Myth and propaganda of the unpopuliarity of 1916 ?

donaghs

MrMicra wrote: »

If Culchies were so patriotic why did they vote overwhelmingly for partition?

I don't think there was ever a vote for partition.

MarchDub

MrMicra wrote: »

A million protestants for one thing. Surely they count as many people. Home Rule was not intended to be independence but a stepping stone to independence.

If you had read the rest of my answer - or not edited it to suit your comment - you would have seen that I said that Sinn Fein won 73% of the seats in the all Ireland 1918 election. They won on the explicit platform of an independent Ireland and the expressed intention of setting up an independent government in Dublin - secession. In a democracy that counts as a win, the opinion of the losing minority notwithstanding.

brianthebard

MrMicra wrote: »

A million protestants for one thing. Surely they count as many people. Home Rule was not intended to be independence but a stepping stone to independence.

That's not true at all Home Rule was not intended to lead to full independence, you're mixing it up with the Anglo-Irish treaty.
Also please tone down the culchie bashing.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

That's not true at all Home Rule was not intended to lead to full independence, you're mixing it up with the Anglo-Irish treaty.

That is true.

One of the aspects of Home Rule was that it was kind of a successor to Parnells bunch. It was more an integrated federalist(if I am not mixing my terms) approach.

You also have to remember the suffrage issue and that not everyone had the vote.

I think I would be correct in saying the Home Rule Movement was more Middle Class and the Irish Volunteers more popularist.

Its demise could be parrallelled with that of the Liberal Party in the UK.

So there was radical socio-political change throughout Europe at that time not just Ireland.Think Weimar Germany and soldiers home from the war.

Some might say that model would have avoided partition and have been more integrationist and more in tune with the economic realities of independence.

While there has been some papers published about plansfor an Irish invasion of the North in 1969 -there was also another study that the Lynch government used that said it couldn't afford the North.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

As an issue how big were the "civilian" casualties in the period and was it an issue?

"Civilian" casualties were a big thing in the North and affected political support - so did they here?

Secret papers pertaining to British Army activities held by the British were released under Tony Blair's premiership and revealed that there were over 300 civilian deaths caused by the army during Easter Week 1916. In King Street - a contentious and disputed issue for years - these documents concurred that the British Army shot 13 civilians including a father and two young sons who were taken from their home and shot in the street outside.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Secret papers pertaining to British Army activities held by the British were released under Tony Blair's premiership and revealed that there were over 300 civilian deaths caused by the army during Easter Week 1916. In King Street - a contentious and disputed issue for years - these documents concurred that the British Army shot 13 civilians including a father and two young sons who were taken from their home and shot in the street outside.

I am not disputing that and a relative was a fatality.

You did have victims of Nationalists too. If I am not mistaken didn't the Nationalists take pot shots at looters in O'Connell Street.

So there were fatalities caused by the Nationalists.

The Nationalists werent the only insurgents as you also had the Irish Citizens Army- who are often ignored and that must have changed the political independence dynamic substantially.

I

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

That is true.


Some might say that model would have avoided partition and have been more integrationist and more in tune with the economic realities of independence.

The argument against that is that while Home Rule was on the table in 1912 and most especially when it was passed there was serious discussion amongst Unionists about partition. PM Asquith was very much considering partition of the island as later released papers reveal. This was known by the Irish Volunteers who wanted to take more immediate action – and did in 1916. The Home Rule Bill they felt, was leading to partition.

The idea of partition was not something that grew out of 1916 – it was one of the many reasons for 1916.

McArmalite

MrMicra wrote: »

A million protestants for one thing. Surely they count as many people. Home Rule was not intended to be independence but a stepping stone to independence.

I'm not trying to bitch with you Mr Micra because your posts have been quite good, but I assume you mean by a million protestants a million unionists. I said it many times on this forum that protestant does not = unionist. To define someone's political outlook as Catholic or Protestant is not just inacurate but also helps to perpetrate the myth that the conflict is a secterian religious one and not one of national allegiance.

