Easter Parade

walrusgumble

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Curragh mutiny (along with the executions after the rising) was one of the moments of dyed-in-the-wool stupidity on the part of the British that contributed to the bloodshed that became the hallmark of 20th-century Irish history. When the soldiers mutinied, their commanding officer (whose name escapes me) should have been court-martialled and stripped of his rank, and those who participated punished appropriately.

galloping smith?

would you not be suspicious that westminister or a majority of them agreed with the army? they said nothing either when larne gunning running happened, why would they force or upset their army , who were needed in the western front not to mention irish people who volunteered - not to mention people still wanting them to remain as their subjects.

it would have probably be stupid in this circumstances to do that (from a british perspective)

oscarBravo

Wow, I've a lot to reply to. I'll have to be a little selective.

earwicker wrote: »

The problem with most of the points you've tried to make in this thread is that they simply amount to useless and unproductive historical speculations about what would/should have happened. You simply don't know whether Home Rule would have actually been implemented: arguing from that point of view is, ironically, a retreat from history.

It's entirely on a par with saying that Home Rule never would have been implemented, which is an oft-repeated refrain. I'd like to think it's at least a marginally informed perspective.

walrusgumble wrote: »

pearce only joined the irb in or around 1915- he HAD supported home rule in the past.

...

the rising's main reason wa not to prevent home rule - the volunteers had been established to protect it. the rising's main reason was for complete independence.

Yes, Pearse joined the IRB, but his minority grouping within that organisation was extremely secretive, and kept their plans well hidden from the IRB leadership. Joining a group would seem to imply agreement with its aims, but plotting to undermine it from within implies precisely the contrary.

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

Pearse et al were members of Redmond's IVF and supporters of Home Rule (speaking in favour of it on many occasions) so long as it came in to force for all of Ireland. When it was suspended from coming in to operation on foot of the war that merely added to frustration that existed already due to Unionist agitation to prevent Dublin rule coming to pass. When they rose up to proclaim the Republic that was because they feared Home Rule even as Redmond desired would never come to pass and there is some reason to believe this.

To say they rose up to prevent it coming in to force makes you wonder why they involved themselves in the Home Rule movement up until 1914.

See above. If they believed a rising was necessary to bring about Home Rule, it would have made sense to bring the leadership, and by extension the membership, of the IRB along with them. Their secrecy in plotting within the organisation indicates that they knew their approach ran counter to that of the organisation as a whole.

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

The fact that the sovereign parliament of Westminster had passed the law did not mean that there was not the prospect of IVF/UVF civil war to oppose it/support it or indeed pledges from within the same parliament in the form of the conservative leader Andrew Bonar Law to illegally oppose a legitimate decision of that parliament!

Yes, there was the prospect of civil war. What was the outcome of the rising? Wholesale destruction and death in the city, a bloody war of independence - oh yes, and a civil war - followed by permanent partition. And no sign of a republic for twenty or thirty years.

Nice job, lads.

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

1916 itself did not end the prospect of Home Rule.

Maybe not, but can there be any question but that it copperfastened Unionist resolve?

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

Far more than 1916 made Home-Rule untenable. The fact that the public were no longer going to be satisfied with the limitations of Home Rule was something highlighted by the conscription crisis of 1918.

...two years after the rising and the stupidity of the executions.

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

The overwhelming return of most constituencies for Sinn Fein in 1918 with many of their candidates and leading party figures having participated in the Rising is something else we must consider when claiming to know the mood of the Irish people on the question of Home Rule.

...two years after the rising.

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

As for the part I've emboldened there in your post, I might humbly suggest that this is a case of you suffering from hindsight.

I accept that a case can be made for the vague possibility of success, but I don't believe that Pearse et al were all that bothered about military success as such. Glorious failure was every bit as useful for their ends; military success would have been an unlikely bonus.

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

Of course, when you asked this:

"Can someone explain to me the practical differences between the Free State that was achieved in 1922 after a botched rising and a bloody war of independence, and the Home Rule status that had already been granted in 1914?"

Absolutely no offence intended, I swear , but I expected a basic acquaintence with the difference between Dominion status and Home Rule if you were versed with the period which if you aren't is fine it's just I wouldn't assert certain things with as much confidence as you seem to do.

You are aware of the concept of a rhetorical question?

The question wasn't intended to imply that the outcome would have been identical; merely that the practical effect of Home Rule would have been broadly comparable, with a somewhat greater chance of getting the Unionists on board at some point.

The 1916 rising was intended to bring about a republic. It failed - failed utterly - in that regard. The fact that we now live in a republic is a subsequent accident of history, that could as easily have followed from an acceptance of Home Rule. The major difference is that, sans rising, it could have been a 32-county republic.

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

It's just my sneaking suspicion that if you aired the view you did of Pearse fighting in the GPO to stop Home Rule rather than establish a Republic, even in a room full of 'revisionist' (God, I hate that word) historian, they'd probably fall over in peals of laughter.

I'm not claiming he didn't want a republic. I'm making the case that he believed Home Rule would merely defer the attainment of his precious republic, and that bloodshed (which he glorified) was preferable to any such deferment.

walrusgumble wrote: »

would you not be suspicious that westminister or a majority of them agreed with the army?

Quite probably, but unquestioning obedience from an army is a much bigger issue than any individual political goal, and to accede to a mutiny was an unforgivable mistake.

Carolus Magnus

I'm aware of the concept of a rhetorical question alright, it's just I think there was huge practical difference between the Irish Free State that was won and the Irish Home Rule parliament which was proposed Most notably in the total sovereignty of the Irish Free State parliament with its control over army, war and peace and taxation. I do not think we can seriously say that the war of Independence was fruitless. I certainly don't want to say that as at some point in all of this we're chipping away at the legitimacy of what we have now which is an inheritance of the very first Dail Eireann.

