Irelands Independence Day: 24th of April 1916

MarchDub

Read this wrote: »

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?

You are wrong. You are basing your opinion on nothing more than your own assumptions which cannot be borne out by the historical record. If you cannot bring any evidence to the table other than "probabilities" and "I believe" or "I think" then is nothing more to say.

Read this

MarchDub wrote: »

You are wrong. You are basing your opinion on nothing more than your own assumptions which cannot be borne out by the historical record. If you cannot bring any evidence to the table other than "probabilities" and "I believe" or "I think" then is nothing more to say.

It's also called analysis and interpretation. You cannot state as fact what was in the minds of the electorate at the time - hence my use of the word probability. You attempt to claim the higher ground by saying that there was a published manifesto. It is pretty disingenious to even pretend to believe that anyone other than party zealots read it. A major war had just ended. Many Irishmen had lost their lives in it. The Irish electorate were fed up with the war, wanted something new, and remembered Sinn Fein as the anti-war party. The idea that the electorate voted for revolution is post-facto editing.

MarchDub

Read this wrote: »

It's also called analysis and interpretation. You cannot state as fact what was in the minds of the electorate at the time - hence my use of the word probability. You attempt to claim the higher ground by saying that there was a published manifesto. It is pretty disingenious to even pretend to believe that anyone other than party zealots read it. A major war had just ended. Many Irishmen had lost their lives in it. The Irish electorate were fed up with the war, wanted something new, and remembered Sinn Fein as the anti-war party. The idea that the electorate voted for revolution is post-facto editing.

As Brianthebard has said since the formation of Sinn Fein by Arthur Griffith the stated philosophy of the party had been to follow the method of the Hungarian nationalists who had boycotted the Imperial parliament in Vienna and established their own legislature in Budapest.

The Irish Parliamentary Party - the Home Rulers - staged a protest in Westminster in protest against Irish conscription. John Dillon was very vocal in his stand against conscription. So if the issue was solely conscription the electorate would have had champions in the old Home Rule Party. Instead, Sinn Fein went one further by announcing that they would not take their seats but establish a new parliament in Ireland. This was widely reported in the newspapers and broadsheets of the day. The manifesto was published in all of the national newspapers which is why Dublin Castle censored it. The full version was printed up and circulated around the country.

By the time of the election Countess Markievicz was in Holloway prison - as were many of the candidates - and issued a statement to her constituency stating her intention and that of Sinn Fein to establish the republic as proclaimed by Pearse.


To therefore try and re-write the historical footprint to suit your own liking or agenda is a seriously flawed approach.

brianthebard

Read this wrote: »

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?

All campaigns were clearly run on this basis. Dev was leader of the party, a nationally known terrorist and advocate of armed revolution, as were most of the biggest names in the party (Collins, Markievicz, Cosgrave, etc). As I suggested earlier, to claim that people did not know the aims or the lengths that Sinn Fein would go to is a fallacy.

CabbageThing

paky wrote: »

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

No beause Ireland is still not fully Independant.

LordSutch

CabbageThing wrote: »

No beause Ireland is still not fully Independant.

Isn't it?

Rebelheart

Camelot wrote: »

Isn't it?

Em, clearly not. (the reddish/pinkish blotch in the north east is the give-away sign)

InTheTrees

Rebelheart wrote: »

(the reddish/pinkish blotch in the north east is the give-away sign)

LOL! But there's a hint of green in it.

:rolleyes:

Richard

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

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.

It wasn't an independent state, it was a Free State within the UK. Northern Ireland was temporarily in that state but I think that it would have been easier for Collins to sell that situation than one where what became NI was not involved.

The reason I say that the Free State remained in the UK was because none of the UK legislation which estabished it specified that the area covered by "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was changing.

In fact the official name of the UK was not changed to "UKoGBaNI" till 1927. It had, of course been obvious long before then that most of Ireland was no longer in the UK.

But regardless of what was or was not part of what, it seems a bit odd to celebrate a state which existed for one day.

MarchDub

Richard wrote: »

It wasn't an independent state, it was a Free State within the UK. Northern Ireland was temporarily in that state but I think that it would have been easier for Collins to sell that situation than one where what became NI was not involved.

