1916 Leaders - should they have been fined?

SirHenryGrattan

Perhaps if the 1916 Leaders had been fined rather than executed then Ireland would have been a more peaceful place.

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

"Compared to the fate of leading Irish rebels of the Easter Rising in 1916, the leading Boer rebels got off lightly with terms of imprisonment of six and seven years and heavy fines".

A Dub in Glasgo

Ireland would have been a more peaceful place if people listened to democracy

LordSutch

I dont know if the 1916 rising was deliberatel planned to take place 'slap bang' in the middle of the Great War, but if it was, then surely the rebel leaders would have expected some kind of serious retribution?

Bearing in mind that the majority of people milling around Dublin that week were waiting for news of their 'loved ones' on the western front, many of whom were being decimated by German machine guns . . . . . and then the rebels launch an attack in Ireland !!!

In the climate of the time, surely the rebel leaders knew they would get more than just a fine!

Victor

Camelot wrote: »

In the climate of the time, surely the rebel leaders know they would get more than just a fine!

That, in fact, is what they were relying upon - a blood sacrifice.

luckat

This theory comes out of a slight lack of knowledge of how Ireland was at the time; it was a deeply unequal place, and 1916 - and the War of Independence that followed - happened not from any abstract sense of national feeling, but from the injustice that then prevailed.

I'm currently reading Dublin Made Me by Todd Andrews, a fascinating book that gives a good sense of what Dublin was like in the years when he was growing up, first in Summerhill - then a turgid slum where children had no shoes and people used their daily clothes as their only bed covering - and then in Terenure, which was then a poorish village.

Mercier did a new edition a few years ago - it's probably available in local libraries.

SirHenryGrattan

Camelot wrote: »

I dont know if the 1916 rising was deliberatel planned to take place 'slap bang' in the middle of the Great War, but if it was, then surely the rebel leaders would have expected some kind of serious retribution?

Bearing in mind that the majority of people milling around Dublin that week were waiting for news of their 'loved ones' on the western front, many of whom were being decimated by German machine guns . . . . . and then the rebels launch an attack in Ireland !!!

In the climate of the time, surely the rebel leaders knew they would get more than just a fine!

True. Indeed the Sepoys were not so lucky. This link has a photo of the executions in Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1915_Singapore_Mutiny

studiorat

1916 should be examined against the background of the nationalist movement, those who opposed any weakening of the link with the Crown and the events happening on the battlefields in Europe. It was hoped that the Rising would secure Ireland a place at a peace conference after the war.

The threat of conscription consolidated the division of popular opinion.
The frustration at the lack of progress on Home Rule and the prospect that it would not be for the whole Island, reinforced by the refusal of the British War Office to create an Irish Brigade was compounded by the abhorrence of the actual executions.

It should be noted that civilian fatalities actually outnumbered British and Rebel fatalities.
Civilian : 250
British Forces : 130
Insurgants : 60.

1916 set in motion a chain of events that would eventually lead to the formation of the republic.

SirHenryGrattan

studiorat wrote: »

It should be noted that civilian fatalities actually outnumbered British and Rebel fatalities.
Civilian : 250
British Forces : 130
Insurgants : 60.

That's very true but remember the conflict was fought in an urban area full of civilians and we know from Iraq and Gaza that when wars are fought in urban areas then civilians will make up the bulk of the casualties.

Was any attempt made to negotiate with the rebels? Could the situation have been defused?

Victor

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Was any attempt made to negotiate with the rebels? Could the situation have been defused?

I'm not sure if they were up for negotiating - remember they were out for their whole blood sacrifice thing?

That said, the rebellion was ended by negotiation, but it was a surrender to prevent further bloodshed, not a "I see your grievances, we're sorry, come and meet the Prime Minister".

T runner

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure if they were up for negotiating - remember they were out for their whole blood sacrifice thing?

That said, the rebellion was ended by negotiation, but it was a surrender to prevent further bloodshed, not a "I see your grievances, we're sorry, come and meet the Prime Minister".

It was the British who were responsible for all the civilian deaths. Sending a gunship up the Liffey and shelling all around. This showed people what they had forgotten: that Ireland was and would always be a second rate part of any United (British) Kingdom compared to their English 'Masters'.

The Election in 1918 was a 'ratification' of the rising as Sinn Fein won a majority of seats.

From Camelot:
Bearing in mind that the majority of people milling around Dublin that week were waiting for news of their 'loved ones' on the western front, many of whom were being decimated by German machine guns . . . . . and then the rebels launch an attack in Ireland !!!

The reason that there was so many Irish troops in Europe was because the English promised the IVF if they fought they would get home rule and they promised the UVF if they fought there would be no home rule!

The people in the 1916 rising have been more than vindicated by the history of the free part of Ireland although let down by the incredibly mistake to partition the country.

galwayrush

Is it true that the people of Dublin lined up to pelt the leaders with rotting vegetables / fruit and boo them and that it was only after the British executed them that the became "Heroes"?
I feel that the timing of the rising was stupid considering it was in the middle of the Great War where so many Southern Irish people perished in the trenches.

SirHenryGrattan

The 1916 Rising was just the latest in a long series of rebellions that punctuated the Irish campaign for Home Rule which effectively started immediately after the Act of Union was passed in 1800. Most rebellions were born of frustration at the lack of progress made by democratic politicians like O'Connell and the IPP at Westminster. If a week is a long time in politics then what is 114 years? This was probably a factor in 1916 as well. The British Government's decision first to countenance partition then to delay implementation of Home Rule until after the war must have sown some doubts about whether HR would ever be implemented.

If Home Rule had been granted in 1912 there would have been no 1916 so those who opposed Home Rule need to take some responsibikity as well.

mountainyman

Camelot wrote: »

Imany of whom were being decimated by German machine guns . . . . . and then the rebels launch an attack in Ireland !!!

How does one go about being decimated?

LordSutch

dec·i·mate (ds-mt)
tr.v. dec·i·mat·ed, dec·i·mat·ing, dec·i·mates

decimate
verb destroy, devastate, wipe out, ravage, eradicate, annihilate, put paid to, lay waste, wreak havoc on. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group). To inflict great destruction or damage on:

deci·mation n.
Usage Note: Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a group.

ie; Thirty Five thousand Irish men killed in the Great War. (1914-1918).