Garret Fitz made much the same bones about Seamus Murphy's assessment of 1916 within a Just War theory framework (as per Aquinas.) He conceded that the rising could be attacked along such lines but disputed Murphy's assessment that Home Rule wasn't much different from Dominion Status won from Britain for the same reasons I do and cited it as a major weakness in an otherwise cogent argument.

See above. If they believed a rising was necessary to bring about Home Rule, it would have made sense to bring the leadership, and by extension the membership, of the IRB along with them. Their secrecy in plotting within the organisation indicates that they knew their approach ran counter to that of the organisation as a whole.

Not what I said I'm afraid They performed the rising not to bring about Home Rule but not to destroy it either (because they believed after all that there was going to be nothing to destroy) which is a statement I'm not comfortable with anyone making. I'm not arguing with you that Home Rule likely would have ended up being implemented in Ireland but it would, likely, not have been implemented in the format you or Redmond would have desired. The failure of the Buckingham Palace conference and 1917 Anglo-Irish conference on the matter as well as the change of government from Asquith to Lloyd George suggest to me that partition of some shape was going to be included in any settlement.

You mention unionist opposition being copperfastened by 1916 but that's making excuses for them when it was copperfastened by 1912 when they signed their Solemn League and Covenant and when in 1913 they told Redmond to bugger off. Redmond's IVF was as much a red rag to their bull as Pearse' action was.

I do not believe we can sustain the notion that 1916 induced partition when it was Unionist lobbying and Unionist obstinacy and support by the Tories more than anything else that saw them given their grant of Home Rule from Belfast in the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

When you say:

Nice job, lads.

I think you expected the lads in the GPO to have a crystal ball. Ireland was a tinderbox of tensions. No matter what route you take on this it involves the enforcement of some sort of legal instrument unpalatable to some side. Be that partition or Home Rule or something else entirely. The Unionists were going to shoot their way out of Dublin rule. That has been established as close as need be to certainty.

I don't want to come across here as some sort of glorifier of violence or one of these nuts that dons the Easter Lily and curls up to the fire with a copy of An Phoblacht but I had a view of the Rising that was very negative for a long time, something I inherited from how the school curriculum was taught to me and I think we can afford to be more balanced when we're dealing with figures of history as emotive as this. Pearse' blood sacrifice is not tolerable today, but then we're suffering from presentism to some degree on this. Back then, the dominant trend in European body politic was nationalism. It had been perhaps since 1792, at least since 1848. He was a participant in a wider tradition and that is lost sight of. In 1914 blood tide warming the earth was something that not only he believed but all the jubilant crowds willing their boys to the fields of Flanders did also.

I suppose finally, as to the events of 1918, yes they do take place 2 years after the event. I do not feel obliged to believe the very convenient and matter-of-fact way in which it is intoned that by executing the leaders of the rising alone the tide of opinion changed. These were men jeered at as they were led away to courts martial. Certainly Maxwell should have handled matters much better than he did but I think to some extent that 1918 witnesses instead the public coming to grips with the practical implications of home rule later than the boys in the GPO did. The conscription crisis of 1918 as well as the failure of the conference on Home Rule in 1917 is a much more seminal explanation of the Sinn Fein victory than the executions.

That, and just because a vindication is retroactive I do not think that strips it of legitimacy per se. So merely asserting the chronology might be a substitute for argument

I mean, I'm not arguing this with any eristic goal in mind, just with a concern to advance this beyond the black and white of what people call the 'myth' of 1916. Either that it was a group of patriots in the GPO or a pack of scoundrels. I'm hear to learn as much as anyone else from the cut and thrust.

duggie-89

hey sorry for the late reply and i think everything i am going to answer below has already been answered by walrusgrumble.

djpbarry wrote: »

Progressive indeed. **** Home Rule, we want a Republic and we're going to kill as many people as it takes to get one. Yeah, real progressive :rolleyes:.

yes because i see progression as advanceing from a position of being a puppet government where we have limited control over the lives of the people my country to PROGRESSION to a fully democractic republic where the lives and destinies of every man and women of my country are controlled by the people of my country. ie home rule< Republic.

djpbarry wrote: »

You appear to have very little faith in democracy. Yes, there was a lot of opposition to Home Rule, but there was also a lot of support for it. The main opposition came from the Conservatives and obviously, Ulster Unionists. However, even the Conservatives introduced the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898 and the Unionists were not so much opposed to the idea of self-determination, but rather (understandably) a Dublin-based parliament heavily influenced by the Catholic Church; this was hardly an insurmountable obstacle.

again like what has been stated, you seem to think that the glouris british empire was a democratic nation. esp at that time. i have faith in democracy but not on a democracy that is set up by someone else, democracy should evolve from the people not delivered upon the people. yes your right but the problem was they seen it as self-determination being staying part of britian. well nothing is impossible but would the lenght of time needed to overcome those obstacles resulted in the great good. the amount of time needed for home rule to achieve independance would it have been worth it, or was trying to take a gamble and do a quick strike upon a force of occupation which was distracted in a major war for the greater good.

djpbarry wrote: »

But that's not what I said. Let me put it this way; Iraq is a big political issue in Britain right now, but how much do you suppose the average Briton knows about Iraq and it's people? How many people in Britain do you suppose could even name the Iraqi Prime Minister?
So you think the British public know more about Northern Ireland than the Republic? I doubt it; based on my experience, British public knowledge of the entire island is pretty poor. I would say this is largely due to the fact that Anglo-Irish history does not really feature in the British education syllabus.

well if thats what you meant then you would be correct but the people and public never have the say in the finer detail's of issuses like that. the british public couldn't say do a deal with this person and secure this town. but they could say lets hit the iraqi terrorist hard or the cost is too high we demand a pull out. my point was that the people in power ie the senior politicans were the ones who needed to know what was going on.

djpbarry wrote: »

Because of the actions of the violent Republican movement, right?

they weren't the only reason but yes they did play apart. but can i ask if you had the choice now you could go back to that time and you had a choice between home rule and a free irish republic which would you choose. (i am not asking what method you would choose to achieve your choice but what option when both seem to be equal feasible)

djpbarry wrote: »

the Republican movement did not gain widespread support until after the executions of those who took part in the Rising, rather than the Rising itself. Finally, you are making the assumption that those who supported Home Rule did not see this as a step towards full independence.

i did give an example, unionist opposition and the desire from some nationalist to want more. i am not i merly made the obvious assumpition that some home rulers would have been happy for the short deal of home rule.

djpbarry wrote: »

"We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God."

