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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

2»

Comments

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


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭Simarillion


    " 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.


    Well I don't think anyone expected the nationalist rebels to poll their public support but usually nationalist groups are attempting to benefit the people, and for that they require their support.

    As regards the British mandate to remain in Ireland, they didn't need one, they were synonymous with one another. It was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, there had never been a country called Ireland before the English and then British arrived!
    They needed a mandate for being in Ireland as much as they did for being in Isle of Man.


    What was required was a reason to leave not a reason to stay.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭CrankyCod


    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?

    At the next election.
    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

    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.

    My main point is that armed revolt is only justified when there is no alternative; Irish people had the same voting rights in 1916 as all the other citizens of the UK, unlike some colonial populations who were justified in using violence to kick out their occupiers, as they had no vote, and no alternative.

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,721 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    CrankyCod wrote: »
    At the next election.
    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.

    I think "what if's" are a bit silly. Im sure there are a 1000 occurances that might have meant no 1916, another 1000 that with a 1916 no war of independence etc. I reckon that the importance of 1916 is made a bigger deal of then it deserves simply because the civil war meant many of the participants in the war of independence have somewhat of a tarnished reputation.

    "Self glorifying martyrdom" I think that says more about your own political sensibilities then any insight into the motivations of anyone who fought during this period.

    I think its difficult for us today with our own built in conceptions of nationhood to understand the motivations of people at the time. For most, i think, it was more about landlords then statehood. This was something that hadnt changed in generations with periods of violent and non violent protest.


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


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭CrankyCod


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

    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.

    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.

    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.


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


    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.


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


    Well I don't think anyone expected the nationalist rebels to poll their public support but usually nationalist groups are attempting to benefit the people, and for that they require their support.

    As regards the British mandate to remain in Ireland, they didn't need one, they were synonymous with one another. It was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, there had never been a country called Ireland before the English and then British arrived!
    They needed a mandate for being in Ireland as much as they did for being in Isle of Man.


    What was required was a reason to leave not a reason to stay.
    :D Ireland existed as a nation before the fecking Normans invaded, we had one language, culture etc Like I stated, we where as 'willing' a member of the British state as Latvia was of the Soviet Union :rolleyes:. And ever hear of the Brehon Laws, the High King of Ireland etc The Romans referred to Ireland as Hibernia and referred to Britain as guess what Bozo...... Britannia !!!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭Simarillion


    :D Ireland existed as a nation before the fecking Normans invaded, we had one language, culture etc Like I stated, we where as 'willing' a member of the British state as Latvia was of the Soviet Union :rolleyes:. And ever hear of the Brehon Laws, the High King of Ireland etc The Romans referred to Ireland as Hibernia and referred to Britain as guess what Bozo...... Britannia !!!!!

    Well bully for you, you've read an ancient map! Which of course proves bugger all because as everybody else know; the Romans were naming ISLANDS not COUNTRIES !!! They named geographical locations like Gaul which included modern France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Northern Italy, Switzerland and about half of The Netherlands and Germany. So I'll make sure to let the French government know that if they'd like to carefully examine the maps of ancient Rome, they clearly have a political claim to everything west of the Rhine !!

    Ireland did not exist as a nation, the High King was never a central authority and the island was divided between several provincial kingdoms similar to the Holy Roman Empire but without the Imperial leadership. The Brehon law was practically religious in it's spread and is more closely linked to Druids than a nationwide judicial system.

    I am not denying the existence of settled, civilised and well governed societies with cultures and laws on the island.
    I am saying that there was not an organised country with a central authority, that existed in England, Scotland etc. When Ireland was invaded by the Normans it was against individual kings and armies, some of whom fought alone and some of whom formed an alliance. When the English invaded Ireland it still wasn't a unified country because their power had retreated to the Pale.

    We were never a unified country that was enslaved for 800 years and then finally got our chance and broke free. We were a collective of kingdoms who were overthrown one by one, by an overwhelming force who then rules the country as a whole.


