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

Silent Runner · 07-01-2011 10:31pm #1

Is it true that the people of Ireland wanted its Independance but at the same time wanted to remain part of the UK, as a state? I heard this somewhere before but can't find any information on it?

Has anyone got any links for this information?

mgmt · 07-01-2011 10:54pm

I remember hearing that the members of the Irish Nationalist Party used to sing 'God
Save the Queen' after meetings.

hotmail.com · 07-01-2011 11:25pm

Some wanted complete separation, some didn't. Evidence of the latter:

Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example.

Thousands lined the streets whenever the British monarch visited Dublin, as late as 1911.

For decades after independence, there was questions over the justification of separation, given our shambolic economic state. A lot of those that lived under British rule often spoke openly about how it was better under the British as late as the 1950s.

pablomakaveli · 08-01-2011 12:24am

hotmail.com wrote: »

Some wanted complete separation, some didn't. Evidence of the latter:

Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example.

Thousands lined the streets whenever the British monarch visited Dublin, as late as 1911.

For decades after independence, there was questions over the justification of separation, given our shambolic economic state. A lot of those that lived under British rule often spoke openly about how it was better under the British as late as the 1950s.

These two examples only represent Dublin really and not the attitudes of the rest of the country.

Lapin · 08-01-2011 12:41am

Silent Runner wrote: »

Is it true that the people of Ireland wanted its Independance but at the same time wanted to remain part of the UK, as a state? ...............
Has anyone got any links for this information?

It is true - and as a result a compromise was reached.
The majority of the island was granted the status of "Free State" with its own capital city in Dublin in 1922. It took a further 15 years for the people of the Free State to adopt a constitution (1937) to establish the republic and a further 12 years (1949) for that republic to emerge.

Silent Runner · 08-01-2011 12:47am

Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example.

I heard that had something to with Dublin/Irish born soldiers serving in Irish regiments of the British army who were fighting in WW1, they seen the rising as a betrayal to their relatives fighting in WW1? And that some Irish in the police Constabulary were killed during the rising?

ChocolateSauce · 08-01-2011 12:49am

Silent Runner wrote: »

Is it true that the people of Ireland wanted its Independance but at the same time wanted to remain part of the UK, as a state? I heard this somewhere before but can't find any information on it?

Has anyone got any links for this information?

Just read the wikipedia articles.

The long and the short of it is that the Irish Nationalist party, who were elected by the overwhelming majority of what is now the republic, wanted "home rule", a form of self-government less than what Canada and Australia had at the time, and similar to what the North now has. Republican sentiment didn't flare up until after the 1916 leaders were executed.

Manach · 08-01-2011 12:50am

I suppose one of the ironies is that we are now (for mostly better) part of the EU and have devolved volunterily such powers to Brussels that were the hallmark of a state.

Lapin · 08-01-2011 12:50am

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Republican sentiment didn't flare up until after the 1916 leaders were executed.

Eh - 1798 ?

NSNO · 08-01-2011 12:52am

The Rising was initially supported by a very small minority. Sympathy and respect for them grew after the executions of the leaders but still the majority of people would have been moderate nationalists who simply wanted home rule.

By the time of the 1918 election, popular support had swung towards Sinn Féin away from the Irish Parliamentary Party. Sinn Féin won 73 seats and the IPP won 6. And 4 of those 6 were as a result of a deal with SF in which they agreed to share the Ulster constituencies between them to avoid splitting the Nationalist vote.

However, and this is something you'll never hear from republicans, the Sinn Féin's electoral success wasn't as overwhelming as you might think. The IPP actually performed far better than their seats would indicate because the election was held under FPTP rather than PR-STV. SF got 485,105 votes and the IPP got 237,393 (In the South) Nationwide SF got 46.9% of the vote, Home Rulers & nationalists got 22.6% of the vote, and Unionist parties got 30.5%. In addition the Unionist Party won the 2 Trinity College seats as well as another in Dublin in the South

Irish 'loyalism' ('Loyalism' in quotes meaning loyalty to the Crown/Empire/Commonwealth, rather than supporting union with britain) slowly ebbed away after independence but God Save the King remained popular amongst the social elite at various functions and obviously the University of Dublin's Unionism is well known. Former Southern Unionists and Redmonites became involved with CnG & the Centre Party and later FG and some were even senators in the first Free State Senate. I think (please don't quote me on this one!) that there were even a few Irish earls in the first Senate. Neutrality and Dev's wartime leadership probably put the last nails in the coffin of Irish 'loyalism'.