:rolleyes:

Enough said.

point taken and if it was my choice that wee point would be ironed out lol lol


also your point about SF and non-violent protest is correct in a way, but who protected thos courts and SF government from raids by the british forces?????? the IRA which wasn't a passive movement. the two went hand in hand. one fought the war the other ran the country. hence = the Provisional Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic

also the rising wasn't just because some people got impatient it was an attempt to seize the moment and take the front foot, and it states this:
"Having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organisation, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military organisations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and, supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory."

Carolus Magnus

Some of what's in the proclamation is quite laudable (and it's a useful counter to the allegation by the likes of Myers and Harris that Pearse et al are terrorists on the same footing as Al Qaeda or the Provos) but a lot of it's self-reinforcing propaganda as well. What they're mainly alluding to with the reference to having waited and prepared is the racial stereotype of Irish people as disorganised which was still hugely prevalent and which they were foiling at least on paper. I don't know how much that bore up in reality.

At least, I think they were not as organised they could have been in order to declare that they were confident of victory. There was some element of delusion at that level.

duggie-89

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, Pearse joined the IRB, but his minority grouping within that organisation was extremely secretive, and kept their plans well hidden from the IRB leadership. Joining a group would seem to imply agreement with its aims, but plotting to undermine it from within implies precisely the contrary.

See above. If they believed a rising was necessary to bring about Home Rule, it would have made sense to bring the leadership, and by extension the membership, of the IRB along with them. Their secrecy in plotting within the organisation indicates that they knew their approach ran counter to that of the organisation as a whole. Yes, there was the prospect of civil war. What was the outcome of the rising? Wholesale destruction and death in the city, a bloody war of independence - oh yes, and a civil war - followed by permanent partition. And no sign of a republic for twenty or thirty years.

I accept that a case can be made for the vague possibility of success, but I don't believe that Pearse et al were all that bothered about military success as such. Glorious failure was every bit as useful for their ends; military success would have been an unlikely bonus.

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

You are aware of the concept of a rhetorical question?

The 1916 rising was intended to bring about a republic. It failed - failed utterly - in that regard. The fact that we now live in a republic is a subsequent accident of history, that could as easily have followed from an acceptance of Home Rule. The major difference is that, sans rising, it could have been a 32-county republic. I'm not claiming he didn't want a republic. I'm making the case that he believed Home Rule would merely defer the attainment of his precious republic, and that bloodshed (which he glorified) was preferable to any such deferment.

Quite probably, but unquestioning obedience from an army is a much bigger issue than any individual political goal, and to accede to a mutiny was an unforgivable mistake.

i am sorry but does your first line (please correct me if i am wrong, its late lol) imply that the IRB wasn't republican or that pearse wasn't republican?? incase you forgot the IRB stands for Irish REPUBLICAN Brotherhood.

also the point was made that they done the rising to destory home rule, i would agree to a degree with this point, i think it went ahead under the knowledge that it placed the possibility of home rule in serious danger but i think they decided that since it looked like their version of home rule was impossible then there was nothing to lose.

and the legacy of the rising how can you add that time line??? thats like saying bush came to power, 9/11 happened, putin and russia rise and powersharing in the north. things may have been linked but it wasn't a direct result. your failing to look at external factors. the bigger picture, look at the bigger picture lol

no the civil war was not a direct legacy of the rising, the war of independance also wans't a direct legacy as the choice was there when SF won all most seats in the 1918 general election the chance came for a united ireland or at least home rule or what ever, nope britian choose to fight, which lead to the black and tan war, and then to the civil war.

then if the rising meet pease and co's aims then was it a success??

and hold on you just said you dont believe it was about a military success and then you say it was a failure.

and the great words. "changed, changed utterly a terrible beauty is born" always spring to mind ie the beauty that is a nation that desires to be free and not a dominion or a slave to a foregin land.

duggie-89

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

Some of what's in the proclamation is quite laudable (and it's a useful counter to the allegation by the likes of Myers and Harris that Pearse et al are terrorists on the same footing as Al Qaeda or the Provos) but a lot of it's self-reinforcing propaganda as well. What they're mainly alluding to with the reference to having waited and prepared is the racial stereotype of Irish people as disorganised which was still hugely prevalent and which they were foiling at least on paper. I don't know how much that bore up in reality.

At least, I think they were not as organised they could have been in order to declare that they were confident of victory. There was some element of delusion at that level.

sorry i thought i had only outlined and put in bold the main bit i wanted on the last part. i meant to have " she now seizes that moment" in refering to the fact that britian was a war and it was the point in the war were it looked like it could forever go agasint her.

and yes i do understand your point and agree with it, alot was done to gain support and confidence, hence why i personally believe the term most high god was used, to try and rally the religious masses to the risings cause.

i wonder how long before had the procolmation being made ie was it made up after or before the arms shipment from the germans had failed to been picked up. if it was after it says to me that it was some delusion but before a sign that it was an attempt to well have a nationwide rebbellion.

djpbarry

walrusgumble wrote: »

bloody hell lad, uvf =tiny minority? well it was a bloody loud minority.