The reason I say that the Free State remained in the UK was because none of the UK legislation which estabished it specified that the area covered by "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was changing.

In fact the official name of the UK was not changed to "UKoGBaNI" till 1927. It had, of course been obvious long before then that most of Ireland was no longer in the UK.

But regardless of what was or was not part of what, it seems a bit odd to celebrate a state which existed for one day.

Independence is not always regarded as the moment the colonial power agreed finally to grant it and quit their armed opposition to it. Many countries celebrate the "proclaiming" or "declaration" of independence from the colonial power as a national independence day - and not the day that the colonial power acceded. The USA for one, Greece for another. In these cases it is the act of standing up and proclaiming their independence and intention to secede that is the important moment - and not the moment that the colonials decided to quit and pass legislation to finally accept the previously proclaimed independence.

Exile 1798

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.

This is an overly political statement in what is meant to be a history forum.

And with respect, I advise you to re-analyze the Easter Rising. The view you expressed is merely an echoing of the media and Unionist "talking points" that surrounded the 90th anniversary.

The blood sacrifice argument is by no stretch of the imagination a definitive explanation behind the motivation and planning of the Easter Rising. The "blood sacrifice" angle stems almost entirely from writings of Patrick Pearse - one of the seven signatories to the Proclamation of the Irish Republic. His Nationalist Romanticism became a potent and inspiring force for many in later years, but it was no by means the defining force behind the Rising. (It would off course have been a driving force for Pearse personally.)

The "blood sacrifice" argument is contradicted by the fact the participants in The Rising thought it a good chance of success. Further, when it was apparent that the Rising would not succeed, they surrendered to prevent further bloodshed - not the act of "fanatics" who were actively seeking a "blood sacrifice."

Nor can it account for the involvement of hard headed Socialists like Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army or for that matter less senior participants in the Rising like Collins who proved themselves to be anything but fanatics in the following years.

Read this

Exile 1798 wrote: »

This is an overly political statement in what is meant to be a history forum.

And with respect, I advise you to re-analyze the Easter Rising. The view you expressed is merely an echoing of the media and Unionist "talking points" that surrounded the 90th anniversary.

The blood sacrifice argument is by no stretch of the imagination a definitive explanation behind the motivation and planning of the Easter Rising. The "blood sacrifice" angle stems almost entirely from writings of Patrick Pearse - one of the seven signatories to the Proclamation of the Irish Republic. His Nationalist Romanticism became a potent and inspiring force for many in later years, but it was no by means the defining force behind the Rising. (It would off course have been a driving force for Pearse personally.)

The "blood sacrifice" argument is contradicted by the fact the participants in The Rising thought it a good chance of success. Further, when it was apparent that the Rising would not succeed, they surrendered to prevent further bloodshed - not the act of "fanatics" who were actively seeking a "blood sacrifice."

Nor can it account for the involvement of hard headed Socialists like Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army or for that matter less senior participants in the Rising like Collins who proved themselves to be anything but fanatics in the following years.

I agree with Sparkfire. And how can you talk about history without discussing politics?

The problem is that the small minded republicans who populate this forum are the same people that perpetuate the myth in the first place, so it's a bit of a wasted effort trying to convince them otherwise.

And about Collins - we didn't get to experience much of his administration, but methinks he would have eventually settled on dispatching his opponents in a way that he was familiar with.

Read this

MarchDub wrote: »

As Brianthebard has said since the formation of Sinn Fein by Arthur Griffith the stated philosophy of the party had been to follow the method of the Hungarian nationalists who had boycotted the Imperial parliament in Vienna and established their own legislature in Budapest.

The Irish Parliamentary Party - the Home Rulers - staged a protest in Westminster in protest against Irish conscription. John Dillon was very vocal in his stand against conscription. So if the issue was solely conscription the electorate would have had champions in the old Home Rule Party. Instead, Sinn Fein went one further by announcing that they would not take their seats but establish a new parliament in Ireland. This was widely reported in the newspapers and broadsheets of the day. The manifesto was published in all of the national newspapers which is why Dublin Castle censored it. The full version was printed up and circulated around the country.

