Was the Dáil Illegal and does it matter?

An Coilean · 13-10-2013 12:43pm #1

This discussion stems from an off topic argument in AH.

Essentially one poster claimed that SF had no mandate to set up the Dáil in 1919 and that doing so was illegal and I said that they did have a mandate to do so, and that Britain claiming that it was Illegal is irrelevant.

This is my last post from that thread:

Ya, but print media was king, and town hall meatings/public speaches were all the rage.

People were well aware of what SF were proposing to do, and they voted for them to do it. That is what a mandate is.

Since when have the Irish people been beholden to Britains laws except by consent or force of arms? Britain claimed that the Dáil was illigal, so what?

(Other poster was claiming that the electorate was ignorent of SF's election manefesto)

I would rather continue the discussion here rather than continue to drag that AH thread off topic.

An Coilean · 13-10-2013 12:48pm

Oh well, it seems the other poster has chickend out.

Mods feel free to lock the thread if you think its not worth discussion as a thread in its self.

TwoGallants · 13-10-2013 9:27pm

Ok, couple of things to point out here:

*Strictly speaking, the Dail was illegal in the sense that it violated British law. However, this is hardly an issue for a revolutionary organisation seeking independence from British control. In actual fact, the first Dail meeting had some DMP guarding the front door, as it was considered to be an assembly of elected MPs.

*The question of its legality is entirely moot as it was clearly a major part of the SF agenda and had been endorsed with the 1918 election.

*However, we shouldn't be complacent about how the electorate voted. Yes, SF had an electoral majority, they won a landslide (Though the electoral system concealed how diverse the national vote actually was, in raw numbers the IPP did quite well all things considered). However, many people voted SF due to their prominent role during the conscription crisis, I would suggest that much of SF's support at the election was soft and emotionally based. There wasn't much appetite for an armed struggle at this time. Read Dan Breen's memoirs (among others). When they murdered the policemen in Tipperary in 1919 Mulcahy and many other senior IRA leaders were furious, the national reaction was one of shock mostly. As an interesting footnote, Mulcahy actually wanted to ship Breen and Treacy off to America as he thought this was the wrong way to go about it.

**The fierce localism of the guerrilla conflict is a subject for another thread, I think

cormacocomhrai · 13-10-2013 10:22pm

The Dáil wasn't declared illegal until the autumn of 1919 when it was proscribed along with a number of republican and nationalist organisations including the Gaelic League.

An Coilean · 13-10-2013 10:24pm

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

The Dáil wasn't declared illegal until the autumn of 1919 when it was proscribed along with a number of republican and nationalist organisations including the Gaelic League.

I am well aware of this, unfortunatly it seems that the other poster would rather keep their ignorence intact rather than have them challenged with anything as inconvienent as facts.

TwoGallants · 13-10-2013 10:27pm

An Coilean wrote: »

I am well aware of this, unfortunatly it seems that the other poster would rather keep their ignorence intact rather than have them challenged with anything as inconvienent as facts.

Hmm... This is a history forum and it seems like you've created a thread to bash another user (no sign of him at this point). The revolutionary period is an interesting episode of Irish history, perhaps we can leave the thread open in order to explore it further rather than resort to tit for tat bickering.

Manach · 13-10-2013 10:27pm

There is a difference between illegal and immoral. The legality of it on paper was a non-running unless one goes down the vox-populi vox-dei jurisprudential theory - but at least they had democratic legitimacy. But starting a conflict which disrupted the lives of the populace and cost peoples lives when instead they could have fought the battles on the floor of Westminster, that was wrong.

An Coilean · 13-10-2013 10:36pm

TwoGallants wrote: »

Hmm... This is a history forum and it seems like you've created a thread to bash another user (no sign of him at this point). The revolutionary period is an interesting episode of Irish history, perhaps we can leave the thread open in order to explore it further rather than resort to tit for tat bickering.

There is a reason why I am specifically not mentioning their username.
I invited them to come over an discuss the topic when I started the thread but they declined, if others want to discuss the topic, great.

An Coilean · 13-10-2013 10:39pm

Manach wrote: »

There is a difference between illegal and immoral. The legality of it on paper was a non-running unless one goes down the vox-populi vox-dei jurisprudential theory - but at least they had democratic legitimacy. But starting a conflict which disrupted the lives of the populace and cost peoples lives when instead they could have fought the battles on the floor of Westminster, that was wrong.

Well in fairness they did'nt really start the battle, the British government decided to arrest wholesale elected members of the Dáil and declare the institution to be illigeal.

Yes SF refused to back down and fought a war for independance rather than allow the movement to be suppressed, but i don't see that as morally wrong.