As a proportion of the population of the entire island, the UVF were indeed a tiny minority (I am not including ALL Unionists), but they were indeed a loud one.

walrusgumble wrote: »

do you think, especially when people of london reading how the men of ulster were fighting gallantaly in the somme would back an english government who would impose home rule against their will ?

I could just as easily make the opposite argument for the National Volunteers.

walrusgumble wrote: »

the uvf are relevant becasue they made it clear that they would take up arms and defeat home rule if it effected them

I never said the UVF were irrelevant. However, I fail to see how the existence of the UVF, with their opposition to Home Rule, could be used to justify the Rising.

walrusgumble wrote: »

half of the house of commons and the house of lords did not want home rule in ireland as it was seen as a stepping stone and ireland wa considered more integral to britain than far off india.

Ireland more important than India in the context of the Empire? I don't know about that.

walrusgumble wrote: »

i am not from that era and neiter are you, but that is the way things were settled then.

I wasn't around during the Holocaust either - doesn't mean I can't deem it utterly wrong. Or do I need some perspective on 1930's Germany to make that sort of judgement?

walrusgumble wrote: »

but if that is the case why did british army need to be based here?

Because, at the time, this was part of the empire?

walrusgumble wrote: »

as for the church, christ all mighty, have you ever looked at the north?

That's not the point, but anyway, I think I'll leave the discussion on the influence of the Catholic Church for another thread.

duggie-89 wrote: »

yes because i see progression as advanceing from a position of being a puppet government where we have limited control over the lives of the people my country to PROGRESSION to a fully democractic republic where the lives and destinies of every man and women of my country are controlled by the people of my country.

And you're more than happy for innocent people to die in achieving that, are you?

duggie-89 wrote: »

the amount of time needed for home rule to achieve independance would it have been worth it...

If it saved lives then I don't see why not.

duggie-89 wrote: »

but can i ask if you had the choice now you could go back to that time and you had a choice between home rule and a free irish republic which would you choose. (i am not asking what method you would choose to achieve your choice but what option when both seem to be equal feasible)

Obviously I would choose a Republic, but you cannot possible say that one was as easily attainable as the other, or even that it seemed to be at the time. The progress on Home Rule was slow, but a half-arsed Rising in Dublin will result in a Republic? If that's what Pearse was thinking, then he was as stupid as he was bloodthirsty.

duggie-89 wrote: »

i am not i merly made the obvious assumpition that some home rulers would have been happy for the short deal of home rule.

Of course they would, but a large proportion of the population were happy to accept the Treaty, weren't they? Even though all those lives had been lost in fighting for their precious Republic?

duggie-89

djpbarry wrote: »

And you're more than happy for innocent people to die in achieving that, are you?
If it saved lives then I don't see why not.
Obviously I would choose a Republic, but you cannot possible say that one was as easily attainable as the other, or even that it seemed to be at the time. The progress on Home Rule was slow, but a half-arsed Rising in Dublin will result in a Republic? If that's what Pearse was thinking, then he was as stupid as he was bloodthirsty.
Of course they would, but a large proportion of the population were happy to accept the Treaty, weren't they? Even though all those lives had been lost in fighting for their precious Republic?

well i would hardly say i am more than happy i would just say that i am not a total idealist people die in this world every day darfur, child proverty sensless killings by drug dealers etc etc, so what is the lives of a few to achieve th egreater good. and if a few where to die for the common good then its REGRETABLE but it may have to be nessecary. also from my knowledge during the rising most of the innocents where killed not by the rebels but by gov. forces but i dont want to start laying blame.

but what value is that life, your logical seems to me that you would glady "live" a serveant life rather than fight or at least attempt to achieve a better life.

also your idea that if it saves lives why not would that apply to the d-day landings in WW2??? ie the allies in confrence
ere i think we should attack...
good heavens why not?????
your not serious man are you...???
well i was just thinking it would save lives by forgetting about the whole landings and killing on the beaches.
ah good point, ah well lads forget about it who's for a pint???

but why does something being way more achievable have to do a major part in it, if one is what you want try for it. do what you can to achieve it.

well i wouldn't say it was a large portion, since the treaty passed with only a few votes in it in the dail, but that was unfourtante and seen by many as a step in achieveing their beloved republic but again there were those southern unionists who were more than happy to accept the lesser of two "evils" and joined the treaty forces, making them up to be slighty larger at the begining.

walrusgumble

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow, I've a lot to reply to. I'll have to be a little selective. It's entirely on a par with saying that Home Rule never would have been implemented, which is an oft-repeated refrain. I'd like to think it's at least a marginally informed perspective.

Yes, Pearse joined the IRB, but his minority grouping within that organisation was extremely secretive, and kept their plans well hidden from the IRB leadership. Joining a group would seem to imply agreement with its aims, but plotting to undermine it from within implies precisely the contrary.

See above. If they believed a rising was necessary to bring about Home Rule, it would have made sense to bring the leadership, and by extension the membership, of the IRB along with them. Their secrecy in plotting within the organisation indicates that they knew their approach ran counter to that of the organisation as a whole. Yes, there was the prospect of civil war. What was the outcome of the rising? Wholesale destruction and death in the city, a bloody war of independence - oh yes, and a civil war - followed by permanent partition. And no sign of a republic for twenty or thirty years.

Nice job, lads. Maybe not, but can there be any question but that it copperfastened Unionist resolve? ...two years after the rising and the stupidity of the executions. ...two years after the rising. I accept that a case can be made for the vague possibility of success, but I don't believe that Pearse et al were all that bothered about military success as such. Glorious failure was every bit as useful for their ends; military success would have been an unlikely bonus.

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

You are aware of the concept of a rhetorical question?

The question wasn't intended to imply that the outcome would have been identical; merely that the practical effect of Home Rule would have been broadly comparable, with a somewhat greater chance of getting the Unionists on board at some point.

