Irelands Independence Day: 24th of April 1916

paky

Would it be accurate to say this would be our national day of independence?

Cool Mo D

No, because we weren't independent then. The war of independence went on until July 1921.

Arnold Layne

Definitely No.

The 1916 Rising cannot be recognised as the day of Irish Independence, bearing in mind that many Dublin residents jeered the prisoners in the aftermath of the failed rebellion. The execution of the leaders of the Rising provided a catalyst of what was to follow in 1919 - 1921 when public opinion changed, especially after the execution of Connolly on May 12th 1916.

The fact that both Sinn Fein & Fianna Fail hijack the Easter Rebellion as a just cause to their existence is also an insult to those that died in either 1916 or the War of Independence that followed.

paky

Cool Mo D wrote: »

No, because we weren't independent then. The war of independence went on until July 1921.

The usa declared their independence in 1776. The war went on till 1783 yet they still celebrate their independence which was declared on the fourth of july 1776.

Im open to correction. please be gentle

paky

Arnold Layne wrote: »

Definitely No.

The 1916 Rising cannot be recognised as the day of Irish Independence, bearing in mind that many Dublin residents jeered the prisoners in the aftermath of the failed rebellion. The execution of the leaders of the Rising provided a catalyst of what was to follow in 1919 - 1921 when public opinion changed, especially after the execution of Connolly on May 12th 1916.

The fact that both Sinn Fein & Fianna Fail hijack the Easter Rebellion as a just cause to their existence is also an insult to those that died in either 1916 or the War of Independence that followed.

I dont see what public opinion has to do with Irelands independence.

Judgement Day

paky wrote: »

The usa declared their independence in 1776. The war went on till 1783 yet they still celebrate their independence which was declared on the fourth of july 1776.

Im open to correction. please be gentle

You're dead right how very American to celebrate 200 years of Independence in 1976 when they didn't in fact become independent from Britain until the Treaty of 1783.

MarchDub

Judgement Day wrote: »

You're dead right how very American to celebrate 200 years of Independence in 1976 when they didn't in fact become independent from Britain until the Treaty of 1783.

The 4th of July is a celebration of the DECLARATION of American Independence. The fact of Americans declaring their independence is celebrated because it was on this date, they say, that they freed themselves from the British - they broke the connection - and formed their own independent governing body. The Second Continental Congress voted yes to a resolution of Independence on July 2nd and published the Declaration on the 4th July. The fact that the British disagreed and retaliated in an entirely other issue.

Exile 1798

The difference between the American declaration of independence and the Irish one is that the American Revolution that followed the declaration was a success, whereas the Irish one was only partially successful, having not met it's lofty goals.

So we don't really have an equivalent day.

Exile 1798

Arnold Layne wrote: »

Definitely No.

The 1916 Rising cannot be recognised as the day of Irish Independence, bearing in mind that many Dublin residents jeered the prisoners in the aftermath of the failed rebellion. The execution of the leaders of the Rising provided a catalyst of what was to follow in 1919 - 1921 when public opinion changed, especially after the execution of Connolly on May 12th 1916.

The fact that both Sinn Fein & Fianna Fail hijack the Easter Rebellion as a just cause to their existence is also an insult to those that died in either 1916 or the War of Independence that followed.

Everyone's welcome to celebrate 1916, it just so happens that the party that has done so every year is Sinn Féin.

hantari

I read a book a few years back and the first line was that the date of independence should be that date that the first dail sat (I cant remember what date that was). But that was the authors opinion

sparkfire

I for one would hope that the easter rising will never become our 'independence day'. In Ireland we seem to look back at this event through rose tinted glasses. In reality a small group of fanatics, fuelled by the warped belief of 'blood sacrifice', began a campaign of violence with no popular support by deceiving the Irish Volunteers. They betrayed the overwhelming majority of nationalists who had enlisted in the British Army to fight in the first world war, in the belief that Ireland would have Home Rule at the end of the conflict. The Easter Rising was immoral and it is time we began to look at this event objectively.