And I also agree with MarchDub " Sinn Fein won 73% of the seats in the all Ireland 1918 election. In a democracy that counts as a win, the opinion of the losing minority notwithstanding. " The majority in any democracy is 50%+1. However in Ireland when we vote 73% in favour - somehow we have british apologists such as Garret Fitzgerald, Ruth Dudley Edwards etc who tells us it's not the mandate of the majority !!!!!

But anyway, it's one of the great myths of so called ' Northern Ireland ' there's never been a million unionists, at most their's 900,000 of them at the moment ( about 800,000+ nationalists ) in the six counties. It's always trotted out by anti nationalists that a " million unionists cannot be forced into a United Irealnd " but of course frocing 800,000 nationalists into a british state is ok with the same people .....:rolleyes:

And yes, I totally agree that Home Rule was intended to be but a stepping stone to independence.

walrusgumble

MrMicra wrote: »

Absolutely false. Dublin and the Dublin area was always the cradle of rebellion in Ireland. If Culchies were so patriotic why did they vote overwhelmingly for partition?

The fact is that the people of Kerry and Sligo lived in endogamous incredibly insular communities and did not give a hang about Ireland or anything outside their own barony.
The people of Sligo were touching the forelock to Mountbatten in the bloody 1970s. Patriots indeed!

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

i am from down the country myself.

sadly, many who were farmers probably could not give a feck or were content with their lot (further progress in buying up of land) after the land league war. Many went ape over the ideas of connolly and co when they considered all land should be used in the state's interest etc

i don't know where your at about voting for partition. The treaty? good friday ? - jesus if thats the case, your very mistaken to think dublin was unco-operative.

Know doubt you are aware of the work of cork,limerick, longford and clare during the tan war

McArmalite

CDfm wrote: »

One thing that has always interested me was the little amount of information available on "civilian" victims in the whole episode.

This is from wiki " The British Army reported casualties of 116 dead, 368 wounded and 9 missing. 16 policemen died and 29 were wounded. Irish casualties were 318 dead and 2,217 wounded. The Volunteers and ICA recorded 64 killed in action, but otherwise Irish casualties were not divided into rebels and civilians. "

Also - that there were looter casualties on O'Connell Street.

From what I vaguely remember, on the evening of Easter Monday the Volunteers fired a few shots over the heads of the looters to disperse them as needless to say, things were getting very hot military wise in the city centre. I have no recollection of the IRA shooting dead anyone, but to me I would have thought their sympathies would have been with the poor and oppressed of Dublin. It would be more like the british officer class to order the shooting of looters.

I read somewhere that in the 1916 rising that the British Troops on Guard Duty on Easter 1916 were not issued with ammunition.

So what, that's their tough luck.

As an issue how big were the "civilian" casualties in the period and was it an issue?

"Civilian" casualties were a big thing in the North and affected political support - so did they here?

I cannot say exactly, as far as I know most of the civilians causaulties weren't due to rifle fire from either side, but due to cannon fire ( the british managed to kill quite a few of their own by cannon fire mistaking them for Rebel positions ) and the gunboat the Helga did a huge amount of damage. It makes sense really. The surrender document presented to the british states " In order to prevent the further slaughter of Dublin citizens, and in the hope of saving the lives of our followers now surrounded and hopelessly outnumbered, the members of the Provisional Government present at headquarters have agreed to an unconditional surrender, and the commandants of the various districts in the City and County will order their commands to lay down arms."

The other issue I have always wondered about was the composition of the British Army Soldiers and were there Irish soldiers fighting against the rebels?

There was a mix, there were even quite a few Aussies there. Regardless, a british soldier is a british soldier.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

The argument against that is that while Home Rule was on the table in 1912 and most especially when it was passed there was serious discussion amongst Unionists about partition. PM Asquith was very much considering partition of the island as later released papers reveal. This was known by the Irish Volunteers who wanted to take more immediate action – and did in 1916. The Home Rule Bill they felt, was leading to partition.

The idea of partition was not something that grew out of 1916 – it was one of the many reasons for 1916.

It was one of the options but some might say that it was the fall back position if political agreement was not reached.

So the fall back position became the reality when you had a war situation.

THe other issue to take into account is that universal male suffrage came in after the WW1 in return for the sacrifices made by soldiers from the UK.

Who knows while this goodwill was being spread around that you would not have had goodwill on Home Rule too.