The 1916 rising was intended to bring about a republic. It failed - failed utterly - in that regard. The fact that we now live in a republic is a subsequent accident of history, that could as easily have followed from an acceptance of Home Rule. The major difference is that, sans rising, it could have been a 32-county republic. I'm not claiming he didn't want a republic. I'm making the case that he believed Home Rule would merely defer the attainment of his precious republic, and that bloodshed (which he glorified) was preferable to any such deferment.

Quite probably, but unquestioning obedience from an army is a much bigger issue than any individual political goal, and to accede to a mutiny was an unforgivable mistake.

first the irb and volunteers are of different personnel.

f*cking hell, if you really really really think that padraig pearse, particularily at intial stage was the main figure head, the main player in the IRB, you sir are off your rocker. you telling me that people like john devoy and de rossa, despite being in america had less say. Pearse was allowed in solely becasue he attracted good attention and his background - make it more illegite- he intitally was poster boy for the group. he did not know all the secrets until he was intiated into the supreme council, prior to this even thomas mcdonagh was more in with them. the irb, a fair majority of the irb had made plans for a insurection. Yes Pearse was exceptionally intent for it to happen no matter what- he knew that it would not initally be supported, he acknowledged that in his speech at his court martial! he was careless, yes considering he led many to their deaths without proper equipment - Note connolly's comment that they were doomed from the start. pearse acknowledged at his court martial that the success of the rising ie people's attention to a compete independent republic would be renewed, only after their executions - he may have seemed a wee bit crazy and a little to self involved with himself, but he was correct in what happens next.

(i am almost, but stand corrected, eoin mac neill WAS NOT a member of IRB - then again even arthur griffith was once a member so i could be wrong on mcneill)

i have a feeling, again i could be wrong, you may not consider that the irish volunteers which was set up in 1914 to intially defend home rule in light of the establishment of the UVF and which split when redmond sent the majority to europe: in group that remain, contained many from the IRB. the core of the irb was a complete different group, which collins and pearse belonged to- had inflirated all groups dealing with irish nationality by then ie gaa and volunteers. yes irb were secretive - but previous rebellions would suggest that they would strike again.


in relation to your reply, by the time pearse joined the irb yes, as far as he was concerned , home rule was not the option, complete independence instead. reason for this- in their eyes, it was never going to happen. considering what was happening at that time it was reasonable from them to be suspicious, it was reasonable to believe that they would not get home rule in full - after all this time, what did britain, particularily pro union conservatives do to guarantee that the home rule would be given, why suspend it? the act was passed shortly before the wake of ww1.


as for the mutiny, go back to the books lad, you have no idea about army life from the sounds of it. you remember, a governement is only as good as its next general election, you make an army attack or police against their "own" people, at time when unity and nationality meant more than it does today, you are going to get not only outrage from army officers who go out in the front line but the people in the main land- you cause a political problem next you may be voted out of office. (a war was on in europe, mere politicans are hardly going to rock the boat of moral in ranks)

djpbarry

duggie-89 wrote: »

people die in this world every day…

So? You could use that to justify just about anything? The death rate in the developed world is approximately 0.7 to 0.8% per annum. In the developing world, it can be as high as 4.5%; what are another few innocent deaths, eh? They’re not your friends or family, so who cares, right?

duggie-89 wrote: »

so what is the lives of a few to achieve th egreater good.

Do you have any value for human life whatsoever? The lives in question, even just one of them, are far more valuable than your so-called “greater good”. Human lives are not some sort of commodity that can be traded for political goals.

duggie-89 wrote: »

and if a few where to die for the common good then its REGRETABLE but it may have to be nessecary.

Innocent deaths are never necessary; describing the deaths of children as “regrettable” is absolutely appalling.

duggie-89 wrote: »

your logical seems to me that you would glady "live" a serveant life…

A “servant” life? What the hell does that mean? How is a British citizen any more of a “servant” than I am?

duggie-89 wrote: »

…rather than fight or at least attempt to achieve a better life.

“Fighting” for something does not necessarily have to involve violence. I have already pointed out that Parnell achieved a great deal through non-violent means, as did O'Connell. In fact, both achieved a hell of a lot more than Pearse & co.

duggie-89 wrote: »

also your idea that if it saves lives why not would that apply to the d-day landings in WW2???

I’m not going to get side-tracked onto a discussion about military tactics in WW2; it is not relevant to this discussion. Besides, you’re analogy is a poor one – unless I am very much mistaken, the D-Day Landings involved soldiers killing other soldiers.

duggie-89 wrote: »

but why does something being way more achievable have to do a major part in it, if one is what you want try for it. do what you can to achieve it.

Absolutely. But if civilian deaths are considered necessary in order to obtain your goals, then you’d damn well better come up with an alternative means to achieve your aim.

duggie-89 wrote: »

well i wouldn't say it was a large portion, since the treaty passed with only a few votes in it in the dail…

Which would mean the MAJORITY of the Dáil (and by extension, a large proportion of the population) supported the Treaty, no?

walrusgumble

djpbarry wrote: »

So? You could use that to justify just about anything? The death rate in the developed world is approximately 0.7 to 0.8% per annum. In the developing world, it can be as high as 4.5%; what are another few innocent deaths, eh? They’re not your friends or family, so who cares, right?
Do you have any value for human life whatsoever? The lives in question, even just one of them, are far more valuable than your so-called “greater good”. Human lives are not some sort of commodity that can be traded for political goals.
Innocent deaths are never necessary; describing the deaths of children as “regrettable” is absolutely appalling.
A “servant” life? What the hell does that mean? How is a British citizen any more of a “servant” than I am?
“Fighting” for something does not necessarily have to involve violence. I have already pointed out that Parnell achieved a great deal through non-violent means, as did O'Connell. In fact, both achieved a hell of a lot more than Pearse & co.
I’m not going to get side-tracked onto a discussion about military tactics in WW2; it is not relevant to this discussion. Besides, you’re analogy is a poor one – unless I am very much mistaken, the D-Day Landings involved soldiers killing other soldiers.
Absolutely. But if civilian deaths are considered necessary in order to obtain your goals, then you’d damn well better come up with an alternative means to achieve your aim.
Which would mean the MAJORITY of the Dáil (and by extension, a large proportion of the population) supported the Treaty, no?

