Irish Nationalism & Reality

La Madame

Hi there.

Don't really know how to put this question and if this is the right drawer.
I am not Irish.
I am wondering about the following phenomena.
The Irish People are very focused on their history. They are very proud of their achievement of Independence, they honour their heros, fly their flags and no ceili ends without playing the National Anthem....there are many more examples which shows the deep love of Irish people to their Nation.

On the other side there are many things people who are not born here do not understand within the above context:

Why do Irish people put litter all over the place they love so much?
Why are Irish politics so corrupt or why is Nepotism so widespread?
Why is the Infrastructure so poor (and that for decades) and why was a certain improvement only achieved with EU money?
Why is a little fat lady of a dissolved party Minister for Health?


I would definitally find a few more questions like the above- and after 20 years here I am not certain anymore about Irish people loving their country at all or is it just Bull****?

Mise le meas

La Madame

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dsmythy

Because true Nationalism died and awaits to be reborn.

bangersandmash

La Madame wrote: »

Why do Irish people put litter all over the place they love so much?
Why are Irish politics so corrupt or why is Nepotism so widespread?
Why is the Infrastructure so poor (and that for decades) and why was a certain improvement only achieved with EU money?
Why is a little fat lady of a dissolved party Minister for Health?

The common version of nationalism ascribed to by many people, both in Ireland and often elsewhere, has little to do with anything practical and more to do with flag-waving and exaggerating the difference between themselves and everyone else.

Although I honestly find it difficult to see the link between some of the more peculiar items on your list and nationalism of any kind. You could pick any other European country, such as France or Italy, and produce an arbitrary list of their particular peculiarities that somehow contrast with their sense of national pride. But I'm not sure what that would prove.

asdasd

It would prove that humanity is crooked timber. Thats all.

Denerick

Irish nationalism is based on an extremely flawed reading of our own history (The problem is that we don't read enough of our own history, outside of the pop. history hacks) One need look no further than some of the denizens of the history forum on this website to get the idea (I asked to be banned from it because I couldn't handle the madness there any longer)

Incidents like the Irish Revolution get lost in a myriad of exaggerated facts and retrospective justifications - we all know that the 1918 election, the source of all Nationalist legitimacy on this island, was not a direct vote in favour of violent seperatism.

In reality, our problems go right to the amazing, yet somewhat frightening development of an Irish 'youth' culture in 1916-1924, which created the IRA as we remember it in history. The elitist military leaders (Most of them under 30) led many impressionable young men into the madness of Civil War. An unthinking approach to political ideals has shaped the history of this island and soaked it in blood - this would be fair enough if only modern uneducated nationalists didn't insist on perpetuating this mass ignorance.

The solution lies in a wide reading of both the primary and secondary histories of the period, to give the full picture of an island gradually tugged into revolution by violent thugs like Dan Breen on the one hand and calculating charismatics like Michael Collins on the other. As Richard Mulcahy said, 'the people need to be gently tugged into open revolution'. The idea of a mass Irish nation rising up as one to overthrow the bloody sassanach belongs only in the delusions of the modern Irish 'patriot'. It has no grounding whatsoever in fact.

Dr. Baltar

dsmythy wrote: »

Because true Nationalism died and awaits to be reborn.

This.

Nationalism has become more about writing "Up the RA" on the flag of our country and hatin' "Dinglish" after three pints have been drank. But most importantly, Irish nationalism is something that uneducated football idiots use to support Celtic and the Irish football team.....

Everything about new-Republicanism is so unpatriotic it's not even funny.

KingKiller

Denerick wrote: »

Irish nationalism is based on an extremely flawed reading of our own history

It's a flawed reading our own histroy - unless the ignorant masses happen to agree with you ofcourse

One need look no further than some of the denizens of the history forum on this website to get the idea (I asked to be banned from it because I couldn't handle the madness there any longer)

If ever their was a flawed version of something this is it. BraintheBard banned you from the History forum after several warnings for calling someone, a republican I think " a retard "

Incidents like the Irish Revolution get lost in a myriad of exaggerated facts and retrospective justifications

That could be said about any countries history. America would like to think that say, the Vietnam War was a just war to stop communism. The British would like to think their empire was not evil like others but as a benign charity bearing the white man's burden etc

KingKiller

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

This.