Its conjecture but you had a lot of change.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

It was one of the options but some might say that it was the fall back position if political agreement was not reached.

So the fall back position became the reality when you had a war situation.

THe other issue to take into account is that universal male suffrage came in after the WW1 in return for the sacrifices made by soldiers from the UK.

Who knows while this goodwill was being spread around that you would not have had goodwill on Home Rule too.

Its conjecture but you had a lot of change.

Please believe me that I don't wish to offend you but this is really armchair political and historical hypothesizing at its best. The reality of the times - based on the evidence we have from available documents that give off very different vibes – is that the British had built up little sense of "goodwill" in Ireland. Partition was no garden party "fall-back" position chatter but a reality that was being discussed at cabinet level in 1913. It was an anathema to the IRB.

By 1914 the situation had become explosive both in Ulster and in the south. We can’t look back and speculate on what might have been based on what we would like to think might have been– historically all we can do is look at the record of what was.

CDfm

MrMicra wrote: »

Absolutely false. Dublin and the Dublin area was always the cradle of rebellion in Ireland. If Culchies were so patriotic why did they vote overwhelmingly for partition?

I am confused by this didnt Sinn Fein have 75 seats in westminister in 1918 election?

The fact is that the people of Kerry and Sligo lived in endogamous incredibly insular communities and did not give a hang about Ireland or anything outside their own barony.

Dev was from Clare, Collins from Cork and you forget leaders like Liam Mellows in Galway and MacCurtain in Cork. There was great confusions over orders and actions in 1916 In Dublin not to mind anywhere else who recieved orders and countermanded orders.


You are being unfair as many of the population of those counties were so extraordinarily poor and you were not talking about whitewashed stone cottages but of subsistence farming and glorified mud huts.Politics and revoloution is a luxury in those situations.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Please believe me that I don't wish to offend you but this is really armchair political and historical hypothesizing at its best. The reality of the times - based on the evidence we have from available documents that give off very different vibes – is that the British had built up little sense of "goodwill" in Ireland. Partition was no garden party "fall-back" position chatter but a reality that was being discussed at cabinet level in 1913. It was an anathema to the IRB.

I think you miss my point and I am just saying that of the options available the rebellion achieved the option they desired least. So they ended up with the worst possible solutions that the Home Rule Party believed they could achieve.

I am not saying the British Rulers built goodwill. I am saying that the Irish Soldiers in WW1 had built goodwill and Redmond and the HR Party hoped to use this goodwill for a better settlement.

The rebelion could be seen as making partition inevitable as it forced an entrenchment of positions along the lines favoured by Askwith.Home Rule had already been voted by parliment but delayed by the War.So it was happening -it was the final part that had to be implimented.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I think you miss my point and I am just saying that of the options available the rebellion achieved the option they desired least. So they ended up with the worst possible solutions that the Home Rule Party believed they could achieve.

I am not saying the British Rulers built goodwill. I am saying that the Irish Soldiers in WW1 had built goodwill and Redmond and the HR Party hoped to use this goodwill for a better settlement.

The rebelion could be seen as making partition inevitable as it forced an entrenchment of positions along the lines favoured by Askwith.Home Rule had already been voted by parliment but delayed by the War.So it was happening -it was the final part that had to be implimented.

I do get the point - you are speculating and I am answering that exercise directly. But I will leave it to Oscar Wilde to really clear things up -

"Ah! That is clearly a metaphysical speculation, and like most metaphysical speculations has very little reference to the actual facts of real life, as we know it."

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I do get the point - you are speculating and I am answering that exercise directly.

It may be speculation but what are the odds that the Anglo/Irish Treaty was any better than the political solution negotiated by the HR Party and which was passed for the Third Time by Parliment in 1913.

The Home Rule Act is a fact and after it had passed for the third time in the Commons it was inevitable.

The speculation is whether or not the Rising achieved anything in the form of improved terms?

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

It may be speculation but what are the odds that the Anglo/Irish Treaty was any better than the political solution negotiated by the HR Party and which was passed for the Third Time by Parliment in 1913.

The Home Rule Act is a fact and after it had passed for the third time in the Commons it was inevitable.