By the time of the election Countess Markievicz was in Holloway prison - as were many of the candidates - and issued a statement to her constituency stating her intention and that of Sinn Fein to establish the republic as proclaimed by Pearse.


To therefore try and re-write the historical footprint to suit your own liking or agenda is a seriously flawed approach.

I was away.

The desire to establish a local parliament in Dublin would not have been seen as revolutionary at the time (thats what the Home Rulers wanted after all). The average man in the street would not have understood the legal nuances, especially when you consider that most voters never had more than six years of primary education.

And don't under estimate the intimidation factor. Sinn Fein supporters DID use widespread intimidation tactics in rural areas to ensure that the vote went their way - and in some cases were able to prevent rival candidates from standing.

Mugabe used the same tactics in 1980.

SlabMurphy

Read this wrote: »

And don't under estimate the intimidation factor. Sinn Fein supporters DID use widespread intimidation tactics in rural areas to ensure that the vote went their way - and in some cases were able to prevent rival candidates from standing.

There is absoulutely no historical record of " widespread intimidation tactics " by Sinn Fein, none. I have asked those who put foward this BS to give me examples - and of course none have been brought foward. As MarchDub stated before - " You are basing your opinion on nothing more than your own assumptions which cannot be borne out by the historical record. "

But there was indeed widespread intimadation of Sinn Fein, the so called ' German Plot ' was invented by the British to imprison most of the Sinn Fein leadership but still it failed when Sinn Fein won a clear majority of 73 seats out of 105.

Read this

er - but there was a German plot. Didn't (Sir) Roger Casement get arrested in 1916 after being caught red handed with a shipload full of German guns?

Those alive at the time are now dead and buried, but it is a pretty common social phenomenon in all countries were there are extremist politics, that the extremists within their own community will intimidate moderates either into minding their own business, or compliance.

There were plenty of dyed in the wool republicans yes - but don't pretend they were a majority in the country - they were not. Most people were apathetic and went with the flow - as they do today. Back then people were not as well educated and were more susceptible to rabble rousing.

One of the mods mentioned that the Sinn Fein manifesto had been widely circulated. Take a look at the 1911 census. That will give you some idea as to how many people could actually read it.

Exile 1798

Read this wrote: »

I agree with Sparkfire. And how can you talk about history without discussing politics?

The problem is that the small minded republicans who populate this forum are the same people that perpetuate the myth in the first place, so it's a bit of a wasted effort trying to convince them otherwise.

And about Collins - we didn't get to experience much of his administration, but methinks he would have eventually settled on dispatching his opponents in a way that he was familiar with.

Discussing politics is fine, naked expressions of your political opinion put forward as historical fact are not.

Read this wrote: »

I was away.

The desire to establish a local parliament in Dublin would not have been seen as revolutionary at the time (thats what the Home Rulers wanted after all). The average man in the street would not have understood the legal nuances, especially when you consider that most voters never had more than six years of primary education.

Spare us.

The Home Rulers wanted to set up a local Parliament through an Act of the British Parliament. Local rule within the UK was their aim.

Sinn Féin's declared aim was to unilaterally set up an Irish Parliament and declare it independent and sovereign. They also declared very openly their intent to "use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise."

This was both radical and revolutionary. To say it was similar to the Home Rule position or that people didn't grasp the difference is absurd.

Read this

Why would they grasp the difference? half the population couldn't read and write.

(Compulsory primary school attendance was only introduced in the Free State in 1926 - 3 years after Northern Ireland).

**** I have no doubt that in the minds of republicans and their sympathisers, they knew what they were about - but in 1918 the general population would only have had a vague notion of the differences between the Home Rulers and Sinn Fein. Ask any man on the street today, and I bet they couldn't tell you the difference between FG and FF.

Read this

"Discussing politics is fine, naked expressions of your political opinion put forward as historical fact are not."

Mmm - history will always be open to opinion - its not all political interpretation - some of it is social as well - values and beliefs were different in 1918. When does an opinion become naked? not sure about that one.

A lot of posters on here are viewing the past through the prism of their own 1970 value set. What they don't grasp is that in 1918 Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom, and a lot of people accepted that without thinking. Very few people woke up every morning saying to themselves, "today is the day I m going to overthrow the evil empire".