I find the whole topic very interesting myself. Many of these people and their lives have been almost written out of the Irish historical narrative until recently. Southern Unionism has always been portrayed as the preserve of the elite landed class. Only now are we starting to openly discuss the significant minority of Irish people who either supported the Union or were loyal to the Empire.

Lapin · 08-01-2011 12:58am

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

, a form of self-government less than what Canada and Australia had at the time, and similar to what the North now has.

Dominion Status.
The Home Rulers would have accepted that as a stepping stone to full independence at the turn of the last century.
But it was never going to be a final agreement in a manner similar to Canada and Oz.

And it has no similarity to the status of government in Northern Ireland now.

LordSutch · 08-01-2011 1:05am

Silent Runner wrote: »

I heard that had something to with Dublin/Irish born soldiers serving in Irish regiments of the British army who were fighting in WW1, they seen the rising as a betrayal to their relatives fighting in WW1? And that some Irish in the police Constabulary were killed during the rising?

My understanding is that it was the 'ordinary people' of Dublin who objected to the Rising and that it was ordinary members of the public who jostled & pelted the rebels with eggs, verbal abuse, etc, etc. The rebels (now heroes) who brought death & destruction on Dublin had little or no support from the public at large (at the time of the rising), hence the disgust by the public. Most of the Irish regiments were still at the western front fighting & being killed by the Germans when the easter rising took place, and Yes indeed, their families back home must have been furious that the rebels were trying to stab them in the back.

supersean1999 · 08-01-2011 1:11am

i know this might be slightly off topic, but i often ask, if the british had not exported vast amounts of meat and grain during the famine would the anti english-british feeling ever grown to such a levels to seek independence

cc4life · 08-01-2011 1:17am

Im not completely sure if this is what the person who started the thread was looking for but external association might be the phrase you were looking for.. It was the idea of being independent but an ally of Britain at the same time

CrankyCod · 08-01-2011 1:19am

The anti-British sentiment after the Famine had largely disappeared by the 1900's: most Irish people were reasonably content with the status quo, hence the huge welcoming crowds for royal visits. The idea that only the elite and Protestants were 'loyal' is wrong; there were plenty of working class people who were not at all keen on full independence, fearing the Catholic middle classes, narrow minded gaelgoirs and the role of the church. Most of those people were intimidated into silence but I knew plenty of people growing up in Cork who thought Home Rule would have been adequate, and that the full separation and so-called Republic was a disaster.

Manach · 08-01-2011 1:23am

Perhaps our Politicians might allow a tick-box for re-Unification in the pletoria of upcoming planned constitutional amendment votes.

supersean1999 · 08-01-2011 1:25am

CrankyCod wrote: »

The anti-British sentiment after the Famine had largely disappeared by the 1900's: most Irish people were reasonably content with the status quo, hence the huge welcoming crowds for royal visits. The idea that only the elite and Protestants were 'loyal' is wrong; there were plenty of working class people who were not at all keen on full independence, fearing the Catholic middle classes, narrow minded gaelgoirs and the role of the church. Most of those people were intimidated into silence but I knew plenty of people growing up in Cork who thought Home Rule would have been adequate, and that the full separation and so-called Republic was a disaster.

but was it not the rebels even though not that popular by the average dubliner who started the ball rolling, surely there contempt came from somewhere, you dont rebel if your happy

hotmail.com · 08-01-2011 1:39am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

These two examples only represent Dublin really and not the attitudes of the rest of the country.

Victoria always got a good reception when she visited Cork.

It is fair to say that most of the support for retaining the union (outside of the North) came from Dublin. Dublin escaped the effects of the Famine, a fair amount of the Dublin middle classes were Protestant and naturally more inclined to keep the union due to fears of a Catholic state.

I don't think there's much evidence that the Dublin working class were too bothered with independence. Perhaps the Dublin working class were influenced by the fact that Dublin was essentially an English city and didn't see the great need for independence. Dubliners spoke English, had a similar culture to England (as it was an English city for hundreds of years) and of course were probably more concerned with day to day living concerns, staying alive for example.

Dev and most of the founding fathers detested this aspect of Dublin. They saw the future of the Irish identity linked with agriculture, rural life, the Irish language and Catholicism.

Seloth · 08-01-2011 2:17am

Jeese I'm really shocked at the views of some people.