The speculation is whether or not the Rising achieved anything in the form of improved terms?

You could go around in circles forever with that pub style argument - what if the Russian Revolution had not occurred in the middle of WWI? , what if the Americans had not gone into Revolution in 1776 and remained a part of the Empire - maybe their civil war would not have happened ? etc etc. Would they be better of?... and other such nonsensical questions etc etc. We can't know and I don't engage in endless circles - we don't have a parallel universe to consult.

CDfm

Don't get me wrong I am proud to be Irish.

I have mixed views on whether 1916 actually achieved anything and it is something that I have always wondered about.I am cynical.Home Rule was already achieved but had to be implemented.

What did change was that rather then the Home Rule Party assuming power the IRB Volunteers and their successors did.

Once 1916 occurred there was no alternative but the war of independence. It changed the landscape.Partition was inevitable. You had terretorial concessions and in the aftermath you had mass emigration of protestants and with them their investment capital.

Even Michael Collins was convinced the Republicans only had 2 weeks left when the Treaty Negotiations started. He said the treaty would be his death warrant so understood the Civil War was inevitable.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I am proud to be Irish.

I have mixed views on whether 1916 actually achieved anything and it is something that I have always wondered about.I am cynical.Home Rule was already achieved but had to be implemented.

What did change was that rather then the Home Rule Party assuming power the IRB Volunteers and their successors did.

Once 1916 occurred there was no alternative but the war of independence. It changed the landscape.Partition was inevitable. You had terretorial concessions and in the aftermath you had mass emigration of protestants and with them their investment capital.

Even Michael Collins was convinced the Republicans only had 2 weeks left when the Treaty Negotiations started. He said the treaty would be his death warrant so understood the Civil War was inevitable.

All I can say is that IMO the real inevitability had become the 1916 Rising.

Given all the complex tensions - the arming of the Ulster Volunteers in 1913 and their expressed determination to break the "achieved" Home Rule Bill - Rome Rule as they feared - by arms and blood if necessary, the support this got from the English Conservative Party, – the skepticism for many nationalists surrounding the implementation of Home Rule Bill and the counter arming of the Irish volunteers, all meant that the constitutional path had failed dismally.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

I am not disputing that and a relative was a fatality.

You did have victims of Nationalists too. If I am not mistaken didn't the Nationalists take pot shots at looters in O'Connell Street.

So there were fatalities caused by the Nationalists.

The Nationalists werent the only insurgents as you also had the Irish Citizens Army- who are often ignored and that must have changed the political independence dynamic substantially.

I

No the republican forces did not shoot at the looters. Also to refer to the rebels as 'nationalist's' is somewhat wrongheaded, both the ICA and the IRB were republican in ideology, although the ICA was of the socialist republican persuasion.

CDfm wrote: »

Once 1916 occurred there was no alternative but the war of independence. It changed the landscape.Partition was inevitable.

Since this thread is about myths then this is another interesting myth that should be dealt with. It has suited the Irish state establishment to write that partition was a result of 1916 and the war of independence, and thus that violence caused as much harm as good to Ireland. This has become ever more important since the Troubles began in the late 60s. But partition was already more than a possibility but a certainty if Home Rule was ever to be introduced. Part of the very reason for 1916 was to avoid partition, at least for Connolly but also probably for most if not all of the leaders.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

No the republican forces did not shoot at the looters.

Were there civilian casualties caused by the republicans?

Also to refer to the rebels as 'nationalist's' is somewhat wrongheaded, both the ICA and the IRB were republican in ideology, although the ICA was of the socialist republican persuasion.

I never know how to refer to them. The coalitions forged were diverse - Tom Clarke overlooked in favour of Pierce and IMO more important, Connolly and Marcewicz a very interesting duo too.

There were a lot of Cosmopolitan types involved. Bono wouldn't have been out of place.

Another part is that electoral support for Sinn Fein in the election of 1918 was 47%.

Since this thread is about myths then this is another interesting myth that should be dealt with. It has suited the Irish state establishment to write that partition was a result of 1916 and the war of independence, and thus that violence caused as much harm as good to Ireland. This has become ever more important since the Troubles began in the late 60s.