Nationalism has become more about writing "Up the RA" on the flag of our country and hatin' "Dinglish" after three pints have been drank. But most importantly, Irish nationalism is something that uneducated football idiots use to support Celtic and the Irish football team.....

Everything about new-Republicanism is so unpatriotic it's not even funny.

So tell me why do 80,000 stand up and sing Amhrán na bhFiann before a GAA or Rugby match ? Why did 20,000 turn out in respect of the remains of Kevin Barry and nine other volunteers from Mountjoy Prison to be re-interred at Glasnevin Cemetery.Would a visit from the Queen or a movement to join the Commonwealth attract such numbers ? Maybe to protest against both.

Cunsiderthis

KingKiller wrote: »

So tell me why do 80,000 stand up and sing Amhrán na bhFiann before a GAA or Rugby match ? Why did 20,000 turn out in respect of the remains of Kevin Barry and nine other volunteers from Mountjoy Prison to be re-interred at Glasnevin Cemetery.Would a visit from the Queen or a movement to join the Commonwealth attract such numbers ? Maybe to protest against both.

Why does asking a bunch of what you assume are rhetorical questions pass for a post here?

What would a secret ballot asking would you be in favour of a visit from the Queen to Ireland show?

Why are some still obsessed with the Queen and dinglish?

When will we grow up and stop having chips on our shoulders about dinglish?

When will we take responsibility for ourselves and stop blaming everything bad on dinglish?

Why did Princess Diana's death cause so many Irish people to act so stupidly, in retrospect?

Denerick

KingKiller wrote: »

It's a flawed reading our own histroy - unless the ignorant masses happen to agree with you ofcourse

Irrelevant.

If ever their was a flawed version of something this is it. BraintheBard banned you from the History forum after several warnings for calling someone, a republican I think " a retard "

I asked to be banned after posting a thread called 'The Morality of the Irish Revolution', which entailed a few Republican gob****s throwing their barbarity around with reckless abandon.

That could be said about any countries history. America would like to think that say, the Vietnam War was a just war to stop communism. The British would like to think their empire was not evil like others but as a benign charity bearing the white man's burden etc

Thats just dumb. The Irish Revolution (Militarily at least) gripped only a few counties and in effect amounted to an occasional murder campaign outside the well organised and superbly led units in West Cork and Tipperary. The political developments (Such as the Dáil courts, Dáil loan, government in exile, co. council alignment with the Dáil and the Limerick Soviet) are of much more relevance. Yet this is always overlooked for the couple of thousand gunmen who killed a couple of thousand policemen and who executed dozens of protestants, tinkers, beggars and other undesirables in the interests of creating a 'pure' Ireland, free from such radical notions as 'pluralism'.

Flamed Diving

La Madame wrote: »

Hi there.

Don't really know how to put this question and if this is the right drawer.
I am not Irish.
I am wondering about the following phenomena.
The Irish People are very focused on their history. They are very proud of their achievement of Independence, they honour their heros, fly their flags and no ceili ends without playing the National Anthem....there are many more examples which shows the deep love of Irish people to their Nation.

You make broad, sweeping statements to describe up to four million people. Not all are drunk on the idealism of the Nation.

La Madame wrote: »

On the other side there are many things people who are not born here do not understand within the above context

By 'people', you mean 'you'. And the above context is a misrepresentation of what Ireland is, which is a typical error of many visitors.

La Madame wrote: »

Why do Irish people put litter all over the place they love so much?

People who litter, probably don't love the place. They are ill-bred and have bad manners. They don't care, and they come from all walks of life. But they are not the majority. By contrast, I have been to several European capitals, and I saw litter everywhere. I guess it is a common problem.

La Madame wrote: »

Why are Irish politics so corrupt or why is Nepotism so widespread?

It stems mainly from the civil war and the latent tribal culture, perhaps. It's a rather broad question. Although corruption is a common feature of former colonies, so maybe the answer lies there. It has nothing to do with Nationalism, really.

La Madame wrote: »

Why is the Infrastructure so poor (and that for decades) and why was a certain improvement only achieved with EU money?

Nothing to do with Nationalism, go to the Economics forum (and I mean the good one).

La Madame wrote: »

Why is a little fat lady of a dissolved party Minister for Health?

Nothing to do with nationalism. Why are your questions so ****?