Yeah the full Republic support was gained till after 1916,thats why they called it a blood sacrifice!.

KeithAFC · 08-01-2011 2:27am

I think there has been a lot of re writing of history in what a lot of Irish men thought in the early 1900s. Not as rebel like as people think.

phantom_lord · 08-01-2011 2:28am

Manach wrote: »

I suppose one of the ironies is that we are now (for mostly better) part of the EU and have devolved volunterily such powers to Brussels that were the hallmark of a state.

Such as?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 08-01-2011 1:31pm

Lapin wrote: »

Dominion Status.
The Home Rulers would have accepted that as a stepping stone to full independence at the turn of the last century.
But it was never going to be a final agreement in a manner similar to Canada and Oz.

And it has no similarity to the status of government in Northern Ireland now.

Actually what the Home Rule party wanted was exactly the same as the status of Northern Ireland or Scotland now. It wasnt until after the War of Independence that we achieved dominion status, and although less than Sinn Fein wanted, it was more than the IPP had campaigned for.

PatsytheNazi · 08-01-2011 4:43pm

Silent Runner wrote: »

Is it true that the people of Ireland wanted its Independance but at the same time wanted to remain part of the UK, as a state? I heard this somewhere before but can't find any information on it?

Has anyone got any links for this information?

hotmail.com wrote: »

Some wanted complete separation, some didn't. Evidence of the latter:

Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example.

Thousands lined the streets whenever the British monarch visited Dublin, as late as 1911.

For decades after independence, there was questions over the justification of separation, given our shambolic economic state. A lot of those that lived under British rule often spoke openly about how it was better under the British as late as the 1950s.

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think there has been a lot of re writing of history in what a lot of Irish men thought in the early 1900s. Not as rebel like as people think.

Firstly, I notice a big rise in the amount of unionist/partionist posters on this forum of late such as the Why are there still republican parties? thread which was rightly closed by mod Brian. Possibly kicked off Politics.ie were you lads as their has been a big cull over there ?

Anyway, the whole thing about Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example is a lie. It suited the Brit propaganda machine to portray the rising in a bad light and the ever populiar Tommy's coming to the rescue :rolleyes: The Trinity unionists might have verbally spoke against them, the vast majority of Dubliners were sympathetic to them.

The west Brits in south Dublin hung out bunteens etc when the Brit monarch visited, and a few people strectched their neck when she was passing by. Thousands turned out to protest and the vast majority just ignored it.

As for the 1950's a lot wanting to rejoin Britain -

PatsytheNazi · 08-01-2011 4:48pm

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps our Politicians might allow a tick-box for re-Unification in the pletoria of upcoming planned constitutional amendment votes.

A bit off topic but since you raised it - Yeah I can see that, wanting to join with a state that's marginally doing better than we are :
Britain's actual debt stands at £4.8 trillion http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/britains-actual-debt-stands-at-%C2%A348-trillion

RMD · 08-01-2011 4:50pm

The early 1900s up to 1916 was the period of closest Anglo-Irish relations in our history. Home rule was desired but many also wanted to remain within the UK / commonwealth. 10s of thousands of Irish men served for the British army in WW1 in an effort to achieve home rule (also due to fierce poverty and a lack of jobs).

Republican tensions didn't fully flare up until around 1916, 2 years after Home rule had been passed yet it still hadn't been introduced. Most people would never have supported a violent rebellion let alone consider one. The idea of armed resistance only fully came when the leaders on 1916 were executed without proper trial and it became clear Home rule wasn't going to be introduced, hence the war of independence 1919-1921.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

A bit off topic but since you raised it - Yeah I can see that, wanting to join with a state that's marginally doing better than we are :
Britain's actual debt stands at £4.8 trillion http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/britains-actual-debt-stands-at-%C2%A348-trillion

I'm not a West-Brit or any of that type of crap Patsy, but the amount of time you spend derailing British related topics is getting annoying. You're always doing it in the military forum and let's be honest, you add absolutely nothing for the topic discussion other than showing your obvious dislike of the Britain.

PatsytheNazi · 08-01-2011 4:54pm

RMD wrote: »

The early 1900s up to 1916 was the period of closest Anglo-Irish relations in our history. Home rule was desired but many also wanted to remain within the UK / commonwealth. 10s of thousands of Irish men served for the British army in WW1 in an effort to achieve home rule (also due to fierce poverty and a lack of jobs).