This bit has confused me when I have read about it.

But partition was already more than a possibility but a certainty if Home Rule was ever to be introduced. Part of the very reason for 1916 was to avoid partition, at least for Connolly but also probably for most if not all of the leaders.

Partition was on the aghenda. How realistic was 1916 as a way to avoid it?

Grettbags

CDfm wrote: »

A great uncle was killed in the Somme in 1917. Another relative was a "civilian" victim during the period.

One thing that has always interested me was the little amount of information available on "civilian" victims in the whole episode. Also - that there were looter casualties on O'Connell Street.I read somewhere that in the 1916 rising that the British Troops on Guard Duty on Easter 1916 were not issued with ammunition.

As an issue how big were the "civilian" casualties in the period and was it an issue?

"Civilian" casualties were a big thing in the North and affected political support - so did they here?

The other issue I have always wondered about was the composition of the British Army Soldiers and were there Irish soldiers fighting against the rebels?

Just stumbled across this thread as I am currently doing research into my family history. Separate to this I have a passion of Irish history and this era in particular.

My Great Grandfather died in Dublin on 24th/ 25th of April 1916 aged 42. (Glasnevin Cemetry records say 24th/ headstone says 25th). He was living with his family, wife, six children (one of which was my Grandmother - now deceased - aged 2) and younger his brother and sister in the North inner city - near the five lamps at the time. The 1911 census states his occuption a coachman/ domestic servant.

There have been conflictinig stories passed down through the generations with regard to how he died. (My Gran Aunt is his only living child, however she's a nun living in Florida and her memory is fairly poor).
First story is from my Dad, he was told John Murray (my GGF) was shot by a British soldier during the rising in Chapelizod near the Mullingar House Public House. He was called to a halt as he led a horse and trap, however he failed to stop, hence he was shot. This could match up to the reports that unarmed civilians were shot during the 1916 rising as British Soldiers orders were not to take prisoners, according to War Office files released at the Public Record Office in London in 2001.
However recently my Aunt told me a conflicting account which entailed my GGF being shot by a Sniper and she is unsure if it was British solider. It may have been that he was caught in cross fire.

I am simply perplexed at how I can not find one shred of informtion pertaining to the civilian casualities of the rising. The number's are circa 300 and I was naive to think I would find a magic list of names. I am hoping his death cert will give me more info but it's doubtful. Another sad piece of thhs tail is that his wife Mary died four years later of TB and all six children were orphaned. After which they were all separated to live with various relatives in Meath and Westmeath. Theirs is a story not told and their father's death is not commemorated in any manner, shape or form.
Any thoughts from anyone on this and how I may be able to find out more...

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

Were there civilian casualties caused by the republicans?

I believe there was one man shot in Stephen's green by a young man for not giving up his vehicle that's the only case I know of, there probably were some unintentional casualties as well.

I never know how to refer to them. The coalitions forged were diverse - Tom Clarke overlooked in favour of Pierce and IMO more important, Connolly and Marcewicz a very interesting duo too.

There were a lot of Cosmopolitan types involved. Bono wouldn't have been out of place.

Another part is that electoral support for Sinn Fein in the election of 1918 was 47%.

How do you mean Clarke was overlooked? His involvement and guidance was very clear, he just didn't become CinC.

This bit has confused me when I have read about it.

Partition was on the agenda. How realistic was 1916 as a way to avoid it?

We can only speak about what if's in this case but the purpose of the 1916 Rising was an Ireland wide insurrection and planning had been undertaken for this. The countermanding order killed any chances of the Rising's success before it had begun. If the Rising had become a complete rebellion then its still not clear whether it could have been successful. Conventional forces in Connaught, Munster and Ulster were quite small for the most part and undertrained. It was hoped that the general population would join the republicans and ensure the rising's success, but Connolly did not declare a general ITGWU strike (I don't know why not) so the chances of this happening were significantly diminished. The catalyst for success in the war of independence was the corralling of rebels in the prisons of Frongoch and Reading. This acted as a breeding ground for planning and organisation in a way that had not been available before 1916. So the point is that even with a successful rising the rebels chances were slim, but they would have sought a complete independence that would not have allowed partition.

