 county independent nation (only for the Rising) does not hold water. Plus, the India's and Australia's did not have the Ulster 'problem' and also being so close was another curse. It was easy to mobilise troops into Ireland.

Manach · 05-08-2014 11:56PM

Which obscures the fact they did as you said were unelected and thus had no legitimate authority or justification for the 1916 rising. Those that had joined the British forces in were ones you had made a free choice and volunteered, as part of a attempt to perserve some measure of balance on the continent and the long traditional of serving in the British army. Constant repetitive cries of imperialism seems to be based of the hand-waving sock-puppet variety of historical analysis than one taking account all the historical forces in play in Europe at that time.

K-9 · 05-08-2014 11:56PM

I can't see why people would have had faith in the Liberals delivering HR. Gladstone got criticised for taking it on in the first place, often described as his last folly, a criticism of him as a politician and an expression of what would now be seen as racism against the Irish. Its a bit like arguing people should have stuck by the Nationalist party in 1968 N.I, they got crumbs from Terence O'Neill but within months things moved swiftly!

K-9 · 06-08-2014 12:08AM

The vote was only extended to men under 30 in 1918 so it's very debatable what affect Irish men volunteering would have had at the ballot box. HR really was obliterated in that election, the results are just too remarkable a turnaround to ignore. Also Redmond always refused conscription as an option, no matter what offer was given, probably delayed their obliteration by a few years.

RED L4 0TH · 06-08-2014 12:13AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...but if it's possible to speed up political change by killing people, then (apparently) that's an acceptable price to pay.

Is it also possible to defend political change promised (i.e. Home Rule), by killing people and consider it an acceptable price to pay, since the real outcome of John Redmond's Woodenbridge speech in September 1914, was that he was encouraging Irish men to go off to Europe to kill German soldiers in 'defense of Ireland'?

partyguinness · 06-08-2014 12:23AM

Manach wrote: »

Which obscures the fact they did as you said were unelected and thus had no legitimate authority or justification for the 1916 rising.

No legitimate authority or justifcation to take up arms against an imperial occupying power that had never derived any legitimate authority from the whole of the Irish people to colonise the island over hundreds of years. I guess that two wrongs don't make a right then.

Manach wrote: »

Those that had joined the British forces in were ones you had made a free choice and volunteered

They were paid. One could legitimately call them paid mercenaries. Those who took part in the Rising were not paid. No doubt they joined for many different reasons.

Manach wrote: »

as part of a attempt to perserve some measure of balance on the continent and the long traditional of serving in the British army. Constant repetitive cries of imperialism seems to be based of the hand-waving sock-puppet variety of historical analysis than one taking account all the historical forces in play in Europe at that time.

That's exactly what it was. A slug fest to see who was going to be the top dog in Europe. It was naked imperialism pure and simple. Now if you can tell me what exactly it was all about and what noble and worthwhile cause they were fighting for then I will stand and applaud you.

Please do not say it was to protect poor old Belgium. Anyone who believes that will just about believe anything and clearly has not read the topic in depth.

As a respected British historian put it rhethorically: If France had invaded Belgium, would the UK have started war on France?

Sorry slight digression.

partyguinness · 06-08-2014 12:26AM

K-9 wrote: »

The vote was only extended to men under 30 in 1918 so it's very debatable what affect Irish men volunteering would have had at the ballot box. HR really was obliterated in that election, the results are just too remarkable a turnaround to ignore. Also Redmond always refused conscription as an option, no matter what offer was given, probably delayed their obliteration by a few years.

The critics of the Rising like to skip over that little nugget. Doesnt fit well with the 'lack of mandate/no legitimate authority' brigade...;)

partyguinness · 06-08-2014 12:39AM

irishfeen wrote: »

I worked on a little project on the last general elections in both Ireland and N.Ireland - if similar results were seen on an all-Ireland ballot ironically the DUP could hold massive balance of power as a minority party in a Dublin government because they would have a healthy number of TD's from the Unionist vote and even more ironically they would have more power if they went into a Dublin coalition government then they have had since direct rule was imposed on the north (1972).