TwoGallants · 13-10-2013 10:40pm

Leaving the morality of it aside, I'd like to explore the democratic legitimacy argument a little more. Sinn Fein and the IRA have long upheld 1918 as their unbroken mandate to create a free and independent 32 county Republic. They also argued for a long time that any subsequent jurisdiction/state that arose in the intervening years (on both sides of the border) was essentially illegitimate because it defied the stated wish of the Irish electorate in 1918. Dissident Republican groups still maintain this position to this day. However:

*If a majority of Irish people in the southern 26 counties voted for a Republican party that wanted an independent state, then why is it automatically invalid if the northern 6 voted for a Unionist party that wanted to remain as part of the UK? Why should the southern 26 determine the fate of the northern 6? I think its important to consider the relevance, if any, that county/regional borders should have on issues of sovereignty, and thus by extension, morality. (I'm well aware that not all of the six counties were uniformly Unionist, but for the sake of the argument lets just consider this for a moment)

*SF won 46.9% of the national vote in 1918, so the democratic legitimacy argument is by itself invalid. More votes were cast for parties other than SF.

*As stated elsewhere, the idea that every SF voter completely agreed with the SF platform is something of a myth. True, many people who voted for SF were genuine Republicans and were influenced greatly by the aftermath of 1916, but we should also consider the equally significant number who voted for pragmatic reasons (1917 conscription crisis) and/or those who were fed up with the IPP. One wonders what the result would have been had Labour actually participated in the election. (Many natural Labour voters having voted for SF as an act of solidarity for the role of Connolly et all in 1916 - one cannot assume that these people were of the Republican persuasion, just look at the numbers they got in 1922 and subsequent elections)

TwoGallants · 13-10-2013 10:41pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Well in fairness they did'nt really start the battle, the British government decided to arrest wholesale elected members of the Dáil and declare the institution to be illigeal.

Yes SF refused to back down and fought a war for independance rather than allow the movement to be suppressed, but i don't see that as morally wrong.

Thats not really how it happened. SF and the politicians were dragged in to a war they didn't want by regional actors who often acted autonomously. Of course, as time went on and things escalated they got on board, as did many otherwise apathetic Irish people.

cormacocomhrai · 14-10-2013 1:48pm

*SF won 46.9% of the national vote in 1918, so the democratic legitimacy argument is by itself invalid. More votes were cast for parties other than SF.

Not a valid argument in and of itself. The Sinn Féin popular vote would certainly have been over 50% if all constituencies had been contested. Off the top of my head ahout 23 weren't largely in areas where the IPP organisation had collapsed. It's quite common that governments would be elected with less than 50% of the popular both there mandate to act once in government isn't questioned. British Governments, for example, very rarely get 50% of the popular vote. None since the Second World War as far as I know.

That said you are spot on the a vote for Sinn Féin wasn't necessarily a vote either for war or for a republic. At the same time you would have had to have been extrememly naive not to consider the possibility of another uprising if you voted for a party that had become associated with the Easter Rising, whose leaders had allegedly been involved in a plot to import German arms and had large number of Easter Rising veterans among its candidates. Policemen had been attacked at that stage as well.

There was also strong support for republicanism among Labour party members. There was strong co-operation between SF and themselves during local elections, some IRA men were Labour Party rather than SF members. No way of knowing how extensive it was among their voters but there is no reason to assume that it was less that it was in the general population, for example .

cormacocomhrai · 14-10-2013 1:55pm

Manach wrote: »

There is a difference between illegal and immoral. The legality of it on paper was a non-running unless one goes down the vox-populi vox-dei jurisprudential theory - but at least they had democratic legitimacy. But starting a conflict which disrupted the lives of the populace and cost peoples lives when instead they could have fought the battles on the floor of Westminster, that was wrong.

There was no way that Westminster would ever have conceded a republic regardless of what the Irish people wanted or the arguments that could have been made there. A Generation or generations too soon for them.

goose2005 · 14-10-2013 2:20pm

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

There was no way that Westminster would ever have conceded a republic regardless of what the Irish people wanted or the arguments that could have been made there. A Generation or generations too soon for them.

No, but they might well have conceded Dominion status, like they did with their other white colonies

cormacocomhrai · 14-10-2013 6:29pm

goose2005 wrote: »

No, but they might well have conceded Dominion status, like they did with their other white colonies

But Dominion Status isn't what the revolutionaries were trying to achieve. They wanted a republic so attending a Westminster with a government dominated by the Conservatives was pointless.