Orchard Rebel

You could come up with various dates for an "Irish Independence Day". Personally, I think 6th December is as good as any, since that was the date in 1922 on which the Irish Free State came into being. It was also the only date in modern history on which there was an independent state comprising the whole island, as the six counties of Northern Ireland did not secede until the following day.

grenache

I'm not a Shinner by any means, but would people not agree that its slightly insulting to the Northern Nationalists for us in the Republic to have any form of 'Independence Day'? I really dont see what there is to celebrate with regards to a day like this. By all means, acknowledge and celebrate the sacrifice and deeds of the Easter 1916 rebels. But lets cut the crap with this day of independence notion - a fifth of our island is still under British rule and its important to remember that. In any event, we have Paddys Day which is more than adequate at celebrating our heritage and historical values.

hantari

I'm not a Shinner by any means, but would people not agree that its slightly insulting to the Northern Nationalists for us in the Republic to have any form of 'Independence Day'?

Which pretty much why we dont have one at the moment

In Ireland we seem to look back at this event through rose tinted glasses. In reality a small group of fanatics, fuelled by the warped belief of 'blood sacrifice', began a campaign of violence with no popular support by deceiving the Irish Volunteers. They betrayed the overwhelming majority of nationalists who had enlisted in the British Army to fight in the first world war, in the belief that Ireland would have Home Rule at the end of the conflict. The Easter Rising was immoral and it is time we began to look at this event objectively.

There is an element of truth in this. BUT the easter rising did set into motion the creation of a state that was far more just and fair to all of its citizens.

SlabMurphy

hantari wrote: »

Which pretty much why we dont have one at the moment



There is an element of truth in this. BUT the easter rising did set into motion the creation of a state that was far more just and fair to all of its citizens.

Not fair to the nationalists in the six counties or those south of the border who wanted a free and independent REPUBLIC ( and not the halfway house of the Free State ). That's why we had a civil war.

who the fug

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Not fair to the nationalists in the six counties or those south of the border who wanted a free and independent REPUBLIC ( and not the halfway house of the Free State ). That's why we had a civil war.

No we had a civil war because we would not swear an oath whilst holding our hands behind out backs with our fingers crossed.

It took some slow learners 5 years to figure out that


Them six yokes where an after thought

ejmaztec

When's "Partition Day"? That should cover it.

Read this

Many Irish people seem to forget that the King was unequivocally Head of State until 1936, and disputably remained so until the Republic of Ireland Act came into being on Easter Monday 1949.

MarchDub

Just had an interesting experience on this subject, Last week I was in Virginia [US] visiting the University of Virginia. Close by is Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President and one of the founders of the University. Jefferson also penned the American Declaration of Independence at Monticello.

His home has been turned into a historical monument and a board of trustees oversees the archeology, the architecture and history. The museum on the grounds features a small film giving the historical background to the Declaration - and its political influence world wide. The first document that they claim as a "successor document" to Jefferson's American Declaration of Independence is the Irish Proclamation of Independence. Others are also mentioned but it is a copy of the Irish Proclamation which comes on screen first with photos of some of the 1916 men.

Read this

In April 1916 the 15 leaders of the Easter Rebellion were regarded as traitors by a large section of the Dublin population. Dublin Castle had no doubts of this whatsoever - because they had arrested Roger Casement red handed, shipping arms in from an enemy state - Germany. How do you think the US Government would have reacted in 1954 if it had discovered a bunch of neo-confederate diehards importing arms from the Soviet Union, with the stated intention of restoring the Mason-Dixon Line?

It is a fallacy that the Irish reacted angrily towards the executions. They were expected. Soldiers were being executed on the front line for disobedience of orders. The real anger was directed towards an attempt by Dublin Castle to introduce military conscription to replace those lost after the widespread slaughter at the Somme and other battlefields. Even though most of the Irish casualties of WW1 were volunteers (some were conscripted because they lived in England), pro-rata, Ireland suffered higher casualties because it had such a small population in the first place (46M vs 4M). Parents didn't want to lose any more of their sons.

Sinn Fein took advantage of the situation and came out strongly against conscription. It was able to persuade rival candidates in 27 constituencies not to stand in the election. Of contested seats, it got 46% of the 615,000 votes cast and took this as an irreversable mandate for Independence. Together with the IRA, they then more or less provoked a low scale civil war, culminating in the Treaty.

I believe that the 1918 election only mandated Sinn Fein to fight conscription - not to break away from the United Kingdom. The achievement of 'independence' did not in fact bring any change for the average man in the street - other than to vastly increase the influence of the Catholic Church.