Very interesting.

irishfeen wrote: »

I would have no problem allowing their culture to flourish in a UI, once its peaceful and lawful they should have every right to.

Same here. Hell I'd even take the 12th July as a bank holiday.

irishfeen wrote: »

I also would also have no problem in re-joining the commonwealth in a UI,

Ohhh...not so sure about that.

LordSutch · 06-08-2014 12:54AM

irishfeen wrote: »

Because of their sacrifice we were born into a fully democratic political entity, you have to remember only 2-3 generations have passed since the creation of this state - most of our grandparents including my own were born into an occupied Ireland ruled from London with an iron fist, they were taxpaying pawns to an empire. Those who fought for our independence should be thanked every single day.

Starting with your last sentence, I say thanked for what exactly? Fifteen years of not being a Priest ridden, mono cultural, European banana Republic? (Bob Geldof) because I'm sorry to say that that's what we were for most of those years after we were given our independence . . .

Of course now in the 21st century we are aglow in a post Celtic Tiger climate, and recent memories are good, we have all the main UK High Street shops, and we have a good multi national world class economy, which just wasn't there pre Celtic tiger Ireland!

I doubt that those poor misguided people who started the rising even gave a thought to our economic well being in the following decades, as they wrought havoc on that fateful Easter in 1916.

Ireland is great, and she 'Now' functions perfectly well as an independent economically vibrant state, but it took many decades of pain and hardship to get to where we would have got to anyway (without all that division, death, hatred, & theatrics), so I don't see why we should thank those fellas every single day (as you say above), I just don't see it at all.

I say that we should have had a harmonious and gradual disengagement from the UK (if that's what we wanted), while keeping friendly and cordial terms with London, Washington & Belfast, becuse then we could have steered the country on a much brighter and steadier course through those first four or five self inflicted backward and miserable decades.

The Easter rising was indeed unnecessary.

partyguinness · 06-08-2014 01:20AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Starting with your last sentence, I say thanked for what exactly? Fifteen years of not being a Priest ridden, mono cultural, European banana Republic? (Bob Geldof) because I'm sorry to say that that's what we were for most of those years after we were given our independence . . .

Just like after the famine (to snatch control of schools and hospitals), the good ol Catholic Church swooped in when Ireland was at it's weakest to position themselves nice and snugly at the top table.

An often overlooked point was the incompatibilty of 1916 Republicanism and the Catholic Church. It is highly likely that had the signatories survived to fulfiull their goals would have clashed head on with the Church. They were essentially socialist and secularists. 'If' they had survived into a 26 county state, the RC would not have been tolerated in the same manner the Free Staters/Pro Treaty brigade and then FF/DeV allowed. Interestingly, well off middle class Catholics were very anti republican and of course Mr Burton's forefathers. They also colluded with the Black and Tans during the WofI.

Well though, at least we only have ourselves to blame for the protectionist banana republic....;)

LordSutch wrote: »

Of course now in the 21st century we are aglow in a post Celtic Tiger climate, and recent memories are good, we have all the main UK High Street shops, and we have a good multi national world class economy, which just wasn't there pre Celtic tiger Ireland!

That's globalistion for you. Got to take the good with the bad.

LordSutch wrote: »

I doubt that those poor misguided people who started the rising even gave a thought to our economic well being in the following decades, as they wrought havoc on that fateful Easter in 1916.

Ah well you can't really go around blaming them for everything...we have been in charge of our own economic destiny for many decades so I would be more inclined to blame the muppets that came afterwards rather than the executed signatories.

LordSutch wrote: »

Ireland is great, and she 'Now' functions perfectly well as an independent economically vibrant state, but it took many decades of pain and hardship to get to where we would have got to anyway (without all that division, death, hatred, & theatrics), so I don't see why we should thank those fellas every single day (as you say above), I just don't see it at all.

Conjecture.