CDfm

Pierce was C in C but was he more of a figurehead then anything else. It seems to me know that the organisational side was handled by the longstanding IRB guys. In that way he didnt have an "executive" role.

On the "what if" side you can say that there was political polarisation Unionist vs Republican but would partition have happened at the expense of the souths protestants with a purely political settlement. Whatever hope there was of reassuring the souths protestants evaporated with the rising.

Frongoch was the key and I went to an Irish college where the headmaster used to wax lyrically about it- a lucky coincidence.

brianthebard

Yes Pearse's position was a figurehead, the same way the modern Irish president is the CinC of the Irish Army. However he was a senior member of the IRB and one of only a few men who were on the Military Council, a small body set up within the IRB but importantly was not a legitimate part of the movement. Many people on the Supreme Council (the supposed head of the IRB) did not know if the MC's existence. Pearse definitely had an executive role.

Partition was always going to leave behind Unionists in what became the Irish Free State, they just didn't have the organisation or concentrated numbers even in Dublin to hold out.

I don't know if it was very reassuring, but the rebels it seems specifically avoided attacking Trinity College and I think the Bank of Ireland because they were seen as Unionist symbols and they did not want to antagonise further. At least that's the reading of some historians I think Charles Townshend said as much. It does sort of make sense because Trinners would have been a useful position to take but they made no attempt on it.

CDfm

Thanks.

Was Trinity used as a base or something when the British regrouped- it does look fortress like and must have had some kind of Territorial Army based there?

McArmalite

CDfm wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I am proud to be Irish.

I have mixed views on whether 1916 actually achieved anything and it is something that I have always wondered about.I am cynical.Home Rule was already achieved but had to be implemented.

Yeah, your cynical - but only towards Irish nationalism and accept the line put foward by the british unquestioning.

What did change was that rather then the Home Rule Party assuming power the IRB Volunteers and their successors did.

Once 1916 occurred there was no alternative but the war of independence. It changed the landscape.

Dan Breen the man who shot the first causaulty in the Tan war states in his book that the post 1916 nationalist spirit was starting to drain as the months passed by and that's why he Sean Tracey etc staged the ambush and shootings in his words " So we'll provoke the british into making an army for us "

Partition was inevitable. You had terretorial concessions and in the aftermath you had mass emigration of protestants and with them their investment capital.

No it wasn't inevitable. If the balls up known as the treaty wasn't signed, partition would never have come about.

Even Michael Collins was convinced the Republicans only had 2 weeks left when the Treaty Negotiations started. He said the treaty would be his death warrant so understood the Civil War was inevitable.

Most of the major other figures in the IRA Tom Barry, Ernie O'Malley, Dan Breen, all totally oppose this. Collins put this out as an excuse to legitimise his signing of the treaty. It's one of the great myths of Irish history.

CDfm

I am not accepting the British line - I am asking questions because the PR elements that got dished out to me in my schooldays don't sit that well with me.

I have always had misgivings about the blood sacrifice issue. My grandfather did too and he was part of the West Cork Brigade.My grandfather was anti treaty btw but the Civil War left him cold and my uncle emigrated as a result of it.

McArmalite

CDfm wrote: »

Another part is that electoral support for Sinn Fein in the election of 1918 was 47%.

Ah yes, one of the other great myths to discredit Ireland's right to freedom.

You win 73% of the seats - and then that's declared not a majority What a sad little society we live in. If unionism had won 73% of the seats in 1918 we certainly wouldn't be hearing the same tripe.

47% of the electorate of Ireland voted for Sinn Fein to a unionist 25%, over a 2 to 1 majority :rolleyes:. The reason it wasn't hirer than 47% is due to the fact that some of the SF seats were uncontested and in others throughtout nationalist dominated Ireland, Leinster, Munster Connaught etc it was known Sinn Fein were going to romp home and hence the low turn out in such constituency.

It shoud also be noted, Sinn Fein achieved this great victory despite 37 of it's representatives been locked up under the excuse of the so called " German Plot " in 1918 ( alleged plan to import arms ) which had as much reality to it as the Weapons of Mass Destruction excuse in more recent times.

CDfm

A majority should also respect a significant majority. Its about esteem innit.