And it wasn't an evil empire. It administered according the norms of the day - and Ireland benefited from the Empire in many ways.

The Famine was an incident in history greatly remembered by Irish Americans because that is what put them there. They, more than any other group, were responsible for the instability of the 20th Century.

Now that's an opinion - OK?

Read this

SlabMurphy wrote: »

There is absoulutely no historical record of " widespread intimidation tactics " by Sinn Fein, none. I have asked those who put foward this BS to give me examples - and of course none have been brought foward. As MarchDub stated before - " You are basing your opinion on nothing more than your own assumptions which cannot be borne out by the historical record. "

But there was indeed widespread intimadation of Sinn Fein, the so called ' German Plot ' was invented by the British to imprison most of the Sinn Fein leadership but still it failed when Sinn Fein won a clear majority of 73 seats out of 105.

Well I wasn't sitting on original source material - but I soon found it. RIC Inspector General's report of September 1918:

"In Galway and Clare intimidation is rife and 150 persons afforded protection by police" - courtesy of UK National Archives.

Primary evidence - and I bet the RIC report was only the tip of the iceberg.

MarchDub

There is nothing new here. Trying to discredit the 1918 election is just another anti-nationalist, revisionist rant at overturning actual historical events - in other words, events they wish hadn't happened. These "arguments" claiming ignorance by the electorate, cloak and dagger methods by Sinn Fein [they didn't publish a clear manifesto or no one could read it etc etc] and then "intimidation" are all hallmarks of the revisionists and come straight out of the text books of that school. Heard all this nonsense before - they have all been answered and discredited.

Peter Berresford Ellis made an excellent reply to all of these faux "charges" over 20 years ago including the attack on the 1918 election results and the conveniently glossing over of the 1920 election results which saw an even bigger win for Sinn Fein in the local elections. This time the elections were AFTER they had set up the new Dail. So the revisionists/unionists can't claim that anyone was being fooled then.

As with most of their arguments, the 'academically objective'
historians have been extremely selective with election figures to
support their claims. And talking of the 1918 period we find
subsequent election figures are glossed over because they do not
endorse the point they are making.

I refer to the January, 1920 municipal elections in which Sinn
Fein won 72 town and city councils, with a coalition of Sinn Fein
and the Irish Party taking a further 26 town and city councils--
making 98 out of 127 town and city councils controlled by
republicans.

And glossed over are the June, 1920, elections for the county and
rural district council boards of guardians. Sinn Fein won 28 out
of the 32 county councils; they won 186 out of the 206 rural
district councils; and they won 138 out of the 154 boards of
guardians. And this during a time when the English military were
controlling Ireland with an iron fist, when the excesses of the
'Black and Tans' and the Auxiliaries were causing public opinion
throughout the world to denounce England's role....


Perhaps we should also remind ourselves of the May, 1921 General
Election, following the enforcement of Partition and the
partition parliaments. In this election Westminster introduced
proportional representation into Ireland, not because the
Westminster government believed in it as a better system of
voting (indeed, even today Westminster is wary about proportional
representation). PR was introduced into Ireland in a desperate
attempt by Westminster to decrease the support given to Sinn
Fein. So if one takes that 1921 result as an all-Ireland total we
find that Sinn Fein has won 130 seats out of 180, the Irish PArty
had won 6 seats and the Unionists had won 44.


http://www.irishinscotland.com/id5.html

Muas Tenek

Read this wrote: »

Take a look at the 1911 census. That will give you some idea as to how many people could actually read it.

God bless you Kevin Barry sitting up there with Archangel Michael looking down at Lloyd George and his crony Lucifer
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/reels/nai000177523/

Exile 1798

Read this wrote: »

Why would they grasp the difference? half the population couldn't read and write.

(Compulsory primary school attendance was only introduced in the Free State in 1926 - 3 years after Northern Ireland).

**** I have no doubt that in the minds of republicans and their sympathisers, they knew what they were about - but in 1918 the general population would only have had a vague notion of the differences between the Home Rulers and Sinn Fein. Ask any man on the street today, and I bet they couldn't tell you the difference between FG and FF.