well first off, it is a genuine pitty that there were not more people like yourself ie taking action through political / non violent means back then, maybe there would have been eg no boer war, no ww1 (cant really say ww2 as action did need to be taken)

however, i ask that you look at parnell's background. how did parnell make home rule popular as oppose to say his predeccessor Issac Butt? what did he do first and who did he associate with?

you remember the land league, the cause for the right of irish tenants to buy their land? that was not always a tea party, often violent as one may remember and a group that enjoyed support from fenian off shoots like clann na gael. do you really think o'connell and parnell would have achieve as much as they did (and they are hero's of mine btw) if the 1798 rebellion and the risings of 1800's not occur - note why gladstone wanted to do so much to pacify ireland and why was quite accommodating to parnell (yes parnell gave him a government) parnell also had no qualms in dealing with people like john devoy of clann na gael. correct me if i am wrong but parnell did not actually achieve home rule himself.

also, look at the differences between that of the 1914 home rule bill and that of the treaty; greater independence was given in domestic areas such as currency, tax, defence (albeit its size and treaty ports), non requirement of representation in westminister (as required by 1914) you tell me that this was not achieved by the likes of war of independence?

i agree with what you are saying about civilian loss of life, and in no way wish to compare them to say ww1 or ww2 or even glorigy 1916. but value for human beings had a much different priority in the early 20th century, alternatives to war worldwide was only truely discovered and explored after ww2 (look how the league of nations fell apart) the concept of human rights only really came into being with the league of nations and was only truely galvanised in 1956 with the delcaration on human rights - i you take that view- look how long it was before ireland and uk and many other countries abolished the death penalty. ( i am not saying this right or wrong just that was the way things were, no matter how much you or i or anyone else wishes to paint it - the british and french empires are fine examples of disregard for human life)


hindsight is a great thing, i aint dismissing you valid case, but you look at what was going on between 1780-1922 worldwide, look how much wars ie civil or national, international, independence etc happened. look how many inocent civilians were killed. empires had f*ck all regard for its colonies. the whole 800 years thing (whch is inaccurate) and the "selective" badness the british did to ireland (and to many many other of its colonies - not all that britain did was wrongof course) you look at the international convent on civil and political rights- the right to determine your own country and independence - was that around prior to 1920's? did even america wish to recognise independence of ireland at the paris conference in 1919? why not - politics and allegiance with britain and their self interests with war years? how do you, as a small country take an empire like britian down a peg or two when all its existence has all the political cards as it created the bloody system then?

if people are so concerned, then why is the american and french revolution not dismissed? mny innocent civilians were killed. nelson mandela was involved in miliant resistence in his early years - why is he hailed as a hero (rightly so)

civil war in ireland was an unforunate thing and the biggest mistake in irish history but it should not be justified for damning the 1916 rising, if you damn the rising then you damn the people's support of republicanism with the success of the 1918 elections and subsequent 1919 and the general support of the ira in the war of independce. the rising did change people's minds on home rule and ambition for a republic and for that, pearse's "war" and his purpose succeeded! - there had been no political party strong enough to get that message across - sinn fein at that time were weak and laughed at by the west brit brigade and there ideology was not definite until the infliration of irb men in 1918- they achieved or attempted to achieve what they did in the only means that they knew - violence against the empires forces. to this day a united ireland is still an aspiration for many in this country. you look at the difference of attitude between cosgrave (who was a true republican) and de valera throught their intent of dismantling the treaty to make it acceptable to republicianism

the difference is that the aftermath of civil war (the division of irish politics only being brought together in more recent times) and the troubles makes people realise that militism can no longer be accepted nor would it be achievable

djpbarry

walrusgumble wrote: »

however, i ask that you look at parnell's background. how did parnell make home rule popular as oppose to say his predeccessor Issac Butt? what did he do first and who did he associate with?

Parnell did indeed associate with certain undesirables; I would have said his goal in this was to unite all republicans/nationalists behind a common cause, i.e. home rule. For a time, he was largely successful in achieving this.

But it was his tactical skills in the House of Commons that brought him to prominence, engaging in such practices as obstructionism in order to draw attention to the Irish cause.

walrusgumble wrote: »

correct me if i am wrong but parnell did not actually achieve home rule himself.

Not in his lifetime, no. But, a home rule bill was passed in 1914, due in no small part to his efforts.

walrusgumble wrote: »

… look at the differences between that of the 1914 home rule bill and that of the treaty; greater independence was given in domestic areas such as currency, tax, defence (albeit its size and treaty ports), non requirement of representation in westminister (as required by 1914) …

None of which justified the great loss of life during the Rising, the War of Independence, the Civil War and the subsequent troubles in the North over the course of the 20th century.

walrusgumble wrote: »

but value for human beings had a much different priority in the early 20th century

No it did not – that line is just trotted out by IRA apologists. Was human life also less valuable in Harrods in December 1983? What about Manchester in June 1996?

walrusgumble wrote: »

the concept of human rights only really came into being with the league of nations and was only truely galvanised in 1956 with the delcaration on human rights

A declaration that the IRA frequently overlooked.

walrusgumble wrote: »

hindsight is a great thing, i aint dismissing you valid case, but you look at what was going on between 1780-1922 worldwide, look how much wars ie civil or national, international, independence etc happened. look how many inocent civilians were killed.