La Madame wrote: »

I would definitally find a few more questions like the above- and after 20 years here I am not certain anymore about Irish people loving their country at all or is it just Bull****?

Twenty years? I don't believe you.

T runner

Denerick wrote: »

The idea of a mass Irish nation rising up as one to overthrow the bloody sassanach belongs only in the delusions of the modern Irish 'patriot'. It has no grounding whatsoever in fact.

Are you saying that the War of Independence did not have popular support amongst the majority of Irish people? How could it have been successful otherwise?

Denerick

T runner wrote: »

Are you saying that the War of Independence did not have popular support amongst the majority of Irish people? How could it have been successful otherwise?

The political developments had wide support (Though not a clear majority, as many like to imagine) The coercion of the British government brought over many old hibernians to the SF side. But in 1919, the reality was that SF and the IRA operated against the wishes of the majority of the Irish people. One need only look at the post treaty election to see how wide the non SF vote was (And how low the turnout was)

Support for the 'military' aspect was miniscule, outside old haunts such as West Cork, Dublin, Tipperary etc. Many sympathised and many would have offered men on the run a room to sleep in, but this was the height of their active participation in 'the rise of a nation'!

T runner

Denerick wrote: »

The political developments had wide support (Though not a clear majority, as many like to imagine) The coercion of the British government brought over many old hibernians to the SF side. But in 1919, the reality was that SF and the IRA operated against the wishes of the majority of the Irish people. One need only look at the post treaty election to see how wide the non SF vote was (And how low the turnout was)

Support for the 'military' aspect was miniscule, outside old haunts such as West Cork, Dublin, Tipperary etc. Many sympathised and many would have offered men on the run a room to sleep in, but this was the height of their active participation in 'the rise of a nation'!

Can you substantiate in any way that SF "operated against the wishes of the majority of the Irish people"?
The post treaty election is not relevant as the majority of TDs for and against the treaty would have been in SF during the war of Independence.
The election results indicate that people wanted to accept the treaty at that point, not that people did not want independence.

There is not many other ways that the civilian population can help an army other than provide the soldiers with shelter and food.

Was there much support offered to the British army during the war of independence?
What does this tell us about which side the majority of Irish civilians supported?

Denerick

T runner wrote: »

Can you substantiate in any way that SF "operated against the wishes of the majority of the Irish people"?
The post treaty election is not relevant as the majority of TDs for and against the treaty would have been in SF during the war of Independence.
The election results indicate that people wanted to accept the treaty at that point, not that people did not want independence.

There is not many other ways that the civilian population can help an army other than provide the soldiers with shelter and food.

Was there much support offered to the British army during the war of independence?
What does this tell us about which side the majority of Irish civilians supported?

I don't really know how to answer your question. They didn't win a convincing majority of votes in 1918. And the majority of their support was a result of the conscription crisis - it was not a vote for military action by any stretch of the imagination. The military campaign provoked by the IRA in 1919 was not supported by the majority of the Irish people. I have already said that a significant proportion of the population became sympathetic after official British reprisals.

And I have also already pointed out the differences between the military and political elites. The war of independence was started by Dan breen, Sean Treacy and a few other chancers in a Tipperary townland. It was not a mass uprising by the Irish people. And one need only peruse the official engagement statistics for 1919 to see that it wasn't even a war by any stretch of the imagination until the formation of flying columns in November 1920.

Denerick

Also you misinterpreted what I'm saying about the 1922 election. I'm talking about the considerable non SF vote (To labour, farmer party etc.) as well as the relatively small turnout.

Its also well known that practically every Irish nationalist (Including the Hibernians) wanted full independence; the difference between fenians and constitutionalists is that one acts like a grown up and the other thinks its ok to kill civilians in the name of 'freedom'. Its not that I don't sympathise or even admire some of the combatents - they are a product of their time - but its important not to get lost in a nationalist dystopia when talking about this.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

I don't really know how to answer your question. They didn't win a convincing majority of votes in 1918.

Presumably you make this claim based on the voting percentages? Its dishonest to make this claim without pointing out that SF won the majority of seats available in Ireland. http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm

And the majority of their support was a result of the conscription crisis - it was not a vote for military action by any stretch of the imagination.

SF didn't campaign for military action either so this point is moot.