The very name Sinn Féin was a byword for rebellion in the immediate years following 1916.

Perhaps a lot of people couldn't tell you the difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, because not much of a difference exists. Both are Social Democratic Parties which share the same position on Irish Unity and how it will come about.

In others words, they're nothing like the Irish Parliamentary Party and Sinn Féin in 1918.

It's very obvious that you haven't studied the history and come to a conclusion, but rather had a preconceived conclusion and looked at what facts or half truths you could conjure up to support it.

Read this

Muas - Interesting - In the sample you provided, of the two people eligible to vote in 1918, only one could read. But take a random look at any small town.

MarchDub - Yes, I am being "revisionist" in my comments - questioning the Gospel indeed.

You cannot demonstrate the mood in the 1918 elections by pointing to later ones. The terrorist behaviour of the the Black and Tans is what won the subsequent election for Sinn Fein.

The B&T were a thuggish undisciplined element who would not have been able to affect the outcome in their favour even if they knew how. The RIC were also aghast at their activities, but had no control over them.

You are getting closer to what really drove the final nail in the coffin for the British Government - yes, it was the Black and Tans.

Read this

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The very name Sinn Féin was a byword for rebellion in the immediate years following 1916.

Yes, but you are looking at it through a late 20th Century prism. In the late 19th Century "Rebellion" was synonymous with Ireland, and there was much cheap talk about it. Rule from Westminster was so well established in 1918 (notwithstanding the 1916 Rising) that most people didn't give it much thought, apart from the hard core of Republicans (about 100,000 of them by RIC estimates).

My only and continuing point is that the average man in the street did NOT know what he was letting himself in for, any more than did those rural farmers in Zimbabwe who voted for Mugabe in 1980.

Had Ian Smith continued to fight "majority rule" with a "Black and Tan" type policy, no doubt at subsequent elections, Mugabe's majority would also have been more convincing.

MarchDub

Read this wrote: »

My only and continuing point is that the average man in the street did NOT know what he was letting himself in for.

He was "letting himself in for" an independent Ireland.

Stating nothing more than your opinion is not historical data. But that is all you continue to do here. I accept that you don't like the historic record - but trying to explain it away by attacking the acumen and perspicuity of the Irish electorate in 1918 sounds elitist and racist to me. So only those who voted Unionist were smart enough to know what they were doing? Nonsense. I've heard similar from the KKK. Really.

brianthebard

Read this = The 3rd Home Rule bill had already been passed through Parliament two years before the Rising, to suggest that Westminster rule was acceptable to the majority of the country or firmly established to the point of apathy is delusional in light of the historical facts. Also the fact that much of the population could not read is immaterial since those that could read would read to those that couldn't, it was a normal feature of societies everywere at the time, and probably for centuries before that.
Finally, if you are going to provide evidence from archives you should be able to provide a link, otherwise its pretty meaningless.

SlabMurphy

MarchDub wrote: »

He was "letting himself in for" an independent Ireland.

Stating nothing more than your opinion is not historical data. But that is all you continue to do here. I accept that you don't like the historic record - but trying to explain it away by attacking the acumen and perspicuity of the Irish electorate in 1918 sounds elitist and racist to me. So only those who voted Unionist were smart enough to know what they were doing? Nonsense. I've heard similar from the KKK. Really.

" but trying to explain it away by attacking the acumen and perspicuity of the Irish electorate in 1918 sounds elitist and racist to me. "

Couldn't agree more. I know this seems off topic and back seat modding, but it has to be said. I've seen threads and posts on the Politics forum in particuliar where remarks made against us Irish in general and nationalists from the six counties in particuliar would get an infraction if they were stated about black or Asian or Jewish people ( and rightly so ). But Irish nationalism seems to be fair game. Indeed many of these comments towards Ireland would seem to come from the Paisley school of hate though the posters tell us theeir from Cork, Galway etc

( And BTW before any of you start going on about Slab's anti British comments in After Hours, AH is a messers forum, I'm just replying in kind )

SlabMurphy

Read this wrote: »

er - but there was a German plot. Didn't (Sir) Roger Casement get arrested in 1916 after being caught red handed with a shipload full of German guns?

