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

RMD wrote: »

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.

It was the raising of the Ulster Volunteers in 1912 that caused the formation of the Irish Volunteers in return, which brought the gun into nationalists hands :rolleyes:

Simarillion wrote: »

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?

The aspirations of the 1916 leaders were in tune with the Irish people – the vast majority of Irish electorate had for 30 years prior to the Rising returned Home Rule candidates to Westminster in the hope of taken steps to eventual Irish freedom. Of course their was the Trinity unionists and their were some against them as they had sons at the front fighting for " little Catholic Belgium " in the " war for small nations etc " but it's completely misleading to pretend that the volunteers also didn't have their supporters, especially among the ordinary people.

It is reasonable to sugest that the British propaganda machine, would in true form have tried to discredit the 1916 Rising as unpopular - and with a compliant media to support them verbatim ( Irish Times, Independent, English papers etc) According to Berresford Ellis, he quotes a Canadian journalist Frederick Arthur McKenzie, who arrived in Dublin with the English reinforcements sent to put down the insurrection had no sympathy for the Irish ‘rebels’ and German sympathizers, as he perceived them. " I have read many accounts of public feeling in Dublin in these days. They are all agreed that the open and strong sympathy of the mass of the population was with the British troops. That this was in the better parts of the city, I have no doubt, but certainly what I myself saw in the poorer districts did not confirm this. It rather indicated that there was a vast amount of sympathy with the rebels, particularly after the rebels were defeated. "

McKenzie describing how he watched as people were waving and cheering as a regiment approached, and that he commented to his companion they were cheering the soldiers. Noticing then that they were escorting Irish prisoners, he realised that they were actually cheering the rebels. The rebels he says were walking in military formation and were loudly and triumphantly singing a rebel song. McKenzie reports speaking to a group of men and women at street corners, "shure, we cheer them" said a woman, "why wouldn’t we? Aren't they our own flesh and blood." Dressed in khaki McKenzie was mistaken for a British soldier as he went about Dublin back streets were people cursed him openly, and "cursed all like me strangers in their city."

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That really isn't true. It is a falsehood that is often propagated by anti Dublin sentiment in Ireland. On the rare occasions that a British monarch would visit Ireland (It was an arduous enough journey historically) they were usually warmly welcomed wherever they went, Cobh being a good example. As Dublin was the seat of power in Ireland at the time was it not logical for the head of state to go there more regularly? To organise the affairs of state it makes sense to go to where the centre of power is.
As can be seem from other posters the whole of (modern day RO) Ireland in the late 19th century supported pretty much the one party who were in favour of home rule but not in favour of independence or the removal of the monarchy. To say that Dubliners were Union jack waving unionists while the rest of the country were avid revolutionaries opposed to everything British is simply not true regardless of how much some wish it were.

Totally agreed. The British army would have been held in low esteem by very many of the ordinary Dubliners. Look at the reception they had got after the fiasco of the British army attempt to capture the guns landed in Howth when the crowds of Dubliners jeered them along the way and they opened fire on them murdering 3 and injuring 32 on Batchelor's Walk in 1914.

Doubtless the memory of this incident just two years later was still fresh in the minds of the people of Dublin and hence another good reason to discredit the alleged popularity of the British army in Dublin 1916.

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.

What evidence do you have to show that dominion status would not have been accepted as a final agreement by the Home Rule Party? They never asked for full independence and always stated they wanted to remain within the empire.

Seloth wrote: »

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!.

No, just no.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That really wasn't my point

Ok, Dublin was always the cradle of rebellion in Ireland, Thomas Emmet in 1803, the IRB was founded in Dublin in 1858. The people of the country were touching the forelock to their 'betters' from the 'mainland'. Look at Mountbatten down in Sligo lording it over the natives until into the bloody 1970s. Patriots indeed !

CrankyCod wrote: »

If as you say Pearse and Co were attuned to the real wishes of the Irish people why did they not contest the 1910 election as separatists? Because they needed the "spectacular" of the Rising to get the mob fired up. BTW, what else would an Irish Parliament be but a talking shop?

You do realise that in 1910 many of the rebels supported home rule? It was a series of extremist events between 1911 and 1916 which pushed many of them towards revolution.

CrankyCod wrote: »

That's exactly my point: the vast majority of people supported the constitutional non-violent pursuit of Home Rule in 1910.

So unforeseen changing events are not a good enough reason for people to change political ideology? At what point after being dragged into a world war are people entitled to change their political ideals? Your earlier post suggested you wanted the impossible, for people who had not yet been radicalised to realise they would be radicalised and present a new political platform that they themselves had not yet discovered in 1910. How is that possible?

There was no mandate for 1916; the results of 1918 can't confer a retrospective mandate, that's a licence for anyone to overthrow a government and then go looking for public approval. My point was that Pearse & Co were a minority in the Irish Volunteers, who were a tiny splinter group of the original volunteers.

The Citizen Army may have had some support from the radicalised working class after the 1913 lockout, but that does not convert into a mandate for armed revolt.

I don't think there is such a thing as a mandate for revolt but the 1918 election shows that people had enough of British rule by 1918.

I believe that a majority of Irish people would have been quite happy with Home Rule, granted in 1918 after the war.

But home rule was supposed to be granted in 1914. The majority were well aware that they have been promised something and then had it taken away. So again at what point are people allowed change their ideals?