The military campaign provoked by the IRA in 1919 was not supported by the majority of the Irish people.

Would love to know what proof you have for this.

Denerick wrote: »

Its also well known that practically every Irish nationalist (Including the Hibernians) wanted full independence; the difference between fenians and constitutionalists is that one acts like a grown up and the other thinks its ok to kill civilians in the name of 'freedom'.

This is just frankly ridiculous, a large number of nationalists did not seek full independence. Many would have even seen themselves as monarchists. Your definition of fenian and constitutionalist doesn't hold any water considering the election of SF representatives, or the election of O'Donovan Rossa, or the support which some members of the Irish Party later gave SF.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

Presumably you make this claim based on the voting percentages? Its dishonest to make this claim without pointing out that SF won the majority of seats available in Ireland. http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm


SF didn't campaign for military action either so this point is moot.

Do you not see the logical flaw there? SF doesn't campaign for military action, the people don't vote on military action, yet for some reason military action is seen as having some kind of democratic legitimacy. And I clearly said 'votes', not seats - which again is a logical flaw since I'm talking about democratic legitimacy. The British first past the post system is an undemocratic electoral machine; ergo, it is clear that I meant a plurality of the population.

Would love to know what proof you have for this.

Well there wasn't a national poll taken, if thats what you're after. I'm making an educated observation, which may well be wrong, based on the 1918 and 1922 election - as well as noticing the vast disparity in military engagements throughout the country. I suggest you read David Fitzpatricks 'Geography of Irish nationalism'.

This is just frankly ridiculous, a large number of nationalists did not seek full independence. Many would have even seen themselves as monarchists. Your definition of fenian and constitutionalist doesn't hold any water considering the election of SF representatives, or the election of O'Donovan Rossa, or the support which some members of the Irish Party later gave SF.

It is well regarded that the overwhelming majority of Home Rulers 'settled' on Home Rule; in principle practically all would have preferred complete independance. Who are you considering as monarchists by the way?

The election of O Donovan Rossa? How about Kickham and Mitchel as well? Protest campaigns such as those are brilliant for taking the bogmen out of the bars; one off incidents in obscure constituencies does not create a national picture.

Denerick

By the way, 1918 saw considerable partisanship between Sinn Feiners and Hibernians, so I don't know where you are getting your point. There was even incidents approaching riots in some places (Such as south Monaghan)

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

Do you not see the logical flaw there? SF doesn't campaign for military action, the people don't vote on military action, yet for some reason military action is seen as having some kind of democratic legitimacy. And I clearly said 'votes', not seats - which again is a logical flaw since I'm talking about democratic legitimacy. The British first past the post system is an undemocratic electoral machine; ergo, it is clear that I meant a plurality of the population.

I saw very clearly that you said votes, but you were not telling the whole story.

Well there wasn't a national poll taken, if thats what you're after. I'm making an educated observation, which may well be wrong, based on the 1918 and 1922 election - as well as noticing the vast disparity in military engagements throughout the country.

Without some sort of survey its a guess, not an observation.

It is well regarded that the overwhelming majority of Home Rulers 'settled' on Home Rule; in principle practically all would have preferred complete independance. Who are you considering as monarchists by the way?

This is just completely unrealistic in light of the actual history of the Home Rule party. In practice many did not want full independence. I suggest you read Maume's The Long Gestation.

The election of O Donovan Rossa? How about Kickham and Mitchel as well? Protest campaigns such as those are brilliant for taking the bogmen out of the bars; one off incidents in obscure constituencies does not create a national picture.

It clearly undermines your fenian/constitutional divide.

Denerick wrote: »

By the way, 1918 saw considerable partisanship between Sinn Feiners and Hibernians, so I don't know where you are getting your point. There was even incidents approaching riots in some places (Such as south Monaghan)

I never responded on the Hibs point, but I don't see why you would be surprised about partisanship between a militaristic quasi secret society linked to the Irish Party, and an advanced nationalist separatist party. So why are you surprised with this?

Denerick

This is pedantic.

T runner

Denerick wrote: »

I don't really know how to answer your question. They didn't win a convincing majority of votes in 1918

.

The fact that they won a majority of votes surely is not evidence that they acted against the wishes of the majority of Irish people.

They were a nationalist separitist party who had supported the Rebellion in 1916. The electorate knew that independence by force was on the cards if necessary.