You have also conceded that even Dominion Status might not have been conceded by the British government by phrasing it as "might well". If the British were amenable to dominion status (without a violent campaign) why not include it in the Government of Ireland Act?
Ireland was different to the other dominions in the way it was viewed. It had a strategic importance defensively for Britain and it was also part of the UK. Britain had come close to Civil War on the question of Ireland only a decade before.

Rebelheart · 14-10-2013 6:51pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Was the Dáil Illegal and does it matter?

Whose law? British colonial law over Ireland? Yes, totally illegal buíochas le Dia. Does it matter? Of course not, except in the sense that if Dáil Éireann weren't illegal under that imperialist legal system in our country any self-respecting Irish person would not have supported the First Dáil.

Rebelheart · 14-10-2013 7:00pm

Manach wrote: »

But starting a conflict which disrupted the lives of the populace and cost peoples lives when instead they could have fought the battles on the floor of Westminster, that was wrong.

Are you seriously contending that the Irish who rose up to fight back against British colonial rule in Ireland in 1919 "started" this?

So, all along, those tens of thousands of armed British soldiers, mercenaries and armed paramilitary police otherwise known as the RIC were not here to pose, and frequently carry out, a threat of violence to the native Irish who sought freedom? It's just when the native Irish rose up against that rule that violence "started"?

The problem with the Irish is that they inherently lack the culture of violence which the British possess. And that is unfortunate for the Irish, and fortunate for British colonial claims over the Irish people and Ireland. It takes some, well, "outlook" to portray the Irish as initiating this "violence".

Fratton Fred · 14-10-2013 7:05pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

The problem with the Irish is that they inherently lack the culture of violence which the British possess.

And what makes you say that?

Rebelheart · 14-10-2013 7:13pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And what makes you say that?

For starters, centuries of a very successful British Empire, which managed to use violence to secure more of the world than any people in recorded history before it, verses centuries of Irish people not having even their own country free from that same Empire. Yes, I do subscribe to that wild notion that exceptional violence rather than exceptional love-bombing via Interflora created the British Empire.

I'm also cognizant that historically the savagery of English/British warfare shocked the native Irish warriors, most infamously the scorched earth policies of Humphrey Gilbert, Richard and George Bingham and others. See research by Katherine Simms, among many others, for evidence for this cultural difference between the Irish and English towards rights in warfare.

Fratton Fred · 14-10-2013 7:24pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

For starters, centuries of a very successful British Empire, which managed to use violence to secure more of the world than any people in recorded history before it, verses centuries of Irish people not having even their own country free from that same Empire. Yes, I do subscribe to that wild notion that exceptional violence rather than exceptional love-bombing via Interflora created the British Empire.

I'm also cognizant that historically the savagery of English/British warfare shocked the native Irish warriors, most infamously the scorched earth policies of Humphrey Gilbert, Richard and George Bingham and others. See research by Katherine Simms, among many others, for evidence for this cultural difference between the Irish and English towards rights in warfare.

OK, I forgot, the Irish were mincing around writing poetry before the British came along.

Remind me, compared to the war of independence, were more or less people killed during the Irish civil war?

And why we're Irish soldiers so sought after in various armies around the world?

The Irish were no less violent, they were just less experienced in warfare, which was their downfall.

Manach · 14-10-2013 7:42pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

Are you seriously contending that the Irish who rose up to fight back against British colonial rule in Ireland in 1919 "started" this?

So in 1916, without any form of democratic mandate when the Rising took place was some how a non-violent act now? So long as some form of democratic dialogue was possible, which the Home Rule party was at that time was engaging in, then the violence was not justified in 1916 or 1919.

Rebelheart · 14-10-2013 7:55pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, I forgot, the Irish were mincing around writing poetry before the British came along.

For a proud nationalistic Englishman your understanding of the English language has much to be desired. To say that the British had/have a more violent culture than the Irish does not say the Irish were devoid of having a culture of violence. Clearly, making a claim that the British are culturally more violent than the Irish presupposes the existence of an Irish culture of violence. This shouldn't be that hard to understand. Your sarcasm has no place here.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Remind me, compared to the war of independence, were more or less people killed during the Irish civil war?

There are two ways I could answer this, the first being to point out that civil wars are invariably more violent than wars of independence. However, for your purposes, we can point out that the nice Free Staters were fully supported by the British state financially and militarily in their suppression of the Irish who continued to resist. And, indeed, there is substantial evidence that Collins was forced to start the civil war in the Four Courts in June 1922 because the British threatened to return if he did not start suppressing Irish revolutionaries on behalf of the British.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And why we're Irish soldiers so sought after in various armies around the world?

This is a myth if you're implying that they had greater skill than other Europeans. If, however, you're saying that the conquered, self-esteem crushed, Irish offered cheap cannonfodder to armies then you could be reaching the truth - although don't forget that Irish Catholics were not allowed into the British Army until the latter half of the 18th century, and then only because the "undertakers" in Ireland were not able to recruit enough Protestants. The way some people go on you'd swear this anti-Irish sectarian reality never existed, not to mention that the leadership of the British Army in Ireland as late as December 1922 was solidly Protestant, unionist and anti-Irish (so much so that in 1914 they mutinied against their own Parliament).

Rebelheart · 14-10-2013 8:07pm

Manach wrote: »

So in 1916, without any form of democratic mandate when the Rising took place was some how a non-violent act now?

Show me the "democratic mandate" for British rule in Ireland and then we'll continue this. I'm looking for precise details: when did the Irish people give moral legitimacy to the British and their colonialists to misgovern them and Ireland?

My understanding is that the British killed more native Irish people than Irish people killed British colonialists and that is the basis of British rule in this country. I'd be delighted to know about some other non-violent version of how British rule became established in Ireland. "Peace" after the violent overthrow/when the colonialist has got what he wants does not a democracy make.

An Coilean · 14-10-2013 8:59pm

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

There was no way that Westminster would ever have conceded a republic regardless of what the Irish people wanted or the arguments that could have been made there. A Generation or generations too soon for them.

I think you will find people will do quite a lot of things with a gun to their head, in this case the gun being pressure from both the international community and British public opinion.
As the war dragged on into 1921 the British army leadership were becoming more and more concerned that they would not be able to defeat the IRA in the field, and were beginning to struggle to maintain the troop presence in Ireland.

The story that the IRA was all but spent by the time of the truce is nothing more than a myth, at the time of the truce the IRA was had never been stronger and plans to extend the fighting into previously inactive areas were well advanced.
The British government would never have conceeded a Republic willingly, but as the war progressed it was becoming ever more unrealistic that they would have been able to prevent it.

pedroeibar1 · 14-10-2013 11:01pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

The problem with the Irish is that they inherently lack the culture of violence which the British possess.

That is a very inaccurate statement. Not that I am surprised by it, following the usual biased poppycock you write. I've yet to find details of faction fighting in Moreton-in-the-Marsh, Little Sodbury, etc. Whereas, in Tipperary its denizens were known as the 'stonethrowers', the level of violent crime in 19th century Limerick was almost equal to the the total for the rest of the country. Even in comparitively 'peaceful' Cork, Francis G Tucky's "The City and County of Cork Remembered" we read
AD 1769
March 5.- Sunday, there was a desperate battle at Parkmore ...... between the rabble of Fair Lane .......and Blackpool.
1772
March 8.- ......... The evening of the same day, to use the words of the newspaper, was concluded in a most pious and devout manner by the warlike sons and daughters of Fair Lane and Blackpool, who met in a long field near Fair hill and fought with one another till night came on. The females were armed plentifully with stones, and the male combatants according to the Chewkee custom, with tomahawks of a new construction, which were about four feet long, and so dexterously contrived, having a hook and spear at the end, that any who missed grappling were sure to stab with the sharp end.
April 5.- The Fair lane and Blarney lane combatants met at Parkmore, according to weekly custom, and after an engagement of some hours, one Kelly received a stab from a tomahawk by which he was instantly killed, and many on both sides were wounded.
May 1.- Two men were killed in a riot between the same people, who renewed the fight after the internment of the deceased men on Sunday the 3d: on the following day they were going to hang a Blackpool man, when he was rescued by the army.
1773
Sept. 30.- For several nights a strong party of the military did duty at the city gaol, in consequence of a report having been circulated that two women who had been sentenced to be hanged and burnt for the murder of a butcher in a Fair-lane riot, intended to make their escape, assisted by the Fair-lane mob, which it was said, intended to make an attack on the gaol for that purpose.
1775
May 20.- Between twelve and one o clock this night John and David Nagle, of Fair-lane, and the wife of the latter, attacked Daniel Sullivan, a butcher, who lived in the same house with them, and so barbarously cut and mangled him that he died on the spot.

You need to look through spectacles that are less coloured.:rolleyes:

dubhthach · 15-10-2013 3:12pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

The problem with the Irish is that they inherently lack the culture of violence which the British possess. And that is unfortunate for the Irish, and fortunate for British colonial claims over the Irish people and Ireland. It takes some, well, "outlook" to portray the Irish as initiating this "violence".

You obviously haven't read much about the period 600-1200 let alone the period of "Gaelic Reconquista" up until the the rise of the Tudor's.

Rebelheart · 15-10-2013 6:23pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

...

dubhthach wrote: »

You obviously haven't read much about the period 600-1200 let alone the period of "Gaelic Reconquista" up until the the rise of the Tudor's.

I've read plenty. Please start citing if you both are contending that the Irish did/do not "inherently lack the culture of violence which the British possess." Read that initial sentence again and come back to us, because it's clear you don't understand that initial claim here yet.

I've already referenced the works of Katherine Simms. The surprising (or not, given your posts to date) thing here is that you both are contending that the Irish culture of violence was as developed as the English/British culture of violence. To hold such an extraordinary view, you clearly have missed large sections of Irish history, including the Battle of Kinsale, 1798 and much, much else.

Rebelheart · 15-10-2013 6:29pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That is a very inaccurate statement. Not that I am surprised by it, following the usual biased poppycock you write.

From somebody with such an extraordinary number of corrections by other users to your "historical" claims on this website - and a bizarre and explicit chip on your shoulder about your own ethnic background in Ireland - I can only take that as a compliment.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I've yet to find details of faction fighting in Moreton-in-the-Marsh, Little Sodbury, etc. Whereas, in Tipperary its denizens were known as the 'stonethrowers', the level of violent crime in 19th century Limerick...

Indeed. Why throw stones in England when you could join the British Army and kill all the inferior savages and become a hero for doing so. No doubt, you deny the role of the British military in channeling violence within Britain upon an external "enemy". Moreover, your entire post is a non-sequitur as you clearly don't understand my point and the very clear English in which it was expressed. I'll go slowly: "inherently lack the culture of violence which the British possess." All that hot air, yet so little understanding of the nuances of basic English.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You need to look through spectacles that are less coloured.:rolleyes:

Again, given your quite distinctive prejudices (in an Irish context) to date, I'll take this as a compliment. Seriously.

Ipso · 15-10-2013 6:31pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And what makes you say that?

Ireland is different (I know people said it about the economy but this time it's fo real).

goose2005 · 15-10-2013 10:51pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

Are you seriously contending that the Irish who rose up to fight back against British colonial rule in Ireland in 1919 "started" this?

So, all along, those tens of thousands of armed British soldiers, mercenaries and armed paramilitary police otherwise known as the RIC were not here to pose, and frequently carry out, a threat of violence to the native Irish who sought freedom? It's just when the native Irish rose up against that rule that violence "started"?

It's rather simplistic to paint it as Brits v Native. Almost all of the RIC were Irishmen. Many of the soldiers were as well, and even some of the Black and Tans.

The problem with the Irish is that they inherently lack the culture of violence which the British possess.

Odd then that the British empire recruited so many Irish soldiers to wear the butchers apron in their murderous fascist criminal racist thieving slaving blah blah blah..

TwoGallants · 15-10-2013 11:08pm

goose2005 wrote: »

Odd then that the British empire recruited so many Irish soldiers to wear the butchers apron in their murderous fascist criminal racist thieving slaving blah blah blah..

I also found his claim a little bizarre. For example:

Wikipedia wrote:

Irish volunteers formed the backbone of recruitment to the British Army for more than two centuries until Irish independence. At one point during the 19th century 42 percent of soldiers in the British Army were Irish born, which meant there were more Irish soldiers in the army than English. Levels would remain high, although recruitment steadily dropped from the period of the Irish Famine until 1900, but the Irish would remain over represented compared to the size of the population. At the turn of the 20th Century numbers of Irish volunteers reduced, as the criticism by nationalists of recruitment to the army grew. Over 28,000 Irishmen served in the army during the Second Boer War, but by 1910 recruitment levels had fallen to 9 percent and for the first time were below Ireland's share of the UK population. During World War I about 6 percent (65,000) of the army were Irish recruits and were encouraged by the leaders of Ireland to rally to the cause of the allies; recruits were known as National Volunteers. Post-independence during World War II over 70,000 were recruited from the Irish Free State.[39] The importance of the Irish in the British Army was summed up by Rudyard Kipling, who lost his son, Lt John Kipling of the Irish Guards, in World War I,
“For where there are Irish there’s bound to be fighting, And when there’s no fighting it’s Ireland no more.”[40]

Not an ideal source I'd agree, but it was a well recognised fact that for the majority of the history of the British Empire, particularly in the 19th century, Irishmen provided a vastly disproportional number of soldiers to the British army. Irish people are no more or less violent than British people, we were just a small country that had the misfortune to be beside a larger one. Some people need to grow up.

Was the Dáil Illegal and does it matter?

Comments