LordSutch wrote: »

I say that we should have had a harmonious and gradual disengagement from the UK (if that's what we wanted), while keeping friendly and cordial terms with London, Washington & Belfast, becuse then we could have steered the country on a much brighter and steadier course through those first four or five self inflicted backward and miserable decades.

The Easter rising was indeed unnecessary.

20/20 hindsight vision laced with 'if's 'but's' 'shoulds' and if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

steddyeddy · 06-08-2014 01:43AM

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t think either party was reasonable. That’s kind of my point.
So peaceful protest has never, ever brought about change?

The point in bold is conducive to war is it not?

Peaceful protest achieved much but I'll say so what? Are we to not to celebrate anything that might have been averted by peaceful means?

Here's the thing, we don't know what could have been averted by peaceful means. Any war in history could have been averted by peaceful means for all we know. I had the pleasure of celebrating Nelson Mandela day in Africa last year. Should I not have celebrated it because the end of apartheid could have been achieved without a bombing campaign?

steddyeddy · 06-08-2014 01:52AM

I actually fail to see John's point. We shouldn't celebrate something because it could have (we don't know for certain) differently. Is that it? Surely a celebration means more than that. The war of independence and 1916 rising happened. We have a long history of conflict in this country as has every other former colony of some colonial power. The fact is we can't say it was unnecessary because we are here as a result of it. Who knows where we would be without it.

DarkyHughes · 06-08-2014 04:38AM

Just stupid comments to make. Should the US not celebrate the 4th of July because the UK "might" have at a later stage (a very later stage) given independence to the 13 colonies? It happened & so did 1916 get over it.

DarkyHughes · 06-08-2014 04:41AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

. Who knows where we would be without it.

We'd probably have two Home Rule parliaments one in Belfast & one in Dublin. Partition was on the table well before 1916.

Frank Lee Midere · 06-08-2014 04:42AM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Just stupid comments to make. Should the US not celebrate the 4th of July because the UK "might" have at a later stage (a very later stage) given independence to the 13 colonies? It happened & so did 1916 get over it.

And of course the uprising against Britain was violent there as it was most everywhere else. Only we get hung up on it.

DarkyHughes · 06-08-2014 04:46AM

LordSutch wrote: »

I say that we should have had a harmonious and gradual disengagement from the UK (if that's what we wanted), while keeping friendly and cordial terms with London, Washington & Belfast, becuse then we could have steered the country on a much brighter and steadier course through those first four or five self inflicted backward and miserable decades.

.

Friendly with Belfast? I don't think Belfast liked us too much in 1912 when they were creating a militia to fight us.

Reekwind · 06-08-2014 07:28AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So independence was inevitable, but violence was necessary to bring it about. How... internally consistent of you.

I fail to see the contradiction.

National independence was inevitable precisely because (as became unavoidably apparent in the 1910s) there was no will in Ireland to be ruled by London. This unavoidable issue was going to come to a boil sooner or later. What was not predetermined was Britain's response to this aspiration to nationhood: historically London was happy to use repressive measures to delay/prevent this inevitability.

In 1916 violence proved 'necessary' because Westminster had been faffing about for three decades without getting anywhere (and didn't look to be about to make any breakthrough). What I have challenged you and others to do is produce a counterfactual in which the 'inevitable' independence does not require violence.

LordSutch wrote:

I say that we should have had a harmonious and gradual disengagement from the UK (if that's what we wanted), while keeping friendly and cordial terms with London, Washington & Belfast, becuse then we could have steered the country on a much brighter and steadier course through those first four or five self inflicted backward and miserable decades.

And the five decades of British rule prior to Independence had been just fabulous :rolleyes:

irishfeen · 06-08-2014 09:52AM

partyguinness wrote: »

Same here. Hell I'd even take the 12th July as a bank holiday.

Ohhh...not so sure about that.

Again I would have no problem having the 12th as a national holiday alongside Patricks Day (even with today's border on place). We have to remember unionists had/have every right to share this island.