    This is way of topic ..... apologies Mod.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    Lord Mountbatten didn't "lord it over the natives" he lived a perfectly normal life in Classiebawn until the IRA decided to murder him by blowing his boat sky high!

    He had the respect of the locals who wouldn't have given it to him if they didn't think he was deserving of it.
    On a complete side note, he was extremely helpful in assisting the Gore Booths when the Irish courts and government tried to swindle them out of their home and land in the 1960/70's

    its a huge pity he was not as proactive in helping the native irish recover the lands and houses stolen and swindled from them by the british and the anglo irish


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    danbohan wrote: »
    its a huge pity he was not as proactive in helping the native irish recover the lands and houses stolen and swindled from them by the british and the anglo irish

    Are you talking about the 17th century here?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭CrankyCod


    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?

    Legitimacy comes from the ballot box: In 1910 the Irish electorate voted for the IPP and their policy of limited independence, Home Rule. Therefore the IPP had a mandate to continue going to Westminster but to campaign for Home Rule. Nobody else had a mandate from the people for rebellion, a republic or anything else.

    In 1918 the electorate voted against the IPP, and in favour of Sinn Fein and complete independence; Sinn Fein had a clear mandate to abstain from Wetminster and to set up an independent Irish parliament. Therefore the British should have immediately respected the wishes of the people, expressed in a properly run poll, and handed over power to the newly elected representatives in an orderly fashion. When they refused, the Dail was entirely justified in using violence to eject the British: because the Dail had a mandate. Up to that time the only legitimate representatives of the people were the IPP MPs; that legitimacy ceased as soon as the 1918 votes were counted. The result of the vote however, only counted once the vote was taken: it did not and could not possibly act as a mandate for 1916.

    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.

    The beliefs of the IRB had no relevance because they were a self-appointed secret society: for example if Opus Dei decided that our laws were not valid because they contravene Canon Law, does that justify them taking the law into their own hands, which is what Pearse did?
    Why didn't Pearse stand for for election?
    As for the conscription crisis: this came about in 1918, so I don't think the rising was relevant to it, other than giving Sinn Fein credibility as a strong oppositional force to the IPP.
    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.

    I meant that they pre-empted the election by staging the rising in 1916: again, why use force if there was an election due in a mere 2 years, and people were beginning to turn against the IPP anyway due to the delays in Home Rule?

    The OP asked if there was support in Ireland for continued links with Britain: I believe there was, and that most people supported Home Rule. 1916 blew that away, as Pearse hoped it would, by appealing to the emotions of the people and radicalising them through the stupidity of the British reaction. Pearse played a blinder from his point of view because he feared that Home Rule would be enough for most people, and that if they did not have the "blood sacrifice" then Ireland would never break away. My point is that he should have respected the wishes of the people; if Home Rule was enough, then so be it. He had no right to initiate all that bloodshed to fulfil his own need for martyrdom.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Are you talking about the 17th century here?

    17th ,18th ,19 th, 20th, 21th ,take your pick


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


    CrankyCod wrote: »
    Legitimacy comes from the ballot box: In 1910 the Irish electorate voted for the IPP and their policy of limited independence, Home Rule. Therefore the IPP had a mandate to continue going to Westminster but to campaign for Home Rule. Nobody else had a mandate from the people for rebellion, a republic or anything else.

    This is totally backwards, why should legitimacy come from the ballot box if the ballot box is a foreign powers?
    In 1918 the electorate voted against the IPP, and in favour of Sinn Fein and complete independence; Sinn Fein had a clear mandate to abstain from Wetminster and to set up an independent Irish parliament. Therefore the British should have immediately respected the wishes of the people, expressed in a properly run poll, and handed over power to the newly elected representatives in an orderly fashion. When they refused, the Dail was entirely justified in using violence to eject the British: because the Dail had a mandate. Up to that time the only legitimate representatives of the people were the IPP MPs; that legitimacy ceased as soon as the 1918 votes were counted. The result of the vote however, only counted once the vote was taken: it did not and could not possibly act as a mandate for 1916.