And the majority of their support was a result of the conscription crisis - it was not a vote for military action by any stretch of the imagination.

I cant take your word for that without substantiation.

The military campaign provoked by the IRA in 1919 was not supported by the majority of the Irish people. I have already said that a significant proportion of the population became sympathetic after official British reprisals.

You cant expect statements like these to be believed without substantiation.

And I have also already pointed out the differences between the military and political elites. The war of independence was started by Dan breen, Sean Treacy and a few other chancers in a Tipperary townland

The French revolution was started by a few chancers at the Bastille.
The American revolution by a few chancers at a tea shipment in boston.
These are just sparks. There is a need for massive popular support on the ground for these sparks to turn into revolutions. The popular support is significant there will always be sparks.
Would a contemporary attack on Gardai in Blanchardstown cause a revolution?
Why not?

It was not a mass uprising by the Irish people. And one need only peruse the official engagement statistics for 1919 to see that it wasn't even a war by any stretch of the imagination until the formation of flying columns in November 1920

.

The phoney war in mainland Europe was not a war either even although war was most definately going to happen.

Denerick wrote: »

Also you misinterpreted what I'm saying about the 1922 election. I'm talking about the considerable non SF vote (To labour, farmer party etc.) as well as the relatively small turnout.

Small turnout? A large turnout could of course mean more support for Sinn Fein, couldnt it? Or are you suggesting that the results are not conclusive because of the small turnout which undermines your point.

Its also well known that practically every Irish nationalist (Including the Hibernians) wanted full independence; the difference between fenians and constitutionalists is that one acts like a grown up and the other thinks its ok to kill civilians in the name of 'freedom'.

But civilian casualties occur in all wars. If you are against a war with civilian casualties then you are against ALL war surely?

Its not that I don't sympathise or even admire some of the combatents - they are a product of their time - but its important not to get lost in a nationalist dystopia when talking about this.

Im not getting lost in nationalist dystopia. Im just wondering why you are insisting, without substantiation, that the war of independence didn't have popular support when the majority of citizens voted for a seperatist party who had been involved in a military uprising only two years earlier and the majority of citizens clearly supported the rising on the ground.

The British reprisals galvanised support for independence by force. But why were the reprisals aimed at the public?
For the same reason that American reprisals in Vietnam were aimed at Vietnamese civilians in that war. Public support for the rising was the Irish army's greatest strenght and the British were trying to terrorise the public out of this.
This tactic seems stupid in hindsight but it had been used with success during the Indian mutiny and during and after the 1798 rising.

These reprisals also demonstrated that official Britain still regarded its relationship to Ireland and its population as the superior/inferior one: colonist/native.

Denerick

I am not an apologist of British rule in Ireland, and you have resorted to nitpicking my post. All I state is that the war of independence lacked democratic legitimacy, and that the military campaign is horribly overstated by modern nationalists. Everything else is moot. I have said why I think what I think, and it is not 'unsubstantiated'. You are making the assumption that the electorate in 1918 had the benefit of hindsight when voting on that election; it is commonly accepted that SF really received its electoral boost by its opposition to conscription. Hence much of its support was 'soft'. Its 'hard' support was among the young and other minority groups. It was not a vote endorsing military action (Hence Cosgrave, Collins and O'Higgins realistic interpretation of 1918, as opposed to the elitist and undemocratic inclinations of thugs such as Tom Barry, Seamus Robinson etc.) What substantiation do you want? I can only refer to what I've read, its not my job to educate you.

You cant expect statements like these to be believed without substantiation.

And you can't expect me to parley with someone so clearly uninformed of the 1913-1924 period. I recommend that you at least read Dan breens account of the war, when he was begged by Richard Mulcahy to flee Ireland for fear of a public backlash after the Soloheadbeg incident, when Breen and his thugs callously murdered two policemen carrying explosives to a quarry. Breen's answer in his memoir published many years after? 'I only wish there were more than two'

Small turnout? A large turnout could of course mean more support for Sinn Fein, couldnt it? Or are you suggesting that the results are not conclusive because of the small turnout which undermines your point.

This is a good example of riddle obsessed sophistry and I won't be responding to any more posts like this in the future.