It was only with membership of the EU and the disgrace of the Church that Irishmen and women have experienced any change. They could have got it just the same from within the UK and have avoided 40 years of conflict in Northern Ireland.

"Freedom" is a much misunderstood concept.

MarchDub

Read this wrote: »

I believe that the 1918 election only mandated Sinn Fein to fight conscription - not to break away from the United Kingdom. The achievement of 'independence' did not in fact bring any change for the average man in the street - other than to vastly increase the influence of the Catholic Church.



.

No matter your "belief" this is not historically the fact. When George Noble Plunkett won the Roscommon seat for Sinn Fein [against a Home Rule candidate] in a by-election in early 1917 it set the stage for the general election. Plunkett refused to take his seat in Westminster and declared that only a Dublin parliament would be legitimate. Sinn Fein then made it part of their platform for the general election of 1918 to refuse to take their seats and establish a parliament in Dublin. They ran against the Home Rulers on this.

The Catholic Church was always a dubious bystander to Irish Independence. They felled Parnell - formed alliances with the British over education and other social matters in Ireland - and only came on board the separatist train when it became more obvious that the power they had begun to enjoy on the island under the British would not be lessened by a Dublin Parliament.

Read this

"No matter your "belief" this is not historically the fact."

Depends on whether you are speaking from the viewpoint of a politician or man in the street.

Right up to the present day, politicians have a tendency to bury more radical proposals behind the obvious issues which voters can be persuaded on. Conscription was by far the biggest issue of the day. Home Rule had been on the agenda for decades.

More importantly, Sinn Fein did not even get a simple majority of votes cast -and less than 50% of adults were registered to vote. You would never be able to pass a constitutional amendment on that basis today.

Read this

The Catholic Church was always a dubious bystander to Irish Independence

The politics of the Catholic Church are always complicated by the interests of Rome. Anyway, that wasn't my point. The Church benefited greatly by being written into the Constitution and it took over many of the functions that in the rest of the UK were being run by government - social services, schools, hospitals, orphanages etc.

We know the rest.

MarchDub

Read this wrote: »

The politics of the Catholic Church are always complicated by the interests of Rome. Anyway, that wasn't my point. The Church benefited greatly by being written into the Constitution and it took over many of the functions that in the rest of the UK were being run by government - social services, schools, hospitals, orphanages etc.

We know the rest.

The Catholic Church already had control of education, hospitals in Ireland under the British - they won that battle in the nineteenth century. One of the reasons why they did not support Home Rule - and essentially destroyed Parnell - was they were afraid that a Dublin government would not follow suit on this new power they had gained. But the power that they had established over Irish life - in the nineteenth century under the British - proved firm and expandable.

As regards the 1937 Constitution - they got less than they wanted in spite of the popular myth that their power emanated from it. They wanted to be the established Church, on the same lines as the Church of England but Dev did not give them this. Instead he gave them nothing more than a nod of "special position" without specifications.

But - importantly- the Catholic Church did not need the constitution to gain a position of power. They were able to use the pulpit and their influence over legislators to gain what they wanted long before this. They already - before the Constitution of 1937 - had wielded power over Irish legislation. In 1926 Divorce within the state was banned under the Bishops urging. The 1928 censorship bill passed under pressure from the Catholic bishops and by 1935 they were successful in establishing a law forbidding the sale of contraceptives and all information on the subject was censored.

MarchDub

Read this wrote: »

"No matter your "belief" this is not historically the fact."

Depends on whether you are speaking from the viewpoint of a politician or man in the street.

Er... I'm speaking from a historical viewpoint. This is the history forum.

MarchDub

Read this wrote: »

Right up to the present day, politicians have a tendency to bury more radical proposals behind the obvious issues which voters can be persuaded on. Conscription was by far the biggest issue of the day. Home Rule had been on the agenda for decades.

Sinn Fein made it their main platform to withdraw from Westminster. I have a copy of the Sinn Fein Manifesto of 1918 and have copied and pasted the first three articles here - the platform to set up a separate parliament is clearly stated. Dublin Castle censor had censored out some of the wording - censorship in Ireland did not begin with the Catholic bishops - but it is clear from the very first point that they were NOT going to take their seats at Westminster and were going to establish a parliament in Ireland. My highlighting...