    You have a really narrow conception of what legitimacy might entail. Within your own definitions of legitimacy the Dail did not have a mandate to do what it did, you have a really confused idea of what democracy is.


    The beliefs of the IRB had no relevance because they were a self-appointed secret society: for example if Opus Dei decided that our laws were not valid because they contravene Canon Law, does that justify them taking the law into their own hands, which is what Pearse did?
    Why didn't Pearse stand for for election?
    As for the conscription crisis: this came about in 1918, so I don't think the rising was relevant to it, other than giving Sinn Fein credibility as a strong oppositional force to the IPP.

    No conscription had been an issue for many years and if the Rising had not happened its probable that conscription would have been enacted and sooner than 1918.


    I meant that they pre-empted the election by staging the rising in 1916: again, why use force if there was an election due in a mere 2 years, and people were beginning to turn against the IPP anyway due to the delays in Home Rule?

    If you are bound by your own narrow conception of legitimacy and cannot see why a rebellion might ever be legitimate then why bother asking this question? Despite the fact that massive changes had happened since 1910 you seem to think that people should have kept their heads down and not thought about changing their policies until the next election. You realise that elections had been suspended right? so at what point do the 1910 elections stop being legitimate, since by 1916 the government had exceeded the term limits? Who voted for a national government? Where was the legitimacy of bringing Ireland into WWI? Where was the legitimacy in stopping home rule from happening after it was voted for and approved by Parliament?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,121 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    danbohan wrote: »
    its a huge pity he was not as proactive in helping the native irish recover the lands and houses stolen and swindled from them by the british and the anglo irish

    Mountbatten wasn't the Irish government, and it was up to them to do something about it.

    If we're talking houses as against castles, I think that the Anglo-Irish probably built the vast majority of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭CrankyCod


    This is totally backwards, why should legitimacy come from the ballot box if the ballot box is a foreign powers?

    By your logic then no election, including 1918, was ever valid if it as held under British rule. TGherefore the idea that 1916 was jsutinf ed by the 1918 results is also undermeined. By your reasoning, when was the first valid election in Ireland?
    You have a really narrow conception of what legitimacy might entail. Within your own definitions of legitimacy the Dail did not have a mandate to do what it did, you have a really confused idea of what democracy is.


    I explained very clearly above that the Dail, elected by the people, had a very clear mandate to establish an independent state. How much clearer could it be? The members of the Dail were elected by the people and were fully entitled to use force to remove those who had lost the election.

    Most democrats have a very narrow concept of legitimacy: the people's will, expressed through the ballot box, is the only legitimate authority. Not "looking into your heart", as Dev did, or harking back to some mythical Celtic nation ruled over by Druids with golden sickles. A plain and simple ballot paper, thats all it takes. It worked for the GFA and it would have worked for the initial independence movement too, if people had been prepared for the logn hard slog of persuasion and compromise, not the excitement of dressing up as soldiers and taking pot-shots from behind the parcel counter.

    Anyway, I have work to do (thank God) nice talking to ya:)


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


    CrankyCod wrote: »
    By your logic then no election, including 1918, was ever valid if it as held under British rule. TGherefore the idea that 1916 was jsutinf ed by the 1918 results is also undermeined. By your reasoning, when was the first valid election in Ireland?

    The first independent ones.



    I explained very clearly above that the Dail, elected by the people, had a very clear mandate to establish an independent state. How much clearer could it be? The members of the Dail were elected by the people and were fully entitled to use force to remove those who had lost the election.

    No, the Dail did not have a mandate to establish an independent state because they were elected within the British electoral system, ie they were a minority party who could not decide policy on their own. Thus the first Dail after the 1918 election was also illegitimate under the reasons you gave for 1916 being illegitimate.