Republican tensions didn't fully flare up until around 1916, 2 years after Home rule had been passed yet it still hadn't been introduced. Most people would never have supported a violent rebellion let alone consider one. The idea of armed resistance only fully came when the leaders on 1916 were executed without proper trial and it became clear Home rule wasn't going to be introduced, hence the war of independence 1919-1921.

" Republican tensions didn't fully flare up until around 1916 " It was the raising of the Ulster Volunteers in 1912 that caused the formation of the Irish Volunteers in return.

hotmail.com · 08-01-2011 4:55pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Firstly, I notice a big rise in the amount of unionist/partionist posters on this forum of late such as the Why are there still republican parties? thread which was rightly closed by mod Brian. Possibly kicked off Politics.ie were you lads as their has been a big cull over there ?

Anyway, the whole thing about Ordinary Dubliners threw stones at the Easter Rising rebels after the conflict had ended, for example is a lie. It suited the Brit propaganda machine to portray the rising in a bad light and the ever populiar Tommy's coming to the rescue :rolleyes: The Trinity unionists might have verbally spoke against them, the vast majority of Dubliners were sympathetic to them.

The west Brits in south Dublin hung out bunteens etc when the Brit monarch visited, and a few people strectched their neck when she was passing by. Thousands turned out to protest and the vast majority just ignored it.

As for the 1950's a lot wanting to rejoin Britain -

Waiting for the first poster to call Dubliners west brits.

This is a historical discussion, the aim being to examine the period in an objective manner without getting political.

Whether you like it or not, there was a significant amount of people that supported the retention of the union, even after independence.

PatsytheNazi · 08-01-2011 5:20pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

Waiting for the first poster to call Dubliners west brits.

This is a historical discussion, the aim being to examine the period in an objective manner without getting political.

Whether you like it or not, there was a significant amount of people that supported the retention of the union, even after independence.

Yes and maybe a few may have thought we become the 51st state of America :rolleyes: A vastly greater amount of Irish people believed in Irish independence, please stop protraying a picture that a mass of people all over the country were gagging to join up with Britain.

RMD · 08-01-2011 5:44pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

" Republican tensions didn't fully flare up until around 1916 " It was the raising of the Ulster Volunteers in 1912 that caused the formation of the Irish Volunteers in return.

Who were at the time nothing more than nationalists reacting to the formation of the Ulster Volunteers. They didn't steer towards Republican ideology until 1916.

Simarillion · 08-01-2011 5:56pm

Let me just get something straight.....

According to PatsytheNazi;
Someone who posts something that vaguely sounds like it supports the UK/GB, unionism, loyalism, British army, Ireland under the Crown etc. etc. is not only wrong but is spreading British propaganda lies?

I am referring to his comments on the notion that Dubliners threw stones at passing rebel prisoners in 1916.

Why is it that, this piece of information that suggests Dubliners were happier with the union than a war on their streets, is propaganda, but your opinion that they supported the rebels absolute gospel and fact?

Simarillion · 08-01-2011 6:59pm

If anything the most surprising factor in this is not the level of support for the union in Ireland around the early 1900-1920's but the rate at which it diminished.

If you look at the first Irish Senate, the level of representation of the establishment or for want of a better phrase "Anglo-Irish" minority within the new Free State is enormous. Much of this has to do with the purposeful appointment of these people to perhaps mollify the unionist population in the South who remained loyal to the Crown, and Protestants who may have felt intimidated by the Roman Catholic theocracy they found themselves in. But where is that representation now?
There was:
WB Yeats
Oliver St John Gogarty
Lord Headfort
Lord Glenavy
Lord Dunraven
Lord Mayo
The Countess of Desart
Lord Landsdowne
Lord Granard
Lord Wicklow
Sir Horace Plunkett
General Sir Bryan Mahon
Sir John Keane
Sir Thomas Esmonde
Sir John Griffith
Sir Nugent Everard
Henry Guinness
Edmund Eyre
James Goodbody - one the stockbrocking lot
Andrew Jameson - from the whiskey family
Maurice Moore -brother of George Moore
Thomas Westropp Bennett -whose family did continue in the Dail

I think you could count the Protestants in the Dail on one hand. The only ones that spring to mind are Ivan Yates, Sir Anthony and Sir John Esmonde who both held seats in Wexford, and Maurice Dockrell and they've all left the Dail.
I think the only Protestant TD left is Seymour Crawford. Quite a jump in representation really

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

Comments