I believe I have already addressed a similar point. Millions of people have been killed in wars since the Rising; WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard. Military organisations still have as little regard for human life as they did 100 years ago. You cannot justify the killing of innocent civilians by simply saying “well, hey, everyone else was doing it”. By your logic, I could detonate a bomb in Dublin City centre, killing x number of people, for whatever political aim and then justify it by saying, “hey, it works for Al-Qaeda.”

walrusgumble wrote: »

if people are so concerned, then why is the american and french revolution not dismissed?

I’m not sure what you mean – dismissed as what?

walrusgumble wrote: »

nelson mandela was involved in miliant resistence in his early years - why is he hailed as a hero (rightly so)

That’s your opinion – I personally disagree with the tactics he employed. Having said that, he was at least prepared to admit that the ANC violated human rights.

walrusgumble wrote: »

civil war in ireland was an unforunate thing and the biggest mistake in irish history but it should not be justified for damning the 1916 rising…

I am not using the Civil War as a stick with which to beat the Rising. I am saying that they were ALL unnecessary and a terrible loss of life.

walrusgumble wrote: »

if you damn the rising then you damn the people's support of republicanism with the success of the 1918 elections and subsequent 1919 and the general support of the ira in the war of independce.

As has already been said, support for Republicanism only swelled significantly AFTER the executions of those involved in the Rising; the Rising itself, even in it’s aftermath, did not have widespread support.

walrusgumble wrote: »

the difference is that the aftermath of civil war (the division of irish politics only being brought together in more recent times) and the troubles makes people realise that militism can no longer be accepted nor would it be achievable

But it was acceptable before the Civil War? That makes no sense and if anything only serves to reinforce my argument. You are basically saying that violence was acceptable until people realised its consequences. The IRA only decommissioned their arms in 2005 – what suddenly changed then that made violence unacceptable?

Victor

If anyone wants the details of the parade from two years ago, they are still linked from the front page of www.taoiseach.gov.ie

walrusgumble

djpbarry wrote: »

Parnell did indeed associate with certain undesirables; I would have said his goal in this was to unite all republicans/nationalists behind a common cause, i.e. home rule. For a time, he was largely successful in achieving this.

But it was his tactical skills in the House of Commons that brought him to prominence, engaging in such practices as obstructionism in order to draw attention to the Irish cause.
Not in his lifetime, no. But, a home rule bill was passed in 1914, due in no small part to his efforts.
None of which justified the great loss of life during the Rising, the War of Independence, the Civil War and the subsequent troubles in the North over the course of the 20th century.
No it did not – that line is just trotted out by IRA apologists. Was human life also less valuable in Harrods in December 1983? What about Manchester in June 1996?
A declaration that the IRA frequently overlooked.
I believe I have already addressed a similar point. Millions of people have been killed in wars since the Rising; WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard. Military organisations still have as little regard for human life as they did 100 years ago. You cannot justify the killing of innocent civilians by simply saying “well, hey, everyone else was doing it”. By your logic, I could detonate a bomb in Dublin City centre, killing x number of people, for whatever political aim and then justify it by saying, “hey, it works for Al-Qaeda.”
I’m not sure what you mean – dismissed as what?
That’s your opinion – I personally disagree with the tactics he employed. Having said that, he was at least prepared to admit that the ANC violated human rights.
I am not using the Civil War as a stick with which to beat the Rising. I am saying that they were ALL unnecessary and a terrible loss of life.
As has already been said, support for Republicanism only swelled significantly AFTER the executions of those involved in the Rising; the Rising itself, even in it’s aftermath, did not have widespread support.
But it was acceptable before the Civil War? That makes no sense and if anything only serves to reinforce my argument. You are basically saying that violence was acceptable until people realised its consequences. The IRA only decommissioned their arms in 2005 – what suddenly changed then that made violence unacceptable?

1. how can you compare what has happened in 1916-1921 with the actions of 1969-2005? its lazy and ignorant of the realities and facts of the times that they were. many in the north did not like what was happening (thats an understatement) but even in the words of the paul quinn who acknowledged how he felt betrayed by the ira after people of south armagh had put up with them and supported them for so long. you saying that people of 1916 and subsequent years should never went out to look for independence just because of the north, an event that really broke out 30 years later? how the hell were they to know what would happen in the future? wasn't it the "great political minds" of the free state who made embarrising f*ck ups during the 1925 boundary commission - who got bullied by craig - how the hell do you loose 2 catholic dominated counties and replace it with a dominantely protestant "thumb tact" that was buncranna (no disrepect to people of that area)


blaming 1916 for the start and duration of the troubles is a complete cop out and execuse for the politicans. the troubles should have and could have being avoided if britian responded to unionist actions of gerrymandering and discrimination in the access of public services - rights that are now recognised by instruments such as the international convenant of civil and political rights and the socio economic equivalent. quashing opposition of the likes of paisley (who opposed these marches) and public support of these marches may have never giving the ira reasons to setting up the provisional ira or getting back to prominence
if constitutionlists were so concerned about northern ireland, then why did they delay in over 35 years in dealing with people of sinn fein, democratically elected people of sinn fein and leave them out in the cold, banning/censoring them from broadcasts, where were the irish politicans when pressure was needed on britian to support human rights people like pat finnuncane? (if any one thinks thats poor taste for including him - sorry) look at the funeral of the hunger strikers and the reaction of people in the ground after their deaths, appears they had more support and trust than those in dail eireann or stormount.