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


    Well bully for you, you've read an ancient map! Which of course proves bugger all because as everybody else know; the Romans were naming ISLANDS not COUNTRIES !!! They named geographical locations like Gaul which included modern France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Northern Italy, Switzerland and about half of The Netherlands and Germany. So I'll make sure to let the French government know that if they'd like to carefully examine the maps of ancient Rome, they clearly have a political claim to everything west of the Rhine !!
    The Romans called Ireland Hibernia because Ireland is an island nation !!!
    Ireland did not exist as a nation, the High King was never a central authority and the island was divided between several provincial kingdoms similar to the Holy Roman Empire but without the Imperial leadership. The Brehon law was practically religious in it's spread and is more closely linked to Druids than a nationwide judicial system.

    I am not denying the existence of settled, civilised and well governed societies with cultures and laws on the island.
    I am saying that there was not an organised country with a central authority, that existed in England, Scotland etc. When Ireland was invaded by the Normans it was against individual kings and armies, some of whom fought alone and some of whom formed an alliance. When the English invaded Ireland it still wasn't a unified country because their power had retreated to the Pale.

    We were never a unified country that was enslaved for 800 years and then finally got our chance and broke free. We were a collective of kingdoms who were overthrown one by one, by an overwhelming force who then rules the country as a whole.


    This is way of topic ..... apologies Mod.
    The High King was the highest authority and his writ ran as applicable as any other country of the time and Brehon Laws likewise. You really should get away from the unionist school of bigotry history. The school that 'discovered' the Ulster Scots 'language' !!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Hibernia (island of) = Wintry

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭CrankyCod


    The High King was the highest authority and his writ ran as applicable as any other country of the time and Brehon Laws likewise.

    The High King may have been the central authority at one time but that had disappeared 500 years before the Normans turned up:
    King Dermot died in A.D. 563 (or 565), and after his death no Ard-Rig resided at Tara. No separate Ard-Rig was any more appointed with the kingdom of Meath for his mensal. One of the provincial kings usually assumed the office, or at least the title, retaining and residing in his own province. Tara was deserted, and no place for holding a national assembly was ever substituted. To the time from this date onward, the saying applies that there was no central legislative authority acting for the whole island.

    After the abandonment of Tara as a royal residence, and the consequent discontinuance of a national assembly, it can hardly be said that one concrete state, broad and national in basis and concentrated in executive power, existed in Ireland

    From this interesting little book: http://www.libraryireland.com/Brehon-Laws/Feis-Tara.php


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭namelessguy


    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?

    Dev's external association?


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


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    Mountbatten wasn't the Irish government, and it was up to them to do something about it.

    If we're talking houses as against castles, I think that the Anglo-Irish probably built the vast majority of them.
    With money extorted and land robbed from the natives.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,121 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    With money extorted and land robbed from the natives.

    They only extorted money after they grabbed the land.:(


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    With money extorted and land robbed from the natives.

    :rolleyes: Are you southern irish ones ever going to shut up about you and your land.:rolleyes: We have enough documents to prove that all the land wasn't taken either. The only land here stolen buy planters was taken by english royalty for example drenagh estate in limavady not the average planter. So stop listening to stupid myths made up by your g g g g granny.:rolleyes:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Hibernia (island of) = Wintry

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia

    More like island of hell.:mad:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    danbohan wrote: »
    its a huge pity he was not as proactive in helping the native irish recover the lands and houses stolen and swindled from them by the british and the anglo irish

    How do you think they plan on doing this?? This so called land was taken hundreds of years ago and only a small portion of the overall land was taken. Also were do you think they are going to go the documents from to find out who lived in the land at the time and who would get it now? Aswell there are people living in these stolen lands and it would be unfair to put them out because of what their ancestors did.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


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

    No thanks, not wanted here thank you because if that occurred you lot could come in and try and take us into your republic by way of majority which wouldn't be fair.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    owenc wrote: »
    More like island of hell.:mad:

    Why exactly are you living here then?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Why exactly are you living here then?