Denerick

Im not getting lost in nationalist dystopia. Im just wondering why you are insisting, without substantiation, that the war of independence didn't have popular support when the majority of citizens voted for a seperatist party who had been involved in a military uprising only two years earlier and the majority of citizens clearly supported the rising on the ground.

You are drawing conclusions from the merely coincidental (That SF won a large percentage of the vote in 1918) and inferring your own hindsight based conclusion (That the war of independence was legitimised by 1918) when no known SF candidate openly campaigned on the issue of 'open warfare' with Britain. I suggest you read more history.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

This is pedantic.

Is that another way of saying you realise you were wrong? You should consider applying your advice to the other poster to yourself.

Denerick

In response to your trolling comment:

brianthebard wrote: »

I saw very clearly that you said votes, but you were not telling the whole story.

Pedantic.

Without some sort of survey its a guess, not an observation.

Absurd. (You could use this line of reasoning for most of history and relegate it to nothing else but the guesswork of the armchair enthusiast)

This is just completely unrealistic in light of the actual history of the Home Rule party. In practice many did not want full independence. I suggest you read Maume's The Long Gestation.

You say nothing with this post.

It clearly undermines your fenian/constitutional divide.

No it doesn't.

I never responded on the Hibs point, but I don't see why you would be surprised about partisanship between a militaristic quasi secret society linked to the Irish Party, and an advanced nationalist separatist party. So why are you surprised with this?

Irrelevant.

You didn't give me much to comment on. Troll elsewhere if you're feeling bitter about something.

brianthebard

Lol, trolling? The fact is you made claims that cannot be substantiated and are now trying to pass me off as either trolling or pedantic. You are trying to lecture another poster here on the topic of Irish history; well history involves a lot of pendantry, such as accurately identifying the facts, rather than presenting personal embellishments on a theme as historical narrative.

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

I am not an apologist of British rule in Ireland, and you have resorted to nitpicking my post. All I state is that the war of independence lacked democratic legitimacy, and that the military campaign is horribly overstated by modern nationalists. Everything else is moot. I have said why I think what I think, and it is not 'unsubstantiated'. You are making the assumption that the electorate in 1918 had the benefit of hindsight when voting on that election; it is commonly accepted that SF really received its electoral boost by its opposition to conscription. Hence much of its support was 'soft'. Its 'hard' support was among the young and other minority groups. It was not a vote endorsing military action (Hence Cosgrave, Collins and O'Higgins realistic interpretation of 1918, as opposed to the elitist and undemocratic inclinations of thugs such as Tom Barry, Seamus Robinson etc.) What substantiation do you want? I can only refer to what I've read, its not my job to educate you.

Denerick, perhaps you need to re-examine your own thinking.

Britain wasn't exactly going to hold a plebiscite in Ireland with the question being "Do you support a war of Independence?"

Voting for a "separatist" party whose election manifesto was that they were going to shun Westminster and set up Dáil Éireann is as much of a democratic mandate for a war of Independence that is ever going to exist.

You say you're not an apologist for British rule in Ireland but the position you take – insistence on a democratic mandate to your satisfaction - makes the assumption that British rule was legitimate. I don't accept that it was, neither did the elected candidates of the The First Dáil.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

Lol, trolling? The fact is you made claims that cannot be substantiated and are now trying to pass me off as either trolling or pedantic. You are trying to lecture another poster here on the topic of Irish history; well history involves a lot of pendantry, such as accurately identifying the facts, rather than presenting personal embellishments on a theme as historical narrative.

Ooooh. Good parting shot.

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Denerick, perhaps you need to re-examine your own thinking.

Britain wasn't exactly going to hold a plebiscite in Ireland with the question being "Do you support a war of Independence?"

Voting for a "separatist" party whose election manifesto was that they were going to shun Westminster and set up Dáil Éireann is as much of a democratic mandate for a war of Independence that is ever going to exist.

You say you're not an apologist for British rule in Ireland but the position you take – insistence on a democratic mandate to your satisfaction - makes the assumption that British rule was legitimate. I don't accept that it was, neither did the elected candidates of the The First Dáil.

No, it is not a source of legitimacy for 1918. For it to be a source of legitimacy the voters would have had to been given an implicit declaration of an intention to wage war. SF very clearly did not do so.

And no, abstention and seperatism does not necessarily entail military conflict. Think of the Austro Hungarian Ausgleich.