I understand that some might be unsure in Ireland re-joining the commonwealth in a UI but we could remain a full independent republic inside it. We should also face up to the fact that we have for the vast majority of our modern history been part of the British Empire - we are now a proud independent republic but in the case of a UI we would be welcoming about half a million unionists into a Dublin government... We would have a duty to respect their tradition and links to Britain.

oscarBravo · 06-08-2014 10:00AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I had the pleasure of celebrating Nelson Mandela day in Africa last year. Should I not have celebrated it because the end of apartheid could have been achieved without a bombing campaign?

Hang on - are you claiming that Nelson Mandela day is a celebration of violent conflict?

Because that's what 1916 commemorations are. I wouldn't mind so much if they were used as an opportunity to reflect on the mistakes of our past, but they're not: they're a celebration of the fact that a small handful of people took it upon themselves to start a war; celebrations premised on the same assumptions repeated ad nauseam here - that independence could only ever have been achieved through violence.

As an aside, it's been fascinating to contrast the reaction of some here to the idea that independence could have been achieved peacefully ("how can you know that? you can't know what would have happened") versus their blithe acceptance of confident alternative history predictions from those who share their views. There have been many, many "would have" statements of fact made by those who assert that violence was necessary, with very little "how can you know that?" in response.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact is we can't say it was unnecessary because we are here as a result of it.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

Who knows where we would be without it.

Read back through the thread. You'll find no shortage of people who are willing to state as incontrovertible fact that we would still be part of the United Kingdom. Strangely, nobody has asked them to "produce a counterfactual" to prove this assertion.

Reekwind wrote: »

I fail to see the contradiction.

Try harder. If something is inevitable, then it can't be prevented. The idea that it is necessary to take a particular course of action in order to bring about an inevitability is a contradiction in terms.

In 1916 violence proved 'necessary' because Westminster had been faffing about for three decades without getting anywhere (and didn't look to be about to make any breakthrough).

Thank goodness there's nobody still using that logic to justify violence today. Oh wait.

With the clarity of hindsight, it's possible to divide those who view violence in the name of Irish republicanism into three groups: those who don't believe it was ever necessary or justified; those who believe it was justified in the past, but not now; and those who believe that it always has been and always will be justified. The middle group seems to form the vast majority (with varying lines drawn in the past), but the first and last at least demonstrate consistency.

What's perhaps more interesting is that, at almost any given moment, the number of people who agree with violence to achieve political aims now is in the minority. We seem to feel that it's OK to celebrate violence once it's comfortably in the past, but to decry it in the present - the "this time it's different" syndrome.

I'm pretty confident that (like the vast majority of my compatriots) I would have been opposed to the 1916 rising at the time it happened. I know I was opposed to republican violence throughout the 1970s and '80s. And I remain vehemently opposed to it now. I can't wrap my head around the idea that it was OK to kill people in order to achieve a political goal in 1916, but that it's not OK to do it now. That makes no sense to me.

Sierra Oscar · 06-08-2014 10:08AM

Good loser wrote: »

I think Bruton is basically correct.

If the Irish had simply adopted the position that they wanted an independent country and absolutely refused to accept anything less than a 32-county free state (probably dominion status) eventually it would have been conceded without a drop of blood being shed. The result would have been an exodus of Unionists from the North probably to Scotland and the colonies.

What, seriously? What about the fact that the unionist population was rapidly arming itself and preparing for a war should Home Rule be imposed on them? How can you seriously say that not a drop of blood would have been shed and that the unionist community would have just left? The Troubles for starters demonstrated that the unionist community would not just abandon their communities. It reads like revisionism to me.