The support for total separation came about because of Pearse's calculation that the British would overreact to the Easter rebellion and create martyrs, and that would stir people into rejecting any link with Britain.

What calculation was that?

The British were so stupid in their reaction that they further alienated people by bringin the terrorist Auxies and Black and Tans into Ireland to make sure that there would be no going back.

Did that not give people a mandate to change their politics so?

I also believe that anyone who disagreed with the ethos of the Catholic, conservative, insular anti-labour Free State that emerged was sidelined and silenced.

That included left-wingers like Peadar O'Donnell but also those who would have preferred to have retained some link with the UK, perhaps if only through the monarchy. I think our public institutions would have been much richer if we had had a Unionist voice and a left-wing contribuition instead of 90 years of phoney consensus on the economy, and a pretend choice between TweedleFF and TweedleFG

but connections with britain were maintained up until a republic was declared, or at least until Ireland left the commonwealth. Alternatively one could say there are still many links between the two countries in trade and travel as well as politics.

CrankyCod wrote: »

That's exactly my point: the vast majority of people supported the constitutional non-violent pursuit of Home Rule in 1910. There was no mandate for 1916; the results of 1918 can't confer a retrospective mandate, that's a licence for anyone to overthrow a government and then go looking for public approval. My point was that Pearse & Co were a minority in the Irish Volunteers, who were a tiny splinter group of the original volunteers.

The Citizen Army may have had some support from the radicalised working class after the 1913 lockout, but that does not convert into a mandate for armed revolt.

I believe that a majority of Irish people would have been quite happy with Home Rule, granted in 1918 after the war. The support for total separation came about because of Pearse's calculation that the British would overreact to the Easter rebellion and create martyrs, and that would stir people into rejecting any link with Britain. The British were so stupid in their reaction that they further alienated people by bringin the terrorist Auxies and Black and Tans into Ireland to make sure that there would be no going back.

I also believe that anyone who disagreed with the ethos of the Catholic, conservative, insular anti-labour Free State that emerged was sidelined and silenced.

That included left-wingers like Peadar O'Donnell but also those who would have preferred to have retained some link with the UK, perhaps if only through the monarchy. I think our public institutions would have been much richer if we had had a Unionist voice and a left-wing contribuition instead of 90 years of phoney consensus on the economy, and a pretend choice between TweedleFF and TweedleFG

" There was no mandate for 1916; " And what mandate did the British have to be in Ireland ? Indeed they sure respected the clear will of the people in 1918 didn't they. Ireland was as much a willing member of the British state as say, Latvia was of the former Soviet Union. And besides as Brian has pointed out, what revoulotionary/national freedom movement goes out looking for a mandate among the public first.

CrankyCod wrote: »

At the next election.

So then the 1918 election is valid! You are contradicting yourself over and over again now.

So why the need for 1916 rebellion? If the IRB had had any respect for the Irish people they would have tried to make their case constitutionally, and accepted the result of the next election, after the war. However they appointed themselves as an elite who knew better than the people. This idea of a self-appointed cabal is still being used to this day by the RIRA and their lunatic buddies, even though the people have clearly voted for constitutional solutions.

The constitution was not the constitution of the Irish people but of the British govt, which the IRB did not recognise as legitimate. If you cannot understand this then you need to broaden your understanding or theories of what makes a legitimate and illegitimate government.

The IRB never persuaded the people who they claim to represent of the value of their ideas, so they took the violent route, provoked an overwhelming response, which then alienated the population. However it seems to me self-evident that without 1916 there would have been no Black and Tans, no War of Independence, no Civil War, and of course no opportunity for self-glorifying martyrdom. Just a boring plod to independence brought about by persuasion.

I don't see what your point is other than you don't life violence as a political tool, which is fine if a little naive.

CrankyCod wrote: »

I never said the 1918 election was not valid; it was held under the government as it stood at the time, and as soon as the results were in the British should have respected the outcome and left.

Whether the IRB recognised the government or not is irrelevant, they had no popular support. The RIRA do not recognise the government here, so what? They represent nobody either.

Political violence is sometimes justified but not in 1916 because Irish people had the vote. The 1918 election would have given the republicans the opportunity to persuade the electorate of their case for total separation, instead they appointed themselves as a provisional government and pre-empted the outcome, presumably out of contempt for the electorate and the fear that Home Rule would satisfy most Irish people who would then lose interest in pushing for full separation.

All of this is is just historical musing except for the fact that Pearse's attitude gives a spurious legitimacy to any bunch of lunatics who think they know what's best for the rest of us, and think they know what we really want, without going to the trouble of asking us through the ballot box.

If the British should have left in 1918 (don't know what basis you make that statement) and they didn't, then surely their legitimacy is as much in question as the rebels. So who do you actually believe was legitimate in their actions?

Its not irrelevant that the IRB didn't recognise the government of the time. You can't just leave out historical facts that don't fit your opinion of the period in question. If the British had given home rule in 1914 there might not have been a 1916 rising either, the British were given dozens of chances to prevent the rising and failed through their own actions. Moreover if it wasn't for the rebellion conscription would more than likely have been enacted in Ireland which was one of the things the rebels were fighting against and which did have popular support from the Irish people.

You are incorrect to say the republicans pre-empted the elections, SF ran on the policy of abstention and setting up a new govt in Ireland and that's what they did, and that is what the electorate wanted them to do. I don't know how you decided upon that opinion of the historical facts.