    Can we not go into this.. one answer i was born here and can't move yet but as soon as the opportunity comes i'll be out of here as fast i can!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    owenc wrote: »
    No thanks, not wanted here thank you because if that occurred you lot could come in and try and take us into your republic by way of majority which wouldn't be fair.

    Ya, nothing fair about the will of the majority:rolleyes:

    How about tick a box in favor of unification on the census forms in NI this year?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    owenc wrote: »
    Can we not go into this.. one answer i was born here and can't move yet but as soon as the opportunity comes i'll be out of here as fast i can!!!

    Well then let me be the first to wish you a speedy Slán Leat.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Well then let me be the first to wish you a speedy Slán Leat.

    Thank you but what?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Ya, nothing fair about the will of the majority:rolleyes:

    How about tick a box in favor of unification on the census forms in NI this year?

    Yes but only by constituencies not by the whole country that is the only fair way because we would end up being stuck with yous because we are in with derry and they are very nationalist, but really we should be staying because of how unionist it is here. Also majority?? It wouldn't be fair because you lot would come in and take us and that wouldn't be the will of the ni population it would be really yous.


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


    owen, don't post in this thread again. Mod.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭Simarillion


    Why does somebody always come on and ruin the thread for the rest of us with a big long rant about re-unification.

    It's either an ultra-republican with a chip on their shoulder the size of the Marianas Trench, who rants about 800 years of oppression of the native peoples of Ireland by the monstrous puppets of the British crown, and they make everyone who calls themselves Irish and live here cringe in embarrassment.

    Or else

    It's the lunatic fringe of Ulster loyalism who goes on and on and on about the apparent threat of a Catholic onslaught about to arrive any day now from the south, and always claims to speak on behalf of the unionist/Protestant (as thought the two are linked) people of Ireland and makes all of them stick their heads in the sand.

    If only duelling was still allowed, this forum would be far more interesting. A bit of a disagreement and off to a field somewhere, and only one opinion would come back.


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


    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?

    No doubt it sounds whataboutery, but its funny in away of a substantial period of peace, during the times of Parnell and Constitutionalism gives back people's respect for the RIC, when in the early days, this force with Irish men, where tearing down tenants cottages and the like during the Famine, how this force was not hated or boycotted thereafter? (of course in the real world, it was a place where game much needed employment. I wonder what would the mood have been if there had been a rebellion/fight around the country more earlier , say 1880's, ok of course the IRB were still around, but were down and out, during the Parnell years which saw great improvements for the Irish cause, if you were a farmer (which many were)

    Even stranger the way the Dublin Met treated those in 1913 lockout and riots

    Its hard to see that there was much love for the Politics itself, but there is no denying it, many were delighted to King Edward, the Church had no problems with the Monarchy, after all, didn't they have some bonds invested in Britian and the war cause (i will get my link/ or were I got that accusation from asap)

    Like 1916 itself, there were many reasons for people fighting for the Crown (and other allied groups) in WW1. Politicans enjoyed God like status then, as ye all know, who wouldn't have place their trust in Redmond?

    CS Parnell never really fought for separation really? O'Connell did not, thats for sure (but hey thats one step at a time, get Parliament first) Butt definitely did not want complete separation.You look at all the wars with Ireland and Britian, the Fight of the O'Neills - that was definitely not a fight for complete separation but his own lands which he would have continued with the monarchy; the wars of King James and William III was a fight between to monarchs of Ireland & Britian. Sadly, the 1798, there were too many spies and half heartness for a fight against Britian (no fault on the leaders) Emmet's rebellion and the others, how many came out? Fighting Irish me ass, yet send them off to Austria, Russia America, South America Britian and they became war hero's and fathers of navys, armies etc.