NOTHING constructive was done by politicans as a united front in dail eireann prior to 1990's. northern ireland was long forgotten about by the likes of de valera, haughey and fitgerald- only cropping up as a distraction from crisis after crisis on the domestic front.(haighey in partiucular, behind sunningdale but cruciiying fitz over the 1985 agreement) where were they in trying to resolve things and giving the militants an alternative or even space to carrying out and justify what they did? why wasn't someone like paisley not gagged even by rte? certain politicans have alot to answer for as well (well sure mr adams and macguinnes are going to pop up in your response - maybe have a look at Fr Alec Reids papers - will show the constructive efforts they made in trying to persuade republicans to give them a chance)

try to get this into your head, it is not accurate to blame 1916 on the troubles. for a fair part of the 1940-1966 ira were out of action, despite continued harrassment by b specials and ruc, political powers that be, either in westminster or dail (not much they could do) could have prevented civil rights movements from needing to start in the first place! it was the politicans who are responsible for the problems experienced by civilians on both sides of the communities (social and civil rights wise) in the first place. had britian acted better, seeing that it was their land, there would have been no cause for the reserection of the ira or more accurate the establishment of the provisonal ira.

are people really that fickle when they decided that the irish parliamentary party were not for them in 1918, considering their track record? how many ipp members returned to westminister? why didn't the remaining ones take up their invitation to dail eireann in january 1919?

2. as for mandela, no matter how much one disapproves his early tactics, they were the ONLY options out of desperation that they had, you really think blacks would have been listened to in south africa at this time when most did not even have a vote? what where they suppose to do? sit on their hands keep getting harrassed and beaten shouting "make love not war". yes war is horrible,yes in hindsight its a waste, but answer this, if your family or your community are being harrassed, beaten ignored or if your loved one was held at gun point - how long would it take before you crack and lash out. you can hardly blame most ordinary citizens of the republican and loylist sections in recruiting to protect their areas when you had someone like thacter about could you? unfortunately there is no such thing as a utopia

3. yes you are right about parnell, as for the "undesirables" - boy you are a snob - pokes of the same attitude of the landlords at this time - parnell had held high regard for many of these "undesirables" by the way (Davitt beign one). how do you or i know what they were like? not many in those days had the intelligence/hindsight to think "oh wait violence is not the answer! family members or distant family members of yours, if your family came from down the country, might have being involved in the land league and the boycotting. one thing a lot of historians have stated about parnell was that he was a consumate politican and a wonderful manlipulator of events.

pearse caused a rising. its sole purpose was not to win as it would never do - a fact that griffith and tom barry had acknowledged. its puropose was to reignite the desire for a republic - he even said that at his court martial that executing him it would cause outrage and a change in the publics thinking. for a good ten years he was right, he succeeded in this aims. (you honestly think that the leaders believed that britain would just deport them like they did with devoy and that would be that? (no i am not saying violence is great etc) butt and parnell never ever considered or uttered the idea of complete seperation from the uk nor was it ever in their minds, particularily butt, just the right to govern their land.

since alot of home rulers have speculated what might have happened in order to justify the future why home rule was the right it - who is to say that by getting home rule in the very manner that was offered to ireland in 1914 (as oppose to that in 1921) would have led establishing a republic all but in the name via bunreacht na heireann and to the idea of proclaming a republic in 1949? prior to the rising their was never a want for a complete and independent country. 1916 should not be glorified as it was only a stepping stone (without sounding disengenious to their deeds) like it or not, home rule is not and could not be part of the storyline that drove this country out of the commonwealth. the people who actually did prove collins right had a pre set mind that one day it would leave the empire. there is damn all linkage or evidence that parnell or redmond had considered the plan to one day leave the empire (as it was then) for that, all though morally wrong, pearse succeeded despite opposition. how many would critize 1916 they way it has being here if the war was successful?,not referring to you dp as you made your point clear to your opposition of force period,

3. the home rule bill of 1914 did not give or promised to give us a true say in our domestic affairs, so big deal, this only came after a war of independence and treaty.

in 1918, sinn fein made it very very very public what there aims were in their declaration of independence and message to the free world on the 19th of January 1919. they acted as a peaceful and democratic manner. why did westminister try and play dirty tricks (german plot) in order to justify stamping the irish parliament out - weren't they going to give the home rule any way - wasn't it part of the statutue books? in a situation today, wouldn't the first thing to be done would be to allow or support the establishment of a domestice government so that it would quiten their cause and not give people reason to support the militants?

4. as for your response to the about attitudes of of countries towards human rights in the early 20th century, again if i am correct periods of 1916-1956 is part of the early 20th century?. i am talking about the period of 1916-1956- the days before human rights was considered by the average person as being paramount, the days prior to instruments like universial declaration of human rights, the realisation that a ww3 can defintely not happen again at all costs. i am talking about a period when wars for indepedence were were the thing to do

i am not f*cking referring to 1983 or 1996 as early 20th century , i made that very very very clear by using ww2 as a cut of point to the change of attitudes towards the use of warfare . that is my argument. its not to appologise for ira actions of 1983 or 1996. so do so as you implied is wrong and irrelevant to my posts to which you are responding to. if we stick to pre 1969 for our arguments then fine - but otherwise you are talking about a complete kettle of fih. the period these threads is to talk, argue, agree and disagree about 1912-1922 and the years that lead up to these events. if you argue on the side of the ipp and home rule fine, but at least use the facts, realities and circumstances surronding that particular period or period close to that and not what happens later. point 1 i am more than happy to disguise with you on a seperate thread.

5. as for war being acceptable before civil war ( i am with you with regard to civil war) i am not saying aye sure its grand its ok, what i am saying was it was the mentality - the thing to do - the possible option - the attitude of the day - what was ever done to stop them from happening like efforts are today with un peacekeeping,- i am not saying its right or perfect but the reality was it happened. incidents like ww2 . the establishment of the un in 1956 was a direct response to ww2 and its findings of nurumeburg. it was there because such a war made it very clear that it must do what the league of nations failed to do, and try and do so and all costs in a peaceful manner. that war could no longer be an option no matter what.

again when i compared the POLITICAL (the people who put or drive the militants into action) attitudes of the time i made a very clear cut off point at ww2 and 1956 human rights declaration. you are not reinforcing your argument to effect because i am not even arguing with you about the attitudes at the time of ww2 and vietnam etc - by the way how many anti war marches were there before world war 2?