The Manifesto of Sinn Féin as passed by the Dublin Castle Censor (Author: Sinn Féin standing committee)

The coming General Election is fraught with vital possibilities for the future of our nation. Ireland is faced with the question whether this generation wills it that she is to march out into the full sunlight of freedom, or is to remain in the shadow of I]gap: censored/extent: 2 words[/I imperialism I]gap: censored/extent: 45 words[/I.
Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of that Republic.

1. By withdrawing the Irish Representation from the British Parliament and by denying the right
   I]gap: censored/extent: 4 words[/I
   of the British Government
   I]gap: censored/extent: 5 words[/I
   to legislate for Ireland.
2. 
   I]gap: censored/extent: 26 words[/I
3. By the establishment of a constituent assembly comprising persons chosen by Irish constituencies as the supreme national authority to speak and act in the name of the Irish people, and to develop Ireland's social, political and industrial life, for the welfare of the whole people of Ireland.
4. By appealing to the Peace Conference for the establishment of Ireland as an Independent Nation. At that conference the future of the Nations of the world will be settled on the principle of government by consent of the governed. Ireland's claim to the application of that principle in her favour is not based on any accidental situation arising from the war. It is older than many if not all of the present belligerents.
   I]gap: censored/extent: 105 words[/I

twitch1984

sparkfire wrote: »

I for one would hope that the easter rising will never become our 'independence day'. In Ireland we seem to look back at this event through rose tinted glasses. In reality a small group of fanatics, fuelled by the warped belief of 'blood sacrifice', began a campaign of violence with no popular support by deceiving the Irish Volunteers. They betrayed the overwhelming majority of nationalists who had enlisted in the British Army to fight in the first world war, in the belief that Ireland would have Home Rule at the end of the conflict. The Easter Rising was immoral and it is time we began to look at this event objectively.

was the first world war not a blood sacrifice?

I dont see the difference between the people trying to keep the germans out and the lads trying to get the english out

seems like double standards to me

Read this

MarchDub wrote: »

Sinn Fein made it their main platform to withdraw from Westminster. I have a copy of the Sinn Fein Manifesto of 1918 and have copied and pasted the first three articles here -

Alright, I will be more specific in my explanation of the political climate which allowed Sinn Fein to win the election.

The announcement of the general election came AFTER the Armistice, and Sinn Fein hastely put together a new manifesto to take advantage of the coming new world order. But how many people do you think actually read it?

Sinn Fein had been campaigning on an anti-conscription ticket since 1917 and this is what stuck in peoples' minds. I do not think ordinary people in 1918 fully comprehended what was in store for them with a Sinn Fein victory. Luckily, the Civil War extracated Ireland from what could have become a Pol Pot regime.

Read this

MarchDub wrote: »

The Catholic Church already had control of education, hospitals in Ireland under the British - ....

The Catholic Hierarchy hedged their bets - but my point was that the 'revolution' did not bring any greater freedom and democracy to the average man in the street than would have been available under Home Rule. No matter what its established position, the Church benefited enormously from the devotion of Irish Leaders who were traditionally pious in every respect, with the possible exception of the Sixth Commandment.

Social services were devolved to secular authority in the UK long before the same thing happened in the ROI - this surely is a clear indication of the special position held by the Church and condoned by successive bigoted governments.

brianthebard

Read this wrote: »

Alright, I will be more specific in my explanation of the political climate which allowed Sinn Fein to win the election.

The announcement of the general election came AFTER the Armistice, and Sinn Fein hastely put together a new manifesto to take advantage of the coming new world order. But how many people do you think actually read it?

For as long as the phrase Sinn Fein meant the movement Arthur Griffith championed it had always advocated the policy of withdrawal from Westminster. This was well known throughout the country in 1918 and to claim voters did not know that is a fallacy.

Read this

brianthebard wrote: »

For as long as the phrase Sinn Fein meant the movement Arthur Griffith championed it had always advocated the policy of withdrawal from Westminster. This was well known throughout the country in 1918 and to claim voters did not know that is a fallacy.

I never claimed that. I claimed two things (1) that most people probably hadn't read the manifesto and (2) that the anti-conscription campaign of the previous two years is what stuck in people's minds.

The whole idea of forming a local parliament was nothing new and a lot of people would have just taken it as political posturing. Without the ability to raise taxes, any break away parliament would have been toothless - but no one counted on the subsequent terrorist campaign. Would the electorate still have voted the way they did if they had known?