You obvioulsy have'nt the first clue about the evenets of the period 1914 - 1921. The German Plot of May 1918 was a totally different ( and fabricated ) conspiracy to Casements attempted landing of arms two years previously in April 1916. But undoubtably you will refuse to see that - and I'm certainly not going to bother explaining in baby steps the difference, which will undoubtably be rejected by you again anyway

Read this wrote: »

Well I wasn't sitting on original source material - but I soon found it. RIC Inspector General's report of September 1918:

"In Galway and Clare intimidation is rife and 150 persons afforded protection by police" - courtesy of UK National Archives.

Primary evidence - and I bet the RIC report was only the tip of the iceberg.

Really :eek:, could you provide the link to that ? And surely since the RIC had to provide protection to 150 persons, surely they made at least a few arrests and convictions ?

And if you cannot find a link for this particuliar RIC Inspector's report, since thios report was " was only the tip of the iceberg. " I'm sure you'll have no problem providing links to the thousands of other examples !!!

And tell me, why do you ignore the widespread intimadation of Sinn Fein, and the so called ' German Plot ' which was invented by the British to imprison most of the Sinn Fein leadership ?

walrusgumble

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.

So your saying ,an "overwhelming majority" of nationalists who joined up with the British Army did so on the grounds that they believed that Ireland would get Home Rule at the end of the conflict?:rolleyes:

So what were the other reasons why thousands of Irish men joined up the British Army before WW1? (think the Boer Wars, India, Crimean) FOr King/Queen and Country?

By your attitude, then every other Irish rebellion and Uprising was immoral or in fact any rising in any country

THis argument about whether or not people support 1916 is coming completely a straw mans argument! It was intended to get people to turn their ideas to complete separation, a republic, an idea that had really died out after 1798. It was intended to do so by the use of force. The men knew that they were in for against the British. They knew they would be shoot if or when they lost. THey believed that at some point, the people would change their attitudes. THe executions along with the threat of conscription helped this. The fighting (funny how many many people looked for their IRA pension after the war even though they were not as committed) attitude came through during the tan war. That was what these people sacrificed for.


Now lets look at the dissenters. You are looking at the time of World War 1. During World War 1, the factories and farms experienced a bit of a boom. I know in my home town, a garrision town, the army men spent freely, and the local woolen facotory had contracts with the Russian Army to make their uniforms. THere was economic interest - self interest. The women who came out to protest (many from poor regions of the country) were relying on their husbands wages and separation money. THe papers, were pro unionists and concerned with their own interests (also Dublin Castle would have closed any paper down, as they had done to Arthur Griffith, if it spoutted anything that went against the regime), local politicans had their own interests and seats to keep.

You know where you can put your morals! Where was the moral and rights in Britian ruling this country in the manner it did in the first place?

ANother pointer. THe whole reason for the establishment of the Irish Volunteers was to respond to the threats of war, either with Britian or UVF and to defend Ireland. It was not established to fight in other countries. Only when John Redmond stuck his oar in did the situation change and the goal posts moved.

walrusgumble

Read this wrote: »

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.

Your forgetting the election of 1920? But going back to the 1919 Declaration, it was read to achieve complete independence in whatever manner possible.For a short time that the Republican courts were into being, the majority of the people took to these courts as oppose to the British magistrate. So where was the protest over this? Why was no one opposing them at the next election before 1922? You really think that the TAN War would have lasted as much as 6 months without the support and goodwill of the ordinary people or the workers movement?

THe Catholic Church had a de facto domination of the Irish mind long before 1916 and whilst under British Rule, Mr CS Parnell would be a witness to this! You also seem to quickly forget that the Catholic Church did not always act disgracefully.

But, yes, the EU changed alot for Irish people, but then again, real EU change only came in after 1986!. You look at Britian, they were hardly liberal and open minded until the 1960's, Britian was also in the toilet just as much as anywhere else in the 1970's

It very naive to think that conflict with Britain whether in the six counties or 26 counties might not have occurred anyway. There was also some form of Republican group around, such as the IRB. How can you "get the same" when you clearly do not consider your self as British but Irish? Not everyone taught about their pockets back then