EDIT: Also just to point out that Redmond himself did not exactly have a democratic mandate considering vast swathes of the population weren't even entitled to vote. Also Redmond himself was not as much of a pacifist as revisionists try to make out he was - he encouraged tens of thousands of Irish people to march to their deaths in WW1.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wouldn't mind so much if they were used as an opportunity to reflect on the mistakes of our past, but they're not

Agreed that we as a nation could have been more balanced down through the years with our reflection, but that is a common phenomenon with post revolution / political upheaval commemoration. It certainly is not just an Irish thing. At least we are able to have a reasoned debate on it now though, and I think the signs so far have been that there will be a lively debate in the run up to the 2016 commemorations.

Reekwind · 06-08-2014 11:42AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Try harder. If something is inevitable, then it can't be prevented

Which is the flaw in your logic right there. Just because something is inevitable doesn't mean that it can't be resisted. British resistance (whether parliamentary or repressive) to the realisation of Irish independence was always there to be overcome. There was nothing inevitable about the means by which independence was achieved and this resistance overcome.

It's also grossly simplistic to conflate inevitability with fatalism. Irish independence was inevitable precisely because the aspiration to national self-determination manifested itself in a nationalist movement that agitated for that. The forces that made independence inevitable also produced people willing to take up arms when other avenues looked closed.

I'm pretty confident that (like the vast majority of my compatriots) I would have been opposed to the 1916 rising at the time it happened.

You're British? Because the idea that the "vast majority" of Irish people were anti-Rising is primary school history.

I can't wrap my head around the idea that it was OK to kill people in order to achieve a political goal in 1916, but that it's not OK to do it now. That makes no sense to me.

The obvious answer is obvious: the legitimacy of actions is not dependant on the use of violence. There's really nothing difficult about that.

Otherwise you'd have to argue that the Americans shouldn't have rebelled against George III and that France should still have a king. In the case of Ireland, legitimacy was granted by popular endorsement and subsequent independence.

What I do find strange though is those people who see the word 'violent' and stop thinking, as if the very use of violence automatically invalidates any cause. Which is, to my mind, just petty legalism. Not only is it deeply anachronistic but it doesn't account for the violence employed by state authorities to enforce their rule in the first place.

Muahahaha · 06-08-2014 01:24PM

Does anyone else think that there is a fear in Fine Gael of the rise of Sinn Fein (latest poll FG 25% vs. SF 24%) and this outburst by John Bruton is part of a FineGael strategy over the next two years to try to sell the idea to the Irish public that we didn't need the 1916 Rising at all and that there was always a non-violent solution?

Perhaps there is a fear within FG that if the country goes all out to celebrate the fallen of 1916 then in effect the State is endorsing the use of violence to achieve a political goal. If that is the message that is being sent then it makes it more difficult to argue against SF/IRA activity in the north, after all a non violent political solution didn't seem likely in 1969 either and certainly was never likely after almost 1800 Catholic men had been arrested without charge, imprisoned and tortured during the internment policy run from London.

I'm getting a feeling on a certain level that FG are very wary over the next few years at how the 100 year anniversaries are celebrated and, more importantly, recounted in the public memory. What we could be in for here is a 2-3 year propaganda war over the merits of 1916 and John Bruton has just fired the first shot across the bows.

Sierra Oscar · 06-08-2014 01:37PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Does anyone else think that there is a fear in Fine Gael of the rise of Sinn Fein (latest poll FG 25% vs. SF 24%) and this outburst by John Bruton is part of a FineGael strategy over the next two years to try to sell the idea to the Irish public that we didn't need the 1916 Rising at all and that there was always a non-violent solution.

No I don't think it is part of any FG strategy. These views have been held by John Bruton for a very long time - long before Sinn Féin were even on the map electorally in recent times in the south. He has expressed similar sentiments over the last few decades.

RED L4 0TH · 06-08-2014 01:51PM

Interesting riposte by Eamonn McCann in today's Irish Times to John Bruton.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/revisiting-the-rising-what-home-rule-couldn-t-have-achieved-1.1888311

John Redmond's call to engage in violence in 'defense of Ireland' cost many more Irish lives than the Easter Rising and subsequent events did.

EDIT: whoops, by Eamonn O Cuiv, not McCann as pointed out by Nodin below.

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments