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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Irish support to remain part of UK in early 20th Century

124»

Comments

  • #92
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Not sure I understand your attack on DP Moran here, can you expand?





    There seems to be some confusion here, Ireland completely broke away from the Commonwealth in the 50s, and it was CnG that did it.

    Dp Moran was acknowledged as a very narrow minded sectarain Irish man. The Gaelic league brought people of all classes and creds to the union. DP Moran then started shouting and publishing that only Catholics were really Irish. It helped alienate whatever members of the Protestant faith from the group.

    With regard to Cumann na nGael, although they tried to re-assess the Treaty via the Imperial Conferences, they accepted the status quo.Cosgrave felt bound by it. They were seen by the public as the Treaty/Commonwealth party. That comment is in now way trying to say anything derrogatory,or make them any less an Irish person, its simply thats the way it was. Now now, Brian, you very well know that it was Fine Gael that declared the Republic;)


  • #93
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Dp Moran was acknowledged as a very narrow minded sectarain Irish man. The Gaelic league brought people of all classes and creds to the union. DP Moran then started shouting and publishing that only Catholics were really Irish. It helped alienate whatever members of the Protestant faith from the group.

    I don't think he said that at all, he often criticised catholic people for being too west british, his criticism was not for protestantism itself or protestants. I've been reading the leader in detail for a year now and while its clear that he was very nationalist he did not suggest only catholics were really Irish, plus he was a member of the Gaelic league and presumably knew that Hyde was protestant. have you any references?
    With regard to Cumann na nGael, although they tried to re-assess the Treaty via the Imperial Conferences, they accepted the status quo.Cosgrave felt bound by it. They were seen by the public as the Treaty/Commonwealth party. That comment is in now way trying to say anything derrogatory,or make them any less an Irish person, its simply thats the way it was. Now now, Brian, you very well know that it was Fine Gael that declared the Republic;)

    so then when you said 1950s was that a typo?


  • #94
    meganj
    Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭meganj


    It wasn't just newspapers sympathetic to the British administration like the Times and the Indo, a lot of the local papers condemned the Rising for several reasons.

    Firstly the insane damage to property seen in Dublin, which naturally enough would have to be paid by the people.

    Secondly the loss of civilian life, those who happened to just be walking down sackville street at the time

    Thirdly you did have a lot of sympathy in Ireland for what was going on in the Great War, and (as already mentioned) you had a lot of Irish families exporting their husbands/brothers/sons to the War effort in Europe, and I'm sure there were many who looked at the Volunteers and thought what the fudge are you doing?

    Fourthly since 1798 there had been periodic bursts of violence, but nothing to write home about. The growing strength of the Home Rule movement, with it being passed but not implemented due to the War breaking out, HR was seen by many as the only viable option.

    But then you had a change in attitude. Following the executions of the Leaders, the mass arrests (over 2,000 people, anyone who even looked like they might have been a Volunteer) and the mass deportations of over 1,000 Volunteers to prisons like Frognach. In addition to this the R.I.C. began pursuing a VERY harsh approach to the civilians and several areas that had been instrumental in the Rising, like Enniscorthy for example, were held under martial law for some time afterwards.

    Then the Conscription Crisis interrupted everything. In 1917 it looked like Conscription was going to be introduced, Sinn Fein won the majority of the votes in the 1918 Election came from them campaigning on an anti-conscription platform, of course that platform also included the struggle for independence. People also turned against the IPP seeing them as useless for failing to successfully achieve Home Rule.

    So umm.. yea.. People were anti-Rising.. but that all changed with the punishments dolled out by the British administration and as the lad's in Sinn Fein became much more credible.


  • #95
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    meganj wrote: »
    It wasn't just newspapers sympathetic to the British administration like the Times and the Indo, a lot of the local papers condemned the Rising for several reasons.

    Firstly the insane damage to property seen in Dublin, which naturally enough would have to be paid by the people.

    Secondly the loss of civilian life, those who happened to just be walking down sackville street at the time

    Thirdly you did have a lot of sympathy in Ireland for what was going on in the Great War, and (as already mentioned) you had a lot of Irish families exporting their husbands/brothers/sons to the War effort in Europe, and I'm sure there were many who looked at the Volunteers and thought what the fudge are you doing?

    Fourthly since 1798 there had been periodic bursts of violence, but nothing to write home about. The growing strength of the Home Rule movement, with it being passed but not implemented due to the War breaking out, HR was seen by many as the only viable option.

    But then you had a change in attitude. Following the executions of the Leaders, the mass arrests (over 2,000 people, anyone who even looked like they might have been a Volunteer) and the mass deportations of over 1,000 Volunteers to prisons like Frognach. In addition to this the R.I.C. began pursuing a VERY harsh approach to the civilians and several areas that had been instrumental in the Rising, like Enniscorthy for example, were held under martial law for some time afterwards.

    Then the Conscription Crisis interrupted everything. In 1917 it looked like Conscription was going to be introduced, Sinn Fein won the majority of the votes in the 1918 Election came from them campaigning on an anti-conscription platform, of course that platform also included the struggle for independence. People also turned against the IPP seeing them as useless for failing to successfully achieve Home Rule.

    So umm.. yea.. People were anti-Rising.. but that all changed with the punishments dolled out by the British administration and as the lad's in Sinn Fein became much more credible.
    Good post, yes indeed it is hard to quantify the support for the Rising and 1916 - 1921.

    But I take issue with the British inspired propaganda that their putting down of the Rising was universally supported by the people of Dublin/Ireland and ofcourse the newspapers were unlikely not to publish anything to contradict it. Having to acknowledge the widespread sympathy for the Rising, for example most of the Irish Unions passed votes of support, the GAA etc the big myth was planted that public sympathy solely for the Rising only started after the British 'mistake' of the executions. The aspirations of the 1916 leaders were in sync with many of the ordinary Irish people.

    For example in Ernie O'Malley's outstanding On Another Man's Wound ( a must read if you want to understand the period). He gives an eye witness account of the public's reaction to when they began occupying the GPO, the fighting and aftermath. In his account of it, the public was split in for support for the Rebels and the ' bowsies ' who were stabbing the efforts of Irishmen on the continent.


  • #96
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    The lack of knowledge of Irish heritage and history played an important part in the attitudes. Tom Barry's account of his knowledge must have been commonplace at the time. In his book and repeated in interviews he claimed that he knew all the British monarchy back through the ages but knew nothing of the Irish perspective on history of plantations and uprisings. He was in the middle east in the British army when he read of the rising and that aroused his interest in Irish history. This would seem to be as plausible a reason for an upsurge in nationalism as the often given 'sympathy to those executed'.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    meganj
    Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭meganj


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    For example in Ernie O'Malley's outstanding On Another Man's Wound ( a must read if you want to understand the period). He gives an eye witness account of the public's reaction to when they began occupying the GPO, the fighting and aftermath. In his account of it, the public was split in for support for the Rebels and the ' bowsies ' who were stabbing the efforts of Irishmen on the continent.

    Well of course your right, clearly it was a divisive struggle and I'm not saying that unanimously the people were against it until after the executions.

    I think when people, myself included, talk about public reaction to the Rising we talk about the situation in Dublin and the reaction there. I think FSL Lyons sums it up quite well 'For citizens in general the Rising began as a spectacle became an inconvenience and ended in tragedy.' If there hadn't been at least a modicum of public support for it then the Dubliners would've just thrown stones at them until they went away :rolleyes: But I think when your talking about the Rising it is difficult to get a clear idea of how it was perceived, between newspapers which you rightly point out (in some cases) would have been punished for publishing anything but anti-Rising sentiment and 'eye-witness' accounts which are notoriously unreliable you are in most cases, including Ernie O'Malley looking back through a veil of mysticism surrounding the Rising itself.

    As for the original OP (which I must admit I failed to even mention in my post) I think the support for Home Rule, whether it be as a stepping stone or not, shows that there was some degree of support for remaining in the Empire, but running our own affairs. I would think that a lot of the support for Home Rule came as a means to an end but as 1918 came and Sinn Fein gave the people a belief in the Republic, in the aftermath of the 'blood sacrifice' of the Rising people turned away from the half-measure of HR.

    In saying that though the Treaty 1921, and I'm not opening a debate into the legitimacy of the treaty and so on, was passed by the people and the Dáil, although I believe this echoes the support for HR, in a way, with people believing in Collins' stepping stone idea and focusing on the end to open conflict.

    It would be foolish to say that there was no support for remaining in the Empire, from Unionists or moderate nationalists or whatever, at the end of the day if no-one wanted to be a part of the Empire surely we would've just lifted arms and stormed Dublin castle? :D


  • #98
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    meganj wrote: »
    Well of course your right, clearly it was a divisive struggle and I'm not saying that unanimously the people were against it until after the executions.

    I think when people, myself included, talk about public reaction to the Rising we talk about the situation in Dublin and the reaction there. I think FSL Lyons sums it up quite well 'For citizens in general the Rising began as a spectacle became an inconvenience and ended in tragedy.' If there hadn't been at least a modicum of public support for it then the Dubliners would've just thrown stones at them until they went away :rolleyes: But I think when your talking about the Rising it is difficult to get a clear idea of how it was perceived, between newspapers which you rightly point out (in some cases) would have been punished for publishing anything but anti-Rising sentiment and 'eye-witness' accounts which are notoriously unreliable you are in most cases, including Ernie O'Malley looking back through a veil of mysticism surrounding the Rising itself.

    As for the original OP (which I must admit I failed to even mention in my post) I think the support for Home Rule, whether it be as a stepping stone or not, shows that there was some degree of support for remaining in the Empire, but running our own affairs. I would think that a lot of the support for Home Rule came as a means to an end but as 1918 came and Sinn Fein gave the people a belief in the Republic, in the aftermath of the 'blood sacrifice' of the Rising people turned away from the half-measure of HR.

    In saying that though the Treaty 1921, and I'm not opening a debate into the legitimacy of the treaty and so on, was passed by the people and the Dáil, although I believe this echoes the support for HR, in a way, with people believing in Collins' stepping stone idea and focusing on the end to open conflict.

    It would be foolish to say that there was no support for remaining in the Empire, from Unionists or moderate nationalists or whatever, at the end of the day if no-one wanted to be a part of the Empire surely we would've just lifted arms and stormed Dublin castle? :D
    " at the end of the day if no-one wanted to be a part of the Empire surely we would've just lifted arms and stormed Dublin castle? " Tens of thousands of British soldiers and RIC would have been a little detterent do you not think ?


  • #99
    meganj
    Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭meganj


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    " Tens of thousands of British soldiers and RIC would have been a little detterent do you not think ?

    Tens of thousands? In 1900 there was roughly 11,000 RIC in under 500 barracks in the Country, including the DMP.

    As for British soldiers I presume your not talking about Auxiliaries and Black and Tans, so you'll find the number of actual British Soldiers in Ireland negligible until after the Great War (need for man power in Europe).


  • #100
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    meganj wrote: »
    Tens of thousands? In 1900 there was roughly 11,000 RIC in under 500 barracks in the Country, including the DMP.

    As for British soldiers I presume your not talking about Auxiliaries and Black and Tans, so you'll find the number of actual British Soldiers in Ireland negligible until after the Great War (need for man power in Europe).
    I think something like around 20,000 British soldiers were used to put down the Easter Rising in Dublin alone, some of them trainees for WW1 in the Curragh.

    Ok as a comparision, to parapharse your previous comment, if we take Eastern Europe pre 1989, if - no-one wanted to be a part of the Communism surely the people of Eastern Europe would've just lifted arms and stormed the Politburo/secret police?
    Where were they going to get the arms from, the local grocery shop? And would they not have been slightly afraid of the army and police?


Advertisement