    Was there really a substanital time in say our capital that the notion of separation and "our self alone" was entertained? look at how the gaelic revival help changed "slavish" attitudes to people of all creds, class etc (before gobshi*s like DP Morgan and the RC Church stuck their noses in), hence the desparation of the men of 1916 to rekindled Tone in the only way they knew how (lord, I don't mean that to sound like a cheese voice over for a dramatic film or some TV3 tripe on gangs)


    I have absolutely no doubt many ordianary folk in the 1950's thought that they'd be better off within the union. Cumann na nGaedheal prided itself as a Commonwealth/Dominion Party and felt thoroughly bound by the Treaty. There were many after the Civil War that questioned was it worth all the sleepless cold nights on the run (causing many to die young in their 40-50's), forced to emigrate because of what side you took (and of course the economy, 1929 did not help)

    Isn't it amazing how it all fell into place all the same, often against the odd's, and whether we like it or not, the EEC / EU helped us, (look the EEC of the 1950-1970's could hardly be blamed for the world wide stupidity/greed, or to quote one mad man "new world order" that we find ourselves in)


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


    owenc wrote: »
    No thanks, not wanted here thank you because if that occurred you lot could come in and try and take us into your republic by way of majority which wouldn't be fair.

    With no reference to religion intended (and without knowlege of yours, and fact many Catholic landlords joined the new Ascendency), it never stopped the minority trying to run the show in the south prior to circa 1880's

    Sure aren't we all Europeans now;)


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


    owenc wrote: »
    Yes but only by constituencies not by the whole country that is the only fair way because we would end up being stuck with yous because we are in with derry and they are very nationalist, but really we should be staying because of how unionist it is here. Also majority?? It wouldn't be fair because you lot would come in and take us and that wouldn't be the will of the ni population it would be really yous.

    For they live in fear as always.

    How can it not be the will of NI population if a majority of the people regardless of cred or nationality wish to join? What happens if Belfast, somehow said yes, will the minority accept it? Free State of Belfast?

    Will the System guarantee that there would be no last minute boundary changes in Constituencies?no para intimidation on all sides? - No wonder most parties and people have no stomach for the notion of a referendum

    You would swear that the religious leaders are completely alien towards each other on all issues of day to day politics, morals etc.

    Do you really think the south would stamp out all britishness? they could not by the way via the EU and human rights laws. You really think that the South would not consider changing things down here to suit others' senstivities in say GAA, laws etc?

    Do you really think even the Nationalist and Republicans want Dublin completely calling the shots? Look at how neglected Donegal is, they would be more comfortable talking industry, roads, rates etc with their natural neighbours in Fermanagh and Derry

    NI (though due to obvious reasons), aint the big industry economic hub , booming place it once was, where's Harleem n Woolfe now? Would Swiss Tony and Martie G done better?, may i say though, from years of very good BBC coverage on politics, I would not mind a bit of Northern no nonsense straight to the point attitude than the cute hoorism, gombeen a wink and a nod politics/policies down here (many would)


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


    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?

    No doubt men and women serving in Allied Armies/Navies/Air Forces say the south's decision to stay neutral and refuse (well publicly and offically) the ports and fields to the british in WW2 as betrayals

    It seems some of the veterans of WW1 seem not to have too much problem wanting to join up the fledging Free State Army shortly before and after the Civil War, much to the disguist of those who fought from day one. Don't forget the many in the IRA who were veterans of WW1.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard



    Was there really a substanital time in say our capital that the notion of separation and "our self alone" was entertained? look at how the gaelic revival help changed "slavish" attitudes to people of all creds, class etc (before gobshi*s like DP Morgan and the RC Church stuck their noses in)

    Not sure I understand your attack on DP Moran here, can you expand?


    I have absolutely no doubt many ordianary folk in the 1950's thought that they'd be better off within the union. Cumann na nGaedheal prided itself as a Commonwealth/Dominion Party and felt thoroughly bound by the Treaty.

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


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


    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;)


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


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭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
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 424 ✭✭meganj


    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


  • 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 ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 424 ✭✭meganj


